This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Democrat state lawmaker in North Carolina has quit after being jailed for allegedly committing child sex crimes.
A report from Libs of TikTok said it is state Rep. Cecil Brockman, a Democrat, who is out.
His own letter to the legislature conceded he's unable to do the work needed while the charges are pending.
Commentary online blasted him for being a "Black Lives Matter Marxist and anti-police Democrat NC Representative."
A report from LifeZette said Brockman has been accused of crimes involving a 15-year-old.
Officials in the state had said he needed to go away.
The report said, "Court records show that Brockman was arrested on October 8 and charged with two counts of statutory sexual offense with a child and one count of taking indecent liberties with a minor."
Brockman's letter said he needed to focus on his defense.
"According to police and court filings, Brockman met the teenager in May through an online app. Guilford County District Attorney Avery Crump told the court that Brockman later tried to locate the teen by using a tracking app and even called 911 in an attempt to reach the individual," the report explained.
He's been in custody in the Guilford County Jail on a million dollar bond.
He was being considered for expulsion from the legislature at the time he quit.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
With the federal government shutdown extending into 32 days, President Donald Trump warned Republicans they will "rue the day" they did not terminate the Senate filibuster that is allowing Democrats to keep the shutdown going.
"Remember, Republicans, regardless of the Schumer Shutdown, the Democrats will terminate the Filibuster the first chance they get," Trump said Saturday evening on Truth Social.
"They will Pack the Supreme Court, pick up two States, and add at least 8 Electoral Votes. Their two objectors are gone!!!
"Don't be WEAK AND STUPID. FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT! WIN, WIN, WIN! We will immediately END the Extortionist Shutdown, get ALL of our agenda passed, and make life so good for Americans that these DERANGED DEMOCRAT politicians will never again have the chance to DESTROY AMERICA!
"Republicans, you will rue the day that you didn't TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER!!! BE TOUGH, BE SMART, AND WIN!!! This is much bigger than the Shutdown, this is the survival of our Country!"
Appearing on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed Trump, calling Democrats "crazed people" for prolonging the shutdown.
"These are crazed people that President Trump and Republicans are having to deal with," Leavitt explained, "and that's why President Trump has said, Republicans need to get tough, they need to get smart, and they need to use this option to get rid of the filibuster to reopen the government and do right by the American public.
"We know, Maria, by the polling and based on common sense that the vast majority of this country wants the government reopened. That's what President Trump is willing to do, that's what he wants, and he's willing to use any lever to make it happen."
Leavitt added: "Radical left Democrats who have shut our government down and have held the American people hostage for 32 days in a row. We have air-traffic controller shortages all over this country. Half of our nation's major airports are suffering from severe delays as we head into the busiest travel months of the season. We have a half-million federal workers who are going unpaid. SNAP benefits have expired."
"Only because of President Trump finding a legal maneuver are our troops continuing to be getting paid. If it were up to the Democrats, our military and our law enforcement would not be reaching their paychecks like the rest of the federal government workforce. And Democrats are not showing any signs of wanting to reopen the government. They want to give taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal aliens."
When asked if there were any off-ramp to the shutdown, Leavitt replied: "We certainly hope so. We hope the government opens tomorrow. The Democrats want to try to renegotiate the entire health-care system, that they created by the way, and that's why they're holding the government hostage."
"They want to add $1.7 trillion of new spending ind again give taxpayer-funded Medicaid to illegal aliens. That is a red line in the sand for President Trump and Republicans."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Saturday afternoon, just a day after posting his displeasure with the ongoing persecution of Christians in Nigeria, President Trump threatened that country's government should it fail to protect the religious minority there.
Posting on Truth Social, the president stated, "If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, 'guns-a-blazing,' to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities."
Trump said he wants the U.S. military to be ready for possible deployment, saying, "I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST!"
Friday, Trump asserted, "Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter. I am hereby making Nigeria a 'COUNTRY OF PARTICULAR CONCERN' – But that is the least of it."
In response to that statement, pop star Nicki Minaj expressed her gratitude to Trump for highlighting the plight of Nigerian Christians.
"Reading [the president's statement] made me feel a deep sense of gratitude," wrote Minaj. "We live in a country where we can freely worship God. No group should ever be persecuted for practicing their religion. We don't have to share the same beliefs in order for us to respect each other."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Concern over violent Democrats, violent Democrat rhetoric and those who would act on those words is pushing a number of Trump administration officials into protected housing on military installations in the Washington, D.C., region.
For example, War Secretary Pete Hegseth now is renting Quarters 8 at Fort McNair, a location that traditionally had been home to the Army's vice chief of staff but recently was vacant.
Other Trump officials have taken up other military-guarded residences, because of threats.
Marco Rubio, secretary of state, lives a couple doors down from Hegseth, mostly alone as his family has remained in Florida, federal officials confirmed.
And Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, is living in a structure owned by the Coast Guard. She also is paying "fair market rent," DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin confirmed.
Also in military housing is Daniel P. Driscoll, the Army secretary, and Navy Secretary John Phelan.
The threat level is turning out to be significantly higher than during Trump's first term, when only Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo resorted to living at protected locations.
American Military News pointed out the officials have taken up military location residence because of "repeated threats and security concerns."
"The Atlantic reported that at least 6 Trump officials are currently living in military housing instead of in private homes and apartments in D.C. and the surrounding area due to harassment and threats of violence against the officials. The outlet reported that several of Trump's top cabinet officials have been swatted, faced violent protesters, and been threatened by anti-Trump protesters during the first several months of the president's second administration."
Of course, Democrats have labeled President Donald Trump "Hitler" and his followers "Nazis" for years already. There have been a number of extremists that have tried to act on that ideology.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
America's legacy media long have advocated for the Democrats and their agenda, and opposed President Donald Trump.
They worked during the 2020 election to suppress those scandalous details about the Biden family that were exposed in a laptop computer abandoned by Hunter Biden.
Good news about Trump? Rarely reported. Accusations, even false accusations, against him? In the headlines daily.
But something has happened.
Now the Washington Post editorial board, long antagonists of Trump, have "criticized Senate Democrats … for holding the government 'hostage' for a month in hopes of extending costly Obamacare subsidies and urged them to reopen the government by voting for a clean funding bill."
That continuation of ordinary funding for the government is what the GOP has wanted for weeks. Democrats have insisted on raiding taxpayers' bank accounts for another $1.5 trillion to spend on propaganda machines, health care for illegal aliens, and more.
And a broadcast personality on CNN, long an anti-Trump campaign headquarters, further has left conservatives stunned by calling out a Democrat lie, on the air.
It is Fox News that reports on the Washington Post's change.
"The right answer is to reopen the government with a clean funding bill, ideally for a full year, to get food stamps flowing and federal workers back in the office, and then have a debate about ACA subsidies," the board wrote. "Democrats openly acknowledge that they refuse to do this because it would mean giving up their leverage. If they persist, it could mean families start to go hungry."
One result of the Democrats' insistence that the government remain shut down is that funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, processed through food stamps, is running out this weekend.
That will mean, without a resolution, subsidies for millions of Americans' groceries will expire.
"The Post editorial said one reason the government shutdown has dragged on for nearly a month is that 'most Americans have felt no discernible impact on their daily life,' but warned, 'That's starting to change.' 'This pain point, combined with three other dynamics, should help hasten an end to the shutdown as early as next week by making Democrats blink,' the editorial board wrote," according to Fox.
"The Post also noted that federal public employee unions are 'losing patience' with the Democratic Party, citing a recent statement from the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents over 800,000 federal workers. The union said the shutdown is harming its members and called for swift action to end it," Fox said.
Even a bigger surprise was a move by Kaitlan Collins, long an outspoken leftist at leftist CNN.
She stepped in to correct a false claim from Democrat Jasmine Crockett live on the air.
Crockett claimed that Trump said his "main priority" is a new ballroom at the White House.
The fact is that answer came in the context of a question asking about his priorities for "renovations" at the White House.
Social media commenters reacted: "So that's why it's so damn cold out, hell did freeze over!!!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The top legal officers from 24 states are urging the Supreme Court to fix the nation's birthright citizenship problem.
The 14th Amendment, created after the Civil War, was intended to protect the newly freed slaves and their children, but was not intended to give U.S. citizenship to every baby of every illegal alien or foreign visitor to America, President Trump has argued.
He's now being joined by attorneys general from 24 states.
The arguments were filed by attorneys general Jonathan Skrmetti, R-Tenn., and Brenna Bird, R-Iowa, and in a brief asked the Supreme Court to support Trump's argument that American citizenship isn't actually automatic for any newborn born of illegal alien parents or visitors to America.
Trump make that clarification by executive order when he took office in January, "discarding ridiculous left-wing arguments about 'birthright citizenship' — which have allowed illegals to stay in the United States with anchor babies for decades."
But leftist officials in Washington, Illinois, Oregon and Arizona sued.
A report at the Federalist noted, "If the Supreme Court ends up taking the case and rules in line with the true understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause, the Trump administration could start turning the corner on removing the true number of illegals in the country."
"The idea that citizenship is guaranteed to everyone born in the United States doesn't square with the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment or the way many government officials and legal analysts understood the law when it was adopted after the Civil War," Skrmetti said. "If you look at the law at the time, citizenship attached to kids whose parents were lawfully in the country. Each child born in this country is precious no matter their parents' immigration status, but not every child is entitled to American citizenship. This case could allow the Supreme Court to resolve a constitutional question with far-reaching implications for the States and our nation."
Leftists at entry level courts in the federal judiciary have sided, so far, with the citizenship-for-all agenda. They issued nationwide injunctions, a move that already has been rebuked by the Supreme Court.
But those justices have yet to rule on the merits of the "birthright" dispute.
The Federalist said, "The brief shows the history surrounding the ratification of the 14th Amendment and its Citizenship Clause from the 1860s through the early 1900s, laying out the proper understanding of the clause before it was twisted by opportunistic leftists who wanted to destroy the country by importing culturally unrecognizable people who refuse to assimilate."
The report said, "'Birthright citizenship' incentivizes illegal immigration, which inherently takes a toll on states both through sapping government resources meant for Americans and degrading culture and community."
The state attorneys charged, "Recent years have seen an influx of illegal aliens — over 9 million — overwhelming our nation's infrastructure and its capacity to assimilate. Conferring United States citizenship requires a more meaningful connection than mere presence by happenstance or illegality. That connection, originalist evidence repeatedly instructs, was parental domicile."
Opponents of Trump's executive order claim a federal court case from 1898 supports their argument, but it likely doesn't.
In that case a baby was born in American of two Chinese nationals, and was declared a citizen, because the parents were in the United States legally, not illegally.
Key is that the amendment applies citizenship to those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
In fact, Congress in 1866 excluded from citizenship children of "persons temporarily resident" so that those who did not "owe a complete, permanent allegiance" to the U.S. would not benefit.
The report explained, "In 19th century lectures on naturalization and citizenship, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Freeman Miller explained that 'if a stranger or traveller [sic] passing through, or temporarily residing in this country, who has not himself been naturalized, and who claims to owe no allegiance to our Government, has a child born here which goes out of the country with its father, such child is not a citizen of the United States, because it was not subject to its jurisdiction.'"
States joining included: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat member of the U.S. House representing a district in Texas, is known for her leftist extremism and a long list of scandals.
There have been claims she abused her staff, she mocked the disabled and has made dangerous, even threatening statements, about law enforcement.
But now a report has been released in the Free Beacon that could become actionable.
The report is that Crockett, "owned stocks in at least 25 companies that she did not disclose to the public during her first congressional run in 2022, even though she'd quietly admitted to the holdings the previous year as a Texas state legislator. Crockett also didn't reveal the stock holdings once she got to Washington in 2023."
Members of Congress are required to list their investments, and values, in broad ranges, so that the public knows if they are voting for issues that will benefit them financially.
The scandals for the woman called by some a "rising star" for Democrats includes her alleged abuse of staff members and her reputation as the "Boss from hell."
Also she's been accused of demanding staff members open doors for her, and drive her around in rented luxury vehicles like Escalades.
Her statement about law enforcement was, "Law enforcement isn't to prevent crime, law enforcement solves crime, okay? That is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to solve crimes, not necessarily prevent them from happening per se."
And she mocked Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who is in a wheelchair because of an accident years ago, as "Governor Hot Wheels."
She been accused of cutting in line ahead of two wheelchair passengers to get on a flight.
There's been more but the Free Beacon focused on her stock holdings and financial interests.
Her ownership includes bits and pieces of "Amazon, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, General Motors, Uber, DuPont, ExxonMobil, American Airlines, AT&T, Aurora Cannabis, Ford, and 'Corporate Cannabis,' and 'Stocks Worldwide,' the records show. Crockett also reported in her last Texas financial disclosure owing debts of at least $110,000—none of which she divulged in her first congressional financial disclosure covering the same calendar year," the report revealed.
The details were obtained from public records requests, and they clash "with her image as an eco-warrior and beacon of progressivism."
She was trying to open marijuana stores in Ohio, "even as she represented, as a defense lawyer, a man accused of murdering someone in a marijuana deal gone bad. Both in the Texas statehouse and in Congress, Crockett has pushed bills to decriminalize marijuana."
The report found her stock holdings included companies that could have benefited from her work as a lawmaker.
She admitted owning stock in "pharmaceutical, fossil fuel, technology, automobile, and marijuana" industries as a Texas lawmaker, but they "did not disclose owning any of those same stocks in her first congressional financial disclosure, which also covered her financial holdings during the 2021 calendar year," the report said.
"False or incomplete financial reports can lead to civil and even criminal penalties," the report said.
"Personal financial disclosure rules are in place to make sure Members of Congress do not engage in conflicts of interest while working for the American people. The concerns surrounding the extreme discrepancies between Representative Crockett's state and federal financial disclosures are certainly legitimate. If she is found to have improperly reported her assets and liabilities, further inquiry and possible penalties would be warranted," charged Cailin Sutherland, of Americans for Public Trust.
The report said it wasn't clear what her portfolio's current status is, as she didn't respond.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Media corporations across America long have opposed, privately and publicly, President Donald Trump. Negative stories? Every day. Reports on his successes? A rarity.
But now a federal appeals court has cleared the path for a lawsuit brought by Trump over a last-minute polling before the 2024 election that exhibited a lot of suspicious factors, and it literally tried to give a huge boost to failed Democrat nominee Kamala Harris.
The polling was done by J. Ann Selzer for The Des Moines Register, and claimed Harris held a three-point edge over Trump in Iowa, 47% to 44%.
It was pushed to the headlines just two days before the election.
And it was a "stunning" reversal from shortly before, when Trump was confirmed to have a four-point lead.
According to a documentation from Americafirstreport.com, "Released just days before voters headed to the polls, the numbers lit up cable news and social media, painting a false picture of momentum for the Democratic ticket in a reliably red stronghold. In reality, Trump crushed Harris by more than 13 points, his widest margin in Iowa yet and the biggest Republican presidential win there since Ronald Reagan's era."
Trumps court filing in Polk County District Court charged that the defendants, Selzer, the Register and others, of "brazen election interference" through a "leaked and manipulated" poll intended to sway undecided voters.
"The complaint lays out a pattern of suspicious shifts: sample sizes skewed toward urban areas, questionable weighting that favored younger and minority respondents, and a sudden leak to friendly outlets that amplified the Harris lead without scrutiny," the report said.
Now the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has cleared the way for the defamation lawsuit to proceed in state court.
"This move strips away what Trump's lawyers called a shield of 'unlawful gamesmanship' by the defendants, forcing them to face accountability where the wrongs took place," the report said.
The report pointed out that the huge fail by Selzer, who strangely decided to abandon polling days after this was released, "smacks of something more coordinated, especially given the timing and the media echo chamber that treated it as gospel despite her spotted track record…"
The report noted, "Her polls have always tended to favor whoever she personally supports."
The defendants had tried to move the case from state to federal court, but Trump's lawyers argued that the federal venue move was a delay tactic as state law governed the claims.
The 8th Circuit agreed.
The report noted this case, ultimately, "could crack open doors to similar suits against pollsters nationwide reminding the press that free speech doesn't license fraud."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., is urging Republicans to "nuke the filibuster" in order to prevent future government shutdowns.
The Democrat who often speaks against the leadership of his party appeared on Fox News Saturday, telling anchor Kayleigh McEnany the Senate should slice out an exception to the current filibuster rule regarding government funding, making it "almost impossible" to halt operations.
"Well, I just know that two things must be true in this situation right now," Fetterman said.
"SNAP depends on 2 million Pennsylvanians to feed themselves, and I believe it's about 40 million Americans across the nation. That's a big deal right now."
And now we all realize that a lot of the premiums are going to go up, and we might want to address that too. We can support those two things, but I think it's fundamentally wrong, regardless, to shut our government down for those things. The Republican side has their priorities; we have our priorities. I think we have to agree that our government must be open."
McEnany asked the senator: "You think it's time for Republicans to nuke the filibuster and end this thing?"
Fetterman responded: "I think I broached that before. I think it's entirely appropriate. I would remind all of us – the Democrats – we wanted to nuke the entire filibuster. I'm referring to right now carving out this specific situation. I'm not talking about eliminating the entire filibuster.
"It's really not much different than about the en bloc nominees, and I think that was appropriate to do in that situation as well, too. Carving out the filibuster now would make it almost impossible to shut our government down in the future, regardless if it's the Democrats or the Republicans doing these things. We should remove our own power to shut this down in this way."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The first lawsuit has been filed, by a Virginia couple, over President Donald Trump's plan to gift the American people a badly needed $300 million ballroom, to be used for state dinners and the like, at the White House complex by replacing the East Wing.
And it's being done essentially without breaking laws because the White House, and the Supreme Court building and Capitol building are exempt from many standard procedures.
According to published reports, "The Trump administration's decision to demolish the East Wing of the White House without consulting preservation agencies and organizations is a reflection in part of the unusual position the building has in historical preservation law."
It explained that Trump's work with a local planning commissioner means that approval is a foregone conclusion.
Sara Bronin headed the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for Joe Biden, and found, "There's a sense that protections on one of the country's most important buildings should have been a lot stronger from the start. And as we look to what is going to happen next, including plans for construction, I do think we need to get a better understanding about every step that the White House didn't take this time and must take next time."
Democrats have erupted in rage, again, this time over the construction of the ballroom, which is being paid for with private dollars, and the plan is that it won't cost taxpayers anything.
The East Wing's demolition was begun this week, and leftists in the party erupted with all sorts of snark, but most entirely ignored the previous destruction and construction that other presidents, like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, did to the actual White House, not just a wing.
The White House was built from 1792 to 1800, is owned by American people and overseen by the National Park Service.
The East Wing, which held offices, dates to about the 1940s.
Priya Jain of the Society of Architectural Historians said past White House changes have gone through public review procedures, but a provision in the rules allowed Trump's plan to be on the fast track.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has explained the administration wasn't required to submit plans for demolition, but that a construction plan would be provided.
A 1952 law requires approval from a local planning board, the National Capital Planning Commission, which now is being run by a White House staff secretary, Will Scharf.
Donors have been revealed to include Google LLC, Blackstone Inc., OpenAI, Coinbase Global Inc., Palantir Technologies Inc. and Lockheed Martin Corp., among others, with donations being handled through the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit.
Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., has tried to interfere, demanding, "This project represents one of the most substantial alterations to the White House in modern history. The decisions were made in complete secrecy and undertaken without public disclosure or proper consultation."
Democrats are questioning the demolition, the construction plans, the donors and much more.
A lawsuit filed by Charles and Judith Voorhees, in federal court in Washington, submits claims that the administration did not secure "legally required approvals or reviews" for the work.
Hillary Clinton has joined that agenda, claiming, "It's not his house. It's your house. And he's destroying it."