This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Federal district judges across the nation, at the behest of leftists who oppose President Donald Trump and go judge-shopping for the best ruling they can get, have been extremely liberal in their use of nationwide injunctions to try to stop the president's plans.
But the Supreme Court's decision that James Boasberg's decision from his Washington court bench that Trump was not allowed to deport criminal illegal aliens was simply irrelevant is being considered a slapdown to federal judges and their overreach agenda.
Just the News reports the Trump administration has endured a record number of temporary restraining orders against its policies, with low-level federal judges imposing their own political ideas with vast orders and restrictions.
"The Department of Justice has repeatedly urged the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of federal injunctions or to clarify the extent of lower court judges' authority to interfere in executive branch operations," the report said. And in fact some justices on the high court have said the issue needs to be addressed.
This week's 5-4 decision by the justices opted to overturn Boasberg's order halting Trump's enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act and it went much further, declaring Washington was an inappropriate venue for the case even to be heard.
That's because the gang members' detentions are in Texas.
The court did say that the gang members need to be given timely notification and be allowed to challenge their removals.
They wrote, "For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today's order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement."
The report noted Texas is in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction, one of the most conservative courts across the country, and those courts are expected to be receptive to Trump's plan to secure America by removing criminal illegal aliens.
The provision for due process, however, likely will slow down the process.
Chief Justice John Roberts also blocked another order from Boasberg, who demanded that Trump bring back to America an illegal alien who was deported.
The ruling regarding deportations explained Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., "provides only a temporary reprieve in one case among many where partisan federal district court judges are throwing up roadblocks to frustrate President Trump's efforts to honor his campaign promise to secure the border and deport illegal immigrants."
He called for the Supreme Court to do "far more" to put a leash on radical liberal judges who are presuming to take over portions of the responsibilities of the Executive Branch of the American government.
Added Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, "[I]t looks like SCOTUS will rule that Trump has broad substantive power to deport but he must exercise that power within due process constraints."
The report said the ruling was one of the first actions to "chastise" district judges for their overreach, and the forum shopping done by leftist groups bringing cases. The cases have covered handing out taxpayer cash to wildly inappropriate causes, dismissing federal workers, realigning agency responsibilities, securing America's borders, and much, much more.
The Trump administration has called out those courts for issuing "more universal injunctions and TROs" in one month than the total issued during the first three years of the administration of Joe Biden.
"That sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to swamp this court's emergency docket," acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris explained.
The report said the latest rulings could indicate how the justices may address some other appeals.
The Supreme Court already has acknowledged the scheme of leftists hunting down leftist judges for favorable rulings.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito, on a ruling from a lower court that demanded Trump continue handing out taxpayer cash through USAID programs, said, "Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned."
Boasberg, meanwhile, has canceled a planned hearing he was going to hold in the case of the illegal aliens deported under the federal AEA law. He said, after the Supreme Court ruling, that the appropriate venue is Texas, where the suspects are held.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Leftists long have given evidence of their advocacy for extreme violence: Consider the billions of dollars in damages Antifa and Black Lives Matter inflicted on American cities following George Floyd's death.
Whole city blocks were torched, businesses destroyed, buildings incinerated, and people died.
Or their long record of rioting on university campuses with the goal of silencing speech and speakers with whom they disagree.
And now it's gotten worse: A new study reveals that "the unhinged left, fueled by Trump Derangement Syndrome and seething hatred for Elon Musk," is growing, and political violence against leftists' opponents is being "normalized."
A report at the Federalist explains the results are from the work of the Network of Contagion Research Institute in partnership with Rutgers University's Social Perception Lab.
That result is a finding that a broader "assassination culture" is "emerging within segments of the U.S.
It was not even a year ago that in two different incidents, assassins tried to take out President Trump, who then was a candidate for his second term in office. He was injured in one attack.
"These attitudes are not fringe – they reflect an emergent assassination culture, grounded in far-left authoritarianism and increasingly normalized in digital discourse," the report, "Assassination Culture: How Burning Teslas and Killing Billionaires Became a Meme Aesthetic for Political Violence," warns.
The report follows several others that explained how social media narratives "were legitimizing political violence, including assassination…"
The report states that 31% and 38% of respondents said it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk and President Trump, respectively.
Musk is the head of the President's Department of Government Efficiency and has been working under Trump's instructions to find and eliminate waste, fraud, corruption, and criminality in the federal government's spending.
The report noted, "These effects were largely driven by respondents that self-identified as left of center, with 48% and 55% at least somewhat justifying murder for Elon Musk and President Trump, respectively, indicating significantly higher justification for violence against these figures."
Nearly 40% say it is "at least somewhat acceptable (or more) to destroy a Tesla dealership" in a protest, the report said.
Outright lobbying, and demands, for violence, are growing, the report said.
"In February, law enforcement officials charged 28-year-old David Allen June Cherry of southern Indiana with felony intimidation after police say he posted online multiple violent threats against Elon Musk, including that Cherry would 'gut' the close adviser to President Donald Trump. 'You've broken the law. You're on the hit list,' Cherry allegedly declared on the Musk-owned social media platform X, to a Musk post, according to an affidavit. 'You're robbing American people. We will gut you and parade your corpse in the streets,' the leftist allegedly menaced Musk a short time later."
Further, a man from Tennessee was upset with Trump and Musk and was arrested on charges of assembling explosives to "burn down" a Musk data center in that state, the report said.
There have been dozens of violent attacks on Tesla EVs, dealerships, and charging stations, too.
And, the Federalist notes, "While threats and acts of violence rise on the left, the silence from Democrats in power is deafening. But we've seen this movie before. Spoiler Alert: It doesn't end well for a lot of innocent people."
NCRI stated, "Unless political and cultural leadership explicitly confronts and condemns this trend, NCRI assesses a growing probability of real-world escalation. Given the current economic volatility and institutional distrust, the online normalization of political violence may increasingly translate into offline action."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
James Boasberg, the federal judge in Washington who repeatedly has disrupted President Donald Trump's efforts to secure and protect America with his judicial activism, could face impeachment for his actions.
But that's a long and cumbersome process.
So U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., has introduced a resolution simply to remove him from office for refusing to abide by the Constitution's requirement that judges can remain in office during their "good behavior."
"We cannot stand by while activist judges who incorrectly believe they have more authority than the duly-elected president of the United States, impose their own political agenda on the American people," Biggs explained in a statement.
"I have cosponsored resolutions to impeach Judge Boasberg. His removal from office via impeachment, however, will undoubtedly be blocked by Democrats in the Senate, since it requires a two-thirds majority. My resolution, on the other hand, asserts, pursuant to Article III, Section 1, that rogue judges may be removed the same way we confirm them—by a simple majority," he said.
"Judge Boasberg abused his judicial authority for political gain and is not in compliance with the constitutional Good Behavior Clause. He must not be permitted to remain in his position. Congress has a duty to fulfill the promises we've made to the American people, including defending the President's authority to enforce our laws."
Boasberg now is the chief of the federal district court in Washington, the entry-level court for the federal judiciary. The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, but all other federal courts are set up by Congress.
The Constitution provides that judges may hold their offices only during good behavior, a separate requirement from those imposed by the authority of Congress to impeach a judge for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
The resolution details how Boasberg knowingly and unjustly interfered with President Trump's execution of foreign policy and targeted the president for partisan purposes and political gain.
That, the resolution charges, subjects him to the process of removal from office for failing to abide by good behavior.
A report at the Gateway Pundit explains the resolution states that Boasberg is in "breach of constitutional order, particularly his unlawful meddling in President Trump's lawful directive to deport members of Venezuela's notorious Tren de Aragua gang under the Alien Enemies Act."
Trump has invoked that federal law to remove illegal alien criminals from America.
When that happened, Boasberg stepped in to try to block those deportations, allegedly "undermining a sitting president's constitutional authority to defend America from foreign enemies," the report said. He even ordered that the White House turn around deportation jets in flight and return the criminal aliens to America, without even knowing whether they would have had fuel enough to make it back.
The plan also cites Boasberdgs prior suspect behavior as a FISA court judge, suggesting "he misused his discretion and failed to disclose payments from outside sources," the report explained.
The report called the move "a direct shot across the bow at activist judges who think they can trample the will of the American people and the duly elected president, Donald Trump."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'He had to read the paper he was given to understand the sign he was holding'
Were the weekend "Hands Off!" demonstrations protesting President Donald Trump and his DOGE leader Elon Musk authentic?
Videos emerging on social media are casting doubt, as some of the protesters apparently had no idea why they were there.
On Saturday, as the Associated Press reported, the events "were organized for more than 1,200 locations in all 50 states by more than 150 groups, including civil rights organizations, labor unions, LBGTQ+ advocates, veterans and elections activists."
"Thousands of protesters in cities dotting the nation from Midtown Manhattan to Anchorage, Alaska, including at multiple state capitols, assailed Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's actions on government downsizing, the economy, immigration and human rights. On the West Coast, in the shadow of Seattle's iconic Space Needle, protesters held signs with slogans like 'Fight the oligarchy.' Protesters chanted as they took to the streets in Portland, Oregon, and Los Angeles, where they marched from Pershing Square to City Hall."
But videos posted on social media suggest the events were artificial, with people being paid and bussed-in, with little idea about the reason for their presence.
Journalist Mario Nawfal said they were "staged & paid – bussed-in, scripted, clocked-out."
"The anti-Elon, anti-DOGE, anti-Trump protests in D.C.? They aren't grassroots. They are payroll-driven theater.
"- Buses rolled in packed with hired protesters.
"- Pre-made signs handed out assembly-line style.
"- Scripts distributed to keep messaging "on brand."
"- Protesters all left at once—just like a shift change.
"The protests are organized astroturf—NGO-backed, donor-funded, and as fake as their outrage.
"It's a union of grifters and bureaucrats trying to stop Elon from cutting off their taxpayer-funded gravy train."
He also noted: "TESLA PROTESTERS PAID UP TO $200 BY INDIVISIBLE."
"A now-deleted webpage published by the organization offered to pay groups up to $200 to stage protests against Tesla and Elon."
Musk himself reacted to comments and videos posted by others such as the Western Lensman, who noted: "They have no clue why they are there, and they have no clue what their signs even mean."
Musk said of one protester: "He had to read the paper he was given to understand the sign he was holding."
He added: "The problem is the puppetmasters, not the puppets, as the latter have no idea why they are even there."
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani posted: "Protesters hold up signs and symbols portraying Elon Musk as a literal Nazi, yet they cannot articulate why. They resort to yelling, screaming, intimidation and censorship."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge has delivered to major blow to a hockey stick climate scientist who sued National Review and lost.
The court order in the case involving Michael Mann and the publication refused to delay the payment of $530,000 due National Review for its legal costs in fighting Mann's 10-year-old lawsuit.
A report from Daily Caller News Foundation said it was the Superior Court of the District of Columbia that had ruled some weeks ago that Mann owed National Review for the outlet's legal fees in the case.
Mann had requested the payment be delayed, which the court refused to authorize.
The report said that means "he will likely have to pony up cash to an outlet he once described in emails as a 'threat to our children.'"
He had come up with a graph that looked like a hockey stick, a relatively stable, slightly ascending line, that suddenly exploded to new heights. He said this was the danger from climate change.
Canadian commentator Mark Steyn criticized Mann's ideas, and then National Review's Rich Lowry wrote a post following up on Steyn's criticisms.
Mann sued both, along with, Rand Simberg, a former adjunct for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Mann's case against Steyn and Simberg prevailed initially, but the court ordered Mann's payment to National Review.
Mann told the court that the order was "mean-spirited."
It was reported earlier the court found Mann, of the University of Pennsylvania, and his lawyers presented misleading information to the jury.
Mann and his lawyers "each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information," the judge said.
"The Court determines that the appropriate sanction is to award each Defendant the approximate expenses they incurred in responding to Dr. Mann's bad faith trial misconduct, starting with Mr. Fontaine's redirect examination," the filing states, referencing Mann attorney Peter Fontaine. "The Court arrives at such a sanction because the misconduct of Dr. Mann and his counsel (1) was extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent; (2) subjected a jury not only to false evidence and grievous misrepresentations about a crucial part of Dr. Mann's case but also to additional trial proceedings for correcting the record and the jury's impressions thereof that otherwise likely would have been unnecessary; (3) further complicated a trial already rife with convoluted and difficult legal and factual issues; and (4) burdened Defendants and the Court with the time-and resource-intensive task of ascertaining the true extent of the misconduct and determining appropriate remedial measures for the same, all without any meaningful acknowledgment of the nature of the misconduct by Dr. Mann or his attorneys."
Originally, Simberg was ordered to pay Mann $1,001 in compensatory and punitive damages, while Steyn was told to pay $1,000,001.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats thought they had won the election for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court.
True, it was by only 734 votes, but a victory is a victory at the ballot box.
Then a ruling came down that ordered some 65,000 voters to prove their eligibility, or have their ballots removed from the total.
A report at the Gateway Pundit explains the situation now is "spiraling into electoral chaos."
The Democrat who purportedly won was Allison Riggs. Conservative challenger was Jefferson Griffin.
"In a stunning decision filed Thursday, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that approximately 65,000 ballots—cast by voters with incomplete registration information, missing photo identification, or submitted by individuals who have never lived in North Carolina—may be invalid under state and federal election law," the report said.
The 2-1 decision was from Judges John Tyson and Fred Gore, both Republicans. Democrat Judge Tobias Hampson disagreed, expressing that the validation wasn't needed.
The report said the court has ordered election officials from 100 counties to tell voters they have 15 business days to prove their eligibility to vote.
Or have their ballots discounted.
It is possible that the result of the election could now come out differently.
The original results had Riggs the winner, collecting 2,770,412 votes to Griffin's 2,769,678
As with many recent elections, the GOP candidate was leading when all of a sudden ballots came in that turned the tide for Riggs, prompting Griffin to protest.
He argued thousands of people cast ballots even though they never completed their registration by providing a valid driver's license or part of their Social Security number.
The appeals court blasted the state Board of Elections for refusing to uphold state law requiring those.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Urges Republicans to 'defund and totally disassociate themselves' from radical Left
President Donald Trump is ferociously attacking National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System, using all capital letters online to call them "radical left monsters."
"REPUBLICANS MUST DEFUND AND TOTALLY DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES FROM NPR & PBS, THE RADICAL LEFT 'MONSTERS' THAT SO BADLY HURT OUR COUNTRY!" Trump figuratively shouted Tuesday on Truth Social.
This is not the first time Trump has addressed the issue of the publicly funded networks which hold a left-leaning political bias.
During a March 25 Cabinet meeting, the president was asked outright if he'd like to see public broadcasting as a whole defunded.
"I would love to do that. I think it's very unfair, it's been very biased, the whole group of them," Trump said.
"There's plenty of coverage. That was from a different age and they spend more money than any other network of its type ever conceived. So the kind of money that's being wasted, and it's a very biased view. … And I'd be honored to see it end."
In a March 27 post on Truth Social, Trump said both "NPR and PBS, two horrible and completely biased platforms (Networks!) , should be DEFUNDED by Congress IMMEDIATELY."
Trump's call came in the wake of NPR CEO Katherine Maher's embarrassing testimony before Congress as she tried to distance herself from radical notions she promoted, including that America was addicted to white supremacy.
"I believe that I tweeted that, and as I said earlier, I believe that much of my thinking has evolved over the last half-decade," Maher told U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas.
The congressman also posted a video from the Media Research Center of some of the most hateful comments NPR and PBS have broadcast over the years.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – Has the biblical Ark of the Covenant, the golden box containing the Ten Commandments, been found?
After countless years of speculation, not to mention the 1981 blockbuster Harrison Ford film "Raiders of the Lost Ark," resurfaced declassified documents claim the CIA located the holy relic in the Mideast with psychic and ESP help as part of an experimental, secret project called "Sun Streak" in the 1980s.
The Ark of the Covenant was created in Old Testament times when God instructed Moses to create the container, which holds not only the stone tablets on which the Ten Commandments were written with the finger of God, but also a jar of manna and Aaron's rod that miraculously sprouted blossoms and almonds.
The New York Post reports: "In a remote viewing session on Dec. 5, 1988, remote viewer #32 was tasked with identifying a target that, unbeknownst to them, ended up being the storied Ark of the Covenant, according to document, which was declassified on Aug. 8, 2000, and has been circulating on social media.
"Logistically, when a remote viewer is tasked with searching for a target, the desired object is written down on a piece of paper and put into an envelope. The remote viewer does not know what is written and is guided through the process by another person, retired U.S. Army Chief Warrant Joe McMoneagle explained."
The paper continued:
"Information collected under this protocol is the only information that can be identified as remote viewing," McMoneagle said.
McMoneagle, aka remote viewer #1, was the first to do the psychic phenomena experiments for the CIA – and he is not convinced by the exercise memorialized in the declassified document.
Remote viewer #32's vision described a secret Middle Eastern location of the object – which they don't know is the Ark – but they say is "protected by entities," the document reveals.
"Target is a container. This container has another container inside of it. The target is fashioned of wood, gold and silver … similar in shape to a coffin and is decorated with seraphim," they relayed, per the file.
"Visuals of surrounding buildings indicated the presence of Mosque domes," they said, adding that Arabic-speaking men, dressed in all white, populated the area.
"The target is hidden – underground, dark and wet were all aspects of the location of the target," they continued.
"The purpose of the target is to bring a people together. It has something to do with ceremony, memory, homage, the resurrection. There is an aspect of spirituality, information, lessons and the historical knowledge far beyond what we now know."
Remote viewer #32 then expounded on the more mysterious aspects of what they saw.
"The target is protected by entities and can only be opened by those who are authorized to do so – this container will not/cannot be opened until the time is deemed correct. Once it is time to open the container – the mechanics of the lock system will be found to be fairly simple," they said before adding a warning to potential plunderers.
"Individuals opening the container by prying or striking are destroyed by the container's protectors through the use of a power unknown to us."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Those political leftists who are vandalizing Tesla vehicles, own by innocent passersby or maybe even their neighbors, because of their connection to Tesla corporation owner Elon Musk's work with President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, already are in trouble.
They're getting charged with a variety of crimes that include penalties of up to 20 years in jail.
One recent case involves Cooper Jo Frederick, 24, who was arrested in Plano, Texas, on suspicion of attacking a Tesla dealership recently in Loveland, Colorado.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the prosecution:
"Let this be a warning. You can run, but you cannot hide," Bondi said in a video message. "Justice is coming.":
The suspect is a resident of Fort Collins, Colorado, and is alleged to have ignited an incendiary device and hurled it at the dealership, narrowly missing several parked vehicles. It started a fire.
Bondi has explained, "I've made it clear (that) if you take part in the wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties, we will find you, arrest you and put you behind bars. All of these cases are a serious threat to public safety. Therefore, there will be no negotiation."
Now it's getting worse for the vandals.
A report from Fox News now documents how the owner of one of those vandalized Teslas is suing the suspect for $1 million in damages.
Suspect, Rafael Hernandez was arrested just a week ago on a criminal mischief charge by the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office "after he was recorded by the Tesla's built-in cameras striking the left side of the electric-powered vehicle," the report said.
In the video, Hernandez can be seen pulling an object out of his pocket and forcing it into the side of the Model X.
The lawsuit charges, "Individual owners of Tesla vehicles, like Plaintiff, are being targeted and victimized by ongoing criminal conduct and action. This has culminated in the 'Tesla Takedown' movement, where certain activists are urging consumers to divest from Tesla products and are organizing protests and other activities that are explicitly or implicitly urging physical damage and/or violence against Tesla owners and/or their Tesla vehicles. Plaintiff recently became a target and victim of this criminal conduct and action."
The report cited the plaintiff's lawyer, explaining, "Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, this is a free country. You're entitled to drive whatever you want, as long as it's legal and within the confines of the law, and you should feel safe and secure in doing so, which, in my opinion, is why the authorities on the law enforcement side are taking these cases very seriously."
The lawyer pointed out the importance of consequences.
"It's a slippery slope, where does it end? Right? Fortunately, you know, my client's car was keyed. He wasn't injured himself, and he wasn't in the vehicle. But others haven't been so lucky, and so if this continues, you know, it's a fine line between having a civil society and chaos."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It's true that those who run for political office, like Congress, have moderate resources when they campaign.
Often, they're lawyers, or from other professions, where they've had good salaries, or they come from state or local government, where they've collected decent paychecks.
And in government, like Congress, they earn $174,000, with bonuses for a few select officers.
So how do they accumulate vast personal wealth, in the hundreds of millions of dollars?
After all, 20 years of such salary is only about $3.5 million and that's before living expenses.
DOGE wants to know:
Elon Musk, running President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency to track down and remove fraud, waste and corruption in government spending, confirmed at a town hall in Wisconsin that he's asked DOGE team members to investigate.
A report at the Daily Mail "has long been vocal in his suspicions about ultra-wealth career politicians."
"A lot of strangely wealthy members of Congress, where I just can't, I'm trying to connect the dots of how they became rich," Musk said. "How'd they get $20 million if they're earning $200,000 a year? Nobody can explain that. We're gonna try to figure it out, and certainly stop it from happening."
Musk's own fortune estimated as some $340 billion is linked to his companies, Tesla, X and SpaceX.
The report noted members of Congress are allowed to buy and sell stocks and cryptocurrency as long as they disclose all transactions. That actually hasn't always happened.
The report said, "Musk has specifically taken aim at Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren, whose cumulative net worth is said to total an estimated $439 million in a post shared to Musk's X account."