This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty has announced it is pursuing a federal civil rights complaint against the Ohio-based Cleveland Clinic because of racism that is embedded in its programs.
WILL explains the case focuses on its Minority Stroke Program and the Minority Men's Health Center.
"Both programs provide education, prevention, treatment, and other assistance and resources to patients for addressing stroke, diabetes, and other stroke risk factors, men's health conditions, and mental health issues," the organization explains.
"Unfortunately, the programs are apparently not for everyone. As Cleveland Clinic explains it, these special programs are specifically purposed for 'preventing and treating [health conditions] in racial and ethnic minorities.' According to the clinic, under these programs, the 'overall components' for patient appointments 'resemble those offered to all patients [except that] they are tailored to minorities.'"
The issue cited by the legal team is that "under Title VI and the Affordable Care Act" healthcare providers like the clinic are barred from trying to segregate or otherwise offer separate services based on race.
"Cleveland Clinic may not implement racial preferences, or programs that are racially motivated, to provide services or benefits in a different manner from those provided to others," the organization said.
WILL lawyer Cara Tolliver pointed out, "The problem with Cleveland Clinic's racial persona grata / persona non grata model is that it engages the dangerous practice of using race as a proxy for legitimate health risks. Whether a particular patient should be prioritized, promoted, pursued, and included for medical assistance and care does not change simply because a patient is the wrong color. Cleveland Clinic's endeavor to create a dichotomy of care that assumes what individuals need based on their race is both inappropriate and illegal."
The case in on behalf of the organization called Do No Harm, and its chief, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, said, "Race-based discrimination and segregation of patients degrades trust in the healthcare system and is illegal. The laudable goals set forth by the Cleveland Clinic's special programs to assist patients struggling with strokes, diabetes, mental health, and other health concerns can and should be achieved without racial bias."
WILL continued, "Race-based health equity initiatives, like Cleveland Clinic's programs, aim to filter and view health outcomes through a racial lens, assuming that one's race says all the doctor needs to know about who needs medical care the most. However, beyond race, any number of demographic filters could be applied concerning almost any characteristic to compare and address health outcomes—to name a few: height, eye color, birth order, handedness, entertainment preferences, where one lives, etc. This does not mean that these demographics, or every available demographic, are appropriate, relevant, comprehensive, or lawful standards for evaluating and addressing health outcomes."
The clinic should be extending its treatment options to "all patients who need it, without regard to race," the WILL organization said, "given that stroke and diabetes are leading causes of death in the United States, and that mental health conditions plague more than one in five adults."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An incident occurring two years ago, involving an interaction between President Joe Biden and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and his wife, should give us pause to consider amending the 25th Amendment of the Constitution. Lee shared that the incident immediately left him questioning Biden's cognitive health, long before it became a matter of public concern.
The senator explained the three of them were all in attendance at a reception when Biden repeatedly mistook Lee's wife, Sharon, for one of his White House staffers. Several times Biden asked for her name, inquiring if she worked for him. Efforts to clarify her identity fell completely on deaf ears.
It became immediately clear to Lee that, mentally, Biden just was not there. This was not a simple matter of Biden misunderstanding or focusing on something else at the time; this was a matter of the president being unable to grasp what was going on around him.
Lee found the experience most alarming. While the senator's interactions with Biden were infrequent, the incident provided him with concerned insight about the president's fitness for office.
An unspoken reality of Biden's steady cognitive decline is that those closest to him – not only family members Jill and Hunter – but his inner circle and staff as well, including his Cabinet, had to know what was going on. None of them felt a sense of duty to the country to take steps to insist the president seek medical attention or temporarily relinquish the duties of his office. Why?
Jill and Hunter's reasons for failing to do so were completely selfish. Both enjoyed the privileges coming to them courtesy of Joe's office.
While the failure of his staff to initiate action to address the situation can be dismissed by a bond of loyalty to Biden, a fear of taking on such an issue as a career-ender or gross naivete, they were not in positions of authority to act, and thus cannot be held accountable. But others were armed with such authority and should have acted, yet failed to do so.
The 25th Amendment of the Constitution, ratified in 1967 by the states, provides a comprehensive plan for presidential succession in the event of the president's death or incapacitation. Sections 3 and 4 of the amendment are most pertinent to Biden's deteriorating mental health situation.
Section 3, known as the "Disability Clause," states that a president, cognizant of the fact he is unable to or will be unable to perform the duties of his office, can voluntarily submit written notification to Congress. It was first used by President Ronald Reagan in 1985 when he underwent surgery and last used in 2021 by Biden when he briefly underwent a medical procedure lasting 85 minutes. That 85-minute gap in his presidency brought about by his incapacitation was all he was willing to surrender as he proved unwilling to voluntarily submit a declaration of his mental unfitness for office.
Section 4 addresses the involuntary removal of a sitting president from office due to some disability. It is a step that is to be initiated by the vice president and majority members "of either the Cabinet or such other body established by law (a presidential review body) acting jointly, to declare the President to be disabled." This process begins with the vice president and the majority of Cabinet members sending a written declaration to Congress, delineating the basis for the disability claim.
Thus, it was clear Vice President Kamala Harris and members of Biden's Cabinet had the authority to pursue the issue of his incapacity but failed to exercise it, ensuring a mentally unfit captain of our ship of state was left to command it.
What is missing from Section 4, however, is a specific mandate for these officials to act. Absent such a mandate, it is clearly in both their personal and political interests not to act, leaving the country at great risk. There is simply no motivation for these officials to take action for fear that it would embarrass their party despite the obvious risk to the country. A red flag to them should have been the fact, that while a president normally meets every week or every other week with his Cabinet, Biden had held his last meeting in October 2023.
Biden's mental unfitness is not the first time a president's inability to perform the duties of his office has been hidden from voters. It has occurred at least three other times as well. Interestingly, all four involved Democratic presidents.
In 1919, a stroke left Woodrow Wilson disabled, with both access to him, as well as subsequent decision-making, allegedly left to his wife. In 1944, the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was dying was covered up, enabling him to run for a fourth term he knew he would not complete. Not revealed as well was that John F. Kennedy (JFK) suffered from Addison's disease, causing him to consume a dozen painkillers daily, with some doctors believing if reelected he would not survive a second term.
As prime minister of England during World War II, Winston Churchill noted there were times a government needed to be less than honest, claiming, "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Democrats have historically embraced this justification to ensure their party remains in power despite the mental incompetency of the president occupying the Oval Office.
The risks and dangers to the country have steadily increased since the 25th Amendment was passed in 1967. Just like there was no mandate for other high-ranking government officials to take action to ensure that a serving president was mentally competent when Wilson, FDR, and JFK were all serving, neither did the 25th Amendment. This gap needs to be addressed to ensure that, in the best interests of the country, action is taken without fear of political retribution for doing so. The absence of such a mandate paves the way for another Biden.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Famed Christian evangelist Billy Graham, one of the best-recognized names literally around the globe, also is known for his offering advice to a long list of presidents of both parties.
Those private conversations almost never made it into the public arena, but the public record shows every U.S. president since World War II met with him.
He was offered government posts by Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, and politely said no.
Harry S. Truman not only met with Graham, he received him as his Independence, Missouri, home. Dwight Eisenhower asked him about sending troops into Little Rock during a time of civil unrest. John F. Kennedy met with Graham before he was inaugurated.
Graham was invited to the Johnson family ranch multiple times, and spent more than 20 nights in the White House during his presidency. Graham had known Nixon for years, and the president often asked Graham to pray with him. Gerald Ford explained, "I've heard the comments from some sources that Billy mixes politics with religion. I never felt that and I don't think that thousands and thousands of people who listen to him felt that."
Jimmy Carter was an honorary chair of an Atlanta Crusade by Billy Graham back in his day, Ronald Reagan once said, "It was through Billy Graham that I found myself praying even more than on a daily basis … and that in the position I held, that my prayers more and more were to give me the wisdom to make decisions that would serve God and be pleasing to Him." George H. W. Bush called Graham "an inspiration in my life."
Bill Clinton credited Billy Graham with refusing to racially segregate a crusade audience. George W. Bush said a turning point in his faith came during a private talk with Billy Graham in 1985. Graham said he was pleased to have had Barack Obama visit in his home.
Now a leftist organization called EvangelicalsforHarris is using an image of Billy Graham in an ad supporting the leftist candidate being supported by Democrats.
Which drew a pointed response from Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son and now chief of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association as well as Samaritan's Purse.
He said, "The liberals are using anything and everything they can to promote candidate Harris. They even developed a political ad trying to use my father Billy Graham's image to help promote her—or rather to try to make Donald J. Trump look bad.
"They are trying to mislead people. Maybe they don't know that my father was a firm supporter of President Trump in 2016. He appreciated the conservative values and policies of President Trump, and if he were alive today, my father's views and opinions would not have changed.
"President Trump isn't perfect—none of us are—but I believe he has changed over the years. This recent assassination attempt has had a huge impact on him—and I thank God that his life was spared."
A report by Fox News said a statue of Billy Graham was installed in the U.S. Capitol just months ago.
The ad juxtaposes footage of Billy Graham with Trump's own comments.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Ultra-zealous prosecutors, trying to jail as many people as they can from the Jan. 6 protest-turned-riot at the U.S. Capitol, have decided to submit to a Supreme Court ruling and eliminate "obstruction" charges from many of the cases.
The prosecutions of those at a rally held by President Donald Trump that day, after which a few hundred rioted at the Capitol and broke windows and doors, has been more intense than likely any other federal prosecution ever has been. Some defendants essentially are liable for misdemeanor offenses who have spent years in jails already awaiting trial.
One of the enhancers that prosecutors have been routinely applying to anyone at the events that day has been an obstruction charge. But now they're working through the paperwork to drop many of those allegations since the Supreme Court said it wasn't a proper use of the count.
The Washington Examiner said its review of court records found that many of those counts are being dropped.
It was in the Fischer v. United States case that the high court determined, 6-3, that Joe Biden's Department of Justice was improperly applying counts against defendants a statute that actually "only applies to conduct such as manipulation or destruction of documents."
The report noted Bill Shipley, a defense attorney who has represented dozens of Capitol defendants, told the publication the dispute is over an obstruction charge, known as 1512(c)(2). And he said prosecutors have been offering pleas to other charges.
The Examiner noted it spotted the emerging pattern in July, almost as soon as the Supreme Court ruling was announced.
Shipley said the government now is backtracking "in every case that is about to go to trial."
The report explained, "There are 259 people who have been charged with the felony obstruction count, according to the DOJ, with around 133 having already been sentenced. Around 50 people have been sentenced on obstruction charges and no other felony. Of those, about half are currently serving a sentence of incarceration, fewer than 2% of all charged cases."
The report cited the filing in the case against Deborah Lynn Lee, a 58-year-old woman from Pennsylvania who recently saw her felony obstruction charge deleted.
She still faces misdemeanors for allegedly entering or being in a restricted building and disorderly conduct, but the maximum possible penalty has been cut from 23 years to three.
In the case Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Diamond did not explain the dismissal of the felony count, the report said.
The changes will not mean the cases will be dropped entirely, as no defendant faced only that obstruction charge. Other counts often include entering the Capitol or simply being there without permission.
Meanwhile, prosecutors working for U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves's office have said in court filings they think the count still can be used.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy said dropping the claims made sense.
"If a case is not scheduled for trial any time soon, the prosecutors can bide their time and try to negotiate some kind of guilty plea, knowing that, if negotiations fail, they can always dismiss the case down the road. But if the case is already scheduled for trial, and the prosecutors believe they can't win because of the Fischer decision, it's not surprising that they'd drop those cases."
Prosecutors claim that the convictions and sentences under the now-inapplicable provision for those whose cases already are resolved should remain.
The Fischer ruling also has, the report said, a significant impact on the lawfare cases that Democrats have created against President Trump.
In one case special counsel Jack Smith, claims he will keep using the count.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An investigative report from the Washington Examiner is revealing that an Al-Qaida-linked organization was awarded $2 million in grants from the government run by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.
He's now Kamala Harris's pick to be her VP nominee as she runs in this year's presidential election, hand-picked by the elite of the Democrat party after they tossed the mentally declining Joe Biden under the bus, and off the ticket.
The report explains the state money went to an Islamic group "that fundraises for a charity linked to an Al-Qaida affiliate.
The details come from funding records reviewed by the publication.
It was the Islamic Association of North America that got state grants between 2019 and 2024. It now is fundraising after Hamas' terrorist attack on Israel last Oct. 7.
Those funds are going to Rahma Worldwide, "a Michigan-based charity that says it is shipping humanitarian aid to Gaza, according to flyers. In a since-deleted Facebook post in October 2023, Rahma Worldwide President Shadi Zaza revealed his charity was collaborating on an aid initiative with the Islamic Heritage Revival Society of Kuwait, a terrorist group sanctioned by the U.S. government for funding al-Qaida," the report explained.
The publication earlier had revealed Walz's ties to Muslim cleric Asad Zaman, who "shared a pro-Adolf Hitler movie on social media and defended the Oct. 7 attack," the report said.
The report said Harris's campaign continues to claim Walz has no personal relationship with Zaman.
But the situation has not gone unnoticed.
"Embracing and funding an imam that sympathizes with neo-Nazis was apparently only the start," Sam Westrop, a terrorism analyst at the Middle East Forum think tank, told the Examiner.
The IANA was formed in 2001, just as the Treasury Department's terrorist designation of the scandal-plagued Holy Land Foundation "sent shockwaves throughout the philanthropy world."
It has about a dozen centers operating in Minnesota.
The state money came through its health department, $238,000 in 2024 and $192,000 in 2023. That figure was over $1 million in 2022 and more than $612,000 between 2019 to 2021.
The money apparently was related to outreach and "community vaccinations."
"Yusuf Abdi Abdulle, IANA's director, said on Oct. 7, 'Palestine has the right to defend itself,' which prompted Zaman to reply to the director on Facebook with an image of a Palestinian flag. On Oct. 7, the Walz administration-backed IANA affirmed a statement by its partner group that said Israel was engaged in 'unprovoked' attacks in Gaza after Hamas killed 1,200 people in the Jewish state," the Examiner detailed.
Rahma, which is getting financial help from the Walz-backed IANA, has boasted of its participation in a pro-Palestinian aid campaign with Kuwait's Islamic Heritage Revival Society.
That group previously was sanctioned by the U.S. for backing al-Qaida.
Westrop said the support pathway is "a complete betrayal of all those moderate Muslim and Somali activists working to fight this extremism in their communities every day."
And he said the fact that state money is being used in this way is "reprehensible."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump on Friday announced a team of close associates to smooth his transition into the White House, presuming his campaign defeats the word salad-unleashing leftist Kamala Harris in the November election.
The team members include co-chairs Linda McMahon and Howard Lutnick, as well as honorary chairs Sen. JD Vance, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump.
McMahon is the former chief of the WWE and earlier was in Trump's first administration as administrator of the SBA.
Lutnick is the billionaire CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, a financial company.
Vance is his pick for VP and Donald Jr. and Eric are family members who helped during his first term.
"The 2024 GOP Platform to Make America Great Again is a forward-looking agenda that will deliver safety, prosperity, and freedom for the American people. My administration will deliver on these bold promises," Trump said in a statement.
He added, 'We will restore strength, competence, and common sense to the Oval Office. I have absolute confidence the Trump-Vance Administration will be ready to govern effectively on Day One."
A poll released on Friday noted that independents, that group that almost always determines an election winner, were choosing Trump 49%-40% over Kamala Harris as earlier voting starts in multiple states in just a few weeks.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge hearing a defamation lawsuit brought against CNN for mischaracterizing a company helping with the evacuation of victims when Joe Biden pulled America's troops out of Afghanistan and gave the country to the Taliban is allowing network show host Jake Tapper to be grilled in a deposition.
This after the judge expressly doubted Tapper's truthfulness.
WND previously reported when the declining network attempted to justify its description as a criminal of Navy veteran Zachary Young, whose company worked to get people out of Afghanistan when Biden's retreat – and abandonment of billions of dollars worth of American war machinery – came out of the White House.
It supported its description of Young as a criminal because he would be considered criminal under Shariah law – that set of codes imposed by Islam.
The rules are known for their extremism, such as a call for the amputation of a thief's hands, for killing people for criticizing the Quran, for killing people who deny Muhammad was a prophet, for killing people who lead a Muslim away from Islam, for killing a non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman, for killing homosexuals (although sodomizing young boys is allowed), and for "taqiyya" or lying to non-Muslims.
A Revolver report had explained, "They're legitimizing (and defending) Sharia Law, which routinely abuses women, sometimes to death, to try and win that billion-dollar lawsuit. In the process, they're also branding the Navy Vet at the center of the defamation suit a 'criminal' for trying to save women's lives."
Now constitutional expert and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley notes that the fight is over CNN's agenda to cast Young in a bad light through a report about "Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success."
On the program, "The Lead with Jake Tapper," CNN's Alex Marquardt claimed "desperate Afghans are being exploited," naming Young.
The judge already has ruled Young can seek punitive damages because he "sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages."
Those included internal messaging at CNN that the network wanted the story to be Young's "funeral" and its descriptions of Young in obscene terms.
The judge's decision to allow the deposition of Tapper followed his reported comments that "I kind of have a hard time believing what Mr. Tapper put in that declaration.," Turley reported.
"Since that is a sworn declaration made under penalty of perjury, it was a stinging rebuke," Turley said.
Depositions already have detailed the evidence in the case, and the next step is to consider the network's financial position.
Turley said, "The court believes that Tapper could have some relevant information since he holds one of the most lucrative contracts at CNN and is familiar with the corporate finances concerning his show."
Please be aware of multiple instances of offensive language in the following:
CNN claims it was right to suggest criminality in Young's behavior because, "To get women out, the operators on the ground were required either to break the law directly or to find someone to break the law for them." That would be Shariah law.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
If the federal government could balance the budget and just move in the direction of paying the FIRST DOLLAR on the principal of the national debt, it would mean that a tectonic shift in attitude had occurred, and the madness and momentum of out-of-control government deficit spending will have reversed.
You were wise to be scared by last week's stock market "wobble."
This graph illustrates our impending, predictable economic disaster, our about-to-explode Debt Bomb (read that book description). It's taken from this excellent article: "Cowards in Congress blame others for our national debt. Just fix it, already."
Notice how the yearly budget deficit (orange) doesn't look so bad until you see the years of deficits piling up as total debt (red).
See our $35 TRILLION debt exploding on this National Debt Clock as it plunges us toward a preventable economic and societal cataclysm like a "cartoon snowball" gathering size and speed.
It was a mere $10 trillion in 2008, and $20 trillion as recently as 2017, 68% and 104% of GDP, respectively (GDP = Gross Domestic Product, the value of America's entire yearly economy; debt-to-GDP ratio explained here).
It's taken just seven years to go from $20 trillion to today's scary $35 trillion, a 57% increase and an amount that's 122.8% of GDP (currently $28.5 trillion). Our 2028 debt nightmare is estimated to be $46.7 trillion. That'll be a millstone on the U.S. economy at 147% of an estimated $31.6 trillion GDP!
This national debt crisis is a massive crime against our people because it causes an illegal "inflation tax" and "taxation without representation" on generations yet to be conceived.
Anyone who downplays this danger is a deceiver.
The next civil rights movement
Taking a stand on this issue will rank with the abolition movement leading to the end of slavery and passing/enforcing civil rights legislation. Whoever starts this much-needed conversation will make headlines and create a history-making political movement.
It's our "debt abolition movement"!
But how will paying the FIRST DOLLAR of principal ever happen when there is so little support for or interest in this issue? "We the People of the United States" are ignorant or in favor of this massive ticking Debt Bomb – or it wouldn't be happening! Most in public office aren't even lying about it except by omission.
Read this excellent article by President Trump's former chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney:
"As a leading Republican senator once told President Trump: 'No one in this town has ever lost his job for spending too much. People have lost for spending too little.' Candidates for office talk about what people want them to talk about … and right now, voters don't care about spending."
Another high-ranking Republican remarked, "Nobody votes for Scrooge."
In other words, dear reader, we are to blame.
The numbers in a historical and global context
The table on this page shows the national debt within 1 percentage point or having exceeded GDP since 2012.
The last time the U.S. had a balanced budget was during the Gingrich/Clinton era (1998-2001).
The last time the debt was reduced was 1956-57 (previous link).
Recent deficit spending has been massive, increasing the national debt by $9.5 TRILLION:
Our lopsided debt-to-GDP ratio will depress the economy, cause a severe recession or depression, and likely trigger a devastating worldwide depression because the rest of the world depends on America and has as bad or worse debt-to-GDP problems. Leading in the wrong direction, America is No. 1 for total debt.
But it gets worse …
Consider this "debt synergism":
Not counting No. 4, the total of all public debt is $38.7 trillion (No. 1 + 2) while our GDP is only $28 trillion. That's a 138% overall debt-to-GDP ratio, which is how America's debt debacle should be calculated.
Really scary is the $315 trillion global debt and 333% debt-to-GDP ratio. Don't look at this terrifying world debt clock.
'Unconstitutional' is how we got here
The Constitution doesn't authorize the opposite of the preamble's stated goals: "… to establish Justice, [and] insure domestic Tranquility. …" But across-the-board injustice and domestic disorder are exactly the predictable effects of massive deficit spending and the resultant inflation crime against humanity.
As in other cases, the Supreme Court invented something not in the Constitution, a power to "create money." Described as "evil" by Justice Stephen Johnson Field (below), it's an unchecked power, easily abused, resulting in massive injustice.
Like medieval alchemists, the federal "sorcerers" turn a negative, debt, into "money," a positive, albeit a counterfeit positive. Read at least the description (and click, "look inside") of money by Steve Forbes before reading this Federal Reserve hocus-pocus explanation.
This quotation is the concluding paragraph of Justice Field's lone dissenting opinion (8-1) in the last decision to uphold the 1871 Legal Tender cases, authorizing paper money. Prophetic about today's crisis, it's a great education about the nature of money and why the Constitution prohibits fiat currency, aka government-issued "blarney notes." Justice Field exposes the faux federal money-creating "power," that it's unconstitutional because it's as absurd as it is unjust:
"From the decision of the court, I see only evil likely to follow. There have been times within the memory of all of us when the legal tender notes of the United States were not exchangeable for more than one-half of their nominal value [during the Civil War]. The possibility of such depreciation will always affect paper money. This inborn infirmity no mere legislative declaration can cure. If Congress has the power to make the notes a legal tender and to pass as money or its equivalent, why should not a sufficient amount be issued to pay the bonds of the United States as they mature? Why pay interest on the millions of dollars of bonds now due, when Congress can in one day make the money to pay the principal? And why should there be any restraint upon unlimited appropriations by the government for all imaginary schemes of public improvement, if the printing press can furnish the money that is needed for them?" [Bracketed comment added.]
– Justice Stephen J. Field, Juilliard v. Greenman (1884), 100 U.S. 421, 470.
Our plan
Debt's HUGE constituency dooms us – unless we start a political movement and unite behind the moral goal of paying the FIRST DOLLAR on the principal of the national debt! Are you with me?
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Amid reports that Kamala Harris will announce her first policy position on Friday – an attack on "greedy" grocery companies with a plan for price limits – there's bad news for American consumers about their grocery costs.
Harris's plan, reported by multiple outlets on Thursday, said her idea is to pursue a "price control" scheme, a tactic that repressive governments often pursue to try to make their economies look better.
It is the Post-Millennial that documented, "Americans are experiencing the consequences of increased grocery prices under the economic policies of the Biden-Harris administration. The cost of food has not been this high since the Carter administration."
The report said the cost for "basic," "food at home" products is up 21% since Biden and Harris took over the White House.
Inflation also remains a top concern among voters this election year, with 77% seeing it as a "very important issue."
"Grocery prices have risen significantly under Harris's time in the White House, despite the White House's attempts to minimize the impact of recent price increases. Harris was instrumental in the legislative agenda that resulted in this outcome. Her tie-breaking votes in the Senate were instrumental in the passage of trillions of dollars in expenditure, which many economists believe contributed to the inflation crisis, Breitbart News reported."
The report noted food inflation has up more over the first 42 months of the Biden-Harris tenure "than it has under any other president since Jimmy Carter, and is the third-largest increase over the first three and a half years of a presidential term behind Nixon's second term and Carter's record.
In contrast, the grocery costs rose only 6.3% during the first 42 months of President Donald Trump's first term.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced in a statement on Thursday that a 43–year–old Jordanian citizen currently residing in Florida has been charged with four counts of threatening to use explosives and one count of destruction of an energy facility.
The accused – Hashem Younis Hashem Hnaihen – threatened local businesses in the Orlando area for their perceived support of Israel, and will be detained pending his trial.
According to court documents, in early June 2024, Hnaihen targeted and attacked these businesses, leaving behind "warning letters" addressed to the U.S. government that made political demands, and threatened to "destroy or explode everything here in whole America. Especially the companies and factories that support the racist state of Israel."
By the end of June, Hnaihen had broken into a solar power generation facility in Wedgefield, Florida, and proceeded to destroy solar panels, wiring, and other critical electronic equipment, which is estimated to have inflicted more than $700,000 in damage.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said Hnaihen threatened to carry out "hate-fueled mass violence in our country," and deliberately targeted businesses who support Israel.
"Such acts and threats of violence, whether they are targeting the places that Americans frequent every day or our country's critical infrastructure, are extremely dangerous and will not be tolerated by the Justice Department," Garland said.
FBI Director Christopher Wray said Hnaihen caused hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to the power facility and local businesses.
"Violence and destruction of property to threaten and intimidate others will never be tolerated. The FBI and our partners will work together to pursue and hold accountable those who resort to violence," Wray said.
Hnaihen was arrested July 11, and could face a possible sentence of 10 years in federal prison for each threat he made, and a possible 20-year sentence for destroying a power facility, if convicted. A final warning letter was discovered at a propane gas distribution center in Orlando.
The case will be prosecuted by the Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Varadan for the Middle District of Florida, with assistance from the National Security Division's Counterterrorism Section.
WND reached out to Gov. Ron DeSantis' office about the attacks, but did not receive an immediate response.