BPNFA3 - Patriot News Alerts

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Reactions from experts to President Trump's confirmation that Attorney General Merrick Garland's partisan Department of Justice was indicting him for having presidential records in his Mar-a-Lago home largely warned of the damage to elections that the move inflicted.

And one, a longtime liberal who openly admits to voting against Trump twice already, had a stunning suggestion: To draft a potential indictment of Joe Biden.

"If I were a Republican leader, what I would do is draft a potential indictment against Biden and his son based on the information that's now available, and present that in the court of public opinion in juxtaposition with the indictment that will come down on Tuesday," said Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School professor emeritus.

He said the indictment, reportedly stemming from documents from his presidency that Trump kept when he left office, was very weak.

"It has to be as least as strong as the case against Richard Nixon, which we will remember led not to Democrats to demand his resignation, but Republicans, his own colleagues came to him and said, this case is so strong that we can't support you," he said.

Fox News also reported Twitter billionaire Elon Musk charged that the DOJ is losing the trust of the American public.

"There does seem to be a far higher interest in pursuing Trump compared to other people in politics," he said. "Very important that the justice system rebut what appears to be differential enforcement or they will lose public trust."

Trump announced the DOJ's pending plan this week, and pointed out that the same DOJ has done nothing regarding vast numbers of classified government documents that Joe Biden had "strewn all over his garage floor where he parks his Corvette."

Fox said, "Trump, who is the first president in U.S. history to be indicted, told Fox News Digital that he is a target of 'the most corrupt' administration in history." And Trump described the case as "election interference."

Dershowitz said the consequences of the politicization of the DOJ against Trump are "dangerous."

"If this indictment is as weak as it appears to be, from what has been disclosed so far, it may be the most dangerous indictment in political history," Dershowitz said. "As everybody knows, it's the first time that a man who is the leading candidate against the incumbent president has been indicted by the incumbent administration in an effort to prevent him from running."

He suggested the DOJ's purpose here is not for the public good, but "to go after the leading candidate against the president."

"It's an extraordinarily dangerous indictment, potentially dangerous to the rule of law, dangerous to the neutral application of criminal justice, and dangerous to establishing a precedent that each side will weaponize the criminal justice system against their political opponents," Dershowitz argued. "That's not America."

He pointed out he voted against Trump, and has that constitutional right. But he said that right shouldn't be removed by prosecutors and judges.

"If this becomes a politically divided prosecution, where the Republicans are on one side, the Democrats are on the other, it moves the election out of the polling booth to the courthouse," Dershowitz said. "And that's not where elections ought to be held."

The Daily Caller News Foundation reported constitutional expert Jonathan Turley said the mishandling documents charges "would likely be discomforting for some of the Biden legal team," since the documents Biden had were held for years – and moved about from place to place. Garland's DOJ has taken essentially no action against Biden for essentially the same actions as Trump's.

America First Legal Vice President Gene Hamilton said in a statement it was an “undeniably dark and tragic day for America.”

“With this news, the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice has completely and totally destroyed any semblance of its impartiality. More than that, it has caused significant societal harm that will unfold for years to come in ways we cannot currently imagine," he said.

"On the heels of the Durham report—which revealed an unprecedented effort by the DOJ to take down a political opponent—they have once again taken a further step down a road of unparalleled action that appears intended to destroy a political opponent of the ruling regime."

The foundation also reported former Vice President Mike Pence said on Friday that he was “deeply troubled” that the Justice Department is proceeding with indictments against Trump.

“After years of politicization at the Justice Department, two and a half years in our administration where we fought against the Russia hoax that the Durham report recently confirmed was an investigation that should never even have been started, and then when we saw the collusion between Big Tech and Big Media, and even the FBI to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story going into our investigation, you know, I’m deeply troubled to see this, to see this indictment move forward,” Pence said.

Commentator Dan Bongino said that the latest attack on Trump by the Biden administration is proof "the police state is here."

"It's not coming, coming next week, it's not going to be here next year. The police state is here now. The idea that you live in a constitutional republic, take it, wipe your rump with it, and flush it down the toilet bowl because that's gone. The police state has been here. It's been here for years. You're just seeing manifestations of it right now," he said.

He also called the Biden administration's actions a deliberate act of election interference.

Commentator Mark Levin said it appears the DOJ's goal is to have Trump "die in federal prison."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A month after lawyers for former Fox News star Tucker Carlson accused the network of breach of contract, the network is responding by accusing Carlson of – breach of contract.

The latest skirmish in the war over Fox's decision to remove Carlson from the airwaves without notice has the network saying Carlson's recent appearance with a commentary on Twitter violated his contract.

That commentary drew a stunning 102 million plus – and growing – views, many times the viewership he routinely had on Fox.

A report from Deadline said the network told Carlson's attorney that they believe his new Twitter show violated his contract.

The report said, "The letter from the network to Carlson’s attorney did not include threats or suggest recriminations, but stated the network’s belief that Tucker on Twitter, which debuted on the platform on Tuesday, amounted to a contract violation, according to a source."

The network's broadside was immediately rejected by Carlson's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, who said in a statement, "Fox defends its very existence on freedom of speech grounds. Now they want to take Tucker Carlson’s right to speak freely away from him because he took to social media to share his thoughts on current events. That’s not going to happen. Not in the United States of America."

Carlson was canceled by Fox only days after it agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787.5 million to settle defamation claims. That stemmed from comments on the network about the 2020 election and Dominion's actions then.

Carlson's lawyers earlier charged that Fox breached its contract with him in reaching that settlement and that a "non-compete clause" essentially had been abandoned.

Deadline said it was Axios that said Fox News general counsel Bernard Gugar claimed Carlson's contract still is valid and prohibits other appearances like the Twitter show.

The Guardian explained the exact terms of Carlson's departure are not known.

Various reports have said the move was part of Fox's settlement with Dominion, which Fox has denied.

In his recent monologue, Carlson promised "viewers the truth without the constraints of mainstream media," the report said.

Subjects included Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the president of Ukraine, and an attack on a dam that has caused widespread flooding.

In response, Twitter owner Elon Musk said it was "great to have shows from all parts of the political spectrum on this platform!"

NBC cited "a source with direct knowledge of the matter" in explaining the dispute that arose over Carlson's first Twitter monologue.

The Washington Examiner said Carlson's original complaint of breach of contract by Fox came up weeks ago.

The report said, "Carlson’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, sent a letter to Fox News on Tuesday, alleging that the network’s executives and employees, including 'Rupert Murdoch himself,' intentionally broke promises made to Carlson 'with reckless disregard for the truth,' constituting fraud, according to a report."

The Examiner explained, "The letter also alleges Fox broke an agreement with Carlson to keep his private communications confidential, not to use them 'to take any adverse employment action against him,' and not to settle with Dominion Voting Systems 'in a way which would indicate wrongdoing' on Carlson’s part, hurting his reputation."

Freedman's letter reportedly charged, "These actions not only breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the Agreement, but give rise to claims for breach of contract, and intentional and negligent misrepresentation."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The administration of Joe Biden has imposed a draconian green agenda on America, shutting down energy exploration, oil pipelines, and more.

He's turned what was an energy-exporting nation under President Trump into one dependent on unfriendly foreign nations for supplies.

And, in the course of that, has driven costs of gasoline as high as $6 a gallon in some cities.

Further, he's proposed getting rid of gas stoves, recommending replacing them with electric units that often run on power generated by coal-fired power plants.

Now he's putting a bull's eye on the ordinary gas furnaces in tens of millions of American homes.

A Fox News report explains Biden's bureaucrats are expected soon to finish regulations that would restrict which furnaces can be purchased.

The report confirmed, "According to experts, the regulations — proposed in June 2022 by the Department of Energy (DOE) — would restrict consumer choice, drive prices higher, and likely have a low impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The agency could finalize the rules targeting residential gas furnaces, which more than 50% of American households rely on for space heating, at any point over the upcoming weeks."

Ben Lieberman, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Fox News Digital that Biden's "efficiency standard" essentially would outlaw any furnace that does not qualify under the high-tech condensing standards.

"Those are more efficient, but they cost more. And installation costs could be a big problem for some houses that are not compatible with condensing furnaces," he warned.

The report revealed the DOE's new requirements would be for furnaces to have a 95% efficiency standard, up from the current market standard of 80%.

"The regulations would largely take non-condensing gas furnaces — which are generally less efficient, but cheaper — off the market," the report said.

And anyone forced to replace a furnace with the more exotic models would face "hefty installation costs," the report said.

"There are some really technical reasons why this is such a concerning rule," Richard Meyer, of the American Gas Association, said in an interview with Fox.

"It has to do with the ability of consumers to comply with this new efficiency standard. They're going to have to, in many cases, install new equipment to exhaust gas out of their home. These higher efficiency units, or so-called condensing units — a lot of consumers have them in their homes, but a lot of consumers don't. So, this rule would require additional retrofits for a lot of consumers. And those retrofits can be extremely cost prohibitive."

The report estimated that about half of the current residential furnaces available would be banned under Biden's agenda.

Biden's administration also has aimed ovens, clothes washers, refrigerators, air conditioners, and dishwashers, claiming new regulations would make them "greener."

A list of proposed or adopted federal rules shows that Biden also is attacking pool pumps, battery chargers, ceiling fans, and even dehumidifiers.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Democrat member of Congress who was assigned by ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to head up her partisan committee that "investigated" the Jan. 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol is being accused of concealing the records the committee generated.

The committee purportedly was to decide what happened that day, when hundreds protested what they saw as a rigged 2020 presidential election, and some elements vandalized parts of the building.

But instead members, only Democrats and two Republicans who were dedicate opponents of Trump, focused on what they could blame the president for. They outright ignored Pelosi's possible culpability for that day, since she had refused Trump's offer of additional National Guard troops.

The committee ended up hiring a television crew and staging its edited evidence of that day to try to influence American voters against Trump. One committee member, Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, promised to dedicate herself to defeating Trump in any future balloting, and was herself thrown out of office by her own voters.

Now U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., is being targeted with a censure resolution, for refusing to send the House panel's records to the clerk of the House.

The plan is from Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., explains a report from the Washington Examiner.

“Lawmakers investigating the weaponization of the federal government are unable to determine which records of the January 6th Select Committee were kept or destroyed before Republicans took control of the House," Gaetz confirmed.

In fact, Gaetz claims Thompson sent many "records" to the Biden White House "and outside the rightful possession of Congress."

He cites letters Thompson wrote to the Biden administration that suggested he thought the records eventually would be in the national archives.

"Representative Thompson intentionally violated this rule, as evidenced by his letters to the executive branch, which expressly detail his 'expectation' that the House property improperly turned over to the executive branch would eventually be turned over to the National Archives," according to the resolution.

It accuses Thompson of violating a House rule by refusing to turn the documents over, and requesting that some be redacted to hide the names of those who testified.

The report explained, "In addition to censuring Thompson, the bill would oust him from the Committee on Homeland Security, where he serves as a ranking member."

The House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight now is in the middle of an investigation of that Jan. 6, panel.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., the chairman, wrote recently to Washington metro police and the National Archives requesting documents regarding the events of Jan. 6. He noted at the time that congressional records on the events were not compete.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

More and more evidence is coming out now that casts serious doubt on the narrative assembled by Democrats that Jan. 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol were an attempt at insurrection and the destruction of the American government.

While that is the portrayal delivered by Democrats in Congress, especially those on the special partisan committee appointed by ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in their attacks on President Trump, it's not accurate, according to a new report.

In fact, Just the News, in its own review of security tapes from the Capitol that day, has confirmed that a door on the west side of the Capitol "was left open and mostly unguarded for key moments during the Jan. 6 riot, allowing more than 300 people to enter the building unimpeded."

That was even as police fought to keep protesters out of other sections of the Capitol.

"The footage -- which confirms concerns first raised by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., two years ago -- shows an episode in a narrow hallway in the middle of the Capitol that began around 2:30 p.m. on Jan. 6, 2021 right after the first breaches were reported elsewhere in the landmark building," the report said.

There, police at the Capitol ushered a few intruders through the non-public Upper West Terrace hallway and out through an emergency exit.

A sign there told evacuees to "push until alarm sounds" and then the door would unlock.

"After one person exits, the doors appear to open from inside as 309 individuals pass through it over a period of less than 20 minutes from the outside," the report confirmed.

The report noted the circumstances are important because of the "fateful decision" to move a few intruders through the emergency doors, which likely "triggered the emergency fire system and unlocked the entrance, creating a new entryway for protesters and a new vulnerability for officers trying to protect the Capitol."

"Some people did enter the Capitol, not by committing acts of violence, but were literally let in," Johnson told the Just the News, No Noise television show.

The footage also could prove devastating on appeal to government attempts to prosecute those it accuses of trespassing.

Just the News also reported Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, who wrote a book on the Jan. 6 events, warned of the false story delivered to the American public by Democrats.

"They picked and chose what they wanted to expose during that sham committee," Nehls said. "They got people screaming, and they found the worst 10 minutes inside the Capitol. But when you truly see the video, there are hours and hours of no violence, non-violent protesters just walking around inside the Capitol, waving their flags, singing God Bless America.

"I mean, there are many, many people inside that Capitol building that day that didn't violate any law, didn't hurt anybody, didn't do anything wrong," he said.

Just a day earlier, Just the News confirmed that Democrats rigged the evidence they presented to the public.

They doctored the facts by adding audio to a silent security video for the hearings they pushed onto prime-time television, the report said.

The report said the "Democrat-led House Select Committee to Investigate Jan. 6 doctored a key piece of its evidence, adding audio to silent U.S. Capitol Police security footage used to create a dramatic video montage for the opening of its primetime hearings last summer."

Just the News said it reviewed the original raw footage and interviews used.

"In at least two instances identified by Just the News, the panel's sizzle reel that aired live and on C-SPAN last June failed to identify that it had overdubbed audio from another, unidentified source onto the silent footage. Multiple current and former Capitol Police officials, as well as key lawmakers and congressional aides, confirmed that the closed-circuit cameras that captured the video do not record sound and that it was added afterwards," the report said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A state legislative leader has been forced from a leadership post after commenting privately to another lawmaker that abortion sounds like a procedure that comes from the "Church of Satan."

A report by Ben Johnson at the Washington Stand explained the comment from North Carolina Rep. Keith Kidwell, a pro-lifer from Beaufort, came after a Democrat in the body "tried to justify her decision to have an elective abortion by citing her church membership and believe in the 'power of God.'"

House Minority Leader Robert Reives, a Democrat, complained to House leaders, "To challenge a person’s religion when they share a deeply personal story ... that is beneath the dignity of this House, and that is beneath the dignity of any elected office."

So House Majority Leader John Bell, a Republican, asked Kidwell to resign his post as deputy majority whip and he did.

The comment about church and abortion came from Rep. Diamond Staton-Williams, a Democrat, who said, during debate before the General Assembly overrode Gov. Roy Cooper's veto of a bill protecting the unborn from abortion, that she and her husband aborted their third child "after much consideration, thought, and, of course, prayer."

The Stand reported, "She then implied her Christian faith endorsed her decision to have an abortion," saying "I am someone who has grown up in the church and believes in the power of God. I know that I go through trials and tribulations. I know we all will. And I know that, ultimately, I have been given the freedom of mind to make decisions for myself."

The report explained Kidwell apparently said privately to another Republican in the House that a church that supports abortion sounds like the "Church of Satan."

The Stand noted, "The Satanic Temple does, in fact, teach that 'The Satanic Abortion Ritual' is a sacrament which surrounds and includes the abortive act.' The rival Church of Satan, founded by Anton LaVey, eschews the term 'sacrament' but declares that abortion 'should be within the rights of the pregnant person.'"

The claim from Staton-Williams to be abiding by the Bible drew opposition from Tammi Fitzgerald, of the North Carolina Values Coalition.

"I think it’s using the Lord’s Name in vain to say you would make a decision to have an abortion as a result of prayer." She said lawmakers should present their stand as biblical only if "it conforms with Scripture."

For some 2,000 years, Christianity and Judaism have explained the Bible has a life-affirming message that prohibits abortion.

"Let's be clear what is happening here: The representative is cloaking anti-biblical views, positions that directly contradict the Bible’s clear teaching, into the religious-sounding language in an attempt to find a middle way. But there is no middle way when it comes to these issues. You are either on the side of Scripture or against it," David Closson, of the Center for Biblical Worldview, told the Stand.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Supreme Court has struck down a local law that allowed government officials to steal the equity in a home seized for unpaid taxes – and now the Pacific Legal Foundation, which has fought many such cases, is warning states that still have such laws to get rid of them.

An announcement from the foundation confirmed it dispatched letters to 21 states plus Washington, D.C., demanding "that they change their laws to comply with the recent Supreme Court ruling in Tyler v. Hennepin County."

That declared home equity theft to be unconstitutional. The process has been used by multiple governments to take ownership of a home that has unpaid back taxes. But governments have been taking, like in the recent Minnesota case, a $40,000 property for $15,000 in taxes. They sell the property and keep ALL the money.

"Last Thursday, in a major victory for property rights, the Supreme Court ruled that home equity theft is unconstitutional," said Jim Manley, state legal policy deputy director at Pacific Legal Foundation. "This ruling has immediate implications for states that allow home equity theft. If these states don’t change their laws to comply with the court’s ruling, they could face damages in the millions in future lawsuits."

WND reported on the Supreme Court ruling when it dealt a massive blow to the equity theft practice.

The fight at hand involved a condominium formerly owned by Geraldine Tyler in Hennepin County, Minnesota, but the same facts have played out over and over across the nation in recent years. In fact, some state laws authorized this specific action.

In this case, Tyler owed about $15,000 in unpaid taxes and penalties, so the county "seized the condo and sold it for $40,000, keeping the $25,000 excess over Tyler's tax debt for itself," the court said.

She sued, charging the county unconstitutionally retained the excess value of her home in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

Lower courts dismissed her charges.

But the high court's ruling said Tyler plausibly charged the retention of the excess value above her debt violated the Constitution.

The ruling said that the excess value of confiscated property protected by the clause "depends on state law," but state law "cannot be the only one because otherwise, a state could 'sidestep the Takings Clause by disavowing traditional property interests' in assets it wishes to appropriate."

"History and precedent dictate that, while the county had the power to sell Tyler's home to recover the unpaid property taxes, it could not use the tax debt to confiscate more property than was due. Doing so effected a 'classic taking in which the government directly appropriates private property for its use.'"

The PLF said its recent study found 21 states plus Washington, D.C., allow home equity theft in some form.

The foundation said home equity theft is allowed in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, and the District of Columbia. Another nine states allow the theft to go on in some circumstances: Alaska, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin.

It was Chief Justice John Roberts who said in the unanimous ruling, "A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the state to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed. The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A rendition of America's national anthem by a children's choir at the U.S. Capitol was deemed a "protest" by police and stopped, just after the words "In God is our trust."

A report from Next News Network described the move by Capitol Police against the children as "astonishing."

"An unbelievable case of censorship took place when the esteemed Rushingbrook Children’s Choir was silenced by Capitol Police in the middle of singing the National Anthem at the United States Capitol," the report said. "Despite having prior approval from Congress members, the police deemed their performance as a form of protest, sparking outrage and concern among citizens and lawmakers."

The report explained the noted group had been given permission to sing in Statuary Hall by members of Congress, including Russell Fry, Joe Wilson, and William Timmons.

But the Star Spangled Banner abruptly was halted on orders of police.

"According to the police, singing the national anthem could be considered offensive or provoke conflict," the report said.

Matthew Leys, a choir supporter, warned in the report, "When you need a permit to sing your National Anthem in your nation’s Capitol, something’s gone wrong."

A report at the Gateway Pundit said, "The abrupt interruption stunned the young performers, the choir director, and the assembled audience."

A different performance by the choir.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Members of Congress are calling on the Department of Justice to reveal how much FBI involvement there has been in special counsel Jack Smith's investigation of Donald Trump.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, sent a letter this week to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding answers to a list of questions about the FBI's involvement.

It was the FBI, of course, that conspired with Democrats during the 2016 election to fabricate the "Russiagate" collusion conspiracy theory against Trump and pursue it as if there was any evidence. Special Counsel John Durham's years-long investigation concluded there wasn't.

That, among other things, has left,, "Public trust in the FBI … low," Jordan explained.

So his letter, warning of "the institutional rot that pervades the FBI," demands to know about FBI agents working on Smith's case, which is to investigate the 2020 election circumstances, the events at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and even presidential documents found at Trump's Mar-a-Lago.

"The extent of the FBI’s bias and reckless disregard for the truth, which Special Counsel Durham laid out in painstaking detail, is nothing short of scandalous. The FBI has tried to dismiss the report’s findings by claiming to have 'already implemented dozens of corrective actions' to prevent similar misconduct in the future," Jordan charged.

"The FBI’s window dressing is not enough. The special counsel's report serves as a stark reminder of the need for more accountability and reforms within the FBI," he said.

Jordan explains that Congress is conducting "oversight" to "inform these legislative reforms" that appear to be needed within the FBI.

He reminded Garland, whose actions in office have been nothing short of partisan, with repeated attacks on Trump and virtually nothing against the Bidens, despite the evidence they participated in suspect actions, of the facts.

He said the FBI "did not possess any actual evidence of collusion before deciding to launch" its investigation of Trump. "The FBI appears to have disregarded this issue largely due to the personal and political biases against Donald Trump harbored by FBI personnel…"

Further, it failed to use "basic investigative techniques," and it created "different standards" to use against Trump.

It even disregarded "highly significant intelligence" so that it could continue to attack Trump.

"It is clear that Congress must consider legislative reforms to the FBI, and the committee has been engaged in robust oversight to inform those legislative proposals."

But the questions about the FBI are to make certain that the "FBI's documented political bias" does not "poison" further investigations.

A report from the Post Millennial said Jordan wants to know "whether any of the FBI employees assigned to work on the investigation had previously been involved in matters concerning Trump, and whether Smith relied on any information gathered 'exclusively by the FBI' prior to his appointment to the special counsel."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has announced plans to force the Senate to vote this week on a 5% cut in federal spending for each of the next two years.

According to Hill, he plans to insist that his amendment to a debt ceiling plan be reviewed.

His office quickly assured Americans that Social Security and a few other limited budget items would be exempt.

But he said he'll insist on a vote – "in exchange for yielding back time on the Senate floor and giving leaders a chance to pass the debt-limit bill."

He calls his amendment a "conservative alternative" to the deal reach by Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

But it creates an issue for Senate Republicans, the report said because a "no" vote opens up the senator for criticism from conservatives "who say that policymakers who exempt mandatory spending programs from reform are not serious about balancing the budget," the Hill said.

Or a "yes" vote could alienate seniors who are worried about seeing their Medicare benefits cut.

Paul said congressional committees would have to review options to reach the goal of $545 billion in cuts over two years.

"The committees would have to determine where the cuts would be. So there still would be for room for people to disagree and debate over exactly where they want the cuts but there would be an absolute topline number for the entire budget that over the next two years would be on the way to balance in five years," he explained.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and other healthcare programs account for nearly 50 percent of all spending, the report pointed out.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also has said that "mandatory spending programs" such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid must be reviewed at some point.

Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said, "You have this crazy political game going on where everybody out-Social Security the other people instead of being straight up and honest with the American public and say, 'We won’t do any harm to anybody’s existing Social Security, and we’re going to have a forward-leaning solution.'"

The pending compromise, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, was adopted by the House and now is pending before the Senate.

The Daily Caller News Foundation it would suspend the debt ceiling for two years.

Paul would replace that with a much smaller, $500 billion increase.

"Bold actions must be taken to defeat our mounting national debt, and my conservative alternative to the Biden-McCarthy deal gives us a real opportunity to get our fiscal house in order," he said.