This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The federal government now has begun checking the status of all 55 million, or so, people who hold U.S. visas.
"America's benefits should not be given to those who despite the country and promote anti-American ideologies," explained Matthew Tragesser, a spokesman for the USCIS. "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is committed to implementing policies and procedures that root out anti-Americanism and supporting the enforcement of rigorous screening and vetting measures to the fullest extent possible."
A report at Newsweek said the "continual review" is taking into consideration "anything that could render an immigrant deportable."
This includes law enforcement records, immigration records, or other information, the department said.
Suspicious activities that are uncovered could result in visa extensions being denied, green card requests rejected and naturalizations stopped.
The State Department also confirmed indicators of ineligibility would include visa overstays, threats to public safety and criminal activity.
Newsweek explained, "The administration of President Donald Trump has repeatedly made clear that it is taking a tough stance on immigration and border security, with the State Department playing a key role in determining eligibility for visa applications from overseas. It also monitors ongoing temporary visas, such as student and cultural exchange programs."
The report noted that visa reviews also are not necessarily new, as they are routinely subject to various government checks.
In fact, officials revealed the department already has revoked twice as many visas since just January as it had during the same period under Joe Biden.
One of Trump's major agendas has been securing the United States, following the years of Biden's open borders practices when millions of illegal aliens, including terrorists, simply walked across the border.
Trump also has instituted aggressive practices to find and deport illegal alien criminals, but has faced the political opposition from some judges who, extraordinarily, in one case tried to order airplanes carrying illegal alien criminals being deported that already were in international airspace to turn around and bring the criminals back to the U.S.
The U.S. also has halted worker visas for commercial truck drivers, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday on X. He said the change was effective immediately.
"The increasing number of foreign drivers operating large tractor-trailer trucks on U.S. roads is endangering American lives and undercutting the livelihoods of American truckers," Rubio said.
The government has started insisting trucker drivers, whose accidents in recent weeks have cost American lives, speak and read English, and recognize and identify road signs.
"Ensuring that every driver on our roads meets the highest standards is important to protecting the livelihoods of American truckers and maintaining a secure, resilient supply chain," the department revealed.
The reviews also will include an assessment of applicants' social media accounts.
"As part of the Trump Administration's commitment to protect U.S. national security and public safety, since Inauguration Day the State Department has revoked more than twice as many visas, including nearly four times as many student visas, as during the same time period last year," the State Department said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A settlement of millions of dollars now is being paid to 207 former high school students in the Chicago Public Schools system – for being required to participate in the district's Transcendental Mediation program and being forced to hear those religious beliefs during class.
The damages total about $2.6 million and were announced in a statement from John Mauck, a lawyer with Mauck & Baker.
"As part of their in-school curriculum, the students were either required to participate in Transcendental Meditation or were deprived daily of a half hour of academic opportunity and made to maintain silence while their classmates focused their minds on secret mantras," the lawyer explained.
The court-approved settlement allows compensation for those students being forced to practice a worldview that was in conflict with their own faith.
"The settlement requires the Chicago Board of Education and the New York-based David Lynch Foundation to pay lead plaintiff Kaya Hudgins $100,000, while the remaining students in the class-action suit will each receive up to $9,500," the legal team confirmed.
Just weeks ago, in May, Judge Matthew Kennelly of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois approved the class action suit settlement.
Mauck noted that Hudgins' rights, and those of the other students, were completely disregarded by the school district.
His report said, "This was done in an illegal effort to force a religious belief system upon them against their will."
Hudgins now 22, confirmed how at the age of 16 she was forced into "Quiet Time," a program to which she was not allowed to object.
"She shared how despite its innocuous title, the mandatory sessions included an uncomfortably private one-on-one Hindu 'Puja' worship ceremony in a darkened room, chanting, religious paraphernalia, and secret mantras which were actually the names of Hindu gods," the report said.
It's part of what Mauck has warned is an "egregious trend" by public schools and education authorities to force agendas, religious or political, on students with neither their consent nor that of their parents.
He cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, where the justices emphasized parental rights in their children's education.
"In Mahmoud v. Taylor, a school district was refusing to let parents opt their children out of lessons incorporating LGBTQ+ themes and literature," Mauck detailed, "The high court ruled that the school district was out of line to deny parents their First Amendment religious rights."
"In the case of Kaya and her peers," added Mauck, "the schools had students sign nondisclosure agreements. Several students shared how they and their classmates were instructed not to tell anyone, including their parents, about the program – detailing how they were particularly warned by a David Lynch Foundation representative not to tell their parents if their family was ''religious.'"
The result should be noted by other schools, Mauck said.
"School administrators cannot run roughshod over constitutionally guaranteed rights in order to force acceptance of ideologies that are in perceived conflict with the religious beliefs of parents and students. The teaching of Simian ancestry (humans are descended from apes) will be the next fallacy to be challenged in the public schools."
Mauck continued, "We hope that the Chicago Board of Education has learned that indoctrination doesn't pay – unless you're the victim. And there are multiple victims here – not just the students whose religious rights were violated, but parents who were deliberately deceived, teachers whose integrity was put on the line, and the communities which were negatively impacted by school overreach."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A legal analysis of the political agenda adopted by James Boasberg, the anti-Trump judge working in the courts system in Washington, D.C., reveals how he abandoned his role as a "judge" and made himself "like a foreign diplomat" by "attempting to influence how the Trump administration conducted foreign affairs."
That's according to an appeals court judge whose comments were cited by Thomas Jipping, senior legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, and John Osorio, a research associate, online.
The fight is over President Donald Trump's agenda to secure American borders and remove illegal alien criminals invited in by the open borders policies of Joe Biden during his years in the White House.
Boasberg has fought Trump's agenda, even to the point of trying to enforce his own order that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned.
He was the judge who even tried to order Trump to tell airplanes carrying illegal alien criminals, that already had left American airspace, to return to the U.S. with the criminals.
The analysis notes Trump is backed by the Constitution, which gives him authority over matters involving international relations, the Alien Enemies Act that allows the president to apprehend and remove the natives, citizens, or subjects of a hostile foreign government if that government attempts or threatens an 'invasion or predatory incursion' against the U.S. and the Immigration and Nationality Act that lets the secretary of state designate as Foreign Terrorist Organizations groups that engage in terrorist activity and threaten the safety of Americans or the United States.
The drama developed over recent months as State designated eight transnational gangs and cartels FTOs, including Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan prison gang, Trump then cited the AEA and TdA's links to the "narco-terrorism" of regime chief Nicolas Maduro.
The administration took into custody dozens of TdA agents, with deportation plans to El Salvador.
Their lawyers went to Boasberg and called for him to protect their criminal clients.
On that day, "between 5:25 and 5:45 p.m., two flights with a total of 137 suspected TdA members left Texas, bound first for Honduras and then El Salvador. At 7:25 p.m., Boasberg certified a class of all individuals covered by the proclamation and issued a TRO prohibiting the government from 'removing' them for 14 days. On Mar. 28, he extended that order for another 14 days," the analysis said.
The Supreme Court then vacated both of his orders, prompting Boasberg to launch contempt proceedings against the government because he claimed "removing" meant turning over custody to another government, which actually happened after his order and the planes landed.
"Boasberg's shocking ultimatum to the executive branch was this: Return the deportees to U.S. soil or identify the officials who ordered the deportation so they could be prosecuted. He set a hard deadline of Apr. 23," the analysis confirmed.
"But wait—hadn't the Supreme Court already vacate Boasberg's TRO? How can someone disobey an order that, in effect, Boasberg had no authority to issue?"
Soon the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was ruling.
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao sided with the government.
Rao took the high road, to Boasberg's low, warning he was intruding "upon the powers committed to the Executive Branch."
"This case is highly unusual, and I have found no other like it, perhaps because no district court has threatened criminal contempt against Executive Branch officials as a backdoor to coercing compliance with an order that has been vacated by the Supreme Court," she said.
Boasberg's politics, she wrote, were "untenable" and described his order "coercive."
WorldNetDaily has reported on Trump's criticism of Boasberg.
On social media, he said, "People are shocked by what is going on with the Court System."
"I was elected for many reasons, but a principal one was LAW AND ORDER, a big part of which is QUICKLY removing a vast Criminal Network of individuals, who came into our Country through the Crooked Joe Biden Open Borders Policy!
"These are dangerous and violent people, who kill, maim and, in many other ways, harm the people of our Country. The Voters want them OUT, and said so in Record Numbers.
"If it was up to District Judge Boasberg and other Radical Left Judges, nobody would be removed, the President wouldn't be allowed to do his job, and people's lives would be devastated all throughout our Country. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
He's also called for Boasberg's impeachment.
Trump also reposted a message by Mike Davis, the former chief counsel for nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and founder and president of the Article III Project, which defends constitutionalist judges and the rule of law.
Davis urged Trump: "Please revoke Judge Boasberg's security clearance. He has demonstrated he cannot be trusted with keeping secrets."
Davis also noted:
Here is the fatal flaw with DC Obama Judge Jeb Boasberg's order:
Even if these designated foreign terrorists are entitled to individual court review before their deportation, which is disputed, the DC court is not the proper court.
Judge Boasberg did not, and does not, have the power to do what he is purporting to do. For this reason alone, everything he is doing is lawless. But it is much worse; it is also dangerous.
Judge Boasberg ran to his courtroom to hold a Saturday hearing, even though he was not even serving as the emergency judge that weekend. (How did he get this case?) He publicly exposed an ongoing U.S. military, intelligence, and law-enforcement operation with an American ally dealing with the most vicious terrorists (Tren de Aragua) and international gang member (MS13) in the Western Hemisphere.
That public exposure put American and allied lives in grave danger.
Stunningly, Judge Boasberg even ordered the President to turn around planes full of terrorists over the Gulf of America, without knowing the fuel levels, the security footprint back in America, or other crucial operational details.
Attorney General Pam Bondi explained the complaint over "misconduct" by Boasberg involved his "making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration."
These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, she confirmed.
A DOJ official confirmed, "Judge Boasberg first tried to persuade Chief Justice Roberts and other federal judges that the Trump administration would not follow court orders, despite having no basis for his belief. Then he acted on his baseless belief again and again in litigation over which he was presiding. Judge Boasberg violated the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, including the requirement that he 'promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.'"
The Washington Examiner said the official complaint, for "misconduct," against Boasberg charged him with those "improper public comments" about the administration.
Boasberg has fought the administration's agendas, including that for securing the borders and deporting illegal aliens, especially criminals, for months.
WND has reported it was the Federalist that obtained access to comments Boasberg made at a recent judicial conference undermining the president.
He disparaged the president, even though he's required to be neutral on issues and people in his court, where Trump is a defendant in a number of cases brought by activists trying to undermine his agenda for America.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche later described Boasberg as a "threat to the rule of law" for using his own agendas in his court rulings to try to control the decisions of the Executive Branch.
Boasberg also was part and parcel of the Russiagate conspiracy theory, advancing permissions for the Barack Obama regime to spy on political opponents.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal appeals court has ordered revived a series of lessons for Minnesota state prison inmates on "manhood" that are derived from the morals established by the Bible and accepted by society over millennia.
Social activists in the state prison system had canceled the lessons because they did not comply with the leftists' ideologies of DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion.
The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the lower courts to return to the case and provide a preliminary injunction for Anthony Schmitt to teach the course.
The program, called "The Quest for Authentic Manhood" had been taught for years at a Minnesota prison, but was discontinued during COVID. When such programs were restored after the pandemic, Anthony Schmitt wanted to resume teaching the "Authentic Manhood" series of videos narrated by Robert Lewis.
The program was up-front in its description: "Authentic Manhood is all about setting men up to live lives of truth, passion and purpose. Our resources offer clear and practical Biblical insights on God's design for manhood that are both refreshing and inspiring. We point men to a gospel-centered vision of life that sets them up to enjoy God's grace as they pursue the promises of His Word."
But a prison "supervisor" complained that "discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in Minnesota" as the state human rights law makes it a "protected class."
Eventually, as the request to restart the program was processed, Jolene Rebertus, an assistant commissioner of "health, recovery & programming" became alarmed because in her opinion, the program "directly conflicts with the diversity, equity and inclusivity values of the department by defining manhood, or the study of masculinity, through a biblical lens of what a 'real man looks like.'"
She was unhappy that the sessions portray men as heterosexual, seeking ideal relationships and marriage with women, even though those biblical standards have been acknowledged and accepted by society for millennia.
Her conclusion was that such beliefs "can be hurtful and downright dangerous … ."
Schmitt eventually sued over the discriminatory beliefs on which the program was then canceled, and a district court denied his motion for a preliminary injunction to reopen the program while the court case proceeds. Schmitt charged that the decision violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise and established a denominational preference in violation of the Establishment Clause.
The appeals court panel agreed, reversing the lower court and ordering the Quest program reinstated pending "A full adjudication."
The ruling found the state discriminated against the program because of its biblical connections.
"Rebertus's letter plainly states that the MDOC did not oppose Schmitt teaching generally about 'manhood, or the study of masculinity'; instead, it objected to Schmitt discussing the topic 'through a biblical lens of what a 'real man looks like' or through what the MDOC perceived as 'through a lens of discrimination, exclusivity, gender biases and stereotypes,'" the opinion said.
The ruling said, "In short, the MDOC objected to Schmitt's religious viewpoint on masculinity. This is viewpoint discrimination."
It quoted from various Supreme Court rulings, including that, "[T]he government, if it is to respect the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices."
Further, "The '[g]overnment fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature.'"
The ruling found even, "subtle departures from neutrality on matters of religion" are prohibited by the Free Exercise Clause.
The panel ruled Schmitt likely was to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment claim.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A British police department has completed a one-month pilot program that had female officers dressing in running gear and hitting the trail as a means to arrest men who inevitably harass, assault or whistle at the women.
According to a report in the U.K.'s Economic Times, Surrey Police have arrested 18 people in the undercover operation aimed to curtail the harassment of women exercising in public. The female officers jogged in identified harassment hotspots during rush hour, allowing specialist units to intervene quickly when abuse occurred.
The paper notes that the scheme focused on catcalling, unwanted gestures and other behavior officers say can escalate to more serious sexual offenses. Offenders were arrested for crimes including harassment, sexual assault and theft.
Some incidents resulted in "educational interventions," while repeat or serious offenders were pursued through the criminal justice system, reports the Economic Times. One undercover officer, Abby Hayward, said the abuse she experienced during the operation reflected "a daily reality" for women.
The Guardian quoted her as saying, "This behavior is either a precursor to something more serious, or it's ignorance, and it's fixable. That's where our interventions come in. …"
A University of Manchester study last year found over two-thirds of women runners in northwest England had faced harassment, while a Sport England report suggested almost three-quarters of women adjust their exercise routines during winter to avoid risk.
Some responses to the pilot program on X claimed that men who are part of the immigrant community are more apt to harass women exercising in public. Posted the popular users "amuse": "Instead of tackling the Pakistani rape gang crisis, British police are entrapping British men by having female officers dress in sexy tights and arrest the men brave enough to hit on the officers charging them with sexual harassment."
Another commenter noted: "Back in the '70s and '80s, many of us would have thought that these skin-tight running clothes (and everyday wear) were scandalous or eliciting of lasciviousness. What is happening to British elite that they feel a need to entrap or attack men (who are sinful or not)?"
According to the Independent, civil liberties group Free Speech Union accused the police force of "bizarre social-psychology experiments" and said law enforcement should focus on "enforcing the law."
A Surrey Police spokesperson told the paper: "Our priority is not only to tackle and solve crime but also to prevent it from happening in the first place."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court is being urged to protect the single, statutory "Election Day" in America, and to let stand a lower court's ruling against a state that wanted to count ballots that arrive too late.
"Congress statutorily designated a singular 'day for the election' of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this 'day for the election' is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississippi's statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. We reverse the district court's contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings," explained the decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Now, according to Judicial Watch, the Supreme Court should let that stand.
Extended periods for voting have become a common goal among Democrats and in Democrat states across the nation, including such accommodations as early voting, voting by mail, counting mail ballots after election day, even for weeks.
Critics of such plans warn such openings simply create more opportunities for fraudulent ballots that could impact an election result.
Judicial Watch said it has, on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging the court to let the 5th Circuit decision stand.
Judicial Watch said, "[T]he Court of Appeals correctly applied existing Court precedent to find that the Receipt Deadline is inconsistent and conflicts with the Election Day statutes, and is preempted by them. Petitioner [MS secretary of state] has not demonstrated any reason why the Court's intervention is needed now. Modification of the Election Day receipt deadline allows states to 'engage in gamesmanship, experiment with deadlines, and renew the very ills Congress sought to eliminate: fraud, uncertainty, and delay.'"
Judicial Watch initially filed the civil rights lawsuit in February 2024 on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, challenging the same Mississippi election law permitting absentee ballots to be received as long as five business days after Election Day. The suit was consolidated with one filed by the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and others.
The 5th Circuit "agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after Election Day." It then declined to change its decision.
Judicial Watch informs the Supreme Court, "In reversing the district court on the merits, the [Fifth Circuit] panel faithfully followed this Court's precedent … [T]his Court found that the Election Day statutes preempted a Louisiana law that allowed congressional candidates to be elected in October…. In interpreting the meaning of 'day of the election' within the Election Day statutes, this Court found that '[w]hen the federal statutes speak of 'the election' of a Senator or Representative, they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder.' … Accordingly, the 'day of the election' 'may not be consummated prior to federal election day.'"
Also in the fight is an Illinois claim to be able to extend "Election Day" for several weeks, a fight in California over its decision to make "Election Day" seven days long, and more.
"Counting ballots received after Election Day is a flagrant violation of federal law and encourages fraud and voter distrust," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Let us hope that the Supreme Court will decline to hear Mississippi's senseless attempt to overturn a historic decision that sensibly concluded that counting ballots received after Election Day is unlawful."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a move that was significant for its unique content, the White House recently released an executive order titled, "Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias," which included the statement, "Hostility and vandalism against Christian churches and places of worship surged, with the number of such identified acts in 2023 exceeding by more than eight times the number from 2018. Catholic churches and institutions have been aggressively targeted with hundreds of acts of hostility, violence, and vandalism."
The fact that such an order was issued, "shows that even the federal government has taken notice of the growing trend of hostility against U.S. churches," according to a new report from the Family Research Council.
The organization's Center for Religious Liberty said in its "Hostility against churches in the United States" that, "The free exercise of religion has always been an essential component of American society and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution as a basic right. Attempts to prevent religious exercise through threats or violence should be soundly condemned by anyone who values the First Amendment."
The FRC's Washington Stand noted the "hostility" against Christian churches in the U.S. remains at unparalleled levels.
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has cited one state, Colorado, for its open "hostility" to Christianity, in that state's demand that government control the thoughts and beliefs of individuals. In that situation it was the state's demand that Christians violate their faith and promoted the LGBT ideologies.
The Stand confirmed the FRC reviews of violence "reveal an ongoing trend in America in which vandalism, gun violence, and overall hostility against houses of worship remain at some of the highest rates seen in years."
The annual report noted:
"The previous six years (2018-2023) featured an increase in hostile acts against U.S. churches. FRC identified 50 incidents in 2018, 83 in 2019, 55 in 2020, and 98 in 2021. The total number of incidents in 2023 (485) was more than double the number identified in 2022 (198)."
And, "In 2024, the number of incidents declined slightly to 415. However, this total from a single 12-month span is nearly equal to the findings from FRC's very first report (420), which covered 57 months."
California had the most expressions of hate with 40, followed by Pennsylvania with 29, Florida and New York with 25, Texas with 23 and Ohio with 19.
There were 284 instances of vandalism, 55 of arson, 14 bomb threats, and 47 "other."
The FRC said it has confirmed 1,384 "acts of hostility" against U.S. churches since January 2018.
"It's important to remember that any act of hostility can create significant financial and emotional stress for the affected church, regardless of the motive. Such is the case for the congregants of North Peoria Church of Christ in Oklahoma when their air conditioning units were stolen. The incident resulted in $100,000 worth of damages. Another event at First Christian Church in Brenham, Texas, required significant repairs after an unknown culprit shattered over 15 of its windows with rocks and bricks," the report said.
According to the Stand, the hostility comes in the national atmosphere of an increasingly unchurched population, where Christianity is fading in influence and respect.
"Regular church attendance has decreased by 12% in the last 20 years alone. This societal apathy may be a key element that, at the very least, decreases the stigma and outrage caused by such acts of violence, or worse, fuels anti-Christian sentiment," the report said.
"We applaud the efforts of the Trump administration," said FRC President Tony Perkins, "but efforts must be taken at every level of government to protect and promote this fundamental human right."
The FRC explained accessing open-source documents, reports and media to calculate the number of acts against churches.
"We looked at incidents of vandalism (including intentional destruction of property, defacement of property, burglary, and ransacking), arson (including attempts), gun-related incidents (occurring on church property or targeting the church or its members), and bomb threats (both real and false). Other aggressive acts targeting churches or their property that did not fall under the aforementioned categories (including physical assault, disruption of church services, and general threats of harm) were categorized as 'other,'" it said.
Its first such report in 2022 found 420 incidents between January 2018 and September 2022.
The year 2023 marked "a record high" for such hostility with 485 incidents, more than double the total from 2022.
During 2024 the numbers "leveled off" with 415.
That year, hostile acts against churches were found in 43 states, with California leading with 40 cases.
The year's costs included 284 instances of vandalism, 55 incidents of arson, 29 run-related situations, 14 reported bomb threats and dozens of "other," including one church staff member attacked by an assailant with a hammer.
The total for the year, however, "may not represent the full scope of hostility against churches, as many cases likely went unreported to law enforcement or unpublished by news outlets or other publicly available sources."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A dinner at the vice president's residence scheduled for Wednesday evening is being described as a strategy session to discuss how the Trump administration should handle the ongoing controversy surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein files.
According to Fox News, attendees will include Vice President JD Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. The latter recently spent two days interviewing convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell in prison. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles is also expected to be in attendance, according to sources familiar with the confab.
News of the dinner was first reported by CNN. It comes after weeks of unsuccessful attempts by senior Trump officials to quell mounting public pressure, from both Republicans and Democrats, to release more information related to the Epstein investigation.
The controversy grew exponentially after the release of a Justice Department memo July 7 noting that no new information about Epstein would be released. Soon afterward, news broke that Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino was considering resigning over how the issue was handled.
Most recently, the White House and DOJ have been at odds over whether to release an audio file and transcript from Blanche's interview with Maxwell late last month, senior administration officials confirmed to Fox News.
News of the vice president's dinner prompted fresh concerns from family members of Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who committed suicide earlier this year.
"We understand that Vice President JD Vance will hold a strategy session this evening at his residence with administration officials," Giuffre's sibling said in a statement. "Missing from this group is, of course, any survivor of the vicious crimes of convicted perjurer and sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. Their voices must be heard, above all," they said.
The meeting comes two days before Vance and his family begin their summer vacation in the U.K.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The governor of Texas is promising to remove from office those Democrat lawmakers who fled the state to prevent a legislative quorum – and a vote on redistricting.
Gov. Greg Abbott has given the Democrats who have abdicated their responsibility to vote until late Monday to return.
The Democrats fled "in a last-resort attempt to block redrawn U.S. House maps that President Trump wants before the 2026 midterm elections," according to a report in the Washington Times.
The Democrats fled to Democrat strongholds in Illinois and New York.
The issue is the districting plan that would make five more Texas congressional districts likely Republican seats, a move that would increase the GOP's opportunities for maintaining the majority in the U.S. House in the next election.
Republicans now have 25 of the state's 38 seats in Congress.
The state House had planned a vote on the proposal Monday, but it could be delayed if Democrats refuse to fulfill their commitments and vote.
The move mostly only delays the changes, the report explained. "In 2021 when many of the same Texas House Democrats left the state for 38 days in protest of new voting restrictions. Once they returned, Republicans still wound up passing that measure."
This year Abbott is taking a hard line, and he has cited a non-binding 2021 legal opinion from Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton that suggested a court could determine that a lawmaker has forfeited their office.
"Truancy ends now," Abbot said.
The governor also pointed out that the lawmakers may have been committing felonies by raising money to pay for fines they could face, amounting to $500 a day per person.
Republican House Speaker Dustin Burrows said the House still will meet at planned, warning, "If a quorum is not present then, to borrow the recent talking points from some of my Democrat colleagues, all options will be on the table…"
The House rules require two-thirds of the 150 House members to be present for a vote, and Democrats hold 62 seats. At least 51 fled the state, boasted Josh Rush Nisenson, of the House Democratic Caucus.
The offense of refusing to appear actually, in Texas, is a civil violation of legislative rules, and the state Supreme Court has ruled House leaders have the authority to "physically compel the attendance" of missing members.
By their actions, Democrats also are refusing to allow votes on flood relief and new flood warning plans following last month's catastrophe there that killed at least 136 people.
Fox News reported Democrats, in their supposed safe states, responded to Abbott's threats to arrest them, and expel them, "Come and take it."
"Real Texans don't run from a fight," Abbott noted.
Paxton has explained derelict lawmakers could be arrested "no matter where they go."
The governor noted that a ruling that a lawmaker has "forfeited" his or her office can be removed, and under the state Constitution the governor then can "swiftly" fill the vacancy.
Democrats in states where they hold majorities have threatened to redistrict their states, too, although rules for each state have different requirements.
WND has reported on the statements from the Democrats:
Paxton's own perspective was blunt:
"Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately," Ken Paxton said.
"We should use every tool at our disposal to hunt down those who think they are above the law," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Strzok, mistress Page, sued when their government emails were released to public
During the height of the Russiagate scandal created by Democrats in an attempt to undermine President Donald Trump's first term, an FBI agent was working on the bureau's attacks.
And Peter Strzok had an email exchange with his mistress, Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, and they reassured each other that Trump would not be allowed to win the 2016 election.
He did, and their conspiratorial emails became public knowledge as part of the many investigations into those schemes.
They sued, claiming their emails were private, despite being done on government time and with government resources, and one official agreed, approving a $1.2 million settlement with Strzok and an $800,000 payment to Page.
Now a report in the Federalist reveals that the official signing off on those payments was Brian Netter, a deputy assistant attorney general.
And he now has left the government, revealing his political agenda by joining a group called Democracy Forward, a Democrat party-affiliated group launched specifically to fight Trump with lawfare.
"The group brags that it took Trump to court more than 100 times in his first term in office. It has continued its use of the courts to win political battles into his second term in office," the report said.
The report describes Netter as one of the "disgraced Russia collusion hoax participants" who left the Department of Justice to help lead the "legal resistance" to President Donald Trump and other duly-elected Republicans.
"[W]e have identified Brian Netter, Deputy Assistant Attorney General as the individual that approved the settlement agreements," a DOJ official told the Center to Advance Security in America, the report said.
That organization had filed a Freedom of Information Act request in 2024, when the payouts were publicly announced.
Democracy Forward is led by Marc Elias, the lawyer who's known for schemes to damage "the integrity of both the 2016 and 2020 elections."
In fact, the report explains he "signed the checks for [Hillary Clinton] campaign's Russia collusion hoax."
The report notes he also was active in fighting Trump during the aftermath to the Jan. 6, 2021, protest and riot at the Capital. He was with Merrick Garland's DOJ from 2021 through 2025, and opposed Trump's motion for a preliminary injunction to block National Archives releases to the partisan panel ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set up to "review" those events.
The members hired television experts to stage specially selected "evidence" and present it to Americans in an effort to persuade them that Trump was an "insurrectionist."
The report noted Netter also married Democrat lawyer and activist Karen Dunn, who was a key player in the campaign by the twice-failed candidate Hillary Clinton.
Dunn also was integral in Democrat operations for Barack Obama and another failed candidate, Kamala Harris.
"Congressional overseers were upset by the reward given to the hoaxers and demanded to know who signed off on them," the report said. "They were thwarted by officials who said they didn't know who had authorized the payments, and declined to respond to congressional inquiries to find out."
James Fitzpatrick of the Center to Advance Security in America called the payouts "a prime example of the outrageous abuse of power endured by the American people under Joe Biden."