This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Layoff notices have begun going out at the Department of State, which is expected to reduce its staffing level by thousands as the administration of President Donald Trump reorganizes government.
A report from CBS said the immediate layoffs are affecting about 1,300 staff members.
That would include 1,107 civil service members and 246 foreign service workers, according to a notice sent to department workers.
"The total number of staff departing as a part of the State Department's reorganization is 'nearly 3,000,' according to the department, a figure that includes those who took the 'Fork in the Road' voluntary departure offer earlier this year," the report said.
"We took a very deliberate step to reorganize the State Department to be more efficient and more focused," Marco Rubio, secretary of state, confirmed to reporters on Thursday.
State notified lawmakers several weeks ago it planned to eliminate about 3,400 U.S.-based jobs and close or merge many of its domestic offices.
"At the time, the department said it planned to phase out some offices focused on democracy or human rights that it claimed were 'prone to ideological capture,' and add new offices focused on 'civil liberties' and 'free market principles,'" the network said.
Also inside State now are a few remaining duties of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which was shut down by Trump after its employees spent years handing out American tax cash to foreign groups with ideologies often that conflicted with America's interests.
A union representing workers complained that the moves were demoralizing the workforce.
The Washington Examiner reported some of the workers affected will be on 120-day administrative leaves before their jobs are shut down.
Rubio has said a goal is to cut through a "bloated bureaucracy."
"There were 40 boxes on this piece of paper," he told senators in May. "That means 40 people had to check off 'yes' before it even got to me. That's ridiculous. And if any one of those boxes didn't get checked, the memo didn't move. That can't continue."
The plan includes eliminating 132 offices and changing rules to allow the firing of officials.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Six of the U.S. Secret Service agents on duty in Butler, Pennsylvania, a year ago when a gunman shot at and wounded President Donald Trump at a rally have been punished, according to a report.
During an interview with CBS, Matt Quinn, the agency's deputy director, affirmed that the agents were suspended for periods ranging from 10 to 42 days, during which they were not paid.
Then when they returned to duty they were placed on restricted duty, roles with less responsibility.
He defended the decision by the agency not to fire anyone.
"We are laser-focused on fixing the root cause of the problem," Quinn said.
It was July 13, 2024, when a gunman opened fire during a campaign rally. A bullet grazed Trump's ear and the president has credited God with saving his life. The gunman, carrying a rifle, inexplicably, had gained access to the roof of a building near the rally.
One person was killed by the gunman, and two others injured.
The alleged gunman, Thomas Crooks, was killed by a Secret Service sniper.
Quinn said Butler "was an operational failure and we are focused today on ensuring that it never happens again."
One development, he explained, is that the service has introduced a new fleet of military grade drones and mobile command posts that allows agents to communicate over radio directly with local law enforcement – interoperability that didn't exist last year, the report said.
That attack on Trump, as well as a second, failed attack plan in West Palm Beach, Florida, a few weeks later, triggered the resignation of then-Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle and several investigations and confrontational congressional hearings.
A 180-page report released by a bipartisan House panel a few months ago confirmed that the security lapses that led to the first incident were "not isolated to the campaign event itself."
The "leadership and training" allowed for "failures" to happen, the report said.
It was Corey Comperatore, a 50-year-old firefighter, father and husband, who was killed by Crooks' shots.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently, in the Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization case, confirmed that U.S. victims of Palestinian terrorism can sue over their injuries, and for damages, and it's already being used to seek justice.
It's the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that has lifted its abatement, or pause, on actions against the PLO by 70 people who were hurt, or are survivors of those who were killed, by that very terrorism. The order overturned a district court's dismissal of the case and ordered the dispute back into district court for consideration of the claims.
In the Fuld case, a group of U.S. citizens injured by PLO terrorism, or the estates and survivors of victims who were murdered, sued the PLO as well as the Palestinian Authority, back in 2004.
The PLO runs Palestine's foreign affairs, and the PA is an interim governing body for parts of the Gaza Strip.
They have more recently been in the news over the Hamas terror attack on Israel in 2003 in which some 1,200 Israeli civilians were murdered, often in horrific fashion, and hundreds more were kidnapped.
In the 2004 case, the plaintiffs sought damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act and a jury found the defendants liable for six attacks and awarded $218.5 million in damages, automatically tripled to $655.5 million under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said U.S. courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA. Then Congress in 2019 adopted the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which deems the defendants have consented to jurisdiction in U.S. courts "if they engaged in certain conduct after the law's enactment: either making payments to families of deceased terrorists or designees of imprisoned terrorists who harmed U.S. nationals, or conducting various activities within the United States (with some exceptions for UN-related activities)."
When the court found defendants had, in fact, made qualifying payments, the 2nd Circuit then claimed the case violated due process.
The Supreme Court reversed, ordering that the law does not violate due process.
The result is that the 10th Circuit withdrew its pause on the new case.
A report from Courthousenews explains the case is on behalf of 70 surviving family members of people killed in a 2014 synagogue attack in Israel.
The report explained it was on Nov. 18, 2014, when two members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or PFLP, "killed U.S. citizens and Rabbis Kalman Levine, Aryeh Kupinsky and Moshe Twersky during morning prayers at the Congregation Bnei Torah synagogue in the Har Nof neighborhood of Jerusalem. Police sergeant Zidan Saif and Rabbi Abraham Goldberg were also among the six people killed in the attack."
The attackers were killed by police, but celebrated as heroes by Palestinian officials.
The relatives sued the PLO and PA in 2021, charging violations of the U.S. law, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.
"The families claimed the defendant groups used a 'pay for slay' scheme to incentivize people to carry out terrorist attacks and suicide bombings in exchange for compensation to their families. Congress has declared both the Palestine Liberation Organization and the PFLP terrorist groups," the report said.
The district judge in the case, Biden-appointee Gordon Gallagher, had dismissed the families' complaint, and the 10th Circuit then stepped in and paused action pending the Fuld decision, which now is precedent.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
All of America knows how badly Kamala Harris, the Democrats' nominee, lost the 2024 presidential election to President Donald Trump.
Landslide numbers in the popular vote. Also in the Electoral College. Losses in every single swing state.
But she knew of that probable outcome before the vote, according to a report that cites evidence released in a new book.
The Washington Examiner explains it was in a series of memos from Maria Comelia, a political strategist who has advised Democrats, to Harris campaign manager Jen O'Malley Dillon that Harris simply wasn't giving voters a reason to cast a ballot for her.
The four memos come from the book, "2024: How Trump retook the White House and the Democrats lost America," by several authors.
There Comelia told Harris she needed to distance herself from the failed presidency of Joe Biden, who may have torpedoed Harris by confirming that she was with him on every major political decision.
Comelia suggested Harris appeal to independents and what she described as "soft" Republican voters with the move, the report said.
"The current focus of rolling out and utilizing Republicans like Liz Cheney gives comfort that a soft Republican who dislikes Trump is not alone, but it doesn't give reason to vote for Harris," she wrote. "They may not want to vote for [President Donald] Trump, but they aren't ready yet to cast a vote for Harris. Flip the concept. Instead of Republicans for Harris, how do we make it Harris for Republicans? This general framework is applicable to independents and moderate undecideds as well because it creates a structure that either makes it possible to vote for her or comfortable enough not to turn out to vote for Trump," the memo said.
A separate memo suggested, "You have to meet people where they are and that comes from local faces that they are more likely to trust or at least like. The reality is that Josh Shapiro in [Pennsylvania] has earned more GOP votes in PA than either Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger. More importantly, this audience does not want to be lectured to and told who to vote for. Celebrities and never-Trump supporters have the opposite effect with these audiences."
The counsel also included advice for Harris to admit Democrats missed the mark during the Biden-Harris regime on the economy, inflation, border security, COVID-19, crime and much more.
"Create clear daylight/differentiation between a Harris and Biden administration," Comelia instructed. "Acknowledge where the Democratic Party hasn't gotten it right — a willingness to not just work with the other side, but call out your own party when necessary. Meet the moment by contrasting the stakes on the issues."
A commentary by Hugo Gurdon in the Examiner at the same time confirmed where the Biden tenure and Harris campaign have left the Democrats: "Screwed."
"Betting on appearances over reality is a weak long-term strategy, especially when those appearances are false. Fictions quickly wear thin, allowing people to see through to reality, to facts that stay stubbornly in place," he said. "President Abraham Lincoln put it more pithily: 'You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.'"
He explained, "Today's Democrats still don't get that you can't fool voters indefinitely. They criticize the Medicaid and food stamp reforms President Donald Trump signed into law on Friday as literally deadly. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), a former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, told CNN, 'The way I can summarize this big, ugly bill best is: Republicans caved, Trump lied, and people will die.'
"If that's the best the party can do, Democrats are in trouble. They are, however, all saying much the same thing. A Democratic campaign official informed me tersely recently on NewsNation that the reforms are 'cruel' because 'if you're a single mom and you're only working 40 hours a month because you're raising three kids, you don't get your Medicaid anymore under this bill.'"
That claim, he explained, is "not true."
He pointed out the changes about which Democrats are complaining mostly don't take effect for some time, until even after the 2026 midterms.
"These dates mean the howling horrors Democrats are crying 'wolf' about will not have gone into effect when voters next cast their ballots, and others will hardly have had time to resonate by the time the nation is choosing the next occupant of the White House. Voters don't get worked up about things that have not happened, and the horrors Democrats foretell will not have happened in two different ways: They won't have been applied, and once they are, voters will realize they aren't horrors anyway," he said.
"'I think we're screwed,' a Democratic operative told me as he contemplated the electoral politics of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. His party has to pump up the issue — it's part of the Democrats' trick of pretending they're on the side of the little guy — but it will turn to ashes and run away through their fingers."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A time-lapse video reveals how quickly the flash flood in Kerr County, Texas, on Friday developed.
Authorities say at least 82 people were killed in the catastrophe, and President Donald Trump issued a disaster declaration.
He said, ""These families are enduring an unimaginable tragedy, with many lives lost, and many still missing. The Trump Administration continues to work closely with State and Local Leaders. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem was on the ground yesterday with Governor Greg Abbott, who is working hard to help the people of his Great State."
The video shows the water's rise in just about half an hour.
Social media included comments:
"That's why they're called flash floods."
"The speed with which the waters rose is phenomenal."
"It's crazy that the time lapse is really only 30 min."
"Praying for the people of my home state… Those floods happen so fast."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Will Joe Biden's Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas ever be held accountable for America's wide open border during the Biden administration?
President Donald Trump believes the matter should be criminally investigated, and on Tuesday he instructed Kristi Noem, his own DHS secretary, to look into the matter.
During a news conference at "Alligator Alcatraz" in Ochopee, Florida, reporter Julio Rosas of Blaze Media asked Trump: "A couple months ago, I ran into former DHS Secretary Mayorkas and I asked him a couple questions about his disastrous handling of the border. He didn't like my questions.
"But the number one question that I heard from people in responding to my video is why wasn't – why hasn't he been arrested yet? You know, obviously, you guys are clearing up the mess obviously that was deliberately made for the past four years, and so, people want accountability.
"It's great to see that the border secured and it's great to see the state-level cooperation, but I would ask you, why hasn't he been held accountable, or anybody really been held accountable?"
Trump responded: "Well, I'd take a look at that because what he did was – it's beyond incompetence. Something had to be done.
"Now, with that being said, he took orders from other people, and he was really doing the orders and you could say he was very loyal to them, because it must have been very hard for him to stand up and sit up and, you know, talk about what he allowed to happen to this country, and be serious about it, so he was given orders.
"If he wasn't given a pardon, I could see looking at that. In fact, why didn't you take a look at it, Kristi? He was impeached? But yeah, it was just a fake impeachment. Why don't you take a look at it?
"I think he was so bad. They were all so bad. Look, it was the worst president in the history of our country. We've had some bad ones, but he was the worst president. But somebody told Mayorkas to do that, and he followed orders, but that doesn't necessarily hold him harmless. So, take a look at it. Very good question, actually."
Mayorkas was in charge of Homeland Security for almost the whole Biden term, allowing a major relaxation in the enforcement of immigration laws, allowing millions of migrants to simply walk across the border.
Republicans in the U.S. House impeached him for misleading Congress and failing to enforce federal laws, but the Senate acquitted him last year.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Leftists on the U.S. Supreme Court are taking their fear of parents who teach children their own religious faith "to a ludicrous level," according to commentary following last week's decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
In that case, the 6-3 majority simply said that schools are not allowed to force their own religious beliefs onto young children, through mandatory lessons and a ban on opt-outs, because that infringes on the religious rights of the parents.
The case came out of Montgomery County, Maryland, where school officials adopted that mandatory LGBT indoctrination for children as young as three years old. Originally, schools offered an opt-out for parents who didn't want the school's religious ideologies taught to their children, but the school district, faced with a flood of such demands from parents, soon decided to force all children into the lessons.
A commentary at Federalist notes what the dissenters, Sonio Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Jackson, who famously established her place in history by telling her Senate confirmation hearing she was unable to define "woman," hypothesized.
"The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, sided with the parents, saying, 'A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill … And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents' acceptance of such instruction.'"
But, the commentary noted, "That is not how the three leftists see it. In fact, they see parents — especially religious ones — as roadblocks to education."
Sotomayor wrote that schools offer children of all faiths and backgrounds an education "to practice living in our multicultural society."
"That experience is critical to our nation's civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs," she claimed.
The Federalist explained, "Sotomayor spins this irrational fear to a ludicrous level, imaging a world where religious parents will object to every imaginable lesson, opting their kids out of this and that, until the only option is for schools to teach what parents want their kids to learn."
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley also expressed concern about the extremism of Sotomayor.
It was her comments that were "the most striking in its apocalyptic take on allowing parents to remove their children from these classes. Despite the fact that various opt-outs have been allowed for parents, this one is deemed a threat to the very essence of public education."
He noted the aggressively anti-Christian school agenda: "The children are required to read or listen to stories like 'Prince & Knight' about two male knights who marry each other, and 'Love Violet' about two young girls falling in love. Another, 'Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,' discusses a biological girl who begins a transition to being a boy. Teachers were informed that this was mandatory reading, which must be assigned, and that families would not be allowed to opt out. The guidelines for teachers made clear that students had to be corrected if they expressed errant or opposing views of gender. If a child questions how someone born a boy could become a girl, teachers were encouraged to correct the child and declare, 'That comment is hurtful!'"
He said, "Teachers were specifically told to '[d]isrupt' thinking or values opposing transgender views."
TS the fight over the opt-outs developed.
But he said the "most overwrought" reaction was from the three extremists on the bench.
"There 'will be chaos for this nation's public schools' and both education and children will 'suffer' if parents are allowed to opt their children out of these lessons," he noted the leftists claimed.
"She also worried about the 'chilling effect' of the ruling, which would make schools more hesitant to offer such classes in the future."
The trio demanded that "the damage to America's public education system will be profound" and the decision supporting parents' constitutional rights "threatens the very essence of public education."
He noted the attitude was simply reflecting what other officials have claimed:
"State Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Wis.) once insisted: 'If parents want to 'have a say' in their child's education, they should homeschool or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.' Iowa school board member Rachel Wall said: 'The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.'"
The effect of the ideology is evident, he said.
"Our public schools are imploding. Some are lowering standards to achieve 'equity' and graduating students without proficiency skills. Families are objecting to the priority given to political and social agendas to make their kids better people when they lack math, science, and other skills needed to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace. … Schools are facing rising debt and severe declines in enrollment, yet unions in states like Illinois are demanding even more staff increases and larger expenditures."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A state lawmaker in Connecticut who voted to ban one-time use shopping bags from stores has been arrested for shoplifting, and he blames the lack of shopping bags in the store.
It is state Rep. Raghib Allie-Brennan, chief majority whip of the Connecticut House and co-chair of the state's LGBTQ+ caucus, who is in trouble.
He explained in a statement that he was in Target, and "two items in my armload of others were not scanned."
He explains he was "in a rush to bring items to my grandmother in the hospital, the store didn't have bags, and I was juggling multiple purchases."
He said it was an "error" and he's "working through the legal processes."
A report from a local NBC affiliate said it happened in Bethel, and "police say it isn't the first time it has happened."
Police charged he tried to leave the store without paying for $26.69 in merchandise, and "he was also recognized by loss prevention for prior unreported larcenies."
Store security video showed him attempting to leave the store without paying for the items.
Comments on social media were not sympathetic:
"I like the way he threw the hospitalized grandma in there. Nice touch."
"'Guys I accidentally stole for the 30th time I'm just so clumsy.'"
"'I was on my way to feed unicorns. I was helping a 3 legged dog cross the street. My dog ate the receipt.'"
Libs of TikTok on social media confirmed the Democrat voted in 2019 to ban stores from giving single-use shopping bags.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
CNN was forced to make a major correction to its story originally claiming Democrats in Congress were not informed in advance of the U.S. military strikes Saturday against Iran's nuclear sites.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the left-leaning network had to retract its report she called "Fake News," saying Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was spoken to "before the strike," and that U.S. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries "didn't pick up the phone."
Appearing on Fox News Monday morning, Leavitt said congressional members of both parties were informed prior to the military action.
"First of all, we did make bipartisan calls. Thomas Massie and the Democrats – he should be a Democrat because he is more aligned with them than with the Republican Party – were given notice," she began.
"The White House made calls to congressional leadership; they were bipartisan calls. In fact, Hakeem Jeffries couldn't be reached. We tried him before the strike and he didn't pick up the phone, but he was briefed after, as well as Chuck Schumer was briefed prior to the strike.
"So this notion that CNN ran with that the White House did not give a heads-up to Democrats is just completely false. In fact, both Sen. Schumer's office and CNN had to retract that story last night because it was a blatant lie, and we showed them the time stamps from those phone calls."
CNN posted a correction to its online story by Sarah Ferris and Morgan Rimmer, stating: "Correction: This story has been updated to make clear Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was called before the strike, not after as initially reported."
The network noted: "People familiar with the matter initially told CNN that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries received notifications shortly before the public announcement – and after the attack itself.
"But after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt disputed that account, a source conceded that Schumer had been called around 6 p.m. – a little less than an hour before the strikes began – with little detail. He was told of imminent military action without naming the country in which the action was to take place, the source said."
As WorldNetDaily reported, U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, also fumed that President Trump didn't "holla" at her to ask her permission to strike Iran.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Department of Justice recently told Colorado elections officials it wants to review all the data from the 2024 election. And whatever still remains available from 2020.
And state officials have claimed it's a "fishing expedition" to try to help Tina Peters, the former Mesa County clerk who was convicted and sentenced to years in prison essentially for trying to salvage a copy of the 2020 vote data when faced with orders from a state officials to erase the details.
Peters was a conservative in the far-left state, where the all-Democrat state Supreme Court partisanly tried to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. Where virtually all of the top state leaders in the governor's office and legislature are virulently anti-Trump.
Where leftists in population centers like Denver and Boulder openly advocate for Americans' rights to be violated in order to protect illegal alien criminals. Where abortion was made a state constitutional "right" and the state constitution's protection for voters against massive overtaxing plans routinely is undermined.
For example, Democrat lawmakers, faced with constitutional limits on raising "taxes," routinely hike them anyway and then simply call them "fees." For example, state residents who license vehicles and pay taxes have to pay a "fee" for roads and bridges. Visitors to the state using the same roads and bridges don't pay that "fee."
It was the Denver Post that recently promoted the "fishing expedition" claim and said Matt Crane, of the Colorado County Clerks Association, said the request for information is unprecedented.
However, it was a report at Complete Colorado that pointed out how the state's election details are now under the spotlight, and how Democrat Secretary of State Jena Griswold doesn't like it, condemning the federal move as an attempt to "push their ridiculous disinformation and lies to the American public."
The report noted the multiple "missteps" by Griswold that now could come under review.
The report explained, "A recent National Public Radio (NPR) report, republished by Colorado Public Radio (CPR) and heavily biased in Griswold's favor, called the request 'an unprecedented amount of election data' driven by Justice Department review of 'cases targeting the president's political allies' and identified the DOJ as catering to Trump's 'desire to exert more power over state voting processes.'"
Explained the report, "The framing of the coverage is unsurprising given that both NPR and CPR have themselves been the subject of headlines as of late as they push back against Trump's ongoing effort to end federal taxpayer subsidies for public radio. However, ongoing problems under Griswold during her tenure appear to be at least as likely a reason for the request."
The report cites Colorado Republican Party Chairwoman Brita Horn explaining how the review is warranted because of Griswold's problems.
"Our secretary of state gaslights voters with her 'Gold Standard' narrative while she oversees leaked passwords. She has no one to blame but herself and her irresponsible team for the investigation. We need the truth about what happens in her department, and in our elections," Horn charged.
The DOJ's request includes "any record required to be preserved under Title 52, Section 20701 of the U.S. code, which covers retention of records for elections involving federal offices" as well as certification that no record required to be preserved has been deleted or destroyed.
And all details on procedures for Colorado's votes.
Griswold, to NPR, claimed the group of "them" is using the federal government "to undermine our elections and our democracy."
"NPR reported that Griswold suspects the request to be tied to the prosecution of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, with NPR calling Peters a 'folk hero' to those who deny the 2020 election results," the report explained.
But it noted left out of NPR's claims were the "inconsistencies and incompetence within Griswold's office," such as her decision to put voting system passwords for the state's systems online, where they were leaked, and that was followed by an attempt "to cover up the leak with no intention of making it public."
Earlier, Griswold had sent postcards to some 30,000 non-residents, telling them how to register to vote.
The notifications said, "Make sure your voice is heard this November" and directed people where to go register to vote. Griswold claimed a formatting error was responsible for the instructions to aliens, some illegal aliens, on how to vote.
"She has also been repeatedly criticized for using her position for political purposes on a national level as well as her inability to keep staff," the report added.
GOP political consultant Dick Wadhams told CBS News in an interview that the 64 count clerks on Colorado are competent, and they run elections. But he said Griswold is "incompetent."
In what may end up being related, Judicial Watch said Griswold's office gave out incorrect numbers for those removed from the state's registration lists due to address changes. The watchdog organization wanted its lawsuit over the dispute reopened because of the wrong numbers, but a leftist judge in the left-leaning federal court system in Colorado refused permission.
Griswold is a veteran political activist who was a "voter protection attorney" for Barack Obama's campaign and she took action against Peters by suing her to prevent her from being able to oversee elections in her county.
Minority Republicans in the Colorado unsuccessfully sought to impeach Griswold over her verbal attacks on President Trump.