This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Cops who blasted the wrong Texas house with a SWAT raid, then denied any liability for their assault, may be going to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is the Institute for Justice that is asking the high court to take up the case of Karen Jimerson, and her partner, James Parks.
"Qualified immunity has run amok," said IJ Attorney Dylan Moore. "The Supreme Court must ensure that victims of obvious constitutional violations, like Karen and James, are not denied a day in court."
The legal team, on behalf of the couple, has filed a petition asking the justices to overturn a lower court's ruling granting qualified immunity to the SWAT commander who ordered the raid of the wrong home.
"On a quiet night in March 2019, a SWAT team from the Waxahachie Police Department, and officers from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), attempted to execute a search warrant on a suspected methamphetamine stash house at 573 8th Street. When the team arrived on the scene, however, they nearly raided 583 8th Street. Realizing the first mistake, SWAT Team Lieutenant Mike Lewis ordered them to 'go to the house just to the left' and conduct the raid there. But the house to the left was also the wrong house. Rather than ordering officers to raid 573 8th Street, Lewis directed them to 593 8th Street, which belonged to Karen," the IJ said.
The court filings charge that Lewis never even bothered to check the address listed on the warrant.
"Even worse, the houses had obvious physical differences. Lewis knew that the target house was surrounded by a fence, had a large garage behind it (that police planned to search), and had its address posted on the front porch. Karen's house had no porch, fence, or garage. What it did have was an impossible-to-miss wheelchair ramp that officers had to ascend on their way into the wrong house," the legal team said.
The SWAT team, with no announcement, broke all the windows in the front of the home and covered Karen's three young children with glass. She had just gotten out of the shower when a flash-bang exploded, and was forced to the ground, where she was held for several minutes.
Then it was oops!
"The SWAT team then left and conducted its raid at the correct home, two doors down," the IJ reported.
"This raid was a traumatizing experience for me, and my kids still have flashbacks to the raid," said Karen, who was taken along with her daughter to the hospital following the raid. "We hadn't done anything wrong, and suddenly, we're being held at gunpoint and having parts of our home destroyed. I couldn't believe what was happening."
A police review found "reasonable and normal protocol" was ignored, and confirmed the mistake never should have happened.
Karen and James sued Lewis, but he denied responsibility and the lower courts granted him a free pass.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A special program set up in the state of Illinois to provide scholarships to aspiring teachers, to use for tuition, fees, commuter allowances, and room and board, is under a new court challenge because of its racist foundation.
It excludes students if they are white.
It is the Pacific Legal Foundation that is pursuing a civil rights complaint on behalf of the American Alliance for Equal Rights, which is fighting the precedent of the Illinois Student Assistance Corporation.
"The Minority Teachers of Illinois Scholarship Program awards scholarships of up to $7,500 per year for tuition, fees, commuter allowances, and room and board for up to four academic years of full-time college enrollment. With Illinois facing a severe teacher shortage, the MTI Scholarship Program is designed to encourage qualified Illinoisans to join the teacher ranks," Pacific Legal Foundation's report explained.
"Students must meet residency, academic, and financial standards," the legal team explained. But, it noted, the recipients are decided based on race.
"Illinois can offer assistance to young, aspiring teachers, but not when they exclude a significant number of applicants based on their skin color," said PLF attorney Erin Wilcox. "The exclusion of non-minority applicants not only misses the mark on providing an equal opportunity for all future teachers, it violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause."
The racism dates back to 1992 when state lawmakers created the program.
"Its purported aim was to alleviate a teacher shortage by recruiting minority students to pursue teaching careers at Pre-K through high school levels," the report said.
However, recipients are limited to students who are "African American/Black, Hispanic American, Asian American or Native American origin, or a qualified bilingual minority."
The report said, "It's wrong for the government to deny individuals access to government 0benefits based on race. Moreover, it's unconstitutional. The equal protection guarantee of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals from government discrimination due to arbitrary classifications like race. Excluding students from a state-funded scholarship program because of their race blatantly violates the Equal Protection Clause."
The complaint in court explains, "The Scholarship Program's statutory racial exclusion is embedded both in the application process and the qualification considerations for the award. First, only minority students who have graduated from high school or have received a State of Illinois High School Diploma maintained a cumulative grade point average of no less than 2.5 on a 4.0 scale, and are enrolled or accepted on at least a half-time basis as an undergraduate or graduate student at an Illinois institution of higher education are eligible to apply for the Scholarship Program."
And, it contends, "Eligible applicants must then satisfy the following requirements to receive a scholarship: (i) be a resident of the State and a citizen or permanent resident of the United States; (ii) be a minority student; (iii) as an eligible applicant, have made a timely application; (iv) be enrolled on at least a half-time basis at a qualified Illinois institution of higher learning to become a licensed teacher; (v) maintain a grade point average of no less than 2.5 on a 4.0 scale; and (vi) have continued to advance satisfactorily toward the attainment of a degree."
The filing in court explains, "Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, '[n]o State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' [E]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State …, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured …."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In what has been described as another "dumpster fire" for the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, just hours before 2024 Election Day, the White House has been accused of a "breach of protocol" for changing the manuscript of what Biden said in order to clean it up.
It was the press office that was accused of changing his comments by literally adding an apostrophe where one appeared not to be in his speech.
He had called Donald Trump's "supporters" "garbage." That was changed to "supporters," suggesting Biden was referencing only a single person, a comedian who earlier had referenced Puerto Rico as a "floating island of garbage."
The stenographers in the White House registered their objection to the manipulation of what will be government records, which will end up in the National Archives.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley described the episode as that "dumpster fire."
He pointed out that the legacy media in America previously has been accused over and over of "reframing news or rewriting words" to benefit Biden-Harris.
The "supporters" dispute, he said, "has created a weird dissonance as Democratic politicians denounced what the White House and many in the press denied was said."
It was Director of White House Stenography Amy Sands who protested the press office's manipulation of the words on the transcript, writing, "If there is a difference in interpretation, the Press Office may choose to withhold the transcript but cannot edit it independently. Our Stenography Office transcript — released to our distro, which includes the National Archives — is now different than the version edited and released to the public by Press Office staff … After last night's process, our team would like to reiterate that rush drafts/excerpts the Stenography Office sends to assist the Press Office are not intended for public distribution or as the final version of the transcript. Please avoid sharing rush drafts/excerpts, which are subject to review and might create confusion among staff, media, and the public while our Stenography Office completes a thorough review process."
"Biden himself has described their views as a return of the confederacy and the rise of fascism. Democrats have called the movement a modern form of Nazism and an effort to destroy democracy, round up homosexuals, and create internment camps," Turley noted.
"The problem was the timing. As Harris was denouncing Trump for name-calling and insisting that Democrats are bringing the country together (while condemning Trump as a modern version of Hitler), Biden was literally behind her in the White House, calling tens of millions of Trump supporters 'garbage.'"
"When asked about the internal objections, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates only repeated the prior statement: 'The president confirmed in his tweet on Tuesday evening that he was addressing the hateful rhetoric from the comedian at Trump's Madison Square Garden rally. That was reflected in the transcript,'" Turley pointed out.
Legacy media reporters also have begun admitting what Biden said, "as did CBS News anchor Norah O'Donnell, as a gaffe by President Biden where he, in his explanation, inadvertently called Trump supporters to garbage."
That explanation, however, "ignores years of portraying Trump supporters as seeking to return the United States to the Jim Crowe period or pursuing a neo-Nazi future," Turley said.
The New York Post explained the stenographers who lodged the protest over the language manipulation "are widely considered by reporters who cover the executive branch to be very professional and accurate with their transcriptions. It is highly unusual for the press office to dispute what the stenographers heard."
The report explained that when the stenographers recorded Biden's statement as condemning "supporters," the press office changed it, without approval from the stenographers, to "supporters."
"It is essential to our transcripts' authenticity and legitimacy that we adhere to consistent protocol for requesting edits, approval, and release," the supervisor, a career White House employee, told White House communications officials, including press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.
House Republicans were considering launching an investigation into the "false transcript" that then was released, the report said.
The Washington Examiner said it was during an interview on Tuesday that Biden unleashed.
"The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters," referring to former President Donald Trump.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk pointed out, "Biden just called half of America 'garbage,'" and Jack Pandol, National Republican Committee spokesman, said, "This is Joe Biden's 'deplorables' moment. The truth is Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, and House Democrats look down their nose at anyone who wants affordability, safe streets, and a secure border. Every House Democrat enabled Joe Biden's assault on the American Dream, and they must condemn the president's disgusting and divisive comments immediately."
Vice President Kamala Harris, speaking to reporters Wednesday morning on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews, said she "strongly" disagrees with the garbage comment.
Republicans took Biden, already known to be declining in physical and mental capabilities, to task.
"Obama called us clingers. Hillary called deplorables. Kamala calls us fascists. And Biden just called us garbage," Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., charged. "They don't respect us & don't want unity. But we do. We want to Make America Great Again. Our coalition is for ALL AMERICANS. And in 7 days, we will UNITE AMERICA."
Trump was told of the comment onstage at a rally in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
"Please forgive him, for he not knoweth what he said," Trump quipped. Later in the day, he staged a news conference from a garbage truck.
And he posted a comment:
While I am running a campaign of positive solutions to save America, Kamala Harris is running a campaign of hate. She has spent all week comparing her political opponents to the most evil mass murderers in history. Now, on top of everything, Joe Biden calls our supporters "garbage." You can't lead America if you don't love the American People. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have shown they are both unfit to be President of the United States. I am proud to lead the biggest, broadest, and most important political coalition in American history. We are welcoming historic numbers of Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, and citizens of every race, religion, color, and creed. It is my desire to be the President of all the people.
Columnist Todd Starnes commented on the Biden slam.
"Former President Trump asked the Lord to forgive President Joe Biden after he called Trump supporters 'garbage,'" he wrote.
Biden even tried to take it back.
On social media, he said, "Earlier today I referred to the hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump's supporter at his Madison Square Garden rally as garbage—which is the only word I can think of to describe it. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable. That's all I meant to say. The comments at that rally don't reflect who we are as a nation."
It was comic Tony Hinchcliffe who joked about Puerto Rico at a Trump rally recently.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Illegal aliens by the millions, often in caravans of thousands that have been delivering women and children, men and boys to the U.S. border ever since Joe Biden and Kamala Harris occupied the White House, have created massive problems for America.
The Democrats had, on their first day in office, destroyed multiple programs that President Donald Trump had instituted, with some degree of success, to secure the border and control those moving into the United States.
The Democrats' agenda has proven catastrophic, with multiple towns and cities now carrying a massive burden of social benefits-consuming newcomers, schools overwhelmed with students who don't speak English, and more.
Those caravans are continuing, with campaigns under way right now to deliver thousands more people who will need American taxpayer help to the border on or shortly after Election Day next week.
But a trend is developing that those individuals won't make the journey to America, based on the sole factor of whether Trump is in office.
The Telegraph visited the current caravans, and reported the migrants themselves are confirming the U.S. may have less of a crisis if Trump is in the White House.
Rohmai Silva, 38, from Guatemala, who was deported in 2018 for a drunken driving offense, said, "If Donald Trump wins I think I am never going to go back. I am trying to get back before the inauguration. I left Guatemala two weeks ago. I could see the election was coming."
He said, "I worry about Donald Trump because the law is going to change a lot and it is going to be more hard to go back to the United States."
Actually if U.S. immigration laws that exist would just be enforced, the migrants would be facing much higher hurdles than they have under the Biden-Harris administration.
Another woman, unidentified, said in the Telegraph report, "We were waiting for the [asylum] appointment but then with the election all these applications will be closed and we are running out of time. The applications are being paused or cancelled but the border will be open. If Donald Trump gets in office again, it will be much tougher."
The report said one caravan of some 2,000 people who would be illegal aliens in the U.S. is en route now, about 1,000 miles from the U.S. border.
Many are urgently making the trek now, in light of the possibility of Trump resuming authority in the White House.
"A second convoy will set off on Nov 5, deliberately timed for election day, 'so Joe Biden and Kamala Harris know we are heading their way' in an effort by human rights activists to emphasise their plight," the report noted.
Trump had cracked down on the problem when in office, with wall construction and the "remain-in-Mexico" practice of having migrants in a holding pattern there while applications were processed. During the Biden-Harris regime, the problem has become acute, especially because of the fact that thousands of criminals have been allowed to enter, including murderers and terrorists.
Trump, in response, has demanded the death penalty for illegal aliens, often gang members, who kill U.S. citizens.
Before the election, and before Trump would be in office should he win, one woman said, "We were waiting for the [asylum] appointment but then with the election all these applications will be closed and we are running out of time. The applications are being paused or cancelled but the border will be open."
The Telegraph said, "The race to get to America is on. The process has become fraught, all the more so in an election year. It is estimated just under half a million illegal migrants enter Mexico every year from Guatemala across the Suchiate River before heading straight to Tapachula, which with a population of 400,000 is the second biggest city in the state of Chiapas. The cartels moved in last year and violence has followed; in April the U.S. issued a warning to its citizens to steer clear of huge swathes of the territory owing to 'rising violence and security concerns.'"
Late in the American presidential campaign, the Biden-Harris administration flipped its own practice, advocating against illegal immigration with a program that has Mexico paid to deter those activities. Harris even has endorsed a border wall, a project that under Trump she called a "medieval vanity project."
Jude Joseph, 40, a Haitian refugee, told the publication, "If I make this CBP One and I get the chance I will go [to the U.S.]. I don't know exactly if I will get a chance if Donald Trump will be president. But there are no jobs in Haiti, just gangsters."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Tucker Carlson is is going nuclear on a New York Times reporter who sought comment about alleged election misinformation by the conservative champion, telling him to "f*** off."
Carlson shared a text exchange late Monday night from Nico Grant, a San Francisco-based technology correspondent for the newspaper, who indicated: "We rely on an analysis conducted by researchers at Media Matters for America," a left-wing-minded media watchdog.
Grant said he was working on article where researchers found 286 videos Carlson posted on YouTube between May and August supposedly containing misinformation, including a clip of Carlson mentioning a "clearly stolen" election.
Grant also sought to know if Carlson were a member of the YouTube Partner Program, and if so, "How often does YouTube demonetize your videos?"
Carlson responded: "So the New York Times is working with a left wing hate group to silence critics of the Democratic Party? Please ask yourself why you're participating in it. This is why you got into journalism? It's shameful. I hope you're filled with guilt and self-loathing for sending me a text like this. Please quote me."
The reply from the reporter stated: "Thank you for your prompt response. Would you like to address any of the points or questions above?"
Carlson then responded: "Would I like to participate in your attempt to censor me? No thanks. But I do hope you'll quote what I wrote above and also note that I told you to f*** off, which I am now doing. Thanks."
On his New York Times author page, Grant says of himself: "As a Times journalist, I share the values and adhere to the standards of integrity outlined in our Ethical Journalism Handbook. I want all of my work to be accurate and fair. I do not accept gifts, money or favors from anyone who might figure into my reporting. I do not directly own or trade stocks. I make every effort to understand issues from multiple angles."
Meanwhile, the Fox News Channel aired a segment Tuesday afternoon on what might be the same New York Times article in the works.
The network interviewed Joe Concha, a Fox News contributor, who said:
"There is not a more corrupt, more radical media organization out there than Media Matters. And the New York Times, which has vast resources and personnel, instead of doing its own research has now outsourced this to this patently dishonest, activist organization whose number one mission, outside of taking out this network, is to squash any and all free speech through astroturf campaigns, online against anyone or anything they consider to be conservative or even right of center. Elon Musk once referred to Media Matters as evil propaganda machine. That is not hyperbole, he ain't wrong."
"So this is the game plan here," Concha continued. "Media Matters along with the New York Times, and it's getting increasingly difficult to differentiate the two, by the way, they're gonna pressure YouTube to demonetize these big voices on the right like Ben Shapiro, like Benny Johnson.
"Remember that YouTube is owned by Google, and Google is the the number one donor to Democratic Party out of Silicon Valley. If it does happen, the argument will be Shapiro or Johnson, they are spreading misinformation on the platform, misinformation like saying COVID may have come from a lab or Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation. You know that kind of misinformation. So, who's to decide what it is and what it isn't? But that's what they're trying to do right now seven days before an election."
Concha concluded: "Media Matters is a tax-free organization, but they receive millions from Democratic megadonors. And they use those funds to pressure major companies to pull their advertising from outlets that they target. And yet, here's the New York Times presenting them as some sort of objective, legitimate source, when they're nothing more than a far-left activist organization.
"So, hopefully they're not successful here, but the deck is stacked against Shapiro and Johnson and others at this point, given that it's the New York Times with Media Matters and YouTube and Google all trying to take them out, and as we saw with Hunter Biden's laptop, they were successful before the last election in terms of squashing voices at a critical time."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – Of the IAF attack on Iran only a few things are certain, Israeli aircraft spent more than an hour – largely unmolested over the skies of Iran – and all the planes made it back safely to their home bases. Until open sources become available it will not be clear the level of the damage, and perhaps the humiliation, which was meted out to the Islamic Republic.
This was an operation Israel undertook alone, and was thought to include between a third to a half of Israel's entire air force. The Biden administration was informed of the attack, and U.S. planes were reportedly airborne at the time of the action, purely in a supervisory capacity.
Israel's jets flew through both friendly and enemy air space, indeed air-defense batteries in both Iraq and Syria were taken out in the initial stages of the attack. There was thought to be a high level of intelligence cooperation between Israel and CENTCOM partners to the extent they were made aware of what was happening in real-time, although they were not part of the operation.
The reaction in Israel was somewhat muted, with people assuming the length of time the response to Iran's ballistic missile attack on Oct. 1 was in the pipeline, might have produced greater fireworks – and more seemingly tangible results. However, a number of factors are at play and should be taken into consideration.
There are credible reports, which strongly suggest a strike at Iran's nuclear facilities was not on the menu at this stage – and it was quickly ruled out as a possibility at an early cabinet meeting in the wake of the Iranian attack. Israel's military and political leaders would have had to confront the probability of direct retaliation from Iran on a large scale if it had gone after these in the first instance. There is also the issue of the Biden administration and whether it would have sanctioned such an action, mere weeks – at the time – from the November presidential election.
Several elements are at play here and it is necessary to parse them to get a better understanding of what occurred in the Middle East over the last 48 hours or so.
It should be said upfront there are some schools of thought, which argue the Pentagon intel leak last week actually brought Israel's response forward, rather than delay it. There is no sense yet whether the options set out in that document were changed or it was merely the timetable, which was expedient.
In this tit-for-tat game of strike and counter-strike, appearances and posturing play an enormously important role – both for the domestic audiences in the respective countries of Israel and Iran, but also the extent of the damage the governments of those countries will permit to be public through official channels. (There is a completely different and important issue of the use of open intelligence sources and how these are part of the informational arsenal, which is as much a part of this war as the actual missiles).
Tehran learned that too many of its vaunted drone armada and many of its cruise missiles either didn't make it out of Iranian air space or they were too cumbersome and easy to spot for Israel's defenses. So, in the Oct. 1 attack, Israel was largely assailed by ballistic missiles, where as many as three dozen or so impacted into Israeli territory – at least in close proximity to two of its northern air bases, as well as the headquarters of the Mossad, just a few miles from the central coastal city of Herzliya.
Israel's missile defense array could not cope with all of these missiles – and it did not enjoy anything like the same level of coordination and cooperation as during the April strike, where very few projectiles made it through the defensive shield.
As a consequence of this, Israel specifically targeted a number of sites connected to Iran's ballistic missile production and guidance. The strikes hit at least 12 planetary mixers used to make solid fuel used in long-range ballistic missiles, reports said, with some putting the number of mixers struck at 20.
"The Saudi Elaph news site reported, citing an unnamed informed source, that the heavy fuel mixers had been used to power Khaybar and Qassem missiles, ballistic missiles that were launched at Israel in the Iranian strike earlier this month," according to the Times of Israel.
The factory, which was not given a precise location in the reporting, is thought to have been completely destroyed and will likely take some two years to become fully operational again.
As opposed to Israel's very limited response to Iran's April act of belligerence, which used a missile that Iranian air defense systems failed to identify and neutralize, and which targeted a radar system – including an S-300 surface-to-air defense system – buried deep in the country's Isfahan Province. It was thought to be an elegant and understated response to Iran's brute force and there was a sliver of hope it would demonstrate Israel possessed capabilities of which the Islamic Republic was both unaware and unable to repel. October's ballistic missile attack gave the lie to that hope, and Israel was now determined to pull off an attack, from which it would be much more challenging for the regime in Tehran to save face.
This leads us to two further important pieces of information. Analysts from the United States and Israel assess the strike took out all of Iran's remaining S-300 missile defense systems, which were protecting Tehran's Imam Khomeini International Airport and at the Malad missile base near the capital.
Indeed, Israel's attack has rendered Iran virtually defenseless against another aerial assault. The other by-product of taking out Iran's air defenses was to cause a psychological blow to both the theocratic regime – which is reportedly "alarmed" at the destruction – but also because the IAF jets were able to fly unmolested over Iranian airspace for anywhere between one-to-three hours. Indeed, the attacks came in waves with Tehran impotent to do anything about them.
The main question on everyone's mind is, "what's next?" and that is spectacularly difficult to answer, given the sheer number of variables, which make this such a potentially combustible mix.
Will Iran go full steam ahead now and push for a nuclear weapons breakout? While there is nominally an Ayatollah Khamanei-issued fatwa against producing a nuclear weapon, the supreme leader who has now been in power for 35 years is ailing, and the project his predecessor Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei so assiduously planned decades ago is in danger of falling apart at the seams. Evidence of a push for a nuclear weapon could engender a smorgasbord of responses.
Even if President Donald Trump were to be reelected to the White House in November, it is conceivable outgoing President Joe Biden might order a strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. There would surely be jeopardy involved in such a move. A president who has been wrong about foreign policy for most the entirety of his 50-year career, and whose domestic legacy lies in tatters – and whether Vice President Kamala Harris wins the election or not – will forever be known as the commander-in-chief against whom his own party plotted and executed a coup to defenestrate and replace him – might view a strike against Iran's nuclear program as a potentially successful bookend to his presidency. It might also provide President Trump – if he were to win – a thorny issue of how to deal with fall-out.
If whichever U.S. administration decided not to go in this direction, Israel – following the so-called Begin doctrine – which basically outlines the Jewish state will not tolerate any Middle Eastern power possessing nuclear weapons could theoretically decide to "go it alone" against Iranian nuclear installations, especially now that the air defenses are so sparse. It would take significantly longer, however, to inflict the same kind of damage the U.S. Air Force would be able to achieve.
Will Iran return to the tried and tested formula of using ballistic missiles again to intimidate Jerusalem? Perhaps, but if the damage to its production and guidance is anything like reported, Tehran is going to have to manage its resources more carefully than in the past. At least Khamanei was talking a good game. In his first remarks after the attack, the Iranian leader said Israel had "made a mistake in attacking Iran," and Iran's power should be demonstrated to Israel, adding the way to do so should be "determined by the officials and that which is in the best interest of the people and the country should take place," according to Israeli news outlet Ynet.
Is it now possible Iran will activate a coordinated effort from its proxies, the so-called "ring of fire" encircling Israel? However Iran decides to respond, it would appear this option is one of the likeliest, albeit with Hamas in Gaza no longer able to call on the men or materiel once at its disposal. Hezbollah, too, the jewel in the crown of Iran's proxy groups – or more accurately the most geographically advanced outcrop of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – has suffered crippling, although as yet catastrophic blows, up to and including the elimination of its leader Hassan Nasrallah. The Houthi in Yemen, and Iranian-affiliated Islamist groups in Syria and Iraq remain potent foes, who possess projectiles, which they have shown can reach Israel and cause damage and destruction.
Will the Iranians do nothing? They will have to game out what their options are, knowing full well that a similar strike to the one in early October will merely invite a harsher response than the one just endured, which will likely not be nearly a month in the making.
One of the other messages emanating from the region following Israel's strike, is an intangible feeling of hope – even in Iran itself. It has taken 15 long years since then-President Obama and his administration betrayed Iran's Green Revolution in 2009/10, which fought for increased democratic rights against the country's theocratic rulers. Ordinary Iranians may have put their faith in America, only to have realpolitik crush their aspirations. Now, Israel, which has consistently said it has no quarrel with the Iranian people – is showing how to stand up to a regime much of the Middle East wants gone.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A former girlfriend of Doug Emhoff, now the husband of Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris, is expressing horror at the persona he's being given in the media.
Because she has charged, he slapped her so hard during their brief relationship that she spun around.
The accusations first were leveled in the Daily Mail, that Emhoff and the woman, a lawyer, were at an event in Paris a number of years ago when he suddenly broadsided her. The sources were people who knew her and knew of the incident.
Now the Daily Mail reports the woman herself has come forward.
It was at a celebrity event in France in 2012, the woman said, the attack happened.
"What's frightening for a woman that's been on the other end of it, is watching this completely fabricated persona being portrayed. He's being held out to be the antithesis of who he actually is. And that is utterly shocking," explained the woman, identified only as "Jane."
The Daily Mail was not releasing any further identification.
But she confirmed to the publication the story of how he "slapped her in the face so hard she spun around," the report said.
The publication said weeks ago that the incident happened, according to "two friends she told immediately after the incident."
The new report said, "The bombshell allegations, which followed DailyMail.com's revelation in August that Emhoff cheated on his first wife with his daughter's nanny Najen Naylor, received little or no coverage from politically center-left major news outlets."
Emhoff had admitted to the affair, but his spokesman gave only a short denial about the slapping incident.
"Emhoff, the Harris campaign, and the White House have failed to respond to DailyMail.com and other outlets' repeated requests for comment," the report said.
Jane told the Daily Mail, "Every time I see Doug on TV portraying the persona of a perfect spouse and non-toxic man, I wonder if Najen is watching too and feeling as disgusted as I am."
Her comments continued: "I was living in New York, and Doug was living in Los Angeles. I met him on Match.com. After work one night I met him for drinks at a hotel near Times Square."
He immediately invited his son to join them. "It was an odd request for a first date, but I also felt bad that his son was walking around the city waiting for his dad to finish his Match.com date. So I agreed. In retrospect, it should have been a red flag.
"He flew me to Los Angeles in April [2012]. I stayed in his home for a week. The entire time, he was alluding to marriage and having children with me. He was totally love-bombing me. He grabbed me round the stomach and talked about wanting more babies."
The slapping allegedly happened because Emhoff thought "Jane" was hitting on another man when she approached a valet while in a line, trying to get a car lined up.
Emhoff split from his first wife in 2009. The incident apparently happened in 2012. Emhoff married Harris in 2014.
Her story continued, about what he told her: "We were in Santa Monica. He was driving his fancy car. And so I just straight out asked him: 'I feel like you're on the back foot in the divorce like you're trying to make up for something?' All I did was ask him one question, and he told me the whole story. Without skipping a beat, and staring straight ahead at the road, he tells me he had an affair with his daughter's teacher and that subsequently, she claimed that she was pregnant. He's telling me this very casually like it's no big deal. He yelled at her. He never said he hit her, but he said he got really angry with her, and she subsequently claimed that whatever he did caused her to lose the pregnancy. He said she got a lawyer and was threatening litigation. I was flabbergasted. And I was taken aback by how matter of fact he could talk about it."
"Jane" said, of the Paris events: "I put my hand on the valet's shoulder and tell him, with my $100, could you please get me a car as soon as possible. As I'm talking to him, Doug got out of the line, comes up, turns me around by my right shoulder. I'm completely caught off guard, I'm not bracing, I'm in four-inch heels, wearing a full-length gown and it's between 2-3 am. He slaps me so hard I spin around, and I'm in utter shock."
WND reported that Emhoff, in an interview on MSNBC, "dismissed bombshell stories that he slapped his ex-girlfriend and had an affair during his first marriage as a 'distraction,' but didn't deny them."
It is Bill Maher, a host on Real Time, who asked why leftist media outlets were ignoring the dispute.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A ruling from a Dutch court means that American Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, a major influence in world organizations and a big supporter of the so-called COVID-19 "vaccines," will go to trial in a case brought by seven people hurt by that agenda.
He repeatedly promoted the vaccines, which have since proven probably to be just about as damaging as COVID-19 itself, with side effects including fatal heart conditions and more.
Here's one of his promotions:
It is the Gateway Pundit that reported on the judicial decision, and even posted that document online.
The report said Gates will be on trial in the Netherlands "over his involvement in misleading the public about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines."
The seven plaintiffs all described the vaccine injuries they sustained, and they brought the lawsuit last year. Recent court time has been consumed by court consideration of the Gates motion to dismiss the case, based on his claim he was not subject to Dutch courts.
Others named as defendants included former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, members of the Dutch government's COVID-19 Outbreak Management Team, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and the Dutch government itself.
Gates multiple times made demands of the public regarding the China virus, which probably originated in a Chinese lab experimenting with how to make viruses worse. He and others claimed the vaccine would stop people from getting the virus, and that those taking the virus would not get sick or die.
The Gateway Pundit reported, "The plaintiffs argue that Gates, through his involvement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum (WEF), was involved in a far-reaching agenda – referred to as 'The Great Reset Project' – which sought to exploit the global crisis in order to implement sweeping societal changes, all under the guise of combating the pandemic."
One claim is that included pushing, even forcing, vaccines on populations even though those "treatments" were known to be dangerous.
"One of the seven plaintiffs has reportedly died since the initial filing, leaving six others to carry on the fight against Gates and his cohorts. These ordinary Dutch citizens, whose identities have been redacted from the court documents, say they trusted the vaccine narrative and are now paying the price," the Gateway Pundit explained.
It was a ruling from the Leeuwarden District Court that confirmed it does have jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the defendants will include Gates.
The ruling included the conclusion: "Article 7 paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that if the Dutch court has jurisdiction over one of the defendants, it also has jurisdiction over other defendants involved in the same proceedings, provided that there is such a connection between the claims against the various defendants that reasons of expediency justify joint proceedings."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Chinese nationals who immigrate to the U.S. are failing to assimilate, are staying connected to the Chinese Communist Party, and are being used as tools to spy on Americans, according to a retired American general.
During an interview with Fox News host Mark Levin, Gen. Robert Spalding said the Chinese government is essentially forcing Chinese nationals abroad to use Chinese social media platforms to keep them connected.
"China's strategy was to basically create this firewall and then keep the people on those social media platforms, so when they came over they would stay connected to the Chinese government. So, essentially, you see the same thing with these people coming over, they are on their social media platforms, they are within their groups and they stay with them, and I think part of the problem is we haven't moved to ban those types of communications within this country," Spalding told Levin.
Because these platforms are not banned in the U.S., Spalding stated Chinese nationals living in America are not assimilating to American culture, and in turn are not fully realizing the benefits of living in a free society.
"So university students that come from China, they stay on their platforms, they speak in Chinese, they don't assimilate, so they don't actually get to understand the benefits of living in a free society, because they stay connected to the Chinese Communist Party, and as you know, in the Middle East, the Islamic leaders are connected to their followers, who as you rightly point out, have come across the southern border," Spalding said.
The general pointed out one of the most dangerous platforms available right now for Chinese spying is TikTok, which is owned by the CCP, and further noted there is an ideological war happening right now.
"This is an ideological war that's being powered by these platforms, but unfortunately we have very little control over, because we have chosen not to understand the war for what it is, its an information, its an ideological war," he said.
Levin stated enemy states like China are using the open borders to infiltrate American society, and spread anti-American sentiments, becoming the "enemy within."
Spalding agreed, noting there is already a huge problem in culture, especially within social media platforms such as TikTok which he says are spreading propaganda.
"If you talk to any of the old former Sovietologists who studied active measures, you know its active measures on steroids, and they will tell you exactly what needs to be done, and we need to shut it off, because it is a vector of attack of our society," Spalding said.
"They want to break down our society, they want to create division, they want to have people question in their minds the value of a constitutional republic. So we have to treat that like a direct attack on the homeland. It's not a bomb or a missile, but it's even more devastating in my opinion."
Spalding added a warning: unless lawmakers are willing to take on the task of taking down TikTok and other platforms like WeChat, ideological attacks from China and other enemy states will continue to be a serious problem for the U.S.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Army has issued a letter admitting it was wildly wrong when it used an "awareness training" program that falsely labeled the pro-life Operation Rescue, the National Right to Life and other organizations as "terrorist."
"The terror awareness training presented to soldiers at Fort Liberty on July 10, 2024, inaccurately referenced non-profit public advocacy organizations National Right to Life, Operation Rescue, Earth First, Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front and PETA as terrorist groups, which is inconsistent with the Army's antiterrorist policy and training," confirmed a letter to Rep. Jim Banks, chief of the subcommittee on military personnel.
The letter was on letterhead from the Department of the Army, assistant secretary.
The controversy erupted months ago when it was discovered that the military was using the false characterizations about reputable organizations to "train" soldiers regarding terrorism and terrorist actions.
The letter explained the army is going a system-wide review to ensure that "these or similar slides" no longer will be used.
According to American Center for Law and Justice, which fought the army on behalf of the organizations, "We stand with Operation Rescue and other pro-life groups that have been wrongly targeted by the U.S. Army for being 'terrorist groups.' Because of our legal efforts, the army has now issued a statement acknowledging that Operation Rescue is not a terrorist group and stating unequivocally that such a designation of pro-life groups was wrong and must never occur again."
The ACLJ explained it sent a demand letter to the army over its use of the false propaganda at what used to be Fort Bragg.
In those training materials, "pro-life groups, including our client Operation Rescue and anyone with a 'Choose Life' license plate, as 'terrorist groups,'" the ACLJ reported.
The ACLJ said it called for the army to apologize and acknowledge in writing that none of the pro-life organizations it named are considered domestic terrorist organizations by the army, including specifically the ACLJ client, Operation Rescue. Without this, the threat and stigma of being identified as a terrorist organization remained, the legal team said.
Banks, a Republican from Indiana, also had insisted on accountability for the claims.
"Initially, the secretary of the army released a statement that 'National Right to Life and PETA are not terrorist groups,' but she specifically did not mention our client (Operation Rescue) and many other pro-life groups and individuals. But after our demand letter and the work of Rep. Banks, the Army has issued a new 'statement of U.S. Army policy' and sent us a copy of a letter it sent to Rep. Banks specifically stating that the U.S. Army does not, in fact, consider our client a terrorist group."
The report said the army still claims those who made the training module added the various organizations to the list.
The military has confirmed that some 9,100 soldiers were trained using the false information over the past few years.
The report said, "The Army has also acknowledged to Congress that 'nonprofit groups such as those referenced in the training slides are not terrorist groups and should not be described as such in army documents or training materials. The slides do not represent the official policy or views of the U.S. Army.'"