This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Kamala Harris, the probable replacement for the mentally failing Joe Biden at the top of Democrat party's 2024 presidential ticket, has been declared "not welcome" in a major American metroplex.

It is in Harris County, Texas, that her visits are being shunned.

Kamala is not welcome in Houston. pic.twitter.com/B3qcUqnosS

— Harris County GOP (@HarrisCountyRP) July 25, 2024

 

According to a statement from the Harris County GOP, it's because she is ignoring entirely the major concern of voters there.

"Yesterday, vice president and hand-selected Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris arrived in Houston, the statement said. "Today, she will keynote the American Federation of Teachers national convention.

"The last time Harris was in Texas was three years ago when she made her one and only visit to cleared streets and carefully crafted environments in El Paso as the 'border czar.'"

It explained Harris County GOP chief Cindy Siegal said, "Kamala Harris is coming to Texas to speak at a teachers' union event with no plans to visit the border is exactly what I would expect from her; it's another example of her indifference to the real issues Texans are facing."

She said, "The border crisis is the number one issue for Texas voters. So, naturally, she is coming to Houston to talk to a group of woke educators rather than make a trip to our southern border."

She added, "Let's be clear – Kamala's brazenness in showing up in Texas after she perpetuated the lie and coverup regarding the cognitive decline of President Joe Biden and deceiving the American people is shameful. This deceit resulted in her being propelled to the highest point in her career without a single vote being cast in her name. Kamala, along with Joe Biden, has promoted policies that have hurt Texans and headed an administration that has been based upon lies to the American public."

A report posted on the Gateway Pundit, originally from the Western Journal, explained, "Like most major cities, Houston hardly qualifies as hostile territory for Democrats. While former President Donald Trump carried Texas in the 2020 election, Harris County went for President Joe Biden. Nonetheless, Harris County Republican Party Chairman Cindy Siegel showed that she knew exactly how to expose the vice president's massive deficiencies."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Kamala Harris' work as Joe Biden's designated "border czar," to deal with the root problems of the massive flood of illegal aliens their administration's policies triggered at America's southern border, undoubtedly will be one of the subjects of the developing presidential contest, with her as Biden's probable replacement on the Democrat ticket.

But even her own party is developing doubts.

That's as a handful of Democrats joined the majority GOP in the House to approve a resolution condemning Harris' handling of those "border czar" responsibilities.

A report from Fox News highlights the fact that Democrat Reps. Jared Golden, Maine, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Washington, Mary Peltola, Alaska, Henry Cuellar, Texas, Don Davis, North Carolina, and Yadira Caraveo, Colorado, joined the GOP in condemning Harris' handling of the border crisis.

The resolution was adopted 220-196.

Fox explained, "Republicans have for years accused Harris of failing her job as 'border czar' after President Biden handed her the task of mitigating the 'root causes' of illegal immigration in 2021. It's quickly becoming the cornerstone of GOP-led attacks against Harris as she gears up for an expected head-to-head race with former President Trump. But the six moderate Democrats who voted to condemn Harris amount to a scathing rebuke of their party's likely presidential candidate – despite dozens of left-wing lawmakers rushing to endorse her."

A Twitchy commentary said, "Maybe there's hope for the Democratic Party yet? And that's a heavy influence on the MAYBE."

The commentary noted it was evidence of "how unpopular Kamala really is, even with her own party."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

JERUSALEM – As Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gears up to address both houses of the United States Congress on Wednesday, he finds the American political landscape in a sense of turmoil he has likely never experienced – either as an undergrad or postgrad student at university or his lengthy political career.

A politician whose popularity has waxed and waned along with the fortunes of the country he has led for most of the last 15 years – both in terms of the domestic Israeli landscape and the U.S. political arena – he comes to a roiling Washington, D.C., for which he is not the primary focus. Not by a long shot.

Americans are currently consumed with the whereabouts of the putative President Joe Biden, and exactly what condition he is in. The Democratic Party has all-but anointed his Vice President Kamala Harris as his most likely replacement in November's election, and the protests against Netanyahu's presence in the capital have already unfurled.

Those protests are also literally coming from inside the House; with several Democratic lawmakers – including Harris – whose job it is to preside over the Senate floor – publicly declaring they will not attend the Israeli prime minister's speech.

Although Harris is set to meet privately with Netanyahu at the White House on Thursday, Israeli officials and Republican lawmakers have loudly expressed their barely concealed outrage over what they have termed a clear "snub."

Some of the fury results from the reason Harris will not be in attendance; instead of being on the floor of the Senate, she will instead be giving a speech in Indiana for Zeta Phi Beta, a historically black sorority founded at the vice president's alma mater, Howard University. Harris' campaign opined her non-attendance "should not be interpreted as a change in her position with regard to Israel."

Meanwhile, unnamed Israeli officials were quoted telling British newspaper the Telegraph that Harris, who is running for president, is "unable to distinguish between good and evil," and that skipping the prime minister's speech is "not a way to treat an ally," reported the Times of Israel.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson of Louisiana blasted the vice president, labeling her no-show "outrageous and inexcusable."

"This is an historic moment, it's an important moment for the country, the gravity of the situation cannot be overstated, and yet, Kamala Harris will abandon her seat," he added.

 

Another senior Democrat in the Senate, Illinois' Dick Durbin said he would actively boycott Netanyahu's speech Wednesday. "I am committed to Israel and its right to defend its people … I will stand by Israel, but I will not stand and cheer [for] its current prime minister."

 

In total, some 27 congressional Democrats have said they'll boycott Netanyahu's speech.

 

Reports suggest Netanyahu's speech will not strike the same confrontational tone when he was last invited to take to the floor of the Senate in 2015. On that occasion, he and his government had endured several public spats with the Obama administration, principally over Israel's vehement opposition to the Americans pushing for a nuclear deal with Iran. Some Democrats still haven't forgiven Netanyahu for his bellicosity in that speech, seen as intensely defiant of Obama and his administration.

This time he is thought to be preparing a "statesmanlike" speech, devoid of either attacks or criticisms of the Biden administration, and one which is largely intended to convey a message of peace. He will highlight his fervent desire to see the Abraham Accords extended to include Saudi Arabia, a development which even five years ago would have seemed unlikely, if not impossible.

He will, of course, outline Iran's malign influence on the entire region. He plans to explain how this nefarious actor has attempted to encircle the world's only Jewish state with threats, and more specifically to define Tehran's role in helping to plan Hamas' Oct. 7 attack – which has reshaped the entire Middle East.

On Tuesday, Netanyahu met with Jewish communal leaders as well evangelical Christian faith leaders – although at separate events.

The prime minister heard from them about their prayers for the return of the hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, for the peace of Israeli soldiers and for the security of the State of Israel.

The Christian event included some 15 to 20 pro-Israel evangelical leaders. Among those in attendance were Christians United for Israel Pastor John Hagee, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Philos Project Executive Director Luke Moon, televangelist Paula White, Friends of Zion chairman Mike Evans and Jordanna McMillen, U.S. director of the Israel Allies Caucus Foundation, according to the Jewish News Syndicate.

A group of Latino evangelical pastors including Carlos Ortiz were also present. Although both groups are steadfast in their love and support for the State of Israel, the Christian faith leaders are far more homogenous in their domestic political outlook – skewing significantly toward the Republican Party.

However, the Jewish communal leaders tend to be more heterogeneous, with support to be found for both of America's main political parties. Although it should be noted, the more orthodox a Jewish group is, the more likely at least a plurality of its members would vote for the GOP.

Stalled hostage deal

Also in Washington are the families of American hostages still held in Hamas captivity. The Gaza Strip's Islamist rulers are thought to hold eight people with dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship – only five of whom are assessed to still be alive.

The hostage families have been some of Netanyahu's harshest critics and urged the prime minister to conclude a hostage deal – assessing time is running out for their loved ones – before he made the trip to the United States. Having been frustrated in this desire, they have now called on him to start his speech by reminding his audience of the main reason – as they see it – of why he is there.

The Hostages Families Forum urged Netanyahu to open his speech in Congress with these simple words, without which there will be neither victory nor revival: "There's a deal."

"These words contain everything necessary to begin a process of national healing," a statement from the Hostages Families Forum HQ said.

"They embody the essence of mutual responsibility and mark the end of abandonment and sacrifice of citizens whose safety was violated."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In what a commentary at RedState sarcastically called a "coincidence," the Department of Justice now has said it does have transcripts of Joe Biden's conversations with a biographer, reversing course from its earlier claims they didn't exist.

"The Department of Justice has 'found' transcripts of exchanges between Joe Biden and his biographer that the department previously claimed didn't exist," the report confirmed. "The acknowledgment was made to a federal judge on Monday evening as part of an ongoing attempt by several organizations to secure information via the Freedom of Information Act."

Those documents, if made available earlier, could have had a significant impact on special counsel Robert Hur's investigation of Biden for mishandling classified government documents.

Hur ended up concluding Biden did commit the federal offense, but recommended against charging him because of his "diminished" capacities. However, one of the claims was that Biden used the classified material in conversations with a biographer, and might even have allowed him to see those papers.

The new "discovery" comes months after Hur ended his investigation into Biden's mishandling of paperwork, and one day after Biden took himself out of the race for the Democrat nomination for president this year.

Hur called Biden a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory" but the evidence regarding his apparent sharing classified documentation with a civilian writer was not available earlier.

Since then, the DOJ has faced numerous Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits over the Hur probe and conclusion.

Fox News reported DOJ lawyers earlier claimed it would be time-consuming to process audio files of conservations between Biden and biographer Mark Zwonitzer into transcripts.

"We don't have some transcript that's been created by the special counsel that we can attest to its accuracy," Cameron Silverberg, a DOJ lawyer, claimed in court to Judge Dabeny Friedrich just weeks ago.

Then, on Monday, Silverberg told Friedrich Hur's' office did, in fact, have transcripts of some of Biden's discussions with Zwonitzer.

The filing said, "In the past few days, in the course of processing the portions of the Biden-Zwonitzer audio recordings that the parties agreed to (see June 25, 2024 Joint Status Report at 2-3, ECF No. 20), the Department located six electronic files, consisting of a total of 117 pages, that appeared to be verbatim transcripts of a small subset of the Biden-Zwonitzer audio recordings created for the SCO by a court-reporting service.":

The filing said DOJ ultimately asked Hur about what documents he used.

The report continued, "The findings sparked widespread outrage that Biden was effectively deemed too cognitively impaired to be charged with a crime yet could still serve as president."

The fight continues, too, the Congress demanding the audio recordings of Hur's interviews with Biden, in addition to transcripts. Members explain they can determine more about Biden's cognitive abilities – and decline – by actually hearing him.

Biden has claimed executive privilege over the recordings and administration officials have refused to comply with Congress' requests.

RedState explained, "These transcripts are a big deal because one of the most direct allegations of criminality involving Biden's actions was that he shared classified information with his biographer. Had these been handed over months ago, it could have dramatically escalated the stakes regarding Hur's investigation and his subsequent report. It would have also deepened the scandal for a White House that was already in crisis given Biden's other issues, including his mental and physical condition."

That article charged, "It is simply not believable that the DOJ didn't know about these transcripts until the exact moment it became most politically convenient to acknowledge them. Now that Biden is out of the race, he is no longer in need of protection from AG Merrick Garland and his compromised department. Further, it allows now-presumptive Democratic Party nominee Kamala Harris to claim that the administration is 'transparent' despite the obvious timing issues at play."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Citizens of the People's Republic of China believe the 2024 U.S. presidential election is a shoo-in for former President and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Democrat incumbent Joe Biden officially announced Sunday that he will be removing himself from the upcoming election, and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to take his place. Biden encouraged Democrats to come together to "beat Trump."

"My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as president for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my vice president. And it's been the best decision I've made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it's time to come together and beat Trump. Let's do this," Biden shared on X.

However, Bloomberg and Business Insider reported Monday that Chinese political analysts and Chinese social media users believe Harris has a slim chance of winning the election.

State-run Chinese media outlet Global Times reported Chinese officials refused to comment on Biden pulling out of the race, and possibly replacing himself with Harris.

"The US election is an internal matter of the US, so I will not comment on it," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said Monday, according to Global Times.

Newsweek further reported that research fellow at the Academy of Social Sciences Lu Xiang told Global Times the Democrats are in a "desperate situation."

"By replacing Biden with Harris, the Democratic Party can see if there is still a slim chance to win this presidential election," Lu told Global Times, adding the move was "rational and pragmatic," but probably came too late.

Harris was also given the nickname of "HaHaHaHarris" by Chinese social media users, over her habit of cackling during interviews.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Was there more than one shooter involved in the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania?

That question is being openly discussed on national television by a top-ranking U.S. senator.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Mich., a member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, was asked by Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo on "Sunday Morning Futures":

"So are you questioning whether or not there was a second shooter? Is that what you're questioning, or if the shooter had a different gun?"

Johnson responded:

"You know, I saw extremely convincing video online, I know it's all over the place. There were three distinct shots early on followed by another five more staccato, more rapidly fired, and then the final one which we believe took the shooter out.

"How to you explain that? I don't know, I'm not an expert. But the individual putting that video out says it clearly shows there were at least three different weapons fired that day.

"Again, I don't know, but we can't trust the FBI and the Secret Service to do an honest and open, transparent investigation, that's just a very sad fact. We've got to rely on other sources, independent, to really find out what the truth of the matter was on Saturday, July 13th.

The video to which Johnson alluded can be seen here:

Bartiromo also asked: "But I gotta get to this, after the shooter was taken down by Secret Service, the local law enforcement – and I know this from some of your preliminary comments, your preliminary findings – started taking pictures of the dead body, right? Can you tell us what happened then?"

Johnson said: "That sniper team that was in the AGR building, they were the first ones in that went up on the roof, they were the first to encounter the dead assassin at that point in time. Later on other people joined them and, you know, somebody told them to send the pictures they had taken to an ATF agent, which I think is very strange. And we called up that ATF agent, that individual and said that he was with ATF, and now he's gone dark.

"We've also reached out to the Secret Service agents in charge on the ground. All we're getting there is the runaround. We are getting information from local law enforcement, and we appreciate that. But, unfortunately, federal law enforcement agents, they're just saying, well, go through your congressional liaison.

"Again, that's gonna be unacceptable. I wish I could rely and have faith in the FBI and Secret Service to do a truthful accounting of this, but that's not been my experience with the Russian collusion hoax and for years dealing with federal law enforcement. We need completely separate and independent investigations, and it has to start now."

Johnson is urging transcribed interviews be done "now while memories are still fresh."

"It is so important that people who saw things that they preserve it."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A ruling from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has pulled "qualified immunity" protections from officials in a school district in Massachusetts who threatened a reporter for his decision to openly film his questions in the superintendent's office.

The journalist, Inge Berge, went to the office, camera publicly visible and filming, to ask officials about their decision to limit attendance at a play involving Berge's child over COVID-19 when the state limits already had been lifted.

He filmed his questioning openly, and when he later posted the session online, the school threatened him with legal action for violating a statute that limits "secret" recordings.

The court's opinion said, "Among the many issues before us, the headline-grabbing one is this: On a motion to dismiss a case … does qualified immunity protect public officials who baselessly threatened a citizen-journalist with legal action if he did not remove a video on a matter of public concern that he made and posted on Facebook without breaking any law? We answer no."

"Yesterday's ruling is based on the same principle as IJ's victory at the Supreme Court earlier this year in Gonzalez v. Trevino, which made clear that government officials can't use state laws as cover for retaliation against free speech," explained Institute for Justice lawyer Jaba Tsitsuashvili. "Government retaliation against speech is unconstitutional, and the court of appeals made clear that qualified immunity won't shield officials who happen to retaliate in novel ways."

The appeals court overturned a lower ruling that granted school officials that qualified immunity – essentially protection from any liability for their actions.

Officials had threatened Berge with legal action.

According to the IJ, "In March 2022, Inge Berge wanted to buy tickets to attend his daughter's middle school play, but he missed out on the tickets because the school was limiting capacity due to COVID-19. Upset that he might miss his daughter's play, he went to the superintendent's office—which was open to the public—to complain about the policy and try to secure a ticket. Berge openly and recorded his visit to the superintendent's office and his discussion with the officials.

"He remained calm as he spoke with the officials, two of whom refused to talk while being recorded, and a third who said he would look into the situation. But later that day, after Berge posted the interaction on Facebook, the superintendent's office sent him a letter demanding he remove the video or face legal repercussions. This blatant effort to suppress Berge's speech was based on a statute that only prohibits 'secret' recordings—but the letter itself made clear that there was nothing secret about what Berge did," the IJ said.

Berge followed with a First Amendment lawsuit, and the school eventually rescinded its demand that the video be removed.

But the lower court applied "qualified immunity" to the school officials to protect them from Berge's claims.

The lower court's ruling dismissed "Berge's retaliation claims against the school administration. The court ruled that the officials were shielded by qualified immunity—a judicial doctrine that shields government officials from civil liability unless the unconstitutionality of their conduct was 'established'—because the facts of this case did not exactly match those of any prior case."

But the IJ explained in its friend-of-the-court brief in the case, "That is not how the qualified immunity doctrine works, even in the face of its unjustified expansions. Well-established First Amendment principles put all public officials on notice that retaliation for speech is unconstitutional. As IJ argued and as the court of appeals held, the novel circumstances of this case made the violation of those principles no less obvious."

"The school officials argued that previous case law regarding the right to publish recordings of government officials only dealt with the right to record police officers, so the unconstitutionality of other officials' retaliatory conduct was not established. But the court saw through that argument, saying: 'If the First Amendment means anything in a situation like this, it is that public officials cannot—as they did here—threaten a person with legal action under an inapt statute simply because he published speech they did not like."

Those principles protect speakers of all stripes from being retaliated against for lawfully voicing their displeasure with government action.

It was the school's human resources official, Roberta Eason, who wrote the letter to Berge, accusing him of violating the state's wiretap law. She demanded the removal of the recording.

"Turns out she was way off base in relying on the wiretap act. And that is because this law pertinently bans 'secret' recordings, which Berge's most certainly was not," the court said.

He responded with a lawsuit charging school officials with retaliating against him for his free speech.

The case now has been sent back to the lower court for further proceedings, with a note that Berge "shall recover his costs on appeal."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

On Jan. 22, 2021, Ali Khamenei, the religious dictator of Iran, posted a photo on his official website of President Donald Trump on a golf course with the bold caption: "Revenge is inevitable."

Two years later, on Feb. 25, 2023, Brigadier Gen. Hossein Hajizadeh, commander of the Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, listed on the U.S. terror blacklist, stated: "God willing, we will be able to kill Trump and Pompeo. That night (during the missile attack on the Ain al-Assad base in Iraq), we could have killed a thousand Americans if we had wanted to, but they were just soldiers, and it would not have mattered. However, Trump, Pompeo, and McKenzie need to be killed," as reported by the Tasnim News Agency, Iran's semi-official news agency associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Ahmad Hamzeh, a member of parliament, announced during a public session of the parliament that "on behalf of the people of Kerman, we offer a three-million-dollar cash reward to anyone who kills Trump," reported the semi-official ISNA news agency on Jan. 21, 2020.

After a 2022 assassination attempt in New York on novelist Salman Rushdie – the longtime object of Iranian assassination threats and fatwas going back to the 1988 publication of his book "The Satanic Verses" – the Kayhan newspaper, which publishes Ali Khamenei's positions, noted that "taking revenge on the perpetrators and criminals on American soil is not difficult and after this [attempted assassination of Rushdie], Trump and Pompeo will feel more threatened." Many other threats have been made against Trump by the highest officials of the Iranian regime, speaking of severe revenge for Trump's killing of Qasem Soleimani, a key architect of terrorism in the Middle East.

Before the failed assassination attempt on Alejo Vidal-Quadras, former vice president of the European Parliament and president of the International Committee in Search of Justice on Nov. 9, 2023, the theocratic regime of Iran had placed him on the foreign ministry's sanctions list. Immediately after the attempt on his life, and before being transferred to the hospital while unable to speak due to a bullet hitting his lower jaw, he communicated with the police by writing on his cellphone that his only enemy was the Iranian regime. Subsequent investigations showed that the mastermind of this crime was indeed traceable back to Iran. The fugitive criminal had been hired to assassinate Vidal-Quadras.

Recently, an Iranian woman was arrested in the Netherlands for financing this assassination attempt. The German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine reported this week that the Iranian regime uses "criminal organizations for its assassinations."

In the midst of successive failures both within Iran and on the international stage, Khamenei is more in need of showcasing power than ever before to maintain his forces domestically and his proxy forces in the wider region. In the recent presidential elections, despite Khamenei's pleas and various coercions, only about 10% participated in the voting, a turnout that reflects essentially a boycott within Iran, the regime's unparalleled failure at suppression of opposition, and the growing quantitative and qualitative strength of the resistance units. Indeed, thousands of resistance units belonging to the People's Mujahedin of Iran – the core force of the democratic alternative, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, or NCRI – managed to bring the regime's elections to a boycott with 20,000 promotional operations within just one month. Khamenei is well aware that this organized force could spark a major uprising that would make his downfall a real possibility.

On June 29, at the Free Iran 2024 World Summit held in Paris, former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered an inspiring speech, emphasizing the need for international support for the Iranian resistance movement.

"You all continue to be persecuted and prosecuted, and frankly, Western nations aren't doing enough to support your efforts. But I'm counting on the courageous men and women, some of whom I've had the chance to meet, who have become a nightmare for the regime. They will force change. They will obtain change. They force an offering to a brighter future for the people of Iran … Madam Rajavi, the Ten-Point Plan you have put forward is the solution. That day will come when it shatters the theocracy. It will break them to the very core. And the very leaders who are inflicting so much pain on the Iranian people today will be held accountable for all that they have done."

And Nikki Haley, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and one-time presidential candidate, in her July 17 speech at the Republican National Convention, identified the Iranian regime as the primary cause of all the problems in the Middle East, saying: "Look at the Middle East. Every problem in that part of the world can be laid at the feet of Iran. The dictator to chant death to America are the bankrollers and weapons suppliers for Hamas and Hezbollah. They're behind the barbaric massacres and the hostage taking. Once again, compare Trump and Biden. Trump got us out of the insane Iran nuclear deal."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A leftist judge in California has issued a stunning ruling that children are too young for First Amendment rights, so teachers were right to punish a 7-year-old for expanding the Black Lives Matter mantra to include others.

Details of the startling conclusion by District Judge David Carter were documented by the Daily Mail.

The report describes how the little girl was punished, banned from recess and ordered not to draw pictures at Viejo Elementary in Orange.

Her offense? Adding the words “any life” to a Black Lives Matter image.

The judge endorsed the punishment as she's "too young to have First Amendment rights."

"The girl's family filed a lawsuit last year against the Capistrano Unified School District, claiming her First Amendment Rights were violated during the 2021 incident," the report explained. But Carter now has claimed, "Students have the right to be free from speech that denigrates their race while at school" and that the girl was not protected by the First Amendment because of her age.

Carter claimed, "An elementary school … is not a marketplace of ideas… Thus, the downsides of regulating speech there is not as significant as it is in high schools, where students are approaching voting age and controversial speech could spark conducive conversation."

He said as there are no rights, the decision what to punish rests with the school.

The judge tried to explain, "Undoubtedly, B.B.'s [the student] intentions were innocent… B.B. testified that she gifted the Drawing to M.C. to make her feel comfortable after her class learned about Martin Luther King Jr."

But the friend, M.C., took the image home and her parents "found it offensive" and demanded the school take action.

The report documented: "This prompted principal Jesus Becerra to tell B.B. the drawing was inappropriate and racist. He then punished B.B. by making her publicly apologize on the playground to her classmates and teachers. B.B. was also banned from recess and from drawing pictures for two weeks."

B.B.'s mother brought the action because her daughter did no wrong.

The case now goes to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to consider what observers are describing as a dangerous precedent depriving elementary students of constitutional rights.

Lawyer Caleb Trotter said, "If that view is allowed to survive and spread, the speech rights of countless elementary students around the country could be at risk. That was what really concerned me."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

‘Every Democrat disengaged from, disenfranchised by, or disgusted with Joe Biden’s America and the radical left turn that the elites of the Democratic Party have taken – come on down’

Peter Navarro, the first high-ranking Trump aide to be imprisoned by the Biden administration, will speak at the Republican National Convention Wednesday, just hours after his release from prison.

"The best is yet to come!" wrote Team Navarro on Peter's X page.

The trade adviser to President Donald Trump was put behind bars for refusing to kowtow to ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan commission she set up essentially to blame Trump for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol.

Wednesday's theme at the RNC focuses on foreign policy issues.

Upon his release, Navarro told reporters: "We have to unite this country and every Democrat disengaged from, disenfranchised by, or disgusted with Joe Biden's America and the radical left turn that the elites of the Democratic Party have taken – come on down."

“Praise the Lord and welcome back to freedom,” said Jeff Clark, the former assistant attorney general who was one of 18 individuals indicted alongside Trump for what prosecutors call as a wide-ranging effort to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results.

“Welcome back to the fight,” added conservative talk-show host Jack Posobiec.

“Every person who has taken me on this road to that prison is a friggin’ Democrat and a Trump-hater,” explained Navarro, when he began his prison sentence.

The New York Post said Navarro surrendered himself to a Miami federal prison for a four-month sentence after courts and the Biden Department of Justice insisted he be locked up.

The 74-year-old defied a congressional subpoena from Pelosi's partisan committee, which now has been confirmed to have concealed evidence exculpatory to Trump for that riot, and was found in contempt of Congress by Democrats.

"When I walk in that prison today, the justice system, such as it is, will have done a crippling blow to the constitutional separation of powers and executive privilege," he warned at the time.

He was convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress after he cited the longstanding principle of executive privilege as a justification for his refusal to tell Congress what they wanted to hear about Trump.

His conviction remains on appeal, but he was ordered to start serving the time anyway.

"Navarro was adamant that he was merely 'doing my duty to this country' by adhering to executive privilege, which grants a president authority to withhold certain material from Congress," the report said.

However, court rulings claimed Navarro wasn't protected under executive privilege.

"I will walk proudly and in there and do my time," he said.

A report from the Gateway Pundit noted that Fox News anchor Sandra Smith “cut away” from Navarro short address to reporters “to do a fact check.”

The report continued, "Navarro did not comply with the subpoena because he said Trump told him to assert executive privilege. … Biden's corrupt DOJ sought a six-month prison term for Navarro. Late last month, judge Amit Mehta sentenced Peter Navarro to 4 months in prison and ordered him to pay a $9,500 fine."

Mehta had, in fact, banned Navarro from making a claim of executive privilege in his own defense, leaving the jury with less than all the evidence in the case.

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts