This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

One of the more salacious messaging tidbits that came out of ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan J6 committee which was set up to investigate the Capitol riot, but actually tried to rearrange evidence to blame President Donald Trump for the events, was that Trump tried to commandeer the presidential limousine.

That claim came from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide who has come under scrutiny for not just the content of her testimony to Pelosi's committee, but changing it, and then allegedly working at the behest of former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., to orchestra her statements.

Hutchinson had claimed at the time Pelosi's committee was holding hearings that Trump had insisted that his Secret Service driver take him to the Capitol that day.

Lacking a positive response, Hutchinson claimed, Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the limo.

Her claims immediately were refuted by the Secret Service, which pointed out the incident simply did not happen.

Now a report in the Federalist documents how newly released testimony from the Secret Service pushed back on the wild claim.

It was House Administration's subcommittee on Oversight that released the transcripts of a Secret Service driver for President Donald Trump, the report said.

"I did not see him reach. He never grabbed the steering wheel," the driver told Cheney at the time. "I didn't see him, you know, lunge to try to get into the front seat at all."

The Federalist noted that "flew directly in opposition" to Cassidy's claims that an irate president took after agents to try to drive himself to the Capitol.

Hutchinson had testified Trump said something like, "I'm the f'ing president, take me up to the Capitol now."

With her testimony, the report said, "she was celebrated by Trump's opponents as a heroine of the Jan. 6 saga to smear Republicans as complicit in the violence at the Capitol. Lawmakers on the partisan panel appointed by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi aggressively pursued that narrative to the point of releasing select testimony and riot footage with a series of made-for-TV hearings produced by professional broadcasters."

The Federalist noted it months ago had documented how Cheney suppressed evidence "that Trump pressed Democrats to accept 10,000 National Guard troops ahead of Jan. 6, 2021."

He was refused.

House investigators now are calling for the Department of Justice to investigate Cheney's actions for allegedly tampering with a congressional witness.

She is accused of circumventing Hutchinson's lawyer just as Hutchinson was changing her testimony.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In the time frame after an election, and before a new Congress and president take office, some odd agendas appear in Washington.

None is odder than the campaign this year by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand to demand that the long-dead Equal Rights Amendment NOW be certified as part of the Constitution.

Even though it has failed, and has been declared dead over and over.

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.

But decades after the deadline and second deadline, several more states did vote for it, and promoters now are saying that those votes make it part of the Constitution.

They ignore the fact, however, that if votes after the deadline count, the ERA still lacks support because during that same time period, five states that had ratified it reversed their vote.

Gillibrand blasted the national archivist for explaining the facts.

"Earlier today, the national archivist preemptively stated that she would not legally certify the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution. By taking this unprecedented step, she is wrongfully inserting herself into a clear constitutional process, though her role is purely ministerial. Our argument has the support of legal experts, twenty-three attorneys general, the League of Women Voters, and the American Bar Association. I remain undaunted, and will continue to urge President Biden to direct the archivist to certify and publish the ERA and codify equality in the Constitution."

Even readers on social media, however, could explain her problem, adding, "While the ERA has been ratified by 38 states, it had only been ratified by 35 before expiration of the ratification deadline in 1982. Lawmakers in 5 states have since voted to rescind their earlier approvals and the DOJ has upheld that the ratification period had ended. "

The Gateway Pundit said the proposed amendment 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."

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."

WND previously has reported multiple times on attempts to bring the zombie amendment out of its grave.

In 2020, Democrat lawmakers in Virginia claimed they ratified the ERA, making their state the 38th to ratify.

Not quite, explained a legal opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

"Congress has constitutional authority to impose a deadline for ratifying a proposed constitutional amendment. It exercised this authority when proposing the Equal Rights Amendment and, because three-fourths of the state legislatures did not ratify before the deadline that Congress imposed, the Equal Rights Amendment has failed of adoption and is no longer pending before the states," it said.

"Accordingly, even if one or more state legislatures were to ratify the proposed amendment it would not become part of the Constitution and the archivist could not certify its adoption."

The opinion said Congress "may not revive a proposed amendment after a deadline for its ratification has expired."

"Should congress wish to propose the amendment anew, it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance, consistent with Article V of the Constitution."

The concept first was proposed in the U.S. House in 1923, but it didn't gain congressional action until the 1970s. But that legislation included a ratification deadline, which was extended once.

Recently, three states sued to keep the ERA corpse in its grave.

AP reported South Dakota, Louisiana and Alabama filed a federal case to block the ERA should there be support.

South Dakota's attorney general at the time, Jason Raynsborg, explained: "The South Dakota Legislature ratified the ERA in 1973, but in 1979 passed Senate Joint Resolution 2 which required the ERA be ratified in the original time limit set by Congress or be rescinded. Because thirty-eight states failed to ratify the amendment by [the deadline], the South Dakota Legislature rescinded its ratification of the ERA."

Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky and South Dakota, after first adopting it, later reversed their decisions and withdrew their adoptions.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

As Donald Trump's former rivals continue to travel to Palm Beach, Florida, the president-elect voiced an intriguing realization Monday during a news conference from his famous Mar-a-Lago home.

"The biggest difference is that people want to get along with me this time," Trump said, "and that's a great thing. Getting along is a great thing."

He continued: "One of the big differences between the first term: The first term everybody was fighting me. In this term, everybody wants to be my friend."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Van Jones, a Democrat lawyer, author and activist who has worked to change up the criminal-justice system, standards for human rights and racism, and the world's ideas about the environment, now is a regular commentator on CNN.

He had worked in the Barack Obama administration as special adviser on green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the White House.

And he has explained the stunning landslide victory of President-elect Donald Trump in the 2024 race.

It's because of Trump's smarts, he said.

Jones said, "Every one of your people knows Elon, Elon, Elon, Elon. Listen, everybody keeps, I mean, the problem is, you have a framework in your mind that, how could Donald Trump? How could Donald Trump? How can Donald Trump?

"Guys, can we cut it out?" he said. "Donald Trump is not an idiot. Donald Trump, let me just be very clear: Donald Trump is smarter than me, you, and all of his critics. You know how I know? Because he has the White House, the Senate, the House, the support, the popular vote. He has a massive media ecosystem bigger than the mainstream built around him and for him and a religious fervor in a political movement around him, and his best buddy is the richest person in the history of the world, and the most relevant Kennedy is with him."

He said Trump is "the most powerful human on Earth and in our lifetime."

On the Gateway Pundit, a commentary explained the comments came during a podcast with commentator Chris Cillizza.

The report noted it was the second time Jone has unleashed criticism on his liberal colleagues.

It was just days after Trump's victory that he said, "We thought that they [MAGA] were idiots. It turned out we [Democrats and leftwing media] were idiots."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

For a number of years already, state and local governments that abide by the leftist ideology found in the LGBT movement have tried to promote their beliefs by censoring ideas that contradict.

Specifically, they've labeled ordinary talk therapy delivered by counselors to patients who want to rid themselves of various LGBT ideologies as "conversion" therapy and banned it, despite the fact that infringes on the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

They demand that pro-LGBT counseling is acceptable, but anything that contradicts the ideology must be banned.

Multiple court cases have been filed over the fight, and the decisions have been inconsistent. Some leftist judges have ruled that such speech can be banned; others have said it's protected.

What's been missing so far is a definitive ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that protects the speech rights of those who don't support LGBT indoctrination.

There's now an opportunity for that to happen.

It is Liberty Counsel, which successfully has defeated a number of those speech restrictions in court, that has filed a brief with the high court urging a review of the Chiles v. Salazar case, which involves "a Colorado law that violates the free speech of licensed counselors who help clients deal with unwanted gender confusion or same-sex attractions," Liberty Counsel's report said.

That leftist state's law bans "any counseling that might help minors change their behaviors, sexual orientation, or gender expressions even when the client wishes to do so," the report said.

The case at issue involves professional counselor Kaley Chiles who is subject to the state's First Amendment-violating ban on certain words during counseling sessions.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, an often-overturned court reflecting the leftism common in Colorado and Denver, claimed in a recent decision that talk counseling is "professional conduct," subject to being banned, and not "speech."

That's even though talk therapy in a counseling session is "made up entirely of speech."

Liberty Counsel noted the fight has been brewing "for more than 10 years with four different appeals courts currently divided 2-2 over whether counseling bans are valid."

The Ninth circuit affirmed California's speech ban, while rulings from the Third and Eleventh Circuits simply said speech is speech and speech counseling is protected by the First Amendment.

The high court so far has not taken up any of those cases, but, Liberty Counsel pointed out, "Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh all indicated that they would have heard a similar challenge."

Thomas called the censorship schemes viewpoint "discrimination in its purest form."

Liberty Counsel's brief explains talk therapy is protected by the First Amendment, "unlike invasive medical procedures involving drugs and surgeries."

The case at hand charges that the state is violating Chiles' constitutional rights by "by preventing her from helping those who are struggling with gender confusion, same-sex attractions and unwanted behaviors."

Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver said, "Talk therapy is speech, and the government has no authority to restrict that speech down to just one viewpoint. The U.S. Supreme Court can take this case and render Colorado's ban on therapeutic counseling unconstitutional. In doing so, all counseling bans nationwide can then be struck down and people can get the counseling they need. Counselors and clients should have the freedom to choose the counsel of their choice and be free of government censorship."

In a previous report by the Daily Signal, it was documented in a study by Father Paul Sullins, a Roman Catholic priest, senior research associate at The Ruth Institute, and former sociology professor at Catholic University, that such censorship is dangerous.

The report explained he found, "Not only is there no evidence that efforts to change sexual orientation, which Sullins refers to by the acronym SOCE, increase the risk of suicide among those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. There also is evidence that such efforts actually decrease the risk of suicide or thoughts of suicide among them."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A warning has been issued in a column in the Federalist that the United Nations has a scheme to make criminals out of people who believe in science, who say men and women are different.

It is Stefano Gennarini, a vice president for legal studies at the Center for Family and Human Rights who has noted the looming U.N. treaty "that weaponizes international criminal law against opposition to transgender policy."

He describes it as a "parting gift" from Joe Biden to the U.S. and the world as the aging Democrat has agreed to advance the ideology that it is a "crime against humanity," or "a "gender-based persecution" for politicians who deliberately "misgender" someone.

Misgendering is when someone calls a man a man, when the man wants to be called a woman.

The U.N. General Assembly recently set up a timeline for a plan already condemned by the Vatican to finalize those criminal prosecutions as early as 2029.

The Rome Statute now defines gender as "the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society," but the report said "Western countries" are getting closer to their goal of simply avoiding that, by using domestic courts "to prosecute citizens who commit crimes against humanity … ."

The new scheme drops the definition of gender, a move which, the report said, includes the "legal effect" of enshrining "an open definition of gender as a social construct in international criminal law."

It would advance the ideology already being used in the European Union and various U.N. agencies to use "gender persecution" for categories including LGBT issues, misgendering, abortion and more.

"With the new treaty, Western leftists want to label anyone who publicly opposes gender ideology as an international criminal — an enemy of humanity. They want the crime of gender persecution to include things such as denying children cross-sex hormones and surgeries, not recognizing same-sex marriage or adoption, laws against LGBT propaganda in schools, women-only sports, and even denial of abortion," the report said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A sheriff whose department several years ago implemented a program to predict crime, a move that resulted in the harassment of individuals in the county, has conceded its failure, its violation of the Constitution, and promised it will never return.

The decisions are the result of a lawsuit brought by the Institute for Justice over the schemes by the sheriff in Pasco County, Florida.

According to a report from the IJ, "For more than three years, the Pasco County, Fla., sheriff vigorously resisted a federal lawsuit brought by the Institute for Justice (IJ) challenging a controversial policing program that resulted in repeated harassment of children and their families. Today, on the eve of trial, the sheriff capitulated—admitting that the program resulted in repeated constitutional violations and pledging that it will never resume. "

The legal team explained the challenged program "has been compared to a real-life version of 'Minority Report.' Using a crude computer algorithm, designed to predict who would commit future crimes, the Pasco sheriff's office identified a list of 'prolific offenders.'"

Without evidence, people, many under 18, were placed on the list and their families "were subjected to 'prolific offender checks,' during which deputies looked to cite them for issues like having grass that was too long, missing house numbers, unvaccinated pets, and excessive window tint on parked cars."

It's now gone, the IJ confirmed.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A union official for the organization representing U.S. Capitol Police has blasted the special treatment given by the government to the officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt during the protest-turned-riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

That was the day hundreds of people mostly walked into the Capitol and looked around in their protest of what they saw as Joe Biden's illicit presidential race victory, a race that was under significant undue influences such as the FBI's interference.

Among those protesters, a few rioted, vandalizing the building.

Just the News reports that a statement it obtained from U.S. Capitol Police union chairman Gus Papathanasiou said the special treatment for Michael Byrd was wrong.

"What a slap in the face to the rank and file officers of the USCP, especially all who were on duty on J6," he said.

The publication earlier had reported that House Democrats had pushed the police department to give special benefits to Byrd, including a $37,000 retention bonus, help with $160,000 in fundraising, housing, and a promotion from lieutenant to captain.

All that surpassed the help given other officers who were at the Capitol that day.

The report said Papathanasiou demanded that Byrd be forced to repay the benefits that were more than what other officers got.

"Not sure what makes Mike Byrd so special that he thinks he needed to be 'taken care of' by the Department. USCP should give every officer a $37k bonus or have Mike Byrd pay it all back," he said.

Byrd's lawyer and Capitol Police officials didn't return messages seeking comment.

The publication said it reviewed internal emails and found Byrd was unhappy with all the benefits and was dealing with at least one Democrat in the administration to get even more.

"We play the game as you request and then once we're in compliance You guys change the rules on us," he wrote to Thomas DiBiase, general counsel for the Capitol Police, after he was told he couldn't access cash from a memorial fund right away.

Byrd also has been a controversial figure over his extensive record of rules infractions, including firing a gun at a stolen vehicle in a residential neighborhood while off duty and leaving his gun unattended in a public restroom.

The report explained Rep. Barry Loudermilk of the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee confirmed there were at least three other referrals to the Office of Professional Responsibility, but those records now are missing.

In an interview on the "Just the News, No Noise," TV show, Loudermilk explained the political pressure on Capitol Police to provide Byrd benefits was "highly inappropriate."

Papathanasiou said an investigation by the incoming Congress would be appropriate.

"I'm curious, what else is the USCP covering up? I truly hope the new Congress comes in to conduct a deep dive investigation into all of this and the top brass of the USCP, to include the IG office and OGC," he said.

A separate wrongful death case has been filed against the government on behalf of Babbitt's family by Judicial Watch.

Spokesman Tom Fitton told Just the news Byrd never should have had a firearm in the first place.

Byrd has claimed Babbitt, trying to climb through a broken window, was a "threat" to the House of Representatives.

He also admitted he didn't know whether she was armed or unarmed. She was unarmed.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

PALM BEACH, Florida – Chad Chronister, the Tampa-area sheriff nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to head the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA, bowed out of consideration Tuesday evening after pressure from conservatives for his arrest of a Christian pastor during lockdowns amid the COVID pandemic.

The sheriff of Hillsbourough County said on X: "To have been nominated by President-Elect @realDonaldTrump to serve as Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is the honor of a lifetime. Over the past several days, as the gravity of this very important responsibility set in, I've concluded that I must respectfully withdraw from consideration.

"There is more work to be done for the citizens of Hillsborough County and a lot of initiatives I am committed to fulfilling. I sincerely appreciate the nomination, outpouring of support by the American people, and look forward to continuing my service as Sheriff of Hillsborough County."

On Saturday, Trump nominated Chronister, saying he would work with his attorney general pick, Pam Bondi, "to secure the Border, stop the flow of Fentanyl, and other Illegal Drugs, across the Southern Border."

As reported Sunday, in March 2020, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office released a press statement revealing that they had arrested local Tampa Bay church pastor Dr. Rodney Howard-Browne on two second-degree misdemeanors for unlawful assembly and violation of public health emergency rules. In a post on X from the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, the group called out Chronister's decision to arrest Howard-Browne, leading Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie to respond as well.

"I'm going to call 'em like I see 'em. Trump's nominee for head of DEA should be disqualified for ordering the arrest a pastor who defied COVID lockdowns," Massie wrote on X.

Conservative podcasters the Hodge Twins and journalist Mike Cernovich also called out Trump's choice on X, highlighting Chronister's COVID-19 stances at the time of the incident.

Media personality John Cardillo wrote on X that he had deleted his original post praising the Florida Sheriff after remembering that he is a "COVIDian Sheriff who arrested a pastor during services because 'COVID' to be prosecuted by Andrew Warren, the Soros funded prosecutor DeSantis removed from Office."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A town has been ordered by a "human rights" court to pay an LGBT activist group $10,000, including $5,000 from the mayor's personal bank account, for not celebrating the alternative lifestyle choices being promoted.

A report at Not the Bee identified the town that offended the LGBT promoters as Emo, Ontario, Canada.

The report explained the LGBT members of Borderland Pride had told the city to proclaim June 2020 as "Pride Month" and fly a rainbow flag for a week.

The town council and mayor did not, however, take up the campaign.

So the organization complained to the Ontario Human Rights Council that members were injured by the town's lack of cooperation.

"The tribunal, whose rulings are legally binding, has determined that the township must pay Borderland Pride $10,000 and Emo Mayor Harold McQuaker has to provide the group with $5,000 from his personal finances," the report said.

The report continued, "Ontario's Human Rights Tribunal (an Orwellian sounding group if there ever was one) believes that LGBT people have the human right to a whole month celebrating their sex lives, and if a tiny town doesn't agree they have to pay a fine to an LGBT rights group and extort their mayor to pay half."

The LGBT activists claimed the town's action was discriminatory.

Members demanded that, "We're entitled to treatment without discrimination when we try to seek services from our local government."

Town officials also were ordered into an LGBT indoctrination course.