This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Literally all of America knows, because of this year's presidential campaign, that Kamala Harris was designated the "border czar" and told by Joe Biden to seek out the root causes of the illegal alien disaster that developed when Biden canceled literally all of President Donald Trump's border security plans.
The issue is known as one of her biggest fails, as millions and millions of illegals simply broke the law and walked into the United States under the Biden-Harris regime. It's hurt American schools, hospitals and communities, jobseekers and taxpayers, and has triggered even leftists who normally advocate for illegal migrants to protest over the disaster the situation has become.
Now Harris is becoming known for another big fail – this one involving the internet and more than $42 billion American tax dollars.
A report Politico documents that Senate Republicans recently blasted her "failed" role in that program, which was allocated more than $42 billion in tax money and so has connected no one to the web.
"It appears that your performance as 'broadband czar' has mirrored your performance as 'border czar,' marked by poor management and a lack of effectiveness despite significant federal broadband investments and your promises to deliver broadband to rural areas," Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., Senate Commerce ranking member Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and others wrote her.
A report at the Gateway Pundit took Harris to task over this failure.
"Border Czar Kamala Harris, who failed miserably protecting our borders, was tapped to lead another component of the Biden-Harris agenda, connecting rural Americans to high-speed internet. The program was launched in 2021 at a cost of $42 billion to American taxpayers. President Biden put VP Harris in charge of the effort, and after 985 days under her leadership, NOT ONE person has been connected, and zero Americans have benefitted from this boondoggle. Brendan Carr, who serves as Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, shared the abject failure of the Biden-Harris plan, which broadband infrastructure builders have said is 'wired to fail.'"
Politico said the concerns are over the Biden-Harris regime's allocation of $42.45 billion for an internet expansion scheme called the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program, or BEAD.
They came up with the plan for the 2021 infrastructure law.
So far, under the Biden-Harris leadership, there have been no actual projects begun, no one has been connected to the web and Republicans in the Senate now are arguing that the Democrats have demanded that climate change, union labor and more requirements be met in order for any part of the project to move forward.
While Harris' campaign "writes that she worked to pass landmark legislation including the infrastructure law and American Rescue Plan, adding, 'This has included investing billions to help connect all Americans to accessible, affordable internet,'" the work has failed.
The administration claims that it has "met or exceeded all statutory deadlines to keep (the program) on time and on track."
Further, the Gateway Pundit noted that 32 people from various telecom corporations already have written Commerce chief Gina Raimondo, to "sound the alarm."
"It is with both a sense of alarm and urgency that we write to alert you to the reality that growing numbers of the hundreds of local and regional rural broadband providers we represent are increasingly concerned about their ability to participate in the Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, which your agency administers. Without significant and immediate changes of approach toward its implementation, we are concerned the program will fail to advance our collective goal of connectivity for all in America. We and our members sincerely want this program to work, but we believe that your agency's administration of the low-cost service option requirement in particular risks putting the overall success of BEAD in jeopardy. We urge you to immediately take several specific remedial steps as outlined below to help ensure the program will be able to fulfill the critical connectivity needs of the millions it is meant to serve."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An American border governor said Sunday if Kamala Harris is elected president, her disastrous border policy would make illegal immigration "far worse" than it currently is, "making Biden's border policy actually even look good."
Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott made the comments on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo, outlining what Americans can expect under a Harris administration.
"You can expect what what she's done as vice president, you can expect what she articulated when she first ran for president and that is she supports eliminating illegal immigration as a crime," Abbott began.
"She supports giving magnet-drawing immigration policies such as free health care to people crossing the border.
"She believes in eliminating ICE. This would be the most destructive border policy ever, making Biden's border policy actually even look good. And so as bad as illegal immigration is already, it would be far worse under a Harris administration."
Bartiromo noted: "They're boasting about the fact that the numbers are down from the highs, we were talking about 8,000 people a day coming through the border there in Texas, but those numbers are down. What we don't talk about is the fact that often times they're down because this administration has decided to start flying them in, right? They're putting them on planes, flying them to swing states across the country."
About replied: "You are true, but let's be clear about something else. They're claiming that the numbers are down because of Biden's executive order in June. But the reality is because of action that Texas took, they began going down last year.
"You mentioned something else that not enough Americans know and that is another reason why the crossings at the border are down is because Biden is flying them across the border and then moving them to cities across the entire United States.
"Extraordinary," Bartiromo concluded. "Simply extraordinary."
This week, Gov. Abbott officially designated the Venezuelan gang Tren De Aragua, or TDA, as a foreign terrorist threat after the group took over an apartment building in Aurora, Colorado, a few weeks ago, harassing residents. They tried to do the the same thing in El Paso, Texas, last week.
"This is an action pursuant to a law that I signed this last session in the state of Texas that gives the state some additional powers," Abbott explained.
"One is to use court procedures that will accelerate or the process going after them, another that will allow the seizure of any type of property that TDA has in the state of Texas. A third is one that increases criminal penalties against them so that when we do arrest them, they will be behind bars sometimes with mandatory minimum sentences of at least a decade or more."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Legendary NFL coach Tony Dungy, whose Christian beliefs have been noted many times, is putting Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris on the spot.
She's repeatedly claimed people don't have to give up their "faith" to push for the mass and wanton murders of unborn children through abortion, and Dungy wants to know what "faith" that is.
Harris, of course, has claimed to be part of a leftist church organization.
But her ardent advocacy for abortion, and other deviant ideologies like transgenderism, have clouded exactly what she does believe.
Dungy wrote, "Dear VP Harris: I hear you make this statement all the time. Exactly what 'faith' are you talking about when you say you don't have to abandon it to support abortion? Are you talking about the Christian faith that says all babies are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26), that God places them in the womb (Jer 1:5) and that we should not take any life unjustly (Luke 18:20)? Are you talking about that faith or some nebulous, general 'faith' that says we're good enough, and smart enough to make our own decisions? What 'faith' are you talking about?"
Harris' claims that abandoning a "faith" is not needed to understand that "the government, and certainly Donald Trump, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body."
Actually, the issue involves more than the woman's "body," as during an abortion there are two lives involved. Abortion is the only "medical treatment" that has the goal of killing one of every two patients involved.
Online commenters pointed out Harris demanded that all individuals, men, women and children, inflict the COVID "vaccines" on their bodies, yet now she wants government out of such decisions.
Jim Hoft at the Gateway Pundit pointed out, "Kamala Harris took to X to defend abortion under the guise of 'faith' and so-called 'reproductive rights' in a bold display of tone-deaf hypocrisy. Her ridiculous comment backfired spectacularly when she was blasted for her rhetoric by faith leaders, political commentators, and even a former NFL coach."
The report continued, "This level of hypocrisy is not new to Kamala, but it struck a particularly sour note this time, as she used 'faith' to justify a practice that directly contradicts the teachings of many religious groups, especially Christians. Conservative commentator DC Draino immediately slams Harris, mocking her defense with a scathing tweet. 'You forced women to get Covid vaccinations they didn't want. Many of them now have permanent side effects. Some are dead.'"
The report noted another blast at Harris came from "J6 political prisoner John Strand."
"I think we're more concerned about what the billion-dollar baby-killing industry is doing with those innocent children's bodies. It doesn't help when you lie by misnaming it 'reproductive rights'—nobody is preventing anyone from reproducing. Who gave anyone the right to kill?"
"To vote for you every Christian would have to abandon their beliefs. You are a fare left fraud and you are too radical and extreme," pointed out Philip Anderson, a J6 survivor.
And, the report said, "Dungy's words make it clear that Harris' so-called 'faith' is as hollow as her policies. He wasn't asking for a vague, feel-good answer; he was calling for an explanation of how supporting the abortion industry could possibly align with the Christian faith Harris claims to uphold."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge in Kentucky has been shot and killed in his chambers, and a local sheriff has been taken into custody, charged with murder for the confrontation.
"The preliminary investigation indicates Letcher County Sheriff Shawn M. Stines" shot the judge, the report said.
The shooting happened in the courthouse in Whitesburg, Kentucky, an Appalachian town and county seat with only about 1,700 residents.
It's some 140 miles southeast of Lexington.
County prosecutor Matt Butler immediately recused himself and his office.
"We all know each other here. … Anyone from Letcher County would tell you that Judge Mullins and I married sisters and that we have children who are first cousins but act like siblings. For that reason, among others, I have already taken steps to recuse myself and my entire office."
Russell Coleman, the state attorney general said, there will special prosecutors in the case.
"We will fully investigate and pursue justice," Coleman said in a statement.
The report revealed the 54-year-old Mullins, who had been a judge for 15 years, was hit multiple times in the shooting. Stines, 43, was charged with first-degree murder.
The report noted, "Mullins was known for promoting substance abuse treatment for people involved in the justice system and helped hundreds of residents enter inpatient residential treatment, according to a program for a drug summit he spoke at in 2022. He also helped develop a program called Addiction Recovery Care to offer peer support services in the courthouse. The program was adopted in at least 50 counties in Kentucky."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There are those political bureaucrats in high positions in international organizations who are trying to shift the rights of people so that they can be controlled.
Free speech, they think, is dangerous. Making health decisions? That should be left to "experts." And more.
It was obvious during the COVID pandemic, that the viral catastrophe that came out of China and killed millions around the globe.
There often was criticism, from leftist ideologists, that governments did not have more control over people, other than the lockdowns, the mask mandates, the mandatory shots, and such that did happen.
Even then, there was discussion among Marxists that international groups, the World Health Organization and the United Nations, needed more authority over people.
Now there's a plan that is being assembled that apparently would do just that. And Republicans are at war with it:
It is the Summit of the Future, being promoted by the U.N., as which the schemes are expected to be pushed forward.
A report from the Daily Signal explains that GOP members held a news conference to warn about the agenda.
Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., accused the Biden-Harris regime now in power in Washington of wanting to subordinate Americans to the U.N. and the World Health Organization, so that those organizations, when they would choose, could dictate to Americans what they could do.
Good and Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., led a press conference with other GOP members to express their opposition to what effectively would amount to a global governance.
"They seek to facilitate the evolution of the U.N. from an international cooperative body to an international governing body," Good charged.
Good pointed out that in November, voters will decide what kind of country the U.S. will be, since President Donald Trump had withdrawn the U.S. from the World Health Organization, but the Biden-Harris regime immediately subjected Americans to the whims of that organization again.
Good said now the U.N. and a long list of bureaucrats want to be "transforming" the bureaucracy into "global governance."
Biden and Harris, of course, are supporting "the surrender" of the U.S. to the ideology, he charged.
"They want America to be subordinated to and governed by the U.N.," he said.
The report also explained Good is shocked by the legacy news media's decision to ignore the dispute.
"This is the most important issue [but it's] getting the least amount of attention relative to its importance and its impact on our country and on the American people," he said.
Legacy media, of course, are occupied with claims such as that report on "Biden beats Trump at Stock Market," when Trump's economy was blasted at its conclusion by the literal global shutdown of business because of COVID, and Biden's was benefited by the world economy's eventual recovery from that.
Legacy media outlets also are tied up reporting on the newest Democrat-weighted polling showing Kamala Harris ahead in the presidential race.
Or the criminal court obstacles of some entertainer now named "Diddy."
And those disputes of national significance like, "Are Don Jr. and Guilfoyle done?"
The U.N.'s agenda for the coming few days includes three international deals the leftist officials want to finalize: "The Pact for the Future," the "Declaration Future Generations" and the "Global Digital Compact."
The Daily Signal report notes that U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres already has tried to convince member nations, using COVID-19 as justification, that his power, and that of the U.N., should be raised to sky-high levels so that they could do as they please in another world crisis.
"The Pact for the Future includes an 'emergency platform' that would give Guterres the power as U.N. chief to address what the agreement calls 'global shocks,'" the report said.
Those "shocks" could come from "climatic or environmental events," more pandemics, "biological" events and anything else that they say disrupts "global flows of goods, people, or finance."
Yes, there's also the recognition of a "major event in outer space."
"That's enough examples and enough reasons for them to get involved pretty much whenever and wherever they want to," Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., charged. "I hope that this body and the Senate continues to reject, push back, and stop this agreement and this push by this administration to sell our sovereignty to globalists."
The U.N. naively insists on guaranteeing the elimination of "intergenerational transmission of poverty and hunger, inequality and injustice."
Technology would come under U.N. control through the digital compact.
It provides, for example, U.N. authority to use artificial intelligence to stop "misinformation and disinformation," which as leftists define it includes facts or opinions they don't like.
The nations of WHO, two decades ago, adopted the idea of international health regulations. Then under the Biden-Harris regime after COVID, their bureaucrats proposed a plan to give Ghebreyesus authority to declare a public health alert anywhere.
The idea that the Biden-Harris regime could arbitrarily impose such a bureaucracy on Americans prompted the House already to approve a plan requiring Senate approval of any such "treaty." But it has yet to be adopted by the Senate.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Kamala Harris' plans to attack gun owners, as she outlined when she was a prosecutor in California, is a preview of her agenda for totalitarianism, according to commentator Tucker Carlson.
WND already has reported on her proclamation that any time they wanted, police could walk into a home and check whether the resident was doing what they wanted with his or her guns.
Now Carlson has commented: "This is openly totalitarian. If we don't resist this, we're done."
Social media commenters responded with:
"This is the most insane thing shes every said… AND THAT'S SAYING A LOT."
"Kamala Harris literally said they will be doing a gun confiscation. What's it going to take for everyone to realize these people are straight up communists and they are coming for our guns, our free speech and all our constitutional rights. Democrats are domestic terrorists."
"This is a red line they are crossing."
A report from Shore News Network explained, "As San Francisco's district attorney, Kamala Harris made headlines in 2007 when she told legal gun owners that authorities could 'walk into' their homes to inspect whether they were storing firearms properly, under a law she helped draft. During a press conference in May of that year, Harris explained, 'Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe.'"
The report pointed out, "Now, legal gun owners across America are waiting to see if she would enact a federal law that allows police to enter any legal gun owner's home at any time, to perform a gun safety inspection."
It pointed out Harris has worked on developing penalties for gun owners who don't store their firearms as she wants.
"The bill also included broader gun control measures, such as requiring gun distributors to submit an inventory to the police chief every six months and banning the possession of guns in public housing, even if they were legally owned."
Those issues already are law in San Francisco, the report noted.
Harris also has talked about taking action against gun owners by executive order, and not waiting for Congress to make such actions legal.
It was Fox News that reported:
As San Francisco's district attorney, Kamala Harris told legal gun owners in her community that authorities could "walk into" their homes to inspect whether they were storing their firearms properly under a new law she helped draft.
The remarks came during a press conference introducing legislation that Harris helped draft, which sought to impose penalties for gun owners who fail to store their firearms properly at home.
The bill, which at the time had just been introduced to the city's board of supervisors, was ultimately signed into law a few months later by then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. It was bundled with other gun control provisions, including a new requirement for legal gun distributors to submit an inventory to the chief of police every six months, and a ban on possessing guns – even legally – in public housing.
"San Francisco now has the strictest anti-gun laws in the county," Newsom said when he signed the new laws.
Most recently, Harris is claiming there's a need for an "assault weapons" ban although there's no such thing as an "assault weapon" and it's a term commonly used by leftists to try to make firearms appear bad.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Hillary Clinton, the twice-failed Democrat presidential wannabe and longtime purveyor of political disinformation, has claimed she wants those who spread such disinformation jailed, and a commentary now has charged if that's the practice, then "You first."
WND reported that Clinton, in a stunning revelation about how she would like to exercise a dictatorial control over Americans and their ideas, has called for jail for those with ideas that differ from hers.
In an interview she was addressing her concerns about those who were "boosting Trump back in 2016." Those "Russians" should be charged, she claimed.
"But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda. Uh. And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence…."
Of course, back in 2016, it was her campaign that funded the creation of a long list of lies about then-candidate Donald Trump, called the Steele Dossier, which she and other Democrats then promoted to try to defeat the eventual GOP president.
One of the claims was that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia against Clinton in the race, a claim that was debunked by a years-long special counsel investigation.
Now is it John Daniel Davidson, senior editor at the Federalist, who has a suggestion to crack down on disinformation.
Under the headline, "Clinton wants to jail Americans for 'misinformation.' Let's start with her," he writes, "Clinton said it's important to indict Russians who interfere in our elections but there are also Americans 'engaged in this kind of propaganda' and that if they were civilly or criminally charged it would be 'a better deterrent' because it's unlikely any Russians will ever stand trial in the United States."
He explained, "What she's describing is of course odious and totally incompatible with the First Amendment. Americans are free to spread as much Russian propaganda as they want, whether they believe any of it or not. We can shout all kinds of things from the street corner, hand out conspiracy theory pamphlets in the grocery store parking lot, and post the craziest stuff you've ever heard all day along on social media. If Hillary Clinton doesn't like it, she can go pound sand.
"More to the point though, 'misinformation' isn't actually a thing. Neither is disinformation or malinformation. These are Soviet terms that relate to psychological warfare. When Clinton and Maddow and other Democrats use these terms what they really mean is, 'facts I don't like and opinions I disagree with.'"
He suggested that if Americans are going to be charged for spreading Russia propaganda, "Clinton herself is first up."
"No one has done more to interfere in our elections by spreading Russian propaganda than Hillary Clinton herself. … After all, it was the Clinton campaign that created the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy, which hamstrung the incoming Trump administration and held the nation hostage for more than two years. After 2,800 subpoenas, 500 witness interview, and nearly 300 wiretaps and pen registers, Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that there was zero evidence of collusion by Trump or his associates."
Further, he explained, while no evidence says Trump colluded with Russia, "there's mountains of evidence that Clinton did. Recall it was her campaign that hired Fusion GPS in April 2016 to do opposition research on Trump, then the presumptive GOP nominee. At the time, Fusion GPS was also working on behalf of Prevezon, a company owned by Kremlin-connected Russian oligarch Denis Katsyv, in the company's battle with U.S. prosecutors over Magnitsky Act sanctions. After the Clinton campaign and the DNC retained Fusion GPS, the firm hired Christopher Steele, a former British spy, to dig up dirt on any possible connections between Trump and Russia. These campaign expenditures to Fusion GPS were never disclosed by the Clinton campaign."
Steele's resulting "Dossier" of wild claims about Trump shortly, in fact, was debunked.
However, the claims "served the useful political purpose of insinuating to the media and the FBI that Moscow had dirt on Trump, who was a secret agent of the Kremlin."
The real Russia connections "were all on Clinton's side."
Through Steele benefactor Oleg Deripaska and more.
"The Clinton campaign collusion with Russia gets even worse. The Russian attorney for Prevezon, the Russian company Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson worked for directly, was a woman named Natasha Veselnitskaya. She's the one who set up a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Jared Kushner and Donald Trump, Jr., that was touted as evidence the Trump campaign was colluding with corrupt Russian officials. In that meeting, Veselnitskaya promised to provide 'dirt' on Clinton to the Trump campaign, but the information itself was actually produced by Fusion GPS."
Davidson said Clinton's campaign connections to Russia "are extensive and demning."
When Clinton demanded criminal prosecutions for "disinformation" sources, a commentary at Twitchy said, "As Twitchy readers know, Hillary Clinton openly called for the jailing of Americans who post 'misinformation'. Misinformation. Right. Gosh, wonder who gets to decide what is and isn't misinformation …"
"In other words, Hillary wants the American people to be afraid of the government. How very Democrat/Authoritarian of her. Almost as if she does not want the little people knowing the truth. Keep in mind, this is the same woman who funded the Russian hoax and has done nothing but push misinformation herself for years and years (decades)."
Elon Musk, who bought Twitter, made it X, and has worked to restore free speech there, commented: "Troubling."
Real Clear Politics reported Clinton's comments were to MSNBC leftist Rachel Maddow, who claimed the Kremlin is "interfering" "in yet another presidential election cycle on Trump's behalf."
Clinton said, "So, I think it's important to indict the Russians, just as Mueller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda. And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A second assassination attempt was made against former President Donald Trump on Sunday when a man identified as Ryan Wesley Routh pointed a rifle at him from the perimeter of his golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said during a news conference Monday, that Florida will be conducting its own investigation into the incident, after Routh faced federal charges of felony possession of a firearm and possessing a gun with a defaced serial number.
"I did announce yesterday we're gonna be doing a state-level investigation. I understand that the feds are involved, but we do believe there were multiple violations of state law, we also believe that there's a need to make sure that the truth about all this, comes out in a way that's credible," DeSantis said.
DeSantis told reporters he doesn't think it's best to have the same people currently prosecuting Trump conducting the investigation of the assassination attempt.
"You know, I mean I look at the federal government, with all due respect to them, you know, those same agencies that are prosecuting Trump in that jurisdiction, are now going to be investigating this? I just think that may not be the best thing for this country. Nevertheless, they have their prerogative, and we have our prerogative, so we'll be making an announcement further along those lines in the ensuing days," DeSantis said.
Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino stated during a congressional hearing held recently that the Secret Service had repeatedly nixed security requests from Trump to properly secure his locations. Bongino added the culture has changed since he worked in the Secret Service and has now become politicized.
"From the commentary directed at some of the agents in charge of the Donald Trump detail, which I have heard about, clearly, it appears that for the first time in American history we have a Secret Service that is making decisions that might not be all political, but may have a political tinge to them," Bongino said.
Bongino noted the Secret Service could have done much more to improve Trump's security detail, but they were reluctant because they did not want Trump to look like a "big shot."
"I would love to say 'Congressman that's the craziest thing I've heard,' but I tell you with a pure heart…I absolutely believe Donald Trump and an enhanced security posture he should have had, would have made him look more presidential, would have facilitated the logistical operation of him traveling. I think they [Secret Service] were concerned about optics, and making him look like a big shot or whatever word you wanna throw out there, and they were making some of these decisions based purely on grade-school level politics," Bongino said.
U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said in response that he didn't want to believe that agencies like the Secret Service and the FBI have become subject to political influence, but them doing so is very damaging to the U.S.
"I didn't want to believe it, but I didn't want to believe it with the FBI either, I didn't want to believe it with the NIH either. I mean, a lot of these agencies that have been, I think, subject to political capture, we want to believe they're above that…but just like in the military, just like at the FBI, I worry about the political capture happening at Headquarters, and then that culture in forming decisions, in a way that's very damaging to the country," Gaetz said.
Gaetz noted any devious intent that is found during the investigation into the Secret Service needs to be rooted out.
"\What Mr. Bongino just said, ought to be the most important work of the United States Congress, to figure out if these decisions were run of the mill incompetence…But if it's something even more darker and more devious than that, that must be rooted out. Because what we've seen at these other agencies of government is, it does not cure itself. It has to be excised, and that investigation is the most important work we can do," Gaetz said.
U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., released a whistleblower report on the first assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania in July. In the report, it states there was found to be a "compounding pattern of negligence, sloppiness, and gross incompetence that goes back years, all of which culminated in an assassination attempt that came inches from succeeding."
"On July 13, 2024, former President Donald J. Trump was nearly killed by an assassin's bullet while hosting a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Secret Service failed to prevent it. It was the most stunning breakdown in presidential security since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan," the report states.
The report exposed further instances where the Secret Service failed – which included the agent who was responsible for overseeing the Butler rally failing a key examination during their training as an agent; intelligence units who were supposed to pair with local law enforcement to handle suspicious people were missing; and the hospital that treated Trump after the shooting was also poorly secured.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In the wake of the second assassination attempt against President Donald Trump in just two months, Democrats have been almost unanimous in claiming there's no room for political violence in America.
But that's not what all their party members have said in the past.
For instance, Del. Stacey Plaskett, the Democrat non-voting delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, said, "He needs to be shot … stopped."
She's become a favorite of the party, being named as the ranking member of the House Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government, which is examining how the Biden-Harris administration has turned the bureaucracies of the federal government into weapons of war, and warfare, against Trump and Republicans.
She boasts on her website that in that position she works "to ensure Democratic members of this Subcommittee focus on evidence-based inquiries and not wild conspiracy theories."
She states, "The Republican's (sic) attempt to derail the federal government's obligation to investigate and conduct due process on actions, organizations, and individuals that threaten our republic and create an anti-democratic environment will be met with strong resistance by Ms. Plaskett and her Democratic colleagues on the subcommittee."
She also was an impeachment manager for one of ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's failed impeach-and-remove campaigns against Trump.
That wasn't the only threat to Trump, either.
One video has assembled more than two minutes of direct threats, often from politicians, entertainers and other public figures:
Among the comments:
"I'd like to punch him in the face."
"If we were in high school I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him," from Joe Biden
"When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?"
"They're still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump. That's a fact."
"Where is John Wilkes Booth when you need him?"
"I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House."
The Trump campaign itself released a compilation of some of the threats, and identified those making the threats. They mostly are political or media figures or political operatives:
Kamala Harris: "Trump is a threat to our democracy and fundamental freedoms."
Harris: "It's on us to recognize the threat (Trump) poses."
Harris: "Does one of us have to come out alive? Ha ha ha ha!"
Joe Biden: "It's time to put Trump in a bull's-eye."
Biden: "I mean this from the bottom of my heart: Trump is a threat to this nation!"
Biden: "There is one existential threat: It's Donald Trump."
Biden: "Trump is a genuine threat to his nation … He's literally a threat to everything America stands for."
Biden : "Trump and MAGA Republicans are a threat to the very soul of this country."
Biden: "Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. … and that is a threat to this country."
Tim Walz: "Are (Republicans) a threat to democracy? Yes … Are they going to put peoples' lives in danger? Yes."
Gwen Walz: "Buh-bye, Donald Trump."
Nancy Pelosi: "(Trump) is a threat to our democracy of the kind that we have not seen."
Jasmine Crockett: "MAGA in general – they are threats to us domestically."
Dan Goldeman: "He is destructive to our democracy and … he has to be eliminated."
Disgraced Harris staffer TJ Ducklo: "Trump is an existential, urgent threat to our democracy."
Liz Cheney: "Trump presents a fundamental threat to the republic and we are seeing it on a daily basis."
Steve Cohen: "Trump is an enemy of the United States."
Maxine Waters: "Are (Trump supporters) preparing a civil war against us?"
Waters: "I want to know about all of those right-wing organizations that (Trump) is connected with who are training up in the hills somewhere."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Trump is an "existential threat to our democracy."
Adam Schiff: Trump is the "gravest threat to our democracy."
Gregory Meeks: "Trump cannot be president again. He's an existential threat to democracy."
Dan Goldman: "Trump remains the greatest threat to our democracy."
Jake Auchincloss: "What unifies us as a party is knowing that Donald Trump is an existential threat to Democracy."
Abigail Spanberger: "Trump is a threat to our democracy … the threats to our democratic republic are real."
Annie Kuster: "Trump and his extreme right-win followers pose an existential threat to our democracy."
Becca Balint: "We cannot underestimate the threat (Trump) poses to American democracy."
Jason Crow: "Trump is an extreme danger to our democracy."
Michael Bennet: Trump is "a threat to our democracy."
Steven Horsford: "Trump Republicans are a dangerous threat to our state."
Gave Vasquez: "Remove the national threat from office."
And more….
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Claims of a purposeful scheme to skew the Sept. 10 ABC News presidential debate in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris over former President Donald Trump are now intensified with the Sunday release of a sworn statement by a network whistleblower specifying the allegations.
The affidavit under penalty of perjury released by @DocNetyoutube indicates ABC coordinated with the Harris campaign to give her sample questions, along with assurances Trump would be fact-checked while Kamala would not, and favorable accommodations for the Democrat's appearance on screen.
The document, dated Sept. 9, one day prior to the debate and redacted in portions to conceal the whistleblower's identity, is from a Manhattan, New York, resident who has worked at ABC News for more than 10 years in "various technical and administrative positions."
"For the record, I do not endorse Donald Trump in his capacity as a candidate for the president of the United States," the whistleblower says.
"The intent of this affidavit is to address concerns about perceived biases within news reporting within my employer's debate that will be hosted on September 10, 2024."
The ABC employee says Harris received "particular accommodations including, but not limited to, the providing of a podium significantly smaller than that used by Donald Trump, and assurances regarding split-screen television views that would favorably impact Kamala Harris's appearance relative to Donald Trump."
The sworn statement continues: "It was agree that Donald Trump would be subjected to fact-checking during the debate, while Kamala Harris would not comparable scrutiny. This was widely known throughout the company that Donald Trump would be fact-checked. In fact, various people were assigned to fact check observations it was perceived candidate Trump would make during the debate.
"In fact, [the] Harris campaign required assurances that Donald Trump would be fact checked. This was done via multiple communications with the Harris campaign whereas the Trump campaign was not included in the negotiations. To my understanding, any rules negotiations and conversations pertaining to the debate should have had both the Trump and Harris campaign involved, the Harris campaign had numerous more calls regarding the debate rules without the Trump campaign aware or on the call."
The statement also indicates: "The Harris campaign was provided with sample questions that, while not the exact questions, covered similar topics that would appear during the debate."
"Furthermore, the Harris campaign imposed serious restrictions on the scope of questioning, including:
The whistleblower claims to have "observed a pronounced bias against Donald Trump within ABC News. Employees expressing favorable views towards him experience significant concerns about potential retribution."
The employee says the purpose of the affidavit is "to document and provide transparency regarding the issue of fairness and impartiality in the debate process and broader concerns about journalistic integrity at ABC News."
The conclusion of the sworn statement mentions copies of the sworn statement being sent via regular mail and FedEx to the whistleblower's home address, and a certified letter to U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson dated Sept. 9, 2024, "to establish a record that the correspondence was sent before the debate commenced."
"Additionally, for further investigation, I have secretly recorded several conversations that will prove that the Harris Campaign insisted upon not only the Fact Checking of Donald Trump, but also insisted on what questions were not to be asked under any circumstances or else the Harris campaign would decline to participate in the debate."