This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Apparently, not everyone named JD Vance is a MAGA Republican.
Consider James Donald "JD" Vance Jr., a Michigan man sentenced to two years in prison for threatening to kill the Vice President JD Vance, as well as President Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Elon Musk.
Vance Jr., a 67-year-old from Grand Rapids, Michigan, has pleaded guilty to the dastardly deed after using left-wing social media app BlueSky to post several threats, reports the New York Post.
According to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Michigan, Vance used the alias "Diaperjdv."
"If Trump, Vance, or Musk ever come to my city again, they will leave it in a body bag," Vance allegedly wrote in an April 1 post.
"I will either be shot by a secret service sniper or spend the rest of my life in prison. I've only got about 10 years of life left anyway so I don't f***ing care either way," he added.
In another post, on March 7, with the headline "Donald Trump Jr. Considering a Run for President in 2028," Vance threatened the president's oldest son.
"I will murder that stupid f***er before he gets secret service protection," Vance wrote, according to federal investigators.
The Post reports that Vance pleaded guilty to two felonies of threatening to kill or injure the president and vice president, and interstate threatening communications.
United States Attorney Timothy VerHey said in a statement:
"When Vance said he planned to kill our President and the Vice President simply because he disagreed with them, he crossed a line we all understand and so had to be punished."
The older Vance is not related to the veep, whose birth name is James Donald Bowman. He later changed his name to James David Vance.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are refusing to appear before the U.S. Congress to testify in connection with the sordid case of convicted Palm Beach pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, according to a member of the House Oversight Committee.
U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., made that assertion Monday afternoon, stating: "Bill and Hillary Clinton are refusing to appear before House Oversight for their depositions regarding Jeffrey Epstein."
"Notice how House Democrats suddenly have nothing to say about it," the congresswoman added.
On Monday, President Donald Trump again directly tied Bill Clinton to Epstein, saying, "All of [Epstein's] friends were Democrats. You look at this Reid Hoffman, you look at Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, they went to his island all the time, and many others. All Democrats."
This comes on the heels of Trump's Truth Social post on Friday, where he named the same names, saying, "Records show that these men, and many others, spent large portions of their life with Epstein, and on his 'Island.' Stay tuned!!!"
With Former President Clinton being potentially connected to Epstein by Trump with last week's release of more emails, Clinton spokesman Angel Ureña stated in a brief statement on X: "These emails prove Bill Clinton did nothing and knew nothing. The rest is noise meant to distract from election losses, backfiring shutdowns, and who knows what else."
As WorldNetDaily reported earlier Monday, after initially calling people urging the release of files on convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein "stupid" and "foolish," Trump has pulled a 180 and is now making a fresh call to make all the files public.
In a lengthy Truth Social post Sunday night, Trump said: "House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it's time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat 'Shutdown.'
"The Department of Justice has already turned over tens of thousands of pages to the Public on 'Epstein,' are looking at various Democrat operatives (Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, Larry Summers, etc.) and their relationship to Epstein, and the House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to, I DON'T CARE!
"All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT, which is the Economy, 'Affordability' (where we are winning BIG!), our Victory on reducing Inflation from the highest level in History to practically nothing, bringing down prices for the American People, delivering Historic Tax Cuts, gaining Trillions of Dollars of Investment into America (A RECORD!), the rebuilding of our Military, securing our Border, deporting Criminal Illegal Aliens, ending Men in Women's Sports, stopping Transgender for Everyone, and so much more! Nobody cared about Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive and, if the Democrats had anything, they would have released it before our Landslide Election Victory.
"Some 'members' of the Republican Party are being 'used,' and we can't let that happen. Let's start talking about the Republican Party's Record Setting Achievements, and not fall into the Epstein 'TRAP,' which is actually a curse on the Democrats, not us. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"ADVERTISEMENT
Trump's new position on the files is the exact opposite of his stance in July, when he unleashed a furious tirade against his own supporters who sought the files, saying he no longer wants their support.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – The U.S. military on Sunday announced that American Armed Forces in the Eastern Pacific Ocean killed three suspected narco-terrorists Saturday, allegedly carrying narcotics "on a vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization."
"On Nov. 15, at the direction of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization," the U.S. Southern Command said on X, along with explosive video of its operation.
It did not specify the name of the designated terrorist organization.
"Intelligence confirmed that the vessel was involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics," said Southern Command.
"Three male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed. The vessel was trafficking narcotics in the Eastern Pacific and was struck in international waters."
This latest strike was announced the same day the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, packing more than 4,000 sailors along with F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets and long-range Tomahawk missiles, arrived in the Caribbean.
Adm. Alvin Holsey, Southcom's commander, indicated: "The USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group's deployment represents a critical step in reinforcing our resolve to protect the security of the Western Hemisphere and the safety of the American Homeland."
At least 83 suspected narco-terrorists have been killed since early September, as the U.S. hit 21 alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific.
President Donald Trump is among those who have branded Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro an "illegitimate leader," accusing him of leading an international drug-smuggling operation.
On Friday, Trump said he has "sort of made up" his mind concerning the next steps on Venezuela.
"I sort of made up my mind," the president told reporters. "I can't tell you what it would be."
Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday about Trump's potential military action in Venezuela, U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said: "We have a lot of training in that part of the world. We're reactivating our jungle school in Panama. We would be ready to act on whatever the president and [secretary of] war needed."
When pressed on whether or not any orders have actually been issued, Driscoll said: "We don't talk about those kinds of things, but we would be ready, if asked."
As WorldNetDaily reported last week, in what was called an unprecedented step, the United Kingdom said it would no longer share intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean, as it does not wish to be complicit in the military strikes, believing them to be illegal.
CNN noted Britain's decision "marks a significant break from its closest ally and intelligence sharing partner and underscores the growing skepticism over the legality of the U.S. military's campaign around Latin America."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Yet again, a high profile politician who joined the Democrats' years-long lawfare against President Donald Trump has been referred to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution.
This time it's California Democrat Eric Swalwall, who schemed with others in a failed impeach-and-remove campaign against Trump. He's facing alleged tax and mortgage fraud charges,
Already, there have been cases filed against multiple politicians who attacked Trump through that lawfare, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned for office on a promise to "get" Trump. She then accused him of mis-valuing his properties in a case in which the "victims" were happy with the results and wanted to do more business with Trump. An appeals court tossed the resulting unconstitutional penalty.
Also a defendant is fired FBI chief James Comey, whose charges stem from his alleged lies to Congress about leaking secret information to the media. He also prominently posted – just weeks ago – an "86-47" message online, claiming he found seashells in that configuration. The "86" designation was understood to mean end, or get rid of, and "47" is because Trump is the 47th president, after being 45 as well, of course.
The claims against Swalwell come from Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, who brought allegations against James as well other Trump detractors, California Democrat Adam Schiff as well as Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
The allegations often stem from the individuals' own claims on federal paperwork, such as designating a home as a primary residence, when it's not, in order to get getter mortgage terms.
James had been indicted on one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution last month and pleaded not guilty. James' attorneys have argued the case is politically motivated, saying the administration is targeting her for her role in bringing civil fraud charges against President Trump in New York.
Pulte accused Cook of making misrepresentations on mortgage documents.
Swalwell immediately claimed to have been the "most vocal critic of Donald Trump over the last decade."
He claimed he would not stop speaking.
Swalwell, in fact, has repeatedly been the aggressor against Trump, suing him in 2021 over the Capitol riot that year.
He claimed then that the president incited the violence, an allegation that has failed in other forums.
It was only a day earlier that WND had reported on a columnist's conclusion that Swalwell apparently has no residence in California, which he represents, possibly running afoul of legal requirements.
It is columnist Joel Gilbert who charged that Swalwell, who has been criticized in recent years for his "alleged ties to the Chinese spy 'Fang Fang,'" and his "removal from the House Intelligence Committee over national security concerns," might be in serious trouble.
It's because Swalwell, on legal documents, formally has declared that his Washington, D.C., property is his "principal residence." That affirmation comes on his public Deed of Trust for his home.
He made that statement as a condition for a loan on the property.
He apparently has no residence listed, either as owned or rented by him, in California, the report said.
"Under Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, members of Congress must be 'inhabitants' of the state they represent at the time of their election," Gilbert wrote. "In California, maintaining this inhabitancy means holding tangible, verifiable ties to the state, such as owning or renting a residence, registering to vote, paying state income taxes, and possessing a California driver's license."
In fact, the California Elections Code insists a domicile is "the place in which his or her habitation is fixed" and "the place where a person intends to return and remain."
The report explained, "If Swalwell's true domicile is in Washington, DC, the city where he has declared his principal residence, he may no longer meet the basic requirement of being a California 'inhabitant.' Public records searches have not revealed any home ownership or lease under Eric Swalwell's name in California."
The report noted, "Failure to maintain a legitimate residence in California could expose Swalwell to legal, ethical, and electoral repercussions. A false declaration of residency risks tax violations, misrepresentation to lenders, and challenges to his eligibility for re-election."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
DELTONA, Florida – An 11-year-old boy was perp walked to his jail cell on Monday after allegedly writing a "kill list" of all the people he wanted to target at his school.
Video shows Karson Curry being marched into a cell after his alleged threats at Highbanks Learning Center in Deltona, Florida.
"The 11-year-old is facing a felony charge of making a written threat to kill," the Volusia County Sheriff's Office said.
"While school threats are down recently, Sheriff [Michael] Chitwood is continuing to stress to students and parents that these types of threats will result in felony charges."
Authorities learned Curry had no access to weapons, but they sought to make an example out of him.
It was not immediately clear exactly whom Curry was allegedly targeting and if he would face any discipline from his school.
The Daily Mail called Curry's perp walk "surreal," and reported his arrest "comes just two weeks after an 11-year-old at another learning center in Volusia County was taken into custody over an alleged kill list.
"Aahriyanna Reed was accused of jotting down the names at her desk at Riverview Learning Center on October 27.
"Although she told deputies she was 'just playing,' she was arrested and perp walked from the police cruiser and into a jail cell."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Hollywood celebrities are continuing their vocal display of deadly Trump Derangement Syndrome, with actor Woody Harrelson now saying he would "slip him some cyanide" had he fulfilled his one-time dream of becoming a U.S. Secret Service agent assigned to protect the president.
In an interview posted Tuesday on X, Harrelson said: "I used to dream about being a Secret Service agent, but then that passed when I realized the character that I liked on television was actually an actor playing a Secret Service agent.
"But luckily, I didn't become a Secret Service Agent. I'd be having to protect Donald Trump right now and that just wouldn't sit well. I'd be one to slip him some cyanide instead of jumping in front of a bullet."
"I shouldn't be saying these things," he admitted. "Well, there it's out there."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A panicked anti-ICE agitator begged for mercy from federal officers, pointing out her motherhood, after being caught on video allegedly interfering with a crackdown on gangs in Portland, Oregon, last week.
"I'm just a mom! I'm just a mom!" the hyperventilating woman tells an officer, as seen on footage courtesy of Katie Daviscourt of the Post Millennial. "Can you just give me a warning? I have kids."
"You are surrounded by federal agents," the officer tells her.
"I understand, I'm just worried about my community," she responds.
The Post Millennial reports: "The agitator, who had been recklessly driving through the neighborhood to impede ICE operations, was stopped by ICE officials on Thursday afternoon after blowing a red light and nearly colliding with a school bus while trailing federal vehicles, which she attempted to box in multiple times with her Mustang. The Post Millennial captured the incident during an exclusive ride-along with the ICE Seattle Field Office's Portland branch."
Julio Hernandez, the ICE deputy field officer director, said the woman has been referred to Homeland Security Investigations for criminal prosecution.
"She placed our officers in danger. She blocked in our vehicles several times," Hernandez told the news site. "We gave her multiple warnings to leave the area. This time, enough was enough."
He explained agitators were posted in various spots in the gang-ridden neighborhood to act as "spotters," letting illegal immigrants to ICE operations by using whistles, horns and vehicles.
"Like [DHS Secretary Kristi Noem] said, enough is enough, we're drawing the line, and that's what we did now," Hernandez told TPM during the ride-along. "We have her information. We're going to refer the case over to Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Attorney's Office."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Since Jan. 25, the day after the Senate confirmed him as President Donald Trump's pick to lead America's military, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has emphasized warfighting and the restoration of a "warrior culture," prioritizing a "maximum lethality" approach to military readiness.
Despite this, some service members are expressing certain doubts regarding America's potential to achieve victory in a major war with a "near-peer adversary" like China or Russia.
Early in 2024, during the Biden administration when then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was leading America's military, this writer carried out a small, independent, unscientific survey of more than 200 people currently serving in the U.S. military, just to ascertain their views with regard to the prospect of engaging in a significant conflict with a major adversary.
As WND reported at the time, when asked if the U.S. could win a conflict against a near-peer adversary like China, Iran, North Korea or Russia, 188 of the 229 respondents – 82% – replied "No."
Recently, a second such small, independent survey was conducted, now with Hegseth at the helm.
A few complicating factors, which themselves raise significant questions: Some of the participants in the earlier survey have since resigned, retired or been discharged from the military due to the highly unpopular COVID-19 vaccine mandate and their unwillingness to subject themselves to the controversial shot, often on religious grounds. Likewise, it is undeniable that the Biden era's tyrannical enforcement of the COVID shot negatively impacted the morale of many service members, including some of those taking the survey. And finally, considering the thousands who are no longer actively serving due to the shot mandate, the question of whether overall readiness of the force could be affected by their loss also arises.
And of course, as with any informal survey, it's impossible to determine how accurately the relatively small population of those surveyed reflects the feelings and views of the larger force.
Here are the new survey results: Among the 66 currently serving members of America's armed forces participating in the current survey, 49 (74%) responded "No." That is, nearly three-quarters of today's respondents lack confidence in the U.S. military's current ability to secure victory in a conflict against a near-peer adversary.
For some insight, WND interviewed two survey participants who agreed to share their responses anonymously. As is customary, each emphasized that their views don't reflect those of the Department of War or their respective branch of the military.
Among those with a positive outlook, a service member in the Army said, "The bottom-line answer is yes, as we have the overwhelming tactical, operational and strategic advantage when it comes to kinetic warfare."
A second participant from the Army provided an even more thought-provoking answer, arguing: "Our competitors, and ourselves, have the capability to destroy life on this planet many times over." For that reason, he explained, "Any conflict we enter with a near peer will be within an agreed level of conflict, but if one gets backed into a corner, would they really surrender before pressing the proverbial red button?"
He added, on a more personal note, that as he grows older he is increasingly convinced there are "spiritual influences behind the global cabal," citing Matthew 24:21-22 (NIV), which reads: "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now – and never to be equaled again. 'If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.'"
The slight reduction of just 8% – down from 82% last year to 74% today – of participants believing the U.S. could not win a war against a near-peer threat should concern the current administration, perhaps even prompt a request for more information from current active-duty service members.
But why exactly do some military members think the U.S. cannot succeed in a war against a near-peer adversary? Is it even possible that the U.S. military is under-prepared, despite Hegseth's public push for lethality and force readiness? In the previous survey, roughly half of the 229 participants said their own units had sufficient training and equipment for combat deployment.
However, in the fall 2025 survey, even fewer – 27 out of 66 respondents, just 41% – believe their units are adequately trained for such a deployment. Moreover, just 26% – 17 out of 66 – believe their units are sufficiently equipped for combat.
The previous survey also revealed that the administration of former President Joe Biden was widely considered to be the greatest threat to America's freedoms. In stark contrast, fewer than 1% of current respondents view President Donald Trump in the same light.
Notably, 52 of the 66 participants – almost 79% – identify Xi Jinping of China as America's foremost threat. Other notable leaders and regimes cited, though to a much lesser extent, included Ali Khamenei of Iran and Vladimir Putin of Russia. But if America were to enter an armed conflict with what is seen as its greatest threat, China, the survey results concerning training and equipment levels of military units today appear to indicate the U.S. military might not yet be adequately prepared.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There's a new, and serious, warning on social media for those who envision stepping into a car at a gas station for ill purposes like robbery or theft.
It's the image of an intruder, found in a car by the woman who owns the car.
He's pulled out of the vehicle, and thrown away.
A report at the Blaze explains that the woman pulled the man "out of her car" and threw him to the ground "with ease."
Her husband, watching, said, "She is indeed my hero."
The report described the surveillance video as "astonishing" when it revealed the incident at a Hollywood gas station.
"The woman, Star Carter, was sitting in the driver's seat of her red Alfa Romeo at the gas station Tuesday when a male stranger walked up and tried to open her passenger door, KCBS-TV reported," the Blaze explained.
"It was just like that Kendrick Lamar verse [from 'Peekaboo'] was playing in my head, you know like, 'Bing bop boom bop boom bop bam!'" she said.
Husband Michael Carter was pumping gas at the time.
He first had shooed the invader away, but he returned, sneaking into the back seat on the driver side.
Michael said he was "wrestling" with the guy and "all I know is he just disappeared."
The report said, "His wife got out of the driver's seat, got the back door, ripped the intruder right out of the car, and tossed him to the ground."
"I don't condone violence, but I do condone self-defense," she said later.
The intruder picked himself up, and fled.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Trump has been handed another victory at the Supreme Court, where the justices on Thursday ruled that he could limit gender ideology statements on American passports.
Lower courts, responding to lawsuits by leftist activists, had claimed that they had the authority to order Trump to issue passports that claimed special sex designations for nonbinary and transgender people.
The Supreme Court halted those orders that would have allowed passport holders to creatively dictate whatever gender ideology they adopted for their passports.
"Displaying passport holders' sex at birth," the majority said, "no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment."
A report posted at Scotusblog noted that Ketanji Jackson, a far-left member of the court, was joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in claiming the ruling actually "paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent."
The lower court order had come from Julia Kobick, a judge who heard the complaints from transgender plaintiffs and insisted the White House follow her orders.
Trump's executive order simply had said the federal government would only "recognize two sexes, male and female."
That was followed by instructions to the State Department that government documents reflect the holder's sex, not sex ideology.
Joe Biden, while in office, had promoted such alternative sex beliefs in multiple forums.
The activists claimed Trump's order violated their equal protection rights, their rights to travel and more.
The 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals had sided with the progressive ideology, but U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that Kobick was injuring the United States "by compelling it to speak to foreign governments in contravention of both the President's foreign policy and scientific reality.'
Following the science, transgenderism is a fantasy, as being male or female is embedded in the body down to the DNA level.
Now the justices have granted the government's request to pause Kobick's demands.
The ruling pointed out Trump like will "succeed on the merits" of the arguments.
Jackson complained that now the plaintiffs won't be able to get passports "with sex markers that match their gender identity" and that could lead to "psychological issues."