This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The common claims about tariffs, used liberally by President Donald Trump to bring about a more fair international trading platform for Americans, have been exploded by a new study that assesses the impact of those programs over 150 years.
In fact, the claims by Kamala Harris during her failed 2024 presidential campaign, are "in tatters" and the Fed has been shown to be doing exactly the wrong thing.
"The study removes the most potent intellectual weapon from the free-trade arsenal: the claim that tariffs inevitably raise consumer prices. For generations, this assertion ended policy debates before they could begin. Policymakers considering tariffs faced the accusation that they were imposing a regressive tax on consumers. Kamala Harris, in her failed bid for the presidency last year, repeatedly described Trump's tariff proposals as a national sales tax that would increase consumer prices. Now that idea lies in tatters," explained a report from Breitbart.
"With the consumer price argument dismantled, the debate over tariffs can proceed on grounds better rooted in economic history and national purpose. Policymakers can weigh the benefits of protecting domestic industries, rebalancing trade relationships, and rebuilding manufacturing capacity against the effects on economic activity and employment. They can consider whether tariffs might encourage productive investment and industrial development, questions that have been largely off-limits in mainstream economic discourse. The paper's findings also call into question the Fed's response to tariffs. If the main effects are lower inflation and higher lower employment, monetary theory would suggest that the Fed should cut interest rates when tariffs are imposed. Instead, the Fed this year took the opposite course, holding interest rates steady and only cutting hesitantly—moves that now look like a major policy mistake."
The assessment, from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco considered the "150 years of tariff policy in the U.S. and abroad."
"A careful review of the major changes in U.S. tariff policy since 1870 shows no systematic relation between the state of the cycle and the direction of the tariff changes, as partisan differences on the effects and desirability of tariffs led to opposite policy responses to similar economic conditions. Exploiting this quasi-random nature of tariff variations, we find that a tariff hike raises unemployment (lowers economic activity) and lowers inflation. Using only tariff changes driven by long-run considerations—a traditional narrative identification—gives similar results. We also obtain similar results if we restrict the sample to the modern post World War II period or if we use independent variation from other countries (France and the UK). These findings point towards tariff shocks acting through an aggregate demand channel."
The study found "when countries raise tariffs, prices actually fall, not rise."
Authors Regis Barnichon and Aayush Singh found, "We find that a tariff hike raises unemployment and lowers inflation. … This goes against the predictions of standard models, whereby CPI inflation should go up in response to higher tariffs."
The Breitbart report noted the conclusion was released at a "politically charged moment" since the Trump administration has imposed tariff increases averaging 18% on U.S. imports in 2025."
That resulted in legacy economists claiming that is inflationary.
Federal Reserve officials have joined, claiming they don't want to cut interest rates because they expect tariffs to push up prices.
That agenda, the report said, reveals those are "theoretical foundations" that are "shaky" and are not "backed by evidence," the report said.
Overall, "A roughly 4 percentage point increase in average tariffs lowered inflation by about 2 percentage points while raising unemployment by about 1 percentage point, they found," the report said.
That "contradicts" standard economic assumptions, the report said.
The study found, "We provide suggestive evidence that an aggregate demand channel can be at play, but an important avenue for future research is to understand the theoretical reasons for these surprising yet robust findings, which are central to the appropriate monetary response to tariff shocks."
Political parties long have held opposing views, with Republicans favoring tariffs and Democrats opposing them.
The authors found that "since recessions did not favor one party over another, there was no general relation between the direction of tariff changes and the state of the economy."
They then looked at a long list of tariff actions, from the McKinley Tariff of 1890 to President Trump's recent actions.
The report commented, "What emerges is a picture of tariffs far different from what opponents have typically portrayed. Rather than a crude tool that raises prices and harms consumers, tariffs appear to operate through sophisticated demand and supply mechanisms that reshape economic activity in ways economists are only beginning to understand."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – After being labeled by President Donald Trump as a "traitor," "fake politician" and "ranting Lunatic," U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says the commander in chief has put a target on her back, placing her very life in danger.
"Being called a 'traitor' isn't just hurtful, it puts a target on my back and puts my life in danger," the Republican from Georgia said.
Appearing Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," Greene told host Dana Bash, "The most hurtful thing he said which is absolutely untrue is he called me a traitor and that is so extremely wrong. And those are the types of words used that can radicalize people against me and put my life in danger."
On Saturday, Greene revealed that in the wake of Trump's verbal attack on her, "I am now being contacted by private security firms with warnings for my safety as a hot bed of threats against me are being fueled and egged on by the most powerful man in the world.
"The man I supported and helped get elected. Aggressive rhetoric attacking me has historically led to death threats and multiple convictions of men who were radicalized by the same type rhetoric being directed at me right now.
"This time by the President of the United States. As a woman I take threats from men seriously."
Speaking to reporters at Palm Beach International Airport Sunday evening, Trump said: "I don't think her life is in danger. Frankly, I don't think anybody cares about her."
The congresswoman said she believes her push to release all the files concerning convicted pedophile Jeffery Epstein prompted Trump's rage against her.
"Unfortunately, it has all come down to the Epstein files, and that is shocking," Greene told Bash.
"I stand with these women. I stand with rape victims, I stand with children who are in terrible sex-abuse situations, and I stand with survivors of trafficking and those that are trapped in sex trafficking. And I will not apologize for that. I believe the country deserves transparency in these files. And I don't believe that rich, powerful people should be protected if they have done anything wrong."
When asked by Bash if there were something in the Epstein files that Trump doesn't want Americans to see, Greene responded: "The women themselves that I have talked to have over and over again said that Donald Trump did nothing wrong."
"Quite a few of them even told me they voted for him and those are the women I would like to see in the Oval Office with support. I would like to see all of the women there with support," she continued.
"I have no idea what's in the files. I can't even guess. But that is the question everyone is asking is: 'Why fight this so hard?'"
Greene's remarks come the day after a Trump triple-blast against her on X.
"Marjorie 'Traitor' Green is a disgrace to our GREAT REPUBLICAN PARTY!" Trump wrote, spelling her last name incorrectly.
He also said: "All I see 'Wacky' Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN! It seemed to all begin when I sent her a Poll stating that she should not run for Senator, or Governor, she was at 12%, and didn't have a chance (unless, of course, she had my Endorsement — which she wasn't about to get!). She has told many people that she is upset that I don't return her phone calls anymore, but with 219 Congressmen/women, 53 U.S. Senators, 24 Cabinet Members, almost 200 Countries, and an otherwise normal life to lead, I can't take a ranting Lunatic's call every day.
"I understand that wonderful, Conservative people are thinking about primarying Marjorie in her District of Georgia, that they too are fed up with her and her antics and, if the right person runs, they will have my Complete and Unyielding Support. She has gone Far Left, even doing The View, with their Low IQ Republican hating Anchors."
Greene pushed back against Trump's claim about discussions with him about interest in higher office.
"That is absolutely not true. I have never had a conversation with President Trump about running for Senate or governor. Those decisions were completely my own," she said.
"And after the past two months of the government shutdown, Americans saw exactly why I would never want to be in the Senate!"
"I also haven't called him. White House logs would prove that. The only messages I posted were the ones I actually sent, asking him to get involved because the American people want the Epstein files released. That's it."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
School officials in the city of Chicago are being sued by the famed Moody Bible Institute for their public schools programs that banish qualified prospective teachers from Moody from participating in required classroom observations.
"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that religious institutions and religious people have the same rights as everybody else," said a lawyer for the ADF, which is representing Moody.
"We believe that the First Amendment speaks very clearly to that issue. And just like Christian students shouldn't be forced to give up opportunities for following their faith, a Christian school shouldn't be forced to choose between its faith and advancing educational opportunities for its students," he said, according to a report at CBN.
The case is seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction to prevent Chicago Public Schools from continuing its discrimination against Moody students.
The filing charges the district not only has harmed the school's reputation but also its elementary education students' job prospects.
The action against the city and its board of education was triggered by officials' decision to bar students from Moody from participating in a student-teacher program, because of the college's faith-based hiring policies.
The filing was in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The report explained, "Moody Bible Institute's Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education program requires prospective teachers to complete a minimum number of classroom observation, practicum, and student-teaching hours."
But Chicago school officials are refusing to let Moody students participate "unless Moody abandons its religiously based hiring practices and hires employees who disagree with Moody's core mission and biblical values," the report said.
The heart of the issue is the district's advocacy for the anti-biblical transgender agenda.
"As a condition of participation, Chicago Public Schools insists that Moody sign agreements with employment nondiscrimination provisions that forbid Moody from employing only those who share and live out its faith," the lawsuit charges.
Moody requested an amendment to the policy, as the district already has agreed with other schools including Trinity Christian College and Concordia University, but was refused.
"By allowing these other colleges and universities to participate in the Program, Chicago Public Schools demonstrates that it selectively enforces its employment nondiscrimination policy," the filing charged.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Only one day after an archived comment from the late Jeffrey Epstein about Hillary Clinton doing the "naughties with Vince," apparently former White House counsel Vince Foster, appeared, President Donald Trump confirmed he's asking Attorney General Pam Bondi to review Bill Clinton's "involvement" with the convicted sex offender.
Democrats since Trump re-entered the White House have been demanding the release of everything Epstein, suggesting that they include damning information about Trump.
Of course, the Biden administration had access to those items for years, and never was able to dig out anything that it could use against Trump. While Trump was acquainted with Epstein, he cut off the relationship years before the sex offender's lifestyle was known. In fact, one Epstein case insider testified under oath that she was not aware of misbehaviors by Trump.
The Democrats' attacks on Trump have been systemwide:
Those messages from to and from Epstein now are being released by both Democrats and Republicans and at least one rebounded on the Democrats.
Now Trump is ordering a review of the relationship between Epstein and Bill Clinton, who is known to have repeatedly flown on Epstein's "Lolita Express" and visited Epstein's private island.
"The Democrats are doing everything in their withering power to push the Epstein Hoax again, despite the DOJ releasing 50,000 pages of documents, in order to deflect from all of their bad policies and losses, especially the SHUTDOWN EMBARRASSMENT, where their party is in total disarray, and has no idea what to do. Some Weak Republicans have fallen into their clutches because they are soft and foolish," Trump wrote. "Epstein was a Democrat, and he is the Democrat's problem, not the Republican's problem. Ask Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, and Larry Summers about Epstein, they know all about him, don't waste your time with Trump. I have a Country to run!"
He continued, "I will be asking A.G. Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, together with our great patriots at the FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase and many other people and institutions to determine what was going on with them, and him."
He charged it is another "Russia, Russia, Russia scam," referencing the Democrat scheme during his first campaign for the presidency that alleged his campaign colluded with Russia, a fabricated claim that has been totally debunked.
A report at the Daily Mail said Trump warned, "This is another Russia, Russia, Russia Scam, with all arrows pointing to the Democrats. Records show that these men, and many others, spent large portions of their life [sic] with Epstein, and on his 'Island.' Stay tuned!!!"
The Daily Mail confirmed, "Clinton has been linked to Epstein for decades. He was listed in the billionaire's contact book of powerful pals, hosted him at the White House and flew multiple times on his plane nicknamed the 'Lolita Express.' The former president has previously denied knowing anything about the financier's crimes."
One of the references from Epstein claimed one of his victims spent "hours" alone with Trump.
However, shortly before she died in April, Virginia Giuffre confirmed Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing whatsoever and "couldn't have been friendlier" to her in their limited interactions.
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt called the email dump by Democrats a politically motivated "smear."
"The Democrats selectively leaked emails to the liberal media to create a fake narrative to smear President Trump," Leavitt said.
The report said, "Giuffre, who committed suicide earlier this year, was recruited by Maxwell while employed as a spa attendant at the Mar-a-Lago Club in 2000. She was 16 years old. Trump expelled Epstein from his club around October 2007 'for being a creep to his female employees, including Giuffre," Leavitt confirmed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Donald Trump's legal team, and BBC chief Samir Shah has penned a separate, and personal, letter to the White House, apologizing for the network's edit of the president's words that falsely suggested his responsibility for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol.
"Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Trump's legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday," a BBC spokesperson has confirmed. "BBC chair Samir Shah has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the corporation are sorry for the edit of the president's speech on 6 January 2021, which featured in the programme."
The BBC's Panorama program about the events that day took comments from Trump, omitted his statement about supporters protesting "peacefully" and linked the comments with remarks an hour apart, "to make it appear like one long statement," according to a report from Fox News.
The BBC statement added, "While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim."
Trump earlier had cited the "false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements" when he confirmed consideration of a $1 billion lawsuit.
Already, BBC News chief Deborah Turness and BBC director-general Tim Davie have resigned because of the scandal.
At the time he walked away, Turness claimed that, "BBC News is not institutionally biased."
He added, "Mistakes are made."
Trump's legal team had written to the BBC, explained, "the BBC's reckless disregard for the truth underscores the actual malice behind the decision to publish the wrongful content, given the plain falsity of the statements."
They demanded a full and fair retraction.
"If the BBC does not comply with the above by November 14, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. EST, President Trump will be left with no alternative but to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and are not waived, including by filing legal action for no less than $1,000,000,000 (One Billion Dollars) in damages. The BBC is on notice," their letter warned.
WND previously reported Trump's lawyers said statements by the network's "Panorama" documentary were "fabricated and aired by the BBC," leaving him no other option than to seek legal remedy.
The broadcast segment, called "Trump: A Second Chance," was aired in 2024, just before the presidential election.
The president's lawyers charged the BBC intentionally sought to completely mislead its viewers by splicing together three separate parts of President Trump's speech to supporters.
"The documentary showed President Trump telling supporters: 'We're gonna walk down to the Capitol, and I'll be there with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.'"
Trump's actual statement was: "We're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down any one of you but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
Also edited out, according to the letter, was Trump indicating: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has blasted Democrats for using the "Jeffrey Epstein Hoax" to try to distract Americans from their campaign of "viciously closing our Country," through their weeks-long refusal to approve continuing resolution funding for federal employees and programs.
Democrats repeatedly have tried to smear Trump with an association with the late, convicted sex offender.
Trump knew Epstein, but they had a falling out years ago, long before many of the antics that have been ascribed to Epstein developed.
At the same time, Democrats have more or less ignored Democrat names, like Bill Clinton, whose friendship with Epstein is well documented.
In fact, one of Epstein's victims, the late Virginia Guiffre, said in a sworn statement that she never saw Trump involved in anything inappropriate.
The Democrats' latest barrage is the release of emails purporting to discuss Trump and Epstein.
Trump's response was immediate.
"The Democrats are trying to bring up the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax again because they'll do anything at all to deflect on how badly they've done on the Shutdown, and so many other subjects. Only a very bad, or stupid, Republican would fall into that trap. The Democrats cost our Country $1.5 Trillion Dollars with their recent antics of viciously closing our Country, while at the same time putting many at risk — and they should pay a fair price. There should be no deflections to Epstein or anything else, and any Republicans involved should be focused only on opening up our Country, and fixing the massive damage caused by the Democrats!
"In other words, the Democrats are using the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax to try and deflect from their massive failures, in particular, their most recent one — THE SHUTDOWN!" he said.
The White House response also appeared immediately:
A column at the Federalist explained what is developing.
That would be "just another misleading Democrat info op."
"For the last several months, Democrats have been trying furiously to tie Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein. Aside from the fact that this media campaign is obviously not organic, it's utterly bizarre and disingenuous. Democrats simply don't care about ties to Epstein, and never have. They only care that these allegations can be used to possibly harm Trump," the analysis confirmed.
"For instance, the evidence tying Bill Clinton to Jeffrey Epstein is far stronger than that involving Donald Trump, and Clinton spoke in primetime at the Democratic National Convention last year and is hardly persona non grata. Similarly, LinkedIn's billionaire founder Reid Hoffman is a Democrat megadonor who was actively involved in funding the lawfare efforts against Trump and other deeply unethical efforts to help Democrats — including overt attempts to deploy Russian disinformation tactics in Senate races. Hoffman has been to Epstein's island and had close ties to Epstein, years after his terrible behavior was public knowledge. No one in the party felt the need to distance himself from Hoffman…"
The latest claims, in the New York Times, said, "Epstein alleged in emails that Trump knew of his conduct."
The publication got emails from House Democrats, and they originated with Epstein's 2008 plea deal on sex charges.
But the report noted, "In a 2016 deposition for a civil case, Ms. Giuffre was asked if she believed Mr. Trump had witnessed the sexual abuse of minors in Mr. Epstein's home. 'I don't think Donald Trump participated in anything,' she said. 'I never saw or witnessed Donald Trump participate in those acts…"
The report noted, "It's fairly well-established that Trump and Epstein had a big falling out years before Epstein started facing legal consequences and his predatory behavior became public. It's also been reported that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago for making moves on a teenage girl who was the daughter of a club member."
"Democrats are essentially asking you to give Epstein credibility he does not deserve. After he was publicly outed for his behavior, who knows what Epstein's motives might have been to smear Trump? He's clearly thinking about ways to protect himself in these emails, and not entirely reliable," the report explained.
"All of these obvious issues should make these emails a nonstory, especially given the sources and their demonstrable willingness to obscure exculpatory information for Trump."
The report further noted that the Biden administration "had full access to the Epstein files for the previous four years, and despite raiding Trump's home, launching abusive criminal investigations against anyone in his orbit, and coordinating lawfare efforts against him across multiple jurisdictions — they just didn't bother combing through all the Epstein files and releasing all the damning information Democrats suddenly assure us is being hidden now that Trump is president again?"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There long have been concerns that the Clinton Foundation, run by politicians Bill and Hillary Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, operated as a pay-to-play scheme, taking in "donations" from corporations and foreign countries that wanted to gain influence.
After all, Bill Clinton was president from 1993 to 2001, and Hillary Clinton was secretary of state for Barack Obama. During that time, specifically, donations surged, while after she was out of office and out of power, they plunged.
Now a new report from Just the News, which repeatedly has investigated the foundation and its cash flow, notes that Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI chief Kash Patel have given to Congress "a new cache of documents showing how Bill and Hillary Clinton's foundation collected donations from foreign and domestic interests seeking influence."
The documentation now raises anew concerns that such evidence was kept from federal prosecutors who tried to investigate pay-to-play allegations against the former first family a decade ago, the report explained.
The evidence, given recently to the Senate Judiciary Committee, details multiple instances where foreigners, "and even a U.S. defense contractor," sought to "curry favor with the Clintons through donations to their family charity."
Some of the evidence previously had been cited by whistleblowers who charged it was concealed during a corruption investigation in 2015 by the U.S. attorney's office in Little Rock, Arkansas, an effort that shortly later was shut down by Obama and his Department of Justice.
"The documents will make clear that there was an effort 'to obstruct legitimate inquiries into the foundation by blocking real investigation by line-level FBI agents and DOJ field prosecutors and keeping them from following the money,' said one official directly familiar with the documents," the report said.
There had been at least three attempts to review the "pay-to-play" scandal involving the Clinton Foundation but all were ordered closed by the Obama administration.
The new evidence was described as showing how lower-level FBI agents and some prosecutors deprived the decision-makers in those investigations of information about the foundation.
The scandal even encompasses Hillary Clinton's decision to keep government secrets, while she was secretary of state, on a private email server in her home, as she was accused of doing that "so she could hide her Clinton Foundation pay-to-play," according to a report.
According to emails obtained by Judicial Watch, Hillary Clinton gave preferential treatment to Clinton Foundation donors while she was secretary of state.
There was a time when the FBI was reviewing at least 19 Clinton Foundation bank accounts for campaign finance fraud, before the review was shut down.
Previously reported was the declassification of a government document confirming the efforts by the FBI and DOJ to block any review of Clinton Foundation behaviors.
It was Just the News that revealed the actions at the time, heading into the 2016 election, when the family foundation run by the Clintons solicited "contributions" and "donations" – totaling hundreds of millions of dollars – from various groups that had business pending before the federal bureaucracy, which Hillary Clinton ran.
The report explained Patel found a "bombshell" memo from 2017 that chronicled the "extensive political obstruction that career agents in three cities faced from their own bosses and the Obama Justice Department during the 2016 election as they probed whether Hillary Clinton engaged in a pay-to-play corruption scheme."
The government documents show Sally Yates, then deputy attorney general, ordered, "Shut it down!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats, even before President Donald Trump started gaining constitutional and favorable rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, joined other leftists in insisting that the institution must be changed, stacked with leftist ideologues, so the party can get its way whenever it wants.
While Joe Biden was in the White House and Democrats were at their peak power to weaponize the government against their political opponents, through Letitia James, Jack Smith, Fani Willis, the FBI and more, the talk fell by the wayside.
But with President Donald Trump back in the Oval Office and a few Democrat election victories in governors' races, it's back, and "with a vengeance," according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law and George Washington University.
Elections can cause people to speak the unspoken, he noted.
"Partisans can blurt out their inner thoughts with shocking frankness. That was the case this week as Democratic luminaries discussed plans to retake power and then fundamentally change the constitutional system to guarantee they will never have to give it up again," he noted.
"It turns out that winning votes in three blue states and a blue city in an off-year election can be quite intoxicating. It is easy to dismiss it as the talk of chest-thumping, bar-room blowhards about whom they were going to thump. But there is a truth in the bravado."
He noted the demands from Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who said "The Democrat Party looks powerful for the first time all year."
He cited the importance of the Democrats' decision to shut down the government, to coerce the Republican into giving them their way.
Those budget resolution demands include raiding American taxpayers' wallets for another $1.5 trillion for paid propaganda, health care for illegal aliens and more, and it appears the party lost as members crossed over during the weekend to support a GOP plan to reopen federal functions.
Murphy had explained how important it was that the Democrats' win, to squash the idea that Democrats were in "retreat."
And it was ex-Attorney General Eric Holder who not only talked about regaining power, but never giving it up.
"That means weakening the greatest single check on power: the Supreme Court," Turley wrote.
He said he was talking about "the acquisition and the use of power, if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028."
He said the Supreme Court must change.
"It's something that has to be, I think, a part of the national conversation in '26 and in '28, 'What are we going to do about the Supreme Court?'" he charged.
Turley noted, "In other words, the court, as we know it, has got to go. While some on the left are questioning the very need for a Supreme Court or calling for it to be simply defied or 'dissolved,' others want it to be stacked with political activists, like some state supreme courts are."
Colorado's highest state court, for example, is made up of all Democrats, who even tried to banish Trump from the 2024 election ballot before being swatted down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He\y said changes there would have to happen for Democrats to force the creation of D.C. and Puerto Rico as states with two new Democrat senators each.
"Others want election and immigration 'reforms' viewed as favoring Democratic campaigns," he said.
Democrat strategist James Carville joined the bandwagon.
"I'm going to tell you what's going to happen. A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. The Democratic president is going to announce a special transition advisory committee on the reform of the Supreme Court. They're going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That's going to happen, people."
He said, "That's going to happen to you. They're going to win. They're going to do some blue ribbon panel of distinguished jurists, and they are going to recommend 13, and a Democratic Senate and House is going to pass it, and the Democratic president is going to sign it, because they have to do an intervention so we can have a Supreme Court that the American people trust again."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The top two officials at the BBC, or British Broadcasting Corporation, both quit the state-funded, left-leaning media giant Sunday amid fierce pressure for deceptively editing Donald Trump's speech on Jan. 6, 2021, twisting his words to make it look like he was inciting a riot.
BBC boss Tim Davie, a 20-year veteran at the network who has been in charge for the last five years, resigned after "reflecting on the very intense personal and professional demands of managing this role over many years in these febrile times."
"Like all public organizations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable," Davie added. "While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision."
Also leaving her post is Deborah Turness, the CEO of BBC News.
"The ongoing controversy around the Panorama on President Trump has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC – an institution that I love," Turness said.
"The buck stops with me," she added. "While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong."
As WorldNetDaily reported last week, the BBC manipulated Trump' remarks "to make it appear as though he encouraged his supporters to break into the Capitol," according to the Daily Mail.
Britain's Telegraph newspaper had revealed details of a leaked BBC memo suggesting its documentary show "Panorama" edited two parts of Trump's speech together so he appeared to explicitly promote the mayhem that ensued just prior to Joe Biden's 2021 inauguration as president.
"Bye-bye, BBC," one British analyst said on the air the wake of the resignations. "This is basically being Dr. Frankenstein to turn a man into a monster. It's just outright lying."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The federal government has begun investigating abuse in the H-1B visa program, which allows companies to hire foreigners at below-scale salaries after claiming there are no available American workers for the positions.
That program has been documented to have replaced tens of thousands of high-tech American workers with foreigners at lower pay.
But now the review also includes allegations that companies have not been paying even foreigners the salaries offered, thus pushing wages for Americans down, too.
The Times of India, in a nation that sends thousands of workers annually into the program in America, was fretting over the development.
It noted the U.S. Department of Labor has launched at least 175 new investigations into those potential H-1B abuses.
And there are "a bounty of concerns ranging from wage mismatch to work site location," the report said.
The report said some foreigners with advanced degrees are paid far less than what was advertised by the companies, pushing down wages for similarly situated Americans.
"This is the tip of the iceberg as other investigations found that several employers grossly flouted H-1B rules — did not notify the US Citizenship and Immigration Services when an H-1B visa holder was terminated," the report said.
According to reporting from the Blaze, the update concerned what's been called "Project Firewall."
"Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer said that the Department of Labor is 'using every resource at our disposal to put a stop to H-1B abuse and protect American Jobs. Under the leadership of @POTUS, we'll continue to invest in our workforce and ensure high-skilled job opportunities go to American Workers FIRST!,'" the report said.
Virgil Bierschwale, a leading critic of H-1B visas and their impact on American workers, told Fox, "I can quickly bring that up to 32,000 companies being investigated if you have the manpower."
The abuse by companies replacing American workers with foreigners has been more and more in the news of late, and the Trump administration announced plans to have companies pay $100,000 for new H-1B visas to create an incentive to hiring Americans.