This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There have been a multitude of indicators that suggest Gavin Newsom, California's extremist Democrat governor, is planning to claim that he is "the one" who should represent America's failing Democrat party in the next presidential election.
Not the least of that agenda has been his creation of an online persona that mimics President Donald Trump, as he uses all-caps statements and such.
But now one major American corporate presence, Bed, Bath and Beyond, has delivered its verdict already on his failed state leadership.
The company has announced it no longer with "open or operate" retail outlets in Newsom's state.
In a statement from Marcus Lemonis, executive chairman of the company, he said bluntly, "We will not open or operate retail stores in California."
He continues, "This decision isn't about politics – it's about reality. California has created one of the most overregulated, expensive, and risky environments for businesses in America. It's a system that makes it harder to employ people, harder to keep doors open, and harder to deliver value to customers."
More:
"The result? Higher taxes, higher fees, higher wages that many businesses simply cannot sustain, and endless regulations that strangle growth. Even when the state announces a budget surplus, it's built on the backs of ordinary citizens who are paying too much and businesses who are squeezed until they break.
"At Bed Bath & Beyond, our responsibility is to our customers and our shareholders. We will not participate in a system that undermines both. Instead, we are investiing in a California strategy that works: 24-48 hour delivery, and in many cases, same-day service. Californians will continue to get the products they love through BedBachandBeyond.com – but without the inflated costs created by an unsustainable model.
"We're taking a stand because it's time for common sense. Businesses deserve the change to succeed. Employees deserve jobs that last. And customers deserve fair prices. California's system delivers the opposite. That's why Bed Bach & Beyond will serve California customers directly through BedBathandBeyond.com, on our terms, and with their best interests at heart."
A report at RedState called the announcement a "rare move for a major corporation."
"By contrast, Bed, Bath, and Beyond will move ahead with reopening brick-and-mortar stores in nearly every other state in the country," the report noted.
"While Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and his cronies love to brag about California's total GDP, something largely driven by its pre-existing population size, that does not testify to economic health. China has a huge GDP, but would anyone argue it's a great place to operate a business or that their system is preferable to America's markets? Right now, California is slipping further and further into debt while more and more corporations flee to find relief from the destructive policies put in place by decades of Democrat governance," RedState explained.
"All of this was preventable. California is a textbook example of what happens when you give left-wingers total control and let their hubris run wild. Yes, long-standing industries and foundational successes that started long before the Newsom era continue to keep the state afloat, but that won't continue forever. You can, in fact, push things too far, and we've seen examples of that over recent years. For example, In-N-Out Burger, a California staple, is choosing to do its latest expansion in the Republican South, including moving its headquarters. Meanwhile, Newsom is having to get on bended knee and beg oil companies not to abandon his state, and there are a lot more companies in other sectors looking to get out as well, from healthcare to technology."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The administration of President Donald Trump has pressured, successfully, the United Kingdom to drop a pending demand for a "back door" access to Apple product users' data.
And that means Americans' personal information now is more secure.
It's a report at the Blaze that outlines how the confirmation comes from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
The report explained that U.K. residents have been worried by their own government's insistence on having the ability to "tap into their bank records as well as their personal photos and messages through their iPhones."
It was the home secretary in the government there that had insisted Apple remove its "advanced data protection" and "end-to-end encryption" for users of its products there.
That triggered Gabbard, the report said.
"The UK and the EU have gotten in the habit of bullying American companies when they don't have a leg to stand on," said Josh Centers, tech writer.
Taking part in the reported pressure campaign were American officials to include President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and others.
U.K. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper soon dropped the demand, a move that protects not only U.K. consumers but those in the U.S. as well, the report said.
Gabbard announced on social media, "Over the past few months, I've been working closely with our partners in the UK, alongside [Trump] and [Vance], to ensure Americans' private data remains private and our Constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected.
"As a result, the UK has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a 'back door' that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties."
A U.K. government official said in an interview with the Telegraph the agreement with the United States includes "critical safeguards to prevent the U.K. and U.S. from targeting the data of each other's citizens."
Centers said now the American tech industry should push for further privacy protections.
Explained Lewis Brackpool, of Restore Britain, "When the state can read everything you say, your right to freedom of expression is put in the grave before it even begins."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It was the U.S. Department of Justice under Joe Biden that launched a war against the state of Georgia's election-integrity plans.
WorldNetDaily reported that Biden's DOJ schemed with the likes of the ACLU and the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center to attack the state law, and then tried to conceal its communications by claiming they were protected from public disclosure.
It was Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger who pursued Freedom of Information Act processes to uncover that DOJ worked with "some of the biggest names in the liberal legal advocacy world," such as the NAACP, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and others, on the agenda.
But now that war is over, a conclusion decided by the same Department of Justice, but now under President Donald Trump.
The American Center for Law and Justice revealed that Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the DOJ to dismiss its "meritless" lawsuit over Georgia Senate Bill 202, acknowledging that the Biden administration "falsely accused Georgia of intentionally suppressing Black voters' votes."
The ACLJ reported, "This complete vindication of Georgia's election integrity laws – and the dismissal of all federal claims challenging Georgia's election laws – represents a triumph for the constitutional principles the ACLJ has steadfastly defended since filing our amicus brief in this case on behalf of 57 Members of Congress."
The DOJ, in fact, said, "The Biden administration fabricated an untrue narrative following the passage of Senate Bill 202 and sued the state of Georgia, claiming without evidence that SB 202 was an intentional scheme to 'depress the Black vote' and referring to the basic election legislation as 'Jim Crow 2.0.'"
The ACLJ said, "This admission confirms what the ACLJ argued from the beginning – that this lawsuit was not about protecting voting rights, but about federal overreach designed to prevent states from implementing commonsense election security measures. The Biden DOJ weaponized federal litigation to attack a state for exercising its clear constitutional authority under the Elections Clause."
Bondi pointed out, "Black voter turnout actually increased under SB 202," demolishing the Biden administration's made-up claims.
"The reality is that 'SB 202's commonsense reforms – photo ID for all voting, strengthened absentee ballot procedures, and rapid reporting of results – spurred record voter turnout, including among black Georgians,'" the report said.
The report said the Elections Clause gives state legislatures – not federal bureaucrats or activist judges – primary authority to regulate the "times, places, and manner" of elections.
The DOJ's new statement said it now is "done with this disgrace" and instead will work to dismantle "weaponized litigation."
"Instead of wasting time on false, divisive lawsuits, the Department of Justice will continue to root out real discrimination, promote common-sense election safeguards, and ensure equality for every American," the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In the wake of his Alaskan summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday said there's "big progress."
"BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA. STAY TUNED!" Trump wrote in all capital letters on Truth Social.
While the president did not provide more specifics about the nature of the progress, he posted two other messages in which he voiced a common theme, his disdain for "fake news" media.
"It's incredible how the Fake News violently distorts the TRUTH when it comes to me," Trump indicated.
"There is NOTHING I can say or do that would lead them to write or report honestly about me.
"I had a great meeting in Alaska on Biden's stupid War, a war that should have never happened!!!"
"If I got Russia to give up Moscow as part of the Deal, the Fake News, and their PARTNER, the Radical Left Democrats, would say I made a terrible mistake and a very bad deal," Trump continued.
"That's why they are the FAKE NEWS! Also, they should talk about the 6 WARS, etc., I JUST STOPPED!!! MAGA."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An innocent property owner in New York City is asking the Supreme Court to rein in an out-of-control municipal fine scheme that doesn't reliably let people know they're being charged with an offense – and then argues that they've lost their ability to dispute it because they didn't respond to something they didn't know about.
"Being punished for a violation I did not commit, never receiving notice of the violation, and having the city routinely ignore my pleas to prove my innocence was incredibly frustrating," explained owner Serafim Katergaris. "What happened to me could happen to any New Yorker, which is why I'm asking the Supreme Court to hear this case."
It is the Institute for Justice that provided details of the horrifying situation that could threaten many people.
"In 2014, Serafim bought a home in Harlem and the title search came back clean. However, when Serafim went to sell the home in 2021, he learned for the first time that the city had issued him a $1,000 fine in 2015 for failing to submit a boiler inspection report in 2013. He never received the violation in 2015. And he had no way to know about it: Serafim didn't own the home when the inspection should've been done, and by the time he bought the house, the boiler had been removed," it explained.
"The Department of Buildings (DOB) claimed that it issued Serafim a notice of violation on March 3, 2015, but Serafim never received the notice. By the time he was selling the home in 2021, the violation now showed up the prospective buyers' title search. Serafim explained the situation to DOB and asked for a waiver, but DOB refused to grant him one. He then requested a hearing with DOB but was ignored. Without any other legal options available, Serafim paid the fine so the sale could move forward, but submitted a letter to DOB explaining that he was paying under protest and that he wanted a refund. DOB refused. It rebuffed him at every turn."
"New York City's scheme of issuing unreviewable fines for code violations and giving people no way to appeal in state courts a clear violation of basic due process rights enshrined in the Constitution," said IJ lawyer Diana Simpson.
"On top of that, the city's methods for informing owners of these fines are sloppy, leaving many without knowledge of them for years. By then, the city says it is too late to challenge the system in federal court. The city cannot insulate itself from the Constitution."
William Maurer, another IJ lawyer, said, "In America, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but New York's code enforcement system flips that principle on its head. New Yorkers from all walks of life are issued fines for minor code violations every day, and they deserve a way to be able to contest these fines."
A federal court ruling in 2024 assumed that the city had mailed the notice, and assumed that it had been received, despite no evidence of either.
The court didn't acknowledge "evidence that hundreds of people never received their notices for boiler violations that year and that Serafim himself swore he hadn't received it."
The IJ noted that the standards in 13 other federal courts are in opposition to this case.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court decision has delivered to President Donald Trump permission to move forward with layoffs at Sen. Elizabeth Warren's pet bureaucracy, the Consumer Financial Protection Board.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, through a three-judge panel, overturned a lower court's block of Trump's plan to dismantle the agency, and mass layoffs are expected to resume.
The decision was based on the fact the employee unions and groups that use the CFPB services don't have a right to bring their challenge in federal court. Instead, it is the .Merit Systems Protection Board that should be hearing the concerns.
"If the plaintiffs' theory were viable, it would become the task of the judiciary, rather than the Executive Branch, to determine what resources an agency needs to perform its broad statutory functions," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas in the majority opinion, which was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao.
The decision lifts a block that for months has prevented the planned layoffs affecting about 80% of its force.
The Hill reported Cornelia Pillard was the lone dissent.
The report explained how the bureaucracy was a target of the Department of Government Efficiency when it was being led by former White House aide Elon Musk.
It was created in 2008 as a result of that year's financial crisis and Trump tapped Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought to be acting director, where he immediately started the dismantling.
"The CFPB is now free to right-size itself in accordance with the law to best serve the American people," Attorney General Pam Bondi said of the ruling.
It had been Amy Berman, a judge whose agenda often is in conflict with the president, who originally had demanded that the firings be halted, and fired workers be reinstated. She also took over the agency to the extent that she was deciding what contracts would be pursued.
Employee unions had gone to court to fight the president's agenda to save American taxpayers money.
Trump's plan involves removing about 1,400 staffers from the agency, leaving 200 behind.
Katsas said, "We hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims predicated on loss of employment, which must proceed through the specialized-review scheme established in the Civil Service Reform Act."
The CFPB is an independent agency uniquely funded by transfers of cash from the Federal Reserve System.
It has worked to regulate consumer financial products and services.
However, critics have charged that it oversteps its authority.
Trump's lawyers have explained 200 staff members are all that are needed for the agency to handle its duties.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
First Lady Melania Trump has put Hunter Biden, the ne'er-do-well black sheep of the Biden family business schemes, famous for his taking a million dollars allegedly to try to influence his father on behalf of a Ukrainian company, his documented encounters with prostitutes, his drug career and his "art" projects with the sky-high prices, on notice for "defamatory" claims he made about her.
A report at Fox News states her litigation counsel, Alejandro Brito, has sent Biden and his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, a letter threatening a $1 billion lawsuit because of his statements, described as "false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory."
The letter demands an immediate retraction of the statements from Biden, in a video interview that was posted to Youtube days ago.
"Failure to comply will leave Mrs. Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to her to recover the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that you have caused her to suffer," Brito wrote.
Among Biden's claims:
"Epstein introduced Melania to Trump. The connections are, like, so wide and deep."
And "Jeffrey Epstein introduced Melania, and that's how Melania and the first lady and the President met."
"These false, disparaging, defamatory, and inflammatory statements are extremely salacious and have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums," Brito wrote. "Indeed, the video has since been re-published by various media outlets, journalists, and political commentators with millions of social media followers that have disseminated the false and defamatory statements therein to tens of millions of people worldwide.
"Consequently, you have caused Mrs. Trump to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm."
Biden, in a profanity-laced interview, later responded to the legal demand with, "F— that. That's not gonna happen."
Biden claimed his "source" for the false statements was "serial fabulist Michael Wolff," the report said.
Wolff's claims were published by the Daily Beast, which immediately took down its article and apologized to Melania Trump when confronted about them.
Brito also warned Biden not to "destroy, conceal, or alter any paper or electronic files, physical evidence" or other records relating to the false claims."
Fox reported, "The letter comes after the Daily Beast pulled the article detailing allegations by journalist Wolff that Melania Trump was introduced to her husband Donald Trump via a modeling agent connected to Epstein, after a challenge from the first lady's lawyers."
The Daily Beast even modified its story URL, so that it now reads: "thedailybeast.com/epstein-this-story-has-been-removed."
Veteran Democrat operative James Carville also made similar statements, and publicly apologized, stating, "In last week's podcast episode, we spoke with Judd Legum. After the episode, we received a letter from Melania Trump's lawyer. He took issue with our title of one of those YouTube videos from that episode and a couple of comments I made about the first lady. We took a look at what they complained about, and we took down the video and edited out those comments from the episode. I also take back these statements and apologize."
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley noted the letter charges Biden with defamation per se.
"The common law has long recognized per se categories of defamation where damages are presumed and special damages need not be proven. These include: (1) disparaging a person's professional character or standing; (2) alleging a person is unchaste; (3) alleging that a person has committed a criminal act or act of moral turpitude; (4) alleging a person has a sexual or loathsome disease; and (5) attacking a person's business or professional reputation."
He continued, "The notice letter is ironic given Hunter Biden's scorched Earth strategy of threatening lawsuits, including defamation, against critics. It did not work. Indeed, Biden abandoned lawsuits after his pardon by his father."
And he explained, "Hunter Biden is reportedly facing financial challenges and the threat of a lawsuit cannot be welcomed news. Biden has been engaging in unhinged, profane diatribes attacking both Democrats and Republicans. The thrill of trash-talking will likely end if Hunter finds himself yet again in court."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new report reveals that Joe Biden, while in the White House, pressured a dozen corporations to debank Donald Trump, sending regulators to harass and investigate banks, even fining them, until they cooperated.
And a report in the Washington Stand reveals they used the concept of "reputational risk" in their threats against the banks.
The report comes on the heels of Trump actually signing an executive order that intends to do away with that option.
His "Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans" was just announced.
The report explained that the New York Post documented how Biden pushed for "at least 12 financial institutions to either refuse to do business with Trump or close accounts that he already had."
Trump earlier identified two of those who gave in to Biden's pressure as JPMorganChase and Bank of America.
The Stand explained, "The Biden administration used 'reputational risk' to send regulators to pressure major banks, harassing, investigating, and even fining banks until they complied. The 'reputational risk' rule was originally designed to be used against criminals, like mass fraudsters or notorious sex trafficker and self-styled financier Jeffrey Epstein, but the Biden administration cited the events of January 6, 2021, to turn 'reputational risk' against Trump."
Trump's new order now gives banks and others 120 days to rescind policies discriminating against clients on the basis of political or religious views. And they've been ordered to track down those they already punished, and offer them services.
The Post said the Biden campaign to harm Trump's banking abilities came in the months after Trump left the White House in 2021.
The Post warned, "It should be reported as much as possible for the simple reason that if any big bank can cancel a former president over politics as opposed to illegality, then every American citizen is in danger of facing the same mistreatment."
The Post reported, "Keep in mind, there are already laws preventing the likes of JPMorgan, BofA and Capital One — the banks Trump has publicly stated canceled him — from being conduits for drug kingpins and Mafiosi. (Trump has sued Capital One, which denied Trump's allegations.) Debanking takes it further. It forces banks to remove customers who might pose nothing more than 'reputational risk,' a flighty rule enforced by bank regulators in recent years to keep financial institutions from doing business with people like Jeffrey Epstein."
The Post explained Biden unleashed his "bank regulatory cops at the Office of Comptroller of Currency, the FDIC and the semi-independent Federal Reserve to go beyond nixing perverted financiers from their platform."
"They used the amorphous nature of what is reputational risk to enforce a political regime, the bank officials said."
In the bull's-eye then was anything to do with Trump, anything to do with crypto, as well as things to do with guns and "certain conservative religious organizations."
It explained, "As bad as the events of Jan. 6 were, Trump did tell the crowd that crazy afternoon to protest peacefully. Trump didn't break the law holding a rally."
Trump's new order says, "Bank regulators have used supervisory scrutiny and other influence over regulated banks to direct or otherwise encourage politicized or unlawful debanking activities. 'Operation Chokepoint,' for example, was a well-documented and systemic means by which Federal regulators pushed banks to minimize their involvement with individuals and companies engaged in lawful activities and industries disfavored by regulators based on factors other than individualized, objective, risk-based standards.
"As a result, individuals, their businesses, and their families have been subjected to debanking on the basis of their political affiliations, religious beliefs or lawful business activities, and have suffered frozen payrolls, debt and crushing interest, and other significant harms to their livelihoods, reputations, and financial well-being. Such practices are incompatible with a free society and the principle that the provision of banking services should be based on material, measurable, and justifiable risks. Such practices, when wielded to discriminate against customers and businesses in credit transactions due to their religion, are also unlawful under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.). They further undermine public trust in banking institutions and their regulators, discriminate against political beliefs and free expression of those beliefs, and weaponize a politicized regulatory state. "
He said, "It is the policy of the United States that no American should be denied access to financial services because of their constitutionally or statutorily protected beliefs, affiliations, or political views, and to ensure that politicized or unlawful debanking is not used as a tool to inhibit such beliefs, affiliations, or political views. Banking decisions must instead be made on the basis of individualized, objective, and risk-based analyses."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A whistleblower has charged that Adam Schiff, now a Democrat senator from California, approved the intentional leaks of classified information to hurt President Donald Trump.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley warned the allegation, if documented, "would involve criminal and unethical conduct of the highest order."
"The whistleblower is described as working for the House Intelligence Committee for over ten years and reported Schiff's alleged conduct in 2017, according to documents obtained by Just The News," he explained. "The staffer described Schiff's conduct as 'treasonous' and 'illegal.'"
He explained Schiff previously was accused of politicizing intelligence, "including his claims (after the special counsel rejected the Russian collusion claims as unsupported) that he had secret evidence in the committee proving such collusion. He never produced that evidence, and it is widely believed that it did not exist."
He continued, "This is different. This would be a premeditated criminal act. It is hard to believe that a 'player' like Schiff would be stupid enough to openly discuss such a criminal act in a staff meeting. However, the fact that the whistleblower made this allegation in a report to the FBI is equally probative. It is a crime to lie to federal investigators," Turley wrote.
He pointed out that it was "notable" that at a time when the congressional committee and the FBI were "leaking sieves of classified and embarrassing information targeting Trump and his associates," this allegation about Schiff "never leaked."
The details say: "When working in this capacity, [redacted staffer's name] was called to an all-staff meeting by SCHIFF. In this meeting, SCHIFF stated the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to President of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP. SCHIFF stated the information would be used to indict President TRUMP. [The whistleblower] stated this would be illegal and, upon hearing his concerns, unnamed members of the meeting reassured that they would not be caught leaking classified information."
The bottom line, he said, is that "Either Schiff ordered the commission of a serious felony or this whistleblower made repeated false statements to the FBI. The public — and Congress — has every right to know the answer."
According to the Gateway Pundit, the "classified information" concerned the Russiagate Hoax, fabricated by Democrats, apparently to include Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, in their campaign to destroy Trump.
"The whistleblower said Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell was likely the source of the classified leaks. At the time of the leaks, Adam Schiff served as the ranking member (and later the chairman) of the House Intelligence Committee," the report said.
And, the report noted, "The Democrat whistleblower was abruptly fired for reporting Schiff's leaks to the FBI."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The former chief of the United States Capitol Police is firing back fiercely against former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who blasted President Donald Trump on Monday for deploying the National Guard to the District of Columbia.
In the wake of Trump's announcement of a federal takeover to beautify D.C. and make it more safe, Pelosi said, "Donald Trump delayed deploying the National Guard on January 6th when our Capitol was under violent attack and lives were at stake.
"Now, he's activating the DC Guard to distract from his incompetent mishandling of tariffs, health care, education and immigration – just to name a few blunders."
Her comments did not sit well with former Capitol Police Cheif Steven Sund, who exposed the failures of the California Democrat in January 2021, as he directly responded to her.
"Ma'am, it is long past time to be honest with the American people," Sund began. "On January 3, I requested National Guard assistance, but your Sergeant at Arms denied it.
"Under federal law (2 U.S.C. §1970), I was prohibited from calling them in without specific approval. That same day, Carol Corbin at the Pentagon offered National Guard support, but I was forced to decline because I lacked the legal authority.
"On January 6, while the Capitol was under attack and despite my repeated calls, your Sergeant at Arms again denied my urgent requests for over 70 agonizing minutes, 'running it up the chain' for your approval.
"When I needed assistance, it was denied," he concluded. "Yet when it suited you, you ordered fencing topped with concertina wire and surrounded the Capitol with thousands of armed National Guard troops."
At Monday's news conference at the White House, President Trump himself called attention to Pelosi's failure regarding Jan. 6 security, referring to her a "certain person."
"You remember I said I offered 10,000 once, remember I said to a certain person, a person who I thought always was highly overrated, not very competent," Trump indicated.
"But I said, 'If you need 'em, we'll give you 10,000 of the military or the National Guard.' They turned me down."
As WorldNetDaily reported in June 2024, an explosive video was posted online in which Pelosi was seen admitting "responsibility" for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
"This is ridiculous," Pelosi says in a phone conversation as she's being chauffeured. "You're going to ask me in the middle of the thing when they've already breached the inaugural stuff that should we call the Capitol police, I mean the National Guard? Why weren't the National Guard there to begin with? … And I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more."