This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An ethics and accountability organization is calling for a special investigation into U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia, for a sweetheart deal he enjoys: A $1 million luxury home bought for him about the time he was elected and to which he has complete access.
Without paying rent.
It is the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust that charges that Warnock is living rent-free in a home that Ebenezer Baptist Church bought in 2022 for $989,000 just as he was elected to the Senate, but he "has not included any information about being provided housing on his financial disclosure report."
He does report an annual "income" from the church of just under what the Senate determined is a maximum amount a senator can "earn" from an outside source, a limit that was about $32,000 in 2023.
In a letter to Sen James Lankford, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, the organization said, "The rules which allow for a senator to accept lodging or housing are only applicable in a narrow set of circumstances—they are not an open-ended loophole that can be abused. Aside from the letter of the law laid out here, which is extremely clear and persuasive, this is a matter of plain common sense.
"It is difficult to fathom any citizen could look at this situation (a U.S. senator being a part-time employee of an organization that happens to buy him a million-dollar house to live in for free after he was elected to Congress, and after which he sells his own house) and not think something potentially very wrong is afoot. One must ask, if the laws written do not prohibit this particular situation or, at a bare minimum, at least merit a mere investigation, then what were they even written for? It is inarguable that the known facts do not appear to comply with the Senate ethics rules."
Implicated in the situation are ethics rules and conflicts of interest, and corruption.
"Senators must conduct themselves according to the Senate Ethics Rules and the Senate 'may discipline a member for any misconduct, including conduct or activity which does not directly relate to official duties, when such conduct unfavorably reflects on the institution as a whole.' One theme throughout federal law and Senate Ethics rules is that members may not generally accept anything of value unless an identified exception applies, and if they do accept something it must be disclosed to the public. These laws address both conflicts of interest and corruption of members of Congress. Senator Warnock's acceptance of lavish housing and failure to disclose it implicates federal law and several Senate rules," the complaint explained.
A report at the Free Beacon noted that the free home for Warnock, "came equipped with a plethora of luxury accommodations, including a 100-bottle wine fridge, a bluetooth-enabled cooking range, and remote-controlled privacy curtains."
The complaint noted the free home is "a great deal for Warnock, but it may violate Senate ethics rules that limit how much lawmakers can accept from outside employment."
"This is a matter of plain common sense," FACT executive director Kendra Arnold said in the complaint.
Possible standards being violated include the Ethics in Government Act.
Arnold explained the salary, plus the free housing appear to be "excessive and unreasonable for the services he is actually performing."
The Free Beacon explained, "Arnold's belief that Warnock's housing benefit is excessive is shared by Dr. Albert Paul Brinson, a former associate of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who was ordained at Ebenezer Baptist Church by the civil rights icon in 1965. Brinson said during an interview with a local activist in March that King 'would have never endorsed' church funds being used to facilitate luxury living for its pastor. Brinson said Ebenezer Baptist Church's housing allowance was designed to provide modest accommodations for its pastors."
The report also pointed out that the church itself was involved in a scandal over housing and its costs, when, while underwriting Warnock's living arrangements, officials there "tried to evict residents during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic for as little as $28.55 in past-due rent" from a low-income apartment building the church owns.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The legal team at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, during the Joe Biden administration, took on the United States Department of Agriculture for programs that were race-based, and ended up injuring those of the wrong race.
But the problems were not eradicated, and the legal team now is confirming that Wisconsin dairy farmer Adam Faust is telling the feds to fix the rest, or be sued again.
The issue is that the programs violate both the U.S. Constitution and President Donald Trump's executive orders from earlier this year.
They are similar to the fight handled by WILL under Biden.
"If not corrected within 60 days, a federal lawsuit will be filed on Mr. Faust's behalf against the Trump administration," the legal team's report said.
Deputy counsel Dan Lennington explained, "The Trump administration has taken some commendable steps to root out race discrimination in many agencies, but we have a long way to go. Millions of farmers face economic uncertainty, from unpredictable weather to rising input costs, all of which are far beyond their control, only then to be punished economically because of their race. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and it's time for it to stop once and for all. The clock is ticking, and we won't hesitate to take the Trump administration to court to protect farmers from race discrimination."
The team's client, Faust, said, "USDA offers important resources for dairy farmers, including margin coverage, loan guarantees, and grants. But it is outrageous that some farmers get a better deal based on race. I am hopeful the Trump administration will change course and fix these discriminatory programs."
Faust runs a dairy in Chilton, Wis., and like millions of other American farmers, is a white male.
He successfully sued the Biden administration for race discrimination in the Farmer Loan Forgiveness Program, in which a federal court held that granting loan forgiveness only to "socially disadvantaged farmers" was, in fact, unconstitutional race discrimination.
Congress eventually repealed that scheme.
But the USDA still is "running over two dozen race-based programs that unconstitutionally discriminate against farmers and ranchers every day," WILL said.
Among those is the discriminatory Dairy Margin Coverage Administrative Fee.
That "offers financial assistance when the margin between the milk price and the average feed cost falls below a coverage level chosen by the producer. All 'socially disadvantaged farmers' are exempt from the fee. USDA regulations define this phrase to include only the following racial groups: American Indians or Alaskan Natives, Asians or Asian Americans, Blacks or African Americans, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, and women," WILL said.
Others include the Loan Guarantee Program and the Environmental Quality Incentive Program.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Witness: 'It's a bit scary actually, because I physically saw he had weapons and I don't know what his state of mind is'
Even in blue cities where leaders advocate for defunding police forces, residents still expect the cops to arrest people acting threateningly in a public place, especially if the suspect has a knife in his pants and tries to pepper-spray law enforcement officers.
That's why residents of Portland, Oregon, are concerned about city police recently getting into an hours-long standoff with a seemingly crazed man … and then deciding to leave the scene with the armed man still lurking in the area.
This scenario occurred Monday evening when a woman in a Northwest Portland neighborhood called 9-1-1 to report a suspicious character acting strangely.
After an hour, and no police had responded, she called a friend to help her close her office and leave the neighborhood safely.
Later, officers from the Portland Police Bureau arrived on the scene, according to a report by KPTV Fox 12.
Officers tried to take the suspect, brandishing a knife and attempting to pepper-spray them, into custody using a taser and by firing non-lethal rounds at the suspect. Neither of those options had any effect on the man, a police commander said in a report.
Commander Brian Hughes said, "In this case, we had to weigh all the things going on, the potential to injure the suspect himself, the potential to injure officers, and what we deployed here was a third technique of de-escalation."
Such de-escalation looked more like abandonment by many of the Portlanders who were patronizing shops and restaurants in the area.
After getting shot at, the suspect ran into a crowd of people dining outside. That is when officers switched to de-escalation tactics, reported the television station. A crisis negotiator was brought in to talk to the suspect for more than two hours.
"One of the key results was they were learning from the gentleman was that he was not a threat to the public. He had no intention of harming anyone in the area. As an organization you have to take in all those factors when we decide whether or not to use force," Hughes said.
After the decision not to arrest the suspect and leaving the scene, police said Tuesday they'd try to make an arrest at a later time "without putting others in danger."
"It was strange nothing really happened and they left and the guy hung out here for a while," said Scott Rivera, proprietor of Scottie's Pizza Parlor.
Added the woman who called 911, identified only as Michelle: "It's a bit scary actually, because I physically saw he had weapons and I don't know what his state of mind is. Yes, he could be going through something but I don't feel safe and I don't know why he was just left here by police."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court in Illinois has ruled that the zoning rules in the city of Rockford do not allow an abortion industry representative to set up its corporate activities inside a residential neighborhood.
The fight involves residents and homeowners who objected to the move by abortionist Dennis Christensen, his corporation, Rockford, and its Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Thomas More Society represented the residents and homeowners.
Peter Breen, society head of litigation, explained, "The court's ruling sends a crystal-clear message: zoning laws exist to protect our communities, and they must be enforced fairly and consistently, even when they impact the abortion industry.
"The court has exposed the Rockford Zoning Board's flawed reasoning and upheld the rule of law, ensuring that businesses, even abortion businesses, cannot ignore the laws and may not set up shop wherever they want, including in the middle of quiet family neighborhoods filled with young children."
The ruling is from the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District.
The decision confirmed both Rockford officials and a lower court erred in allowing an abortion business to move into a residential neighborhood by calling itself a "home business."
Christensen and his abortion corporation Rockford Family Planning Center 2022 sought to convert a residential property, which originally allowed a homeowner to operate a home business. into an abortion business.
The ruling cited a long list of significant variances between the abortion business and the prior chiropractor's home business, including that Christensen's new business is not a "home business."
Plaintiffs included Shawn and Lisa Rylatt who challenged the scheme for its rules violations, noise, and reduced property values.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats in Maine are arguing in court they can decide which lawmakers can vote in the legislature, essentially that an elected lawmaker has no right to vote there because of her conservative views on transgenderism, even though a majority of the state's residents support her perspective, not that of the leftists in the legislature.
The startling and extremist claim was made by Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey, a far leftist who has been trying to get the courts to dismiss a First Amendment fight brought by Rep. Laurel Libby, a Republican who was deprived of her constitutional right to vote by majority Democrats because she criticized their agenda to promote transgenderism.
Frey, a Democrat, claimed while failing to get the case dismissed.
According to the Washington Stand, Frey demanded, "Rep. Libby does not have a First Amendment right to vote, as a legislator, on any particular piece of legislation."
He claimed that the state House can "discipline" its members any way it wants.
WND reported that "discipline" was by Democrats who stripped the elected Republican lawmaker of her right to speak in the legislature, or to vote there.
The fight blew up into the headlines when President Donald Trump said the federal government's position is that there are two genders, male and female, and males should not be in women's sports.
Maine Gov. Janet Mills publicly defied the president, prompting the federal government to begin withholding federal funds to Maine, as well as federal investigations into possibly federal law violations by the state.
The fight has left Maine in "noncompliance with Title IX," and a poll by the University of New Hampshire showed 64% of the state's residents say transgender athletes "definitely should not" or "probably should not" participate in girls' and women's sports.
Libby meanwhile, sued the Democrats in the state legislature for censoring her because of her views.
House Democrats in the state have claimed that his Democrat party had to "punish" Libby for her beliefs.
The case is being heard by Judge Melissa Dubose of Rhode Island, because one of the transgender athlete's parents works in the federal court system in Maine, creating a conflict of interest in the case for that entire network.
The report explained Assistant Attorney General Kimberly Patwardhan told the court that Libby's representation of her constituents is unaltered, even though she cannot express their opinions on issues, measures, and laws.
Libby has charged the Democrats, in fact, are depriving all of her constituents of their right to be represented in the lawmaking body.
Free speech advocates say the case should be an easy victory for Libby.
"There is little question the House majority targeted Rep. Libby because of her viewpoint," said a filing from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Democrats there, in fact, are doing "an end-run around the super-majoritarian provisions of the Maine Constitution" and "an egregious violation of the First Amendment."
Democrats insist they can disenfranchise all of the voters in Libby's district when they choose.
Libby had posted an image of a boy who calls himself a girl winning a girls' state championship on Facebook.
"District 90 now stands voiceless on the House floor — unable to vote, unable to speak, and unable to be represented on matters ranging from an $11 billion state budget to local priorities impacting working families. The inability to speak to that legislation, especially in the minority, where it may not change the outcome but can at least register the opinion of my district, is crucial." Libby charged.
FIRE also pointed out that, as often happens, Democrats have not consistently applied the same standard being used to attack Libby to all.
Legislators took no action against Rep. Vicki Doudera (D-41) after she shared the name and photo of an underage chess champion on social media, the report noted.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
New, or expanding, investors in America now include Apple, Eli Lilly, Stargate, the United Arab Emirates, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and more.
Trillions of dollars are now involved.
That's according to a report by Fox Business that explains Trump has revealed some $7 trillion in investment income that is arriving in the U.S.
"We have, I would say, more than $7 trillion now … of investments coming in," Trump said on Wednesday. "Apple is coming in for $500 billion alone. We have other companies coming in with massive numbers. We have car companies that are coming in. No, we've never seen anything like it, maybe in the 1940s or '50s or something, but we've never seen anything like it."
Officials actually have said some of the amounts that have been committed actually will rise as projects progress.
"For instance, Stargate, a project by Softbank, OpenAI and Oracle that involves the establishment of data centers for the further development of artificial intelligence, has committed $500 billion. Apple also committed $500 billion, according to the data from the White House official. Computing and electronics giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) has committed to a $100 billion investment in the U.S., and NVIDIA is in for $200 billion," the report explained.
The totals have changed several times as new commitments have been confirmed.
Other commitments have come from Hyundai, $20 billion, Venture Global, $18 billion, Johnson & Johnson, $55 billion.
The higher numbers are from nations, with $1.4 trillion from the UAE, $1 trillion from Japan, Saudi Arabia's $600 billion and India's $310 billion, the White House said.
"It's great to see companies looking to make strategic investments within the United States. We look forward to working with the administration to reduce regulatory burdens to spur further investments," said Jordan Crenshaw, of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Chamber Technology Engagement Center.
A report at RedState expanded, "On Wednesday, the White House released data showing that since January (what was it that happened in January?) $7 trillion in private investment has been committed to come to the United States. That's $7 trillion – A 'T' followed by a 'rillion.' That's real money."
It added, "Note that a lot of the companies involved are from other countries or do much of their production in other countries. Now, of course, all of this is contingent on the companies following through – actually breaking ground and building new facilities, for instance. But if half of them follow through, that's still $3.5 trillion. That's $3.5 trillion invested in on-shore production that will create jobs, generate tax revenue, revive struggling communities, and maybe, just maybe, start the resurrection of America's dwindling middle class."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump's tariffs on imports from other nations, announced to be reciprocal to what those nations charge to import American products, are having a wide range of effects.
They're intended to level the playing field so that America is not paying extraordinarily high costs to sell products in other nations, yet giving products from those nations free access to American consumers, likely the biggest retail market in the world.
Those charges have just kicked in, and some nations already are approaching American officials about negotiating for a resolution that would equalize the system.
Others, like China, have responded with higher tariffs for American products.
But American Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has explained to Tucker Carlson that China cannot win that battle.
"We are the debtor nation, we have the trade deficit," he said. "The surplus nation is in the weaker position, because of the Chinese business model, and Tucker by the way the Chinese business model and the economy are the most unbalanced, imbalanced in the history of the modern world. We've never seen anything like this in terms of their export level relative to their GDP relative to their population.
"It is going to be very difficult for them to try to change the model….. they're in a deflationary, recessionary depression right now. They are trying to export their way out of it, and we can't let them do that."
Essentially, China's economy is built largely on the revenue it gets from selling products to America and Americans.
That production is too large for its own population, and Bessent compared it to the tale of the "Sorcerer's Apprentice," in which a magic spell goes awry and a magician's helper sets in motion a spell that he cannot control or stop, and it continues doing the same chore, carrying a bucket of water, to injurious ends.
Bessent said, "That's their business model, it's not going to stop."
He said it likely will take some time, but the goal is for Americans to consume less and produce more, and Chinese to consume more and produce less.
There still would be "rivalry," he said, but on a level playing field.
He warned China cannot survive without America's markets.
Tariff announcements have been at the 10% rate, 24%, 50%, 84,% and even 104%. As a result, markets worldwide have been in turmoil for several days. Experts predict that ultimately there will be agreements that will stabilize international trade at a more equal level.
Bessent also explained in another interview, "It's unfortunate that the Chinese actually don't want to come and negotiate because they are the worst offenders in the international trading system. I can tell you that this escalation is a LOSER for them.
"They have some very smart economists, academicians, technocrats within their bureaucracy and they would be telling the leadership that we do not have the edge here.
"Their exports to the U.S. are five times our exports to China, so they can raise their tariffs, but – so what?"
A report at Revolver said, "President Trump isn't just talking about taking on the globalists—he's actually doing it. While every other politician over-promises and under-delivers, Trump is putting America first where it counts: in a full-blown economic war with China. With a jaw-dropping 104% tariff, Trump is officially resetting the so-called 'Great Reset.'"
It said, "This is a fight that must happen if we truly want to Make America Great Again. We lost our edge because globalism hollowed us out. Now, Trump is putting the fight right back in their faces, and he's not bluffing. He's bringing 'The Art of the Deal' to the global stage—and according to our own Treasury Secretary, it's a fight China simply can't win."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The full impact of the open borders agenda by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris may never fully be known.
But the details are starting to come out.
According to President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, it found, "that immigration gave a work authorization document to illegals just five months after they filed for asylum. That document allowed them to work while they waited to hear whether their asylum requests were being accepted or denied. So, they could work as an illegal, knowing it would take YEARS before their case was heard. The immigration department mailed them a social security number. No interview. No proof of identity, just put it in the mail… …DOGE also discovered that 1.3 million aliens are now receiving Medicaid. MILLIONS received driver's licenses, some registered to vote and DOGE said some actually did vote."
A report at RedState explained, "Democrats love to portray themselves as the compassionate ones. They just want to help people, especially the poor and downtrodden. When you ask them about illegal immigration, they will tell you that these are just poor people looking for a better life for themselves and their families. That's why they were perfectly okay with a wide-open southern border and letting millions of people into the country. It was all about compassion. However, as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) continues to dig into the twisted story of America's finances, we are finding out that the compassion ruse is just that, another Democrat party scheme."
The report said, "Antonio Gracias is a DOGE official. He was recently interviewed on the 'All In' podcast and told the real story on illegal immigration during the Biden administration that Democrats told us was absolutely not happening.
"Gracias said that potentially millions of illegal immigrants who came into the country during the Biden administration have valid Social Security numbers. What Gracias describes is nothing short of an organized racket to import as many people as possible."
The report noted there was "no identification verification process" in place.
"The result: around 1.3 million illegal immigrants now receive Medicaid paid for by you, the taxpayer, and voilà, as an illegal immigrant, you will be grateful enough to keep voting Democrat in perpetuity."
Gracias even explained that illegals had, in fact, voted in U.S. elections.
"We looked at voter rolls and we found that thousands are registered to vote in friendly states. And we looked even further in those friendly states and found that many of those people had actually voted. It was shocking to us. If I hadn't seen this with my own eyes, I wouldn't believe it … it is shockingly bad. Included on those voter rolls were criminals and those who had names that matched ones on the federal Terror Watch List," the report confirmed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A prominent church leader in the United Kingdom is warning about a lawmaker's plan for what essentially would be a "national death service," the promotion of assisted suicide through the nation's medical community.
"Can MPs guarantee that no medical practitioner or care worker would be compelled to take part in assisted suicide? Would this mean the establishment of a 'national death service'?" asked Cardinal Vincent Nichols, president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales. His comments came in a letter urging Catholics to contact their lawmakers, even if they already have done that, to express opposition to a bill that would promote assisted suicide.
He wrote, "In contrast to the provisions of this bill, what is needed is first-class, compassionate palliative care at the end of our lives. This is already provided to many in our society but, tragically, is in short supply and underfunded. No one should be dispatched as a burden to others. Instead, a good society would prioritize care for the elderly, the vulnerable, and the weak. The lives of our families are richer for cherishing their presence."
He called Parliament's priorities "sad" in that members spent more time debating a ban on fox hunting than they did "debating bringing in assisted suicide."
"It is now clear that this measure is being rushed without proper scrutiny and without fundamental questions surrounding safeguards being answered. This is a deeply flawed bill with untold unintended consequences," he said.
The letter, being read to church congregations throughout the country, said, "Please make contact now with your MP and ask them to vote against this bill not only on grounds of principle but because of the failure of Parliament to approach this issue in an adequate and responsible manner."
Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, was addressing Parliament's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) bill.
He explained, "As Catholics we have maintained a principled objection to this change in law recognizing that every human life is sacred, coming as a gift of God and bearing a God-given dignity. We are, therefore, clearly opposed to this bill in principle, elevating, as it does, the autonomy of the individual above all other considerations."
He pointed out that the plan radically changes key relationships among family, doctors, patients, and more.
"Yet there has been no Royal Commission or independent inquiry ahead of its presentation. It is a Private Member's Bill." And it was published only days before the first vote so that members lacked time to consult or consider, he warned.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The justices on the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case that would allow states to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion corporation.
It now gets an estimated $700 million in taxpayer money each year, which has prompted a variety of protests over the possibility that taxes are being used for abortion, or to support the company's structure that promotes abortion.
Oral arguments were heard in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and concerns a decision by Gov. Henry McMaster, of South Carolina, to disqualify abortion providers from state Medicaid reimbursement programs.
It's significant because a ruling on behalf of the state could open the door for other states to make the same move.
The Washington Examiner reported that the issue wasn't clearly decided from comments made by the justices, as the leftists on the court clearly were advocating for Planned Parenthood, while others were harder to read.
"The future of state Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood remains uncertain following an intense oral argument session before the Supreme Court on Wednesday," the report said.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and one woman, Julie Edwards, sued over the governor's order, claiming the federal Medicaid statute guarantees access to "any qualified and willing provider."
But the state has explained it retains the authority to determine what counts as "qualified."
Much of the argument was over whether patients have a legal standing to sue because they are not allowed to pick one "provider" when a multitude of others are available.
Lawyer John Bursch, arguing for the state, explained the Medicaid Act does not create a private right of action, and the responsibility for enforcement rests with the Department of Health and Human Serivces.
Abortion lawyer Nicole Saharsky claimed Medicaid provides "a very individual choice."
Bursch told reporters outside the court that he was confident in the case.
"The Justices seemed to get the point that we were making, which is that Congress creates rights enforceable in federal court only when it uses clear, explicit language in the statute, and that provision that we're talking about today simply doesn't have that," said Bursch.
He suggested there were several justices open to the state's arguments.
Elena Kagan, one of the leftist justices, claimed that the state is required to ensure people "have a right to choose their doctor."
A decision could come as early as June.
The federal Hyde Amendment already bars direct federal funding of abortions, but critics note any government cash frees up the other cash abortionists have for abortion.
The legal team at Liberty Counsel, which has worked on a multitude of cases involving tax funding for abortion, said states are charged with protecting consumers from harm, and "also have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not funneled to repeat offenders and bad actors."
The organization pointed out that the Center for Medical Progress, which involved client Sandra Merritt, made undercover videos that "exposed shocking abuses against women and children and clear violations of multiple state and federal laws." One of those videos showed an abortionist insisting on more money for the body parts of unborn children, because, "I want a Lamborghini."
It noted South Carolina also approved a Heartbeat Law, which protects unborn children from abortion after six weeks.