This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – Israel is reportedly on the verge of signing a U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement with Hezbollah, which could bring about a two-month pause in hostilities along the volatile Israeli-Lebanese border.
The proposed deal, still under negotiation, would involve the withdrawal of military forces from both sides and provide Israel with "significant relief" from the U.S. arms embargo currently limiting its access to critical weaponry.
Key elements of the ceasefire proposal
The ceasefire plan is a focal point for Israel's cabinet, which is set to convene to deliberate on its terms. According to White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, the agreement is "close" to being finalized, though significant points of contention remain unresolved.
One major sticking point is Israel's insistence on retaining the right to strike Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon, a provision that Lebanese officials have openly opposed. It's important to note the proposed ceasefire will be between Israel and Lebanon – it doesn't even mention Hezbollah.
Many people are concerned about the lack of specificity when it comes to referencing Hezbollah, which is often designated in the Orwellian language of "international speak" as a non-state actor; although it forms part of the Lebanese government, but does not constitute any part of Lebanon's army, and obviously takes no orders from it.
The Biden administration has positioned the agreement as a pathway to de-escalation while addressing Israel's concerns over Hezbollah's continued presence near the border. Reports indicate that U.S. President Joe Biden has personally assured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that approving the ceasefire would ease the restrictions imposed by the ongoing arms embargo.
Specifically, the embargo has delayed shipments of critical munitions, including approximately 20,000 MK-84 bombs, which are instrumental in Israel's operations against terrorist targets. Given the Congress already approved these shipments, it seems surprising that despite some Executive discretion, their being held up has not garnered a more robust response..
Israeli public figures, including prominent right-wing commentator Yinon Magal, have expressed frustration over the embargo, describing it as a significant impediment to national defense. Magal noted that the deal promises to provide Israel with "armaments, missiles, shells, and weapons" necessary for its security.
Israel Defense Forces officials assess the ceasefire could serve as an opportunity to regroup, rearm, and fortify the nation's defense capabilities.It will presumably offer Hezbollah a similar opportunity to restock some of its supplies from its main benefactor Iran, as well as other state and non-state actors.
The current state of hostilities
While diplomatic efforts continue, the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah remains intense. On Monday alone, Hezbollah launched 340 missiles and drones at Israel, causing injuries to 11 people and severe damage, particularly in the northern town of Nahariya, which took at least one direct hit. In retaliation, Israel has conducted significant airstrikes in Beirut and its environs, targeting identified Hezbollah strongholds in an effort to weaken the group's infrastructure before the ceasefire potentially takes effect.
As is almost always the case when there seems to be progress on a ceasefire, both sides appear to be attempting to maximize their strategic positions ahead of a potential truce. Hezbollah's actions reflect its determination to maintain pressure on Israel, while Israeli forces aim to diminish the group's capabilities to ensure a more secure environment if and when hostilities pause.
Disputed terms and remaining challenges
One of the most contentious issues in the negotiations is Israel's demand for the right to conduct future strikes in southern Lebanon if Hezbollah violates the ceasefire. Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon has emphasized Israel must retain this ability under any agreement. Lebanon has rejected this stance, raising concerns that such provisions could undermine the ceasefire's stability and lead to its collapse.
Western diplomats involved in brokering the deal have revealed Israel seeks guarantees regarding the removal of Hezbollah's weapons from the border area. This would not only reduce the immediate threat to northern Israeli communities but also enable the return of approximately 100,000 Israelis displaced by the conflict. Without such assurances, Israeli leaders fear that Hezbollah could quickly re-establish its military infrastructure, potentially launching devastating attacks reminiscent of the Oct. 7 assault. Indeed, northern municipal and civic leaders have voiced opposition to the ceasefire due to this very fear.
Lebanon, however, is resistant to certain Israeli demands, arguing they infringe upon Lebanese sovereignty. (They did not make the same distinction when Iran's powerful proxy Hezbollah overran much of their political and civic scene). The deputy speaker of Lebanon's Parliament, Elias Bou Saab, has suggested the deal could still falter if Netanyahu alters his position or if Hezbollah seeks to pin the blame for any breakdown on Israel.
Broader implications and geopolitical factors
The ceasefire negotiations are not occurring in isolation. They are deeply intertwined with broader regional dynamics involving Syria, Russia, and the United States. Reports from Israeli media suggest Israel is pressuring the U.S. to lift some sanctions on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in exchange for his cooperation in curbing arms smuggling to Hezbollah. Such a concession could also serve to appease Russia, a key Assad ally, which has been quietly supplying weapons to Hezbollah.
Israeli forces recently uncovered a cache of advanced Russian weaponry within Lebanon, underscoring the extent of Moscow's support for Hezbollah. This trove included modern anti-tank missiles and sophisticated rockets, raising alarms about the group's growing military capabilities.
Hezbollah, now led by Naim Qassem following the elimination of its former leader Hassan Nasrallah in an Israeli airstrike in late September, has publicly demanded a "complete and comprehensive end to aggression." However, its continued attacks on Israeli territory suggest a reluctance to disengage fully without significant concessions.
The path forward
As Israel's cabinet prepares to vote on the ceasefire proposal, the outcome remains uncertain. While the deal offers the potential for short-term relief from violence and an opportunity for Israel to bolster its defenses, unresolved issues could derail the agreement. Both sides remain wary, with Israel seeking assurances that its northern border will be secure and Lebanon striving to prevent further encroachments on its sovereignty.
The Biden administration, in its final weeks, is eager to finalize the agreement as a diplomatic achievement. A State Department spokesperson has confirmed "significant progress" has been made but acknowledged "we're not there yet." The administration's efforts to mediate a resolution reflect its broader goal of stabilizing the region, even as challenges persist.
Ultimately, the ceasefire's success will hinge on the willingness of both parties to compromise and adhere to its terms. Without mutual trust and concrete enforcement mechanisms, the risk of renewed violence remains high. As fighting continues, the window for diplomacy narrows, leaving both Israel and Hezbollah with critical decisions that will shape the future of the conflict.
Putting pressure on Hamas
Some commentators and analysts have wondered whether a ceasefire – even a relatively short one of 60 days – might increase the pressure on Hamas to come to the negotiating table for a similar deal.
Israel is still embroiled in a two-front war, although more of the attention is now focused on southern Lebanon and its fight with Hezbollah. However, there is still plenty of action around Jabaliya, for example, with Hamas terrorists either being eliminated or surrendering. The IDF is also still taking casualties in this arena.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Experts are sounding the alarm on China's increasingly aggressive trade deals in Latin America and South America as its ambition to become the world's largest economy has put the U.S. in a position where it must choose between the safety of Americans, and continued trade with China.
During an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, American journalist, lawyer, political commentator, and writer Gordan Chang said China has used its influence to make deals with trading partners who used to be considered "America's backyard."
"A lot of Americans consider Latin America, South America, to be America's backyard. Well, it's really China's backyard. You know, China is South America's largest trading partner. If it weren't for Mexican trade with the U.S., China would be Latin America's biggest partner," Chang said.
Chang noted trade between the U.S. and South America could be improved if the U.S. is willing to enter into more free trade agreements with the region, and further stated this would help the U.S. decouple from China.
"We can win back this region with trade. We only have one free trade agreement with Central America and three with South America. If we tie trade to the United States, what we can do is we can free ourselves from China. We can end the migrant crisis. We can shorten our supply chains and clean the air. So what's not to like?" Chang asked.
The deadly fentanyl coming across the southern border, which has increased exponentially during President Joe Biden's time in office, is something Chang says was intentional and fully supported by the Chinese Communist Party.
"Killing tens of thousands of Americans every year… this a Communist Party project. This is not just some Chinese criminals because the Communist Party knows and it approves it and they support it… and all across the board [they] help."
Chang pointed out it is important to acknowledge that the drugs coming across the border are China's project, because it is backing the intentional murder of Americans. He then noted the U.S. needs to start imposing some severe costs to China.
"At least 60% tariffs on Chinese goods. You do that, you cripple China. You do not give them the opportunity and the resources to go after and kill Americans (with) fentanyl, with COVID, with everything else," Chang noted.
The U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission recommends the U.S. toughen its trade relationship with China in its annual report to Congress. The Commission also wants the U.S. to end its permanent normal trade relationship with Beijing for the first time.
China currently gets accommodations through trade deals, because they continue to claim they are only an emerging economy, despite the fact China is the second largest economy in the entire world.
Bartiromo also questioned whether China is still "an emerging economy," and Chang noted China is obviously not an emerging economy, and further stated China should absolutely lose its normal trading relationship with the U.S. because it is using those deals to finance its military to one day fight against the U.S.
"That gives them basically everything that we give to everybody else. So it's reciprocity on steroids. The thing is, China uses all of this trade to develop its military, which is configured to kill Americans. They use it to support their fentanyl gangs. The list goes on and on."
While outwardly China has been talking about wanting "peace and prosperity" around the world, the reality is China is providing the means for other countries to wage war.
"They could not afford to assault us, would not be for our money, and by the way, you know Russia… couldn't continue the war in Ukraine without China's support. Iran could not have assaulted Israel without China's support. This is China behind all of these proxy wars, setting the world on fire, and we're financing it," Chang stressed.
China's economy is also on a "knife's edge," and while its economy continues to slump, China continues to build infrastructure like a massive high-speed rail system for future populations, when in fact, China's population has now dropped below recovery rates.
"They've got too much of everything. You know, the high speed rail line system, it is not economically viable on its own, and they're adding… more… They've got enough vacant apartments for 1.3 billion people. Basically they've got infrastructure for a country that is much larger than it actually is… [and] population is going to decline," Chang said.
China's population decline has been so dramatic over the past few decades due to the CCP's one-child policy, that it will likely never recover.
"By the end of this century, China probably will have only one-third the number of people that it has today. And I don't know how they're going to deal with this, because there's no solutions for them," Chang said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal program in which Drug Enforcement Administration agents unconstitutionally demanded to search travelers' luggage, without any probable cause a crime had been committed, has been suspended after the scheme was caught on video.
It is the Institute for Justice, which is fighting on behalf of victims of the program, that confirmed the government's abrupt flip-flop.
The institute confirmed, "Today, the Department of Justice suspended the Drug Enforcement Administration's controversial practice of having agents intercept travelers, interrogate them, and insist on searching their bags in what the agency calls 'consensual encounters.'"
The encounters are anything but consensual, as the video reveals one agent insisting that he is "the government" and can confiscate a traveler's backpack and take it away – to some unknown location – for a search.
The victim in this case explained on video that he was very concerned that the agent would take the backpack, and then plant evidence in it.
The institute said the suspension "comes on the heels of an Office of the Inspector General report, also issued today, that criticizes the practice and refers to the shocking footage of one traveler's experience, which the Institute for Justice (IJ) released on YouTube in July."
"Today's OIG report confirms what we've been saying for years about predatory DEA practices at airports, and the allegations in our nationwide class-action lawsuit against DEA over these abuses," said IJ lawyer Dan Alban.
"We welcome DOJ's suspension of this program as a first step, but policy directives can be changed at any time, under this or future administrations. We call on Congress to pass the FAIR Act to permanently reform federal civil forfeiture laws to end the profit incentive, close the equitable sharing loophole, and guarantee every property owner receives their day in court by ending so-called administrative forfeitures."
The institute said it currently is suing the DEA and the Transportation Security Administration over the airport seizure and confiscation programs they operate.
The case is on behalf of several travelers and a class of people who have had their property seized, and it currently is in the discovery phase gathering evidence.
The IG report cited the evidence that the DEA was refusing to comply with even its policies on consensual encounters at airports.
That failure, the IG confirmed, was creating "potentially significant operational and legal risks."
Among the failings was that the DEA operatives were refusing to complete required documentation about their actions, and had failed to obtain the proper training.
The OG continued with criticism of DEA's "absence of critical controls, such as adequate policies, guidance, training, and data collection," because that creates "substantial risks" that officers "will conduct these activities improperly, impose unwarranted burdens on, and violate the legal rights of innocent travelers."
The IG noted that when the report was given to a deputy attorney general, a directive was issued to the DEA to halt its practices.
Further, the IG noted that concerns about complaints about such activities date back decades.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Leftists across the Washington, D.C., landscape are erupting in outrage, including at least one death threat on video, by a plan from a female lawmaker that would have men in Congress use restrooms and locker rooms designated for men.
And not the facilities provided for women.
The war has been sparked by the pending arrival of U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride, a Delaware Democrat, who was born Tim McBride but now styles himself as a woman.
"Sarah McBride doesn't get a say in this," Mace said. "This is a biological man trying to force himself into women's spaces, and I'm not going to tolerate."
Her plan would adjust House rules to prohibit men who say they are women from using women's bathrooms and other facilities on Capitol Hill.
House Speaker Mike Johnson admitted it's a brand new problem for Congress and then said it would be addressed "in deliberate fashion with member consensus on it, and we will accommodate the needs of every single person."
One transgender activist responded by threatening to brutally murder Mace in a online video.
"Congresswoman Nancy Mace, I hope that one day I do find you in that women's bathroom and I grab your ratty looking f***ing hair and drag your face down to the floor while I repeatedly bash and until the blood's everywhere and you're dead," the trans person said.
"Thank you. I hope that Nancy Mace received this message well. Kisses."
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said, "There's a man pretending to be a woman coming to Congress in January who expects to use the same restrooms as little girls visiting the Capitol. I consider it assault for a man to charge into places that are designated specifically for women. Restrooms are a place where women are vulnerable. It's mentally ill for a man to think he should be allowed there."
Mace has proposed a two-page resolution to limit House members, officers and employees to using single-sex facilities that correspond with their biological sex.
She suggested a House rules change could be possible, but without that she'll bring it up on the House floor.
She explains letting men into women's restrooms and more "jeopardizes the safety and dignity" of females in the Capitol complex.
Mace explained, "This is just the start. I want to make sure that no men are in women's private spaces. And it's not going to end here. This shouldn't be going on any federal property. If you're a school or an institution that gets government funding, this kind of thing should be banned."
CBS reported McBride responded by attacking "far right-wing extremists."
He said they were raising the issue because "they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing. We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and child care, not manufacturing culture wars."
Transgenderism repeatedly has taken the headlines since the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration made it one of the top priorities for American government, which now has imposed even on the world stage its ideological campaign.
Mace then noted that the "radical left" is "trying to erase women."
The Washington Examiner reported at least one Democrat lawmaker turned vulgar over the problem.
"I just don't understand why bathrooms are top of mind for [Mace]," Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., said. "But she wants to think about where a future member is gonna p— and s—* like I don't — I don't understand."
The social behavior campaign by the Democrats was front and center during the 2024 election, a landslide won by President-elect Donald Trump and Republican majorities in the U.S. Senate and House.
The report noted Trump criticized Vice President Kamala Harris in ads leading up to the election while multiple GOP lawmakers attacked their Democratic counterparts for supporting transgender athletes' participation in female sports.
There was no limit to the hate that was unleashed against Mace because of her plan, with the New Republican using words like "vile," a specialty magazine accusing her of "harassing" McBride, and another accusing her of picking "a fight."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Social media companies have become a "cartel" for suppressing information with which they disagree, and that agenda now is going to be getting the attention of Brendan Carr, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to be the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
It was social media companies who played a role in promoting the wild and now-debunked claims of "Russia collusion" created by Democrats during Trump's first campaign. They also were part of the suppression campaign that left Americans in the dark during the 2020 race about Biden family scandals documented in Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop.
During the 2024 race they amplified false claims by Democrats like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton that Trump was a "Hitler" and democracy would die on the day he was elected.
Now there may come a reckoning.
The New York Post reports that Carr has labeled Big Tech corporations a "censorship cartel" to eliminate speech of which they do not approve.
Trump has described Carr as a "warrior for free speech" and announced him as his pick to lead the agency.
Carr, only days before the decision announcement, had sent letters to Sundar Pichai of Google, Satya Nadella of Microsoft, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta and Tim Cook of Apple, demanding information about how the firms have dealt with NewsGuard, a for-profit "fact-checking" scheme that routinely claims that conservative outlets are more "risky" than those outlets that promote a leftist agenda.
Carr explained, "Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft & others have played central roles in the censorship cartel. The Orwellian named NewsGuard along with 'fact checking' groups & ad agencies helped enforce one-sided narratives."
The tech chieftains were told to respond to the FCC by Dec. 10 on which of their products or services "partner with NewsGuard and whether they require online customers to rely on NewsGuard while using their services," the report explained.
At issue could be Section 230 of federal law, which right now protects those corporations from liability over statements their users post on the tech sites.
Carr specifically points out that those protections apply only if companies are operating in "good faith."
Further, he referenced an ongoing review of those tech site ideologies and agendas by the House Oversight Committee.
At least one member of NewsGuard's "advisory committee" was among those who signed the "infamous October 2020 letter" from former intelligence community officials that falsely claimed details in Hunter Biden's laptop were Russian disinformation.
NewsGuard has claimed it has nothing to do with blocking of speech.
But Zuckerberg already has admitted to Congress his company was pressured by the Biden administration into censoring content.
He told the House Judiciary Committee that Biden administration officials, including the White House, repeatedly "pressured" Meta to suppress information it disliked.
"This censorship cartel is an affront to Americans' constitutional freedoms and must be completely dismantled," Carr's letter charged. "Americans must be able to reclaim their right to free speech."
A report from Just the News noted that Carr also promised to work to end the agency's advocacy for the "diversity, equity, and inclusion" agenda.
He explained, "The FCC's most recent budget request said that promoting DEI was the agency's second-highest strategic goal. Starting next year, the FCC will end its promotion of DEI."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Voters across America already may be familiar with the case of Douglass Mackey, known online as Ricky Vaughn, who in 2016 went to social media with a joke about voting for Hillary Clinton in that year's presidential election by text message.
It was, actually, just an updated version of an election meme that's been around for years. Depending on the political persuasion, it has appeared before as "Democrats vote on Tuesday, Republicans on Wednesday," or vice versa.
But authorities failed to see Mackey's humor, charged him with election interference, specifically., "conspiring with others in advance of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election to use various social media platforms to disseminate misinformation designed to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote."
Prosecutors claimed someone "might" have believed it. He was convicted and handed a jail term although he took that to the appeals court.
Now there have been at least two similar stunts during the 2024 election, won in a landslide by President-elect Donald Trump.
But authorities seem interested in neither.
The Daily Caller outlined the latest event: The left-wing AllVote which sent text messages to voters telling them they'd already voted.
That message was: "Records show you voted. Find where to vote early by on-demand mail ballot."
The report explained, "The same Justice Department that threw a pro-Trump memesmith in prison for 'election misinformation' is currently nowhere to be found after a left-wing group sent false election information to untold numbers of swing state voters."
The leftists later sent another text apologizing for the "error."
AllVote claimed it did not intend to mislead.
The report noted, "The DOJ has not prosecuted or made a statement on AllVote, though at least one state official raised a red flag. A government official in New Mexico said the texts are 'something that the feds really need to look at and crack down on.'"
The report pointed out the Eastern District of New York U.S. Attorney's Office and the Illinois Attorney General's Office did not respond to questions about an investigation or prosecution.
The Daily Caller said, "Their silence contrasts sharply to the federal government's efforts to punish Mackey. Mackey was arrested by the FBI in Florida in 2021 for allegedly conspiring to interfere in the 2016 presidential election."
Further, the report noted, leftist Kristina Wong also in 2016 posted a video telling Trump supporters to vote by text or "vote tomorrow on Super Wednesday."
She was not charged.
WND also reported when a television entertainer, Jimmy Kimmel, told Republican voters to vote late, on Thursday or Friday after the election this year.
He begged his audience: "If you want to vote for Trump, vote late. Vote very late. Do your voting on Thursday or maybe Friday."
RedState reported, "The Department of Justice must immediately act upon this blatant criminal behavior. Kimmel, whose comedy has all the freshness of a bottle of Centrum Silver, used a 20-minute opening monologue to disparage former President Donald Trump and his supporters. The crux of his diatribe – Republicans should not vote for Trump.
"Unfortunately, his on-camera descent into madness culminated with a very specific criminal act. It was documented for everyone to see. On tape, archived forever."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats have been left reeling by a long list of names that President-elect Donald Trump has announced he will nominate for key posts: Elon Musk to address government efficiency, Pete Hegseth for Defense, Tulsi Gabbard as director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe for CIA, Mike Huckabee for Ambassador to Israel, Marco Rubio as secretary of State, Tom Homan as Border Czar, Lee Zeldin at the EPA, Elise Stefanik to the United Nations.
But there's one nominee who has not only alarmed Democrats but raised eyebrows – and concerns – from Republicans and other conservatives.
Matt Gaetz, for attorney general.
Hair-pulling outrage from the left was expected and appeared immediately:
But groups like Liberty Counsel, which has been on the cutting edge of a long list of legal fights for conservatives and Christians, openly doubted the pick.
It issued a statement describing Gaetz as "neither morally nor professionally qualified" for the position.
It pointed out he has three years or less experience in the practice of law, "hardly enough to serve as the nation's chief law enforcement officer." Then is cited suspicions that have clouded Gaetz for months already as the House Ethics committee reviewed claims against him concerning sex and drug activities.
In fact, he resigned from Congress as soon as his nomination was announced, "ending the Ethics probe into his sex parties that includes allegations of paying an underage girl for sex."
And his "close association with former Seminole Country Tax Collector, Joel Greenburg, adds to these serious allegations," the statement said. "Greenburg is now serving time in prison for using his position for illegal gain and arranging sex parties for his friends, including Gaetz."
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver stated, "President-elect Donald Trump has quickly named many good choices to serve in his cabinet. But Matt Gaetz is not one of them. The nomination of Matt Gaetz as attorney general is shocking and disappointing to those who have followed this man and the lurid scandals and serious allegations of sex parties and drugs during his tenure in the U.S. Congress. The resignation of Gaetz immediately after his name surfaced for attorney general is inexplicable except for the fact this resignation now ends the U.S. House Ethics probe. Obviously, Gaetz does not want America to know the result of the Ethics investigation. Matt Gaetz has neither the experience nor the moral character to serve as the highest law enforcement officer of the United States of America. Gaetz should do President Trump and all of America a favor and withdraw his name from consideration. This will save him considerable embarrassment. America deserves better."
Fox News reported that one Republican senator, "granted anonymity to speak freely," confirmed, "He will never get confirmed."
Gaetz had expressed, on social media, he considered it an honor to serve as attorney general, but did not address GOP concerns.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told reporters, "I think we have to consider any nominee by the president seriously, but we also have a constitutional responsibility."
Ethics committee chair Rep. Michael Guest, R-Miss., confirmed that Gaetz's resignation means his committee now "has no jurisdiction."
"He's under investigation by the House Committee on Ethics," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, noted. "Obviously, the president has the right to nominate whomever he wishes, but this is why the background checks that are done by the FBI and the advice and consent process in the Senate, and public hearings are also important."
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said Gaetz "will go through the nomination process just like everyone else."
"Due diligence" is what Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said will be applied by the Senate to the nomination.
The Daily Caller News Foundation noted CNN political commentator Scott Jennings said Trump "is feeling his power" with the appointment.
Trump's announcement said Gaetz would "end Weaponized Government, protect our Borders, dismantle Criminal Organizations, and restore Americans' badly-shattered Faith and Confidence in the Justice Department."
Jennings explained, "It is apparent to me that Trump is in a decisive mood and is not someone who's interested in picking things that he would consider to be watered down."
The foundation also reported Democrats are claiming that Gaetz would make the DOJ an arm of the White House, "designed to prosecute Trump's political enemies."
Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy called Gaetz unqualified.
"Matt Gaetz is being nominated for one reason and one reason only. Because he will implement Donald Trump's transition of the Department of Justice from an agency that stands up for all of us to an agency that is simply an arm of the White House designed to persecute and prosecute Trump's political enemies," Murphy said.
Vice President-elect JD Vance took that argument and turned it around against Joe Biden's AG, Merrick Garland.
The Gateway Pundit noted that 20 Republican senators actually voted to confirm "lawless radical Merrick Garland."
But at least two of those, the report said, now have indicated they cannot support Gaetz.
"RINO Senators Murkowski and Collins, who shamefully supported Merrick Garland in 2021, now claim they won't vote for Matt Gaetz," the report said.
"Garland oversaw the historic legal assaults on former President Donald Trump and his supporters. Garland and Joe Biden also approved the unprecedented raid on President Trump's home in August 2022."
Some GOP senators were open to listening:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A columnist from the Independence Institute in Colorado is mocking the state's Democrat-majority legislature and Democrat governor for joining a scheme – without approval from voters – that this year would have given all the leftist state's 10 Electoral College votes to President-elect Donald Trump, a Republican.
The state's voters, by a 12% margin, this year wanted Kamala Harris in the White House.
But the National Popular Vote Compact, joined because Democrats in state government wanted it that way, would have sent all the state's support to Trump.
The compact is a Constitution-avoiding idea in which states agree to give all their votes to the winner of the national popular vote, the totaling of state election votes for each candidate.
Adopted when Democrats routinely won that total, even if they lost the Electoral College count that decides the presidency, states with about 200 votes already have joined the scheme, which is untested yet in the courts.
But the deal doesn't "take effect" until the states have a total 270 Electoral College votes or more, enough to win.
It is columnist Jon Caldara who has written at Complete Colorado about how the strategizing by Democrats to push their candidates has gone astray, as Trump collected millions more votes this year than Harris.
"I have a question for the majority of Coloradans who didn't want him as president: How do you feel about Colorado's 10 Electoral College votes going to President-elect Trump instead of Vice President Kamala Harris?" he taunted. "Voters of our hardcore blue state despise Trump and came out in very large numbers to voice their hatred of the man. And yet, our 10 electoral votes from Colorado will go to…Trump."
He continued, "So, you with Trump Derangement Syndrome, is this what you wanted? California might hate him even more than us, but their 54 electoral votes will also be going to elect Trump. So will the Trump-phobic states of New York (28 electoral votes), Illinois (19), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Maine (4), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Connecticut (7), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New Mexico (5), Oregon (8), Washington (12) and the District of Columbia (3)."
This, he explained, "is the version of America our Democrat-controlled legislature and Gov. Jared Polis have signed us up for."
He pointed out that the compact has voters' will being ignored, and their support going "as voters in other states dictate."
"Those who supported the idea of the national popular vote must now imagine their self-made dystopian future where their own presidential electors are forced to vote for the maniacal, misogynistic, fascist, democracy-destroying, tyrant-loving Donald Trump," he ribbed.
He pointed out the supporters of the compact mostly are "urban progressives," but are part of the "win-at-all-costs coalition (who) have conveniently forgotten their high school civics lesson that we are not a country run by a federal government. Rather, we are 50 semi-sovereign states who send representatives to the federal government to work for us."
He suggested they might not have realized before that their "invention could be a godsend for dangerous populists."
"NPV fanatics, who almost uniformly hate Trump, may begin to realize their scheme would empower the very monsters they despise. If their compact was in effect this year, the Trump-loathing states that have signed on would be forced to give their collective 197 electoral votes to Trump. Kamala would be left with only 30 sad, lonely votes. Sweet Poetry," he warned.
He pointedly noted that Colorado voters never approved the scheme; it was pushed by a "progressive" legislature and signed by a "progressive governor."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Justin Welby, for more than a decade the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Church of England, has announced his resignation after some 11,000 church followers signed a petition demanding his departure.
The issue was his failure to make sure that allegations of child sex abuse at church events were investigated properly.
He was appointed to his present post in 2013, becoming the 105th person to hold that title. Before then he was canon of Coventry Cathedral, dean of Liverpool and bishop of Durham.
He already was under fire for deviating from the church's historic and traditional teachings on sexual ethics.
But his fate was determined by the Makin Review report, which found he "held a personal and moral responsibility" to make certain a long list of child sex abuse cases were investigated properly, and he failed.
He confirmed, in a statement he released, "The Makin Review has exposed the long-maintained conspiracy of silence about the heinous abuses of John Smyth. When I was informed in 2013 and told that police had been notified, I believed wrongly that an appropriate resolution would follow."
Authorities confirm an estimated 130 boys at Christian holiday camps were abused during the 1970s and 1980s.
The petition, from general synod members, had collected more than 11,000 signatures insisting that he leave.
He earlier was criticized for claiming that church ethics required sexual activity be within a "committed relationship," whether that was "straight or gay."
The Bible clearly condemns without conditions homosexual behavior.
Welby said, "As I step down I do so in sorrow with all victims and survivors of abuse. The last few days have renewed my long felt and profound sense of shame at the historic safeguarding failures of the Church of England."
The Christian Institute explained, "The appointment process is expected to take at least six months, as it involves public consultation before the Crown Nominations Commission presents its preferred candidate to the Prime Minister, who then advises King Charles to appoint them."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new report at RedState is warning that leftists and others suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome across America have descended so far into the abyss that even John Hinckley, who once tried to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, is telling them to get a grip.
Hinckley already had commented weeks ago:
Explained the RedState report, "How far gone do you have to be to try and enlist a former attempted assassin to take out the new President-elect — and he's telling you to get a grip? Hinckley's comments indicate enough of an onslaught of requests that it needed to be mentioned."
It's fact that Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats and their leaders repeatedly have called President-elect Donald Trump "Hitler" over recent months and years. The leftist media has joined in the campaign.
The report noted, "And it's incredibly troublesome considering Democrat rhetoric over the past several months has already led to two attempts on Trump's life — one of which came within a centimeter of killing him and plunging the nation into irreparable chaos."
An NBC affiliate explained Hinckley went to social media to try to end the leftist agenda.
One commenter, whose goals clearly raised the question about whether the Secret Service should be tracking down these people and arresting them, said, "Just one last job, John."
Hinckley was taken into custody for the 1981 assassination attempt, apparently in a deluded scheme to impress actress Jodie Foster.
He spent more than three decades in custody, in therapy, and was released in 2022 to pursue a career in music.
Commenters approached him with, "You know what Jodie Foster would think is REALLY impressive?" and another added, "Oh I'm sorry, it's just I didn't think you were a QUITTER is all…. Jodie Foster will not be impressed."
RedState explained, "While most would be hoping for a post-election de-escalation of the violent rhetoric, Hinckley at least, seems to be indicating the crazies are still lurking out there. With Democrats relentlessly bashing Trump as a dictator representing the end of democracy and equating him to Hitler, who killed millions upon millions, it doesn't seem far-fetched that somebody might want to stop him from taking office in January.