This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Those trying to deal with the impact of Joe Biden's decision to open America's southern border and entice millions of illegal aliens into the country now have started removing students from school buildings so that the immigrants can be housed there.
But what's coming is going to be worse, according to X owner Elon Musk.
Soon, he said, authorities will be "coming for your homes."
A report from Washington Examiner pointed out that Musk is charging that "the government may soon target people’s homes to accommodate illegal immigrants."
He said, online, "This is what happens when you run out of hotel rooms. Soon, cities will run out of schools to vacate. Then they will come for your homes."
His comment was in response to documentation from the Libs of TikTok account that showed immigrants being delivered to a New York City school, where they apparently now will be housed.
Students at the school were told to begin virtual classes at the same time.
Musk said, "They’ve run out of hotel rooms, are kicking kids out of school for illegal housing, and now they want your homes too."
Already, Gov. Maura Healey in Massachusetts has called for families to shelter immigrants in their homes.
Inna Vernikov, the minority whip on the New York City council, said this week that 2,000 immigrants from Floyd Bennett Field will now be living in the school.
"Our public schools are meant to be places of learning and growth for our children, and were never intended to be shelters or facilities for emergency housing," her statement said. "There are approximately 4,000 students who attend Madison High School. Their parents are rightfully concerned. Our constituents who live in the vicinity are concerned for their safety and well-being. This will agitate local residents, disrupt the entire school environment, and place a tremendous burden on families, students, school administrators, and staff."
The New York Post explained Libs of TikTok reported, "School is closed tomorrow because illegals will be sleeping in the school’s gym. This is disgraceful! NYC is prioritizing illegals over Americans."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Political and election memes appear in floods during election years, and often in between.
One recent one had an image of Barack Obama telling Joe Biden, "I'm endorsing you."
Biden, with his known history of mental lapses, flubs, and blunders, responds, "For what?"
But one meme is being used by prosecutors to try to send a comic to jail, and he's now fighting back.
A report from Revolver News explains Douglass Mackey was convicted in New York of "election interference" for sharing a satirical anti-Hillary Clinton meme online.
The political jokester passed along, online, a meme that said "Save Time, Avoid the Line" and it directed readers to text their vote.
Of course, it was all a joke.
Then nearly a dozen police pounded on his door, he was arrested, and then convicted for "conspiracy against rights" by those who claimed he was scheming to deprive people of the right to vote.
Now he's appealing.
He has written in a request for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the decision, and he's arguing that if the government's case against him stands, the results necessarily would criminalize not just political misinformation and satire, but also "lies about also whether and for whom to vote. Such a sprawling political speech code is in the teeth of every applicable canon for reading criminal laws, and grossly offends the First Amendment."
His appeal charges that prosecutors in his case claimed "to find a ban on election misinformation in a 150-year-old statute to combat KKK violence," the Revolver report noted.
Further, prosecuting "deceptive speech" is without precedent in the 150-year history of the law.
The appeal contends, "The premise of this prosecution is that [the law] criminalizes anything, even deceptive speech, that may 'hamper,' 'frustrate,' 'slow,' or 'prevent' voting. […] Consider the repercussions of that interpretation[.]"
Additionally, a "progressive" activist told Donald Trump supporters to vote by text, but she was not prosecuted.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats are waging a war, already years long, in which they are trying to make sure President Donald Trump cannot defeat Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential race by removing him from the ballot.
For example, in Colorado, Democrats on the state Supreme Court decided, without even holding a hearing, that Trump was guilty of "insurrection" for what those rioters did on January 6, 2021, and took him off the ballot, a decision now being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Republicans now are responding with an argument that what's good for one party needs to be good for the other.
They are suggesting Biden is not qualified to be on the 2024 ballot.
According to a report from Just the News, Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who is in that state's governor's race, posted on social media, "What has happened in Colorado & Maine is disgraceful & undermines our republic. While I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this, if not, Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden!"
Further, the report said Missouri state Sen. Bill Eigel, also running for governor, proposed a law that would disqualify Biden in his state.
"By the Democrats' standard, Joe Biden should be immediately disqualified and removed from the ballot for the 'aid and comfort' he has given our enemies," Eigel charged.
He cited the treason clause in Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
He charged, "Our country is being invaded, because Joe Biden has swung our southern border wide open. President Biden has allowed more than 8 million people to stroll across our border illegally, causing more harm to this country than any other president in American history."
Also considering a way to block Biden from the ballot is Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a candidate for the GOP nomination for president, the report said.
"This is just going to be a tit for tat and it's just not gonna end well,” DeSantis explained. "You could make a case — and I'm looking at this in Florida now — could we make a credible case" to block Biden from the ballot "because of the invasion of 8 million. And again, I don’t think that's the right way to do it."
Texas Lt. Gov Dan Patrick had similar suggestions when Colorado's Democrat judges adopted their scheme to interfere in the 2024 election.
"Seeing what happened in Colorado tonight … makes me think — except we believe in democracy in Texas — maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing 8 million people to cross the border since he’s been president, disrupting our state far more than anything anyone else has done in recent history,” Patrick said.
The Democrats' lawfare campaign against Trump already has produced anti-Democratic decisions in Colorado and Maine, and Democrats in multiple other states are pursuing similar courses, even though the Supreme Court's decision on whether those attacks are allowed is pending.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the Democrats' big claims against President Donald Trump over the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol was that he wanted to go there, intended to go there, and threatened to go there.
That was the day thousands gathered to hear him speak and a small number of those went to the Capitol, many to protest the adoption of the 2020 Electoral College victory for Joe Biden, which they viewed as the result of corruption.
Of those, a few hundred rioted.
What is known now is that that election was the result of two significant undue influences on voters, one being the $400 plus million that Mark Zuckerberg handed out to various elections officials who largely used it to attract Biden supporters. Never before in American elections has that sum of money been handed out, outside of the structure of election expense rules.
The other was the FBI's interference, when it instructed media corporations to suppress reporting about the Biden family scandals as revealed in a laptop computer abandoned by Hunter Biden.
Turns out those reports were accurate, and the FBI knew at the time it was telling publications to keep them hidden from voters. A subsequent polling showed that the scheme alone likely turned the election from Trump to Biden.
Democrats long have claimed that Trump planned to be at the Capitol with his supporters, based on statements from some Trump aides who recalled to Nancy Pelosi's partisan committee looking into actions that day that Trump "might" have wanted to go to the Capitol.
Further, Ex-Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson "claimed in a disputed account based on hearsay that on the way back from his speech Trump lunged at the driver of the presidential limo to commandeer it and take it to the Capitol. The Secret Service and Trump deny that happened, and no evidence has emerged to validate Hutchinson’s claim. That did not stop the account from making its way into mainstream media," reported Just the News.
But the report said the publication reviewed Secret Service documents and found "no plan" for Trump to be heading to the Capitol that day.
"All presidential trips are highly scripted because of the need for security. The Secret Service places assets at all locations where a president may go. That did not happen at the Capitol, according to the Secret Service records reviewed by Just the News, suggesting Trump’s alleged statements to the presidential aides two days earlier did not result in a change of plan," the report explained.
In fact, the Secret Service plan for President Trump that day stated: "1050 - Depart White House via motorcade en route the Ellipse …1055 - Arrive the Ellipse. 1135 - Depart the Ellipse via motorcade en route White House. 1140 - Arrive White House."
Further, the report noted an accompanying PowerPoint from the Secret Service "laid out all the security provisions for the event, and it like the plan made no mention of a stop at the Capitol."
Both of the documents had been provided to Pelosi's committee, which was partisan because she refused to let Republicans nominate their own members to participate. In fact, no one got on that committee without special approval from Pelosi, who had just staged two failed impeach-and-remove campaigns against Trump.
And, the report said, Trump's impromptu suggestion during his speech to go to the Capitol prompted a scramble among agents, confirming there were no plans for him to be there.
Just the News explained the false report has "become one of the enduring messages of the House Democrats’ final report on the Jan. 6 riot: Donald Trump had a plan and an intention to go directly to the U.S. Capitol to join those disrupting the certification of the 2020 election results."
The final report from Pelosi's committee, in fact, claimed it was concerned that Trump "actually intended to participate personally in the January 6th efforts at the Capitol."
That claim has been echoing across American legacy media ever since.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, one of the extremist Democrats who conducted two failed impeach-and-remove campaigns against President Trump, is now being called out for suggesting a threat to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Raskin wants Thomas off of any panel making a decision on any of the cases involving Trump that might come before the Supreme Court.
Obviously, his concern is that Thomas, as one of the more conservative justices, would oppose the radicalism that is being proposed by those who have insisted on removing Trump from various leftist state ballots, for example.
Raskin's claim is that Thomas would be influenced in his decision-making by his wife, who is a known conservative.
During an interview, Raskin said, "He absolutely should recuse himself. The question is: what do we do if he doesn't recuse himself?"
The concern expressed by constitutional expert Jonathan Turley followed: "The reference to some response from Congress or the public was left unexplained. In the past, Democrats have been criticized for fueling the attacks or targeting conservative justices.
"In fairness to Raskin, I do not believe that he is an advocate for violence. He could be referring to the public voting against Trump. I wish, however, that his fealty to the Constitution would extend to opposing this pernicious and dangerous theory. Other leading Democrats in Congress have done so.
"Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer was widely criticized (including by Chief Justice John Roberts) when he went in front of the Supreme Court to publicly declare 'I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.'
"There is nothing Congress can do to force Thomas off the appeal. The concern is that Raskin is encouraging new targeting of justices at their homes by protesters," Turley explained.
His concern was that Raskin, "said that there may have to be action taken if Justice Clarence Thomas does not recuse himself from pending appeals over the disqualification of Donald Trump from the Colorado and Maine ballots. Not only is there a weak basis for demanding such recusal, the suggestion of some type of response or retaliation raises ongoing concerns over efforts to influence or intimidate justices."
Turley pointed out that under Raskin's agenda, "Thomas would have to recuse himself from any election or Trump-related case because of his wife’s advocacy. Justices on both the left and right have long applied a far more narrow view of recusal."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A commentary at RedState.com has identified 12 states where residents will see tax relief in 2024.
The column reports that there are 11 states where state taxes are being reduced: Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio and South Carolina.
One more, New Hampshire, will phase out taxes on interest and dividend income, reducing the tax for some residents.
The commentary explained the majority of the states, as cited by the Tax Foundation, are led by Republicans.
It explained, however, that even those states don't deserve to be praised – much.
"These actions are not 'putting more money into many Americans' pockets.' That's utterly wrong. What will be happening now is that Americans will retain more of what was theirs to begin with — their money, the fruits of their labor. These states will be, in effect, confiscating less of their residents' incomes."
The writer continued, "And confiscation, yes, is precisely what is happening here. Taxes are not voluntary. If anyone tries to tell you they are, suggest they stop paying taxes for a while, and see how long it takes agents of the government to send men with guns out looking for you (unless your last name happens to be Biden.) Taxes are collected and tax laws are enforced with the implied power and force of the government backing them up."
Nor is it a "gift" from government.
"If a burglar breaks into your house, takes your TV, but leaves your laptop on the coffee table, he's not 'gifting' you the laptop. He just didn't steal as much from you as he might have," the commentary charged.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a decision that has been expected since four Democrats on the Colorado Supreme Court decided to convict President Trump of "insurrection" without a trial or jury, the Supreme Court has confirmed it will review the fight over whether Trump's name can be on the 2024 presidential election ballot.
Democrats across the country have been ramping up their attacks on Trump, now claiming that he was an "insurrectionist" because of others who rioted on January 6, 2021, so he's ineligible to be elected.
Colorado's court issued such a ruling, and a Democrat political activist in Maine removed him from the ballot there. The same campaign has developed in more than a dozen other states, where many times judges have rejected the scheme.
It was a 4-3 ruling in Colorado's court that cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from the ballot. His name will, however, still be on the ballot because of a ruling that stayed the lower court's conclusion pending a final appeal.
The Colorado decision already had been appealed to the Supreme Court, and observers on both sides expected the Supremes to do a review.
There has been other fallout, though. In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis suggested that because the crisis Joe Biden created at the southern border by discontinuing Trump's security plans amounted to insurrection, Biden's name should be taken off the ballot.
The Colorado ruling has been described as flying in the face of precedent and standards, and an appeal filing pointed out multiple major blunders committed by the state court.
Colorado's courts, of course, already have a reputation for attacking Christians and conservatives, and several years ago got handed a scolding from the Supreme Court for attacks on Christian baker Jack Phillips for not violating his faith by promoting the LGBT lifestyle choices.
Then, the Supreme Court condemned the state's "hostility" to Christianity, and a similar scolding is expected by observers this time, too.
On behalf of the Colorado GOP, the appeal to the Supreme Court states:
There are a number of reasons that make this attempt to remove Donald Trump from the ballot baseless. Here are just a handful:
- This provision of the 14th Amendment does not apply to former Presidents. The 14th Amendment has a Civil War provision that disqualifies anyone who commits insurrection or gives aid and support to our country’s enemies from holding political office. But, contrary to the way this provision has been described in the media, it only applies to people who held certain positions, such as Members of Congress, state legislators, “or as an officer of the United States.” As the Supreme Court of the United States has explained, the President is not an officer of the United States but the head of the Executive branch, with authority to appoint those officers.
- The cited provision of the 14th Amendment does not give a Secretary of State, or anyone else, the authority to unilaterally decide to remove someone from the ballot. If it did, it would allow for the arbitrary removal of any candidate without due process, without trial, and perhaps with a simple declaration by the Colorado Secretary of State or some other Secretary of State that the candidate is ineligible. Instead, the 14th Amendment operates “by the legislation of congress in its ordinary course,” as Chief Justice Chase explained when the provision was first ratified. Without a federal law giving them the right to seek a candidate’s removal, there is no basis to try to remove President Trump from the ballot in Colorado or anywhere else.
- Congress has, in fact, spoken on this issue. It provided the mechanism for people to be removed from election ballots under the 14th Amendment by enacting a statute, 18 U.S.C § 2383, which prohibits participation in rebellion or insurrection and provides that those found guilty of violating this statute “shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” This criminal law proceeds through the ordinary course of prosecution, trial by a court, decision by a jury, and appeal, with due process all the way. If a person were properly found guilty under this statute, they would be disqualified from office. Notably, no one connected to the January 6 issues has been charged with insurrection. In other words, the method Congress has provided for disqualifying someone from office has not even been pursued here.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new study shows that after a constitutional carry law was implemented in Ohio, gun crimes dropped in six of the eight largest cities.
A report from the Ohio Star cited the work on the study by the Center for Justice Research, a project of Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and Bowling Green State University.
A little over a year ago, Ohio became the 23rd state to allow residents to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, and the study looked at what followed.
The cities reviewed included Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Akron, Dayton, Parma, and Canton.
Researchers looked at information about crimes involving firearms and such, the report said, with gun crime falling by 22% in Parma. It was down 18% in Akron and Toledo, 6% in Cleveland, and 11% in Columbus. It was down marginally in Canton.
In Dayton, the reports were up 6% and in Cincinnati, 5%.
Yost said, "This is not to downplay the very real problem of crime in many neighborhoods in our cities – you don’t need a research team to see that gun violence destroys lives, families, and opportunity.
"The key takeaway from this study is that we have to keep the pressure on the criminals who shoot people, rather than Ohioans who responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A fatal vehicle crash that happened just outside a concert hall in Rochester, New York, where a New Year's event was being held is being investigated as possible domestic terror, according to reports.
CNN cited a source as explaining the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force is reviewing the situation – partly because one vehicle was found filled with burned gas cans after Monday's collision.
On Tuesday, Rochester Police Chief David Smith indicated: "We've not uncovered any information leading us to believe that the actions of Michael ... are motivated by any form of political or social biases."
The horror happened early on New Year's Day when a Ford SUV hit a Mitsubishi vehicle that was leaving a parking lot there.
The vehicles, after the crash, slid into a group of pedestrians.
The report explained two passengers in the Mitsubishi were killed and the driver was hospitalized, while the driver of the Ford SUV was in the hospital with life-threatening injuries.
The crash burned for nearly an hour before firefighters gained control, and then investigators discovered "at least a dozen gasoline canisters in and around the striking vehicle," the report explained the chief confirmed.
The investigation was ongoing, with the FBI confirming it was working with local law enforcement.
A rock band, called moe, was performing at the venue, and posted a comment on Facebook, "On a night that was meant for celebration and togetherness, we are faced instead with a tragedy that defies understanding. Our hearts go out to the family and friends of those who lost their lives, and our thoughts are with those who were injured."
The Jerusalem Post reported that the presence of the dozen gas containers, as well as the fact that the collision was at the Kodak Center, added evidence to the suggestion of terrorism.
The report explained the driver of the SUV that hit the other vehicle had parked his own car at Syracuse Airport and was a noted the SUV.
The report explained, "Geoffery Rogers, a local journalist, said on the social network X that witnesses to the crash said that the car was speeding before it ran over pedestrians and crashed, telling him 'it seemed like a terrorist attack.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Trump on Tuesday went to court in Maine to challenge a decision by a partisan activist in the state's government to remove him from the 2024 presidential ballot.
That decision was announced just days ago by Shenna Bellows, the state's secretary of state.
But according to Trump's brand new filing, Bellows is "a biased decision maker who should have recused herself and otherwise failed to provide lawful due process," she lacked the legal authority to "consider the federal constitutional issues" at hand, she made many legal errors and handed out her result in "an arbitrary and capricious manner."
The dispute in Maine is the same as the one in Colorado, where four Democrat activists on the state Supreme Court ordered Trump's name off the 2024 ballot. They claim, without evidence or a conviction, that he was an "insurrectionist" and under the Constitution is ineligible to be president.
Multiple other states and other judges have reached the exact opposite conclusion.
Just the News explained Trump asked a Maine court to overturn Bellows' decision, which essentially was the same as Colorado's.
"Bellows in December determined that Trump was ineligible to seek the presidency under the 14th Amendment due to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Her decision followed a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court to the same effect, though Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold subsequently announced she would include him on the primary ballot should the Supreme Court side with him," the report said.
Trump's campaign described Bellows as "a former ACLU attorney, a virulent leftist and a hyper-partisan Biden-supporting Democrat who has decided to interfere in the presidential election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden."
The Colorado ruling already has been appealed to the Supreme Court, which is expected by experts to rule on the fight.
Analysts have suggested that, with Trump leading all challengers so far in the 2024 presidential race, Democrats fear him and are trying any number of "lawfare" attacks to try to keep him off the ballot.
Trump's petition states, "Petitioner Donald J, Trump, by and through undersigned counsel, petitions this Court for review of a final order issued by Respondent Secretary of State Shenna Bellows."
WND previously reported Republicans in Maine immediately launched an effort to remove Bellows from office.
Like the Colorado court, Bellows, without evidence or a conviction, insisted that Trump was an "insurrectionist" and removed him from the ballot.
In reality, Trump never has been charged in court with "insurrection," and when Democrats made that claim in Congress, he was acquitted.
Then, in Maine, "Republican state Rep. John Andrews said he would move to file a request for a joint order to impeach Bellows, who issued a historic decision in becoming the first secretary of state to ban a presidential candidate from ballot access under the insurrection clause."
Andrews said, "I wish to file a Joint Order, or whichever is the proper parliamentary mechanism under Mason's Rules, to impeach Secretary of State Shenna Bellows. I wish to impeach Secretary Bellows on the grounds that she is barring an American citizen and 45th President of the United States, who is convicted of no crime or impeachment, their right to appear on a Maine Republican Primary ballot."