This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose leadership failed to maintain her Democrat party's majority in the body, now is insisting she knows how Israel should be managed.

And that would be without the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, because he has been a block to the two-state solution.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Even as legal and criminal questions were being raised about classified government documents that Joe Biden had kept from his years as vice president – without permission or authorization – he was colluding with prosecutors to attack President Trump over documents he had kept from his presidency, newly available evidence shows.

The Biden classified documents case came to an abrupt conclusion when a special prosecutor confirmed that Biden likely had willfully and knowingly kept those documents illegally. Biden even boasted to a ghostwriter that he had them, and read parts of the secret papers to the writer.

But the special counsel recommended against any charges because of Biden's "diminished" capacity.

But the case against Trump, who as president had the authority to declassify documents at will, has exploded into a full-blown federal criminal case, with multiple charges from Democrat attorney Jack Smith.

Now there are reports that "Biden’s White House had direct ties to the Mar-a-Lago raid. The Biden regime was also directly tied to Jack Smith’s investigation despite claims to the contrary from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland."

That's the assessment from The Gateway Pundit, which confirmed Judge Aileen Cannon, hearing the documents case against Trump, ordered key parts of the evidence to be unredacted and released.

The report explained that Smith "wanted to hide the fact that the National Archives had several conversations with the Biden White House."

Presidents keeping papers from their presidential years is not uncommon. Even vice presidents do it, documented by Biden's stashes of classified documents in his home, office, and even boxes in his unsecured garage. Further, Trump Vice President Mike Pence also was found to have had such documents, but no charges were filed.

Usually, the nation's Archives agency negotiates with outgoing officers for any disputed documents, and Trump has explained his team was working with the feds on that issue. Then abruptly, the Biden team decided to take the issue into the criminal courts.

That was the trigger for the unprecedented SWAT-style FBI raid on Trump's home in Florida.

The move widely is considered to be part of a multi-prong attack by Democrats to try to obtain any sort of conviction of President Trump that they could use against him to try to make sure he doesn't beat Biden in the 2024 race. In recent months, Trump has gained support as more and more cases are brought against him.

The newly released evidence reveals that Archives lawyer Gary Stern confirmed he had had "several conversations" with the White House about the dispute.

The report charged, "U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s claims about 'independence' from investigations into Trump are LIES. The Biden White House and DOJ were involved in developing a criminal case against Trump for 'mishandling of classified documents.'"

Further, the report confirmed, "The unredacted documents show the Department of Energy discovered Trump had an active security clearance after he was indicted so they retroactively terminated it."

One of the far-left Democrats who orchestrated a failed impeachment campaign against President Trump, and now has been adamant in defense of Joe Biden on impeachment investigation claims of influence peddling and corruption, has been sued for defaming a congressional witness.

The complaint by onetime Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski was filed against Jamie Raskin, in his individual capacity, in U.S. District Court in Maryland.

The lawsuit seeks $20 million in "compensatory, special and punitive" damages, plus costs, plus any other "relief as the court deems justice."

Bobulinski, in fact, has testified to Congress investigating Joe Biden for possible impeachment about Biden'se personal involvement in the Biden family's international business schemes, which critics have called influence peddling, and Congress has confirmed has generated paychecks of tens of millions of dollars.

Raskin repeatedly has tried to undermine the testimony of congressional witnesses who are critical of Biden, and specifically attacked Bobulinski, the filing explains.

"In his February 14, 2024, statement, defendant said that Mr. Bobulinski has been unable to support his claims and accused him of lying, Defendant's March 6, 2024, post described Mr. Bobulinski as a 'dubious' witness. In doing so, defendant intended to convey and imply the defamatory interpretation that it is Mr. Bobulinski was untrustworthy, who lied to Congress. Defendant’s statements left a reasonable reader with the impression that it is really Mr. Bobulinski, who was bought and paid for by the Trump campaign, and therefore, who was lying about the Biden family’s business dealings."

It continues, "Defendant intentionally created this inference to salvage his political party, and Joseph Biden, to the detriment of Mr. Bobulinski in his patriotic pursuit to expose the truth of the Biden family corruption. The inferences made are defamatory as they lead to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and/or disgrace for Mr. Bobulinski, and leaves the interpretation that Mr. Bobulinski was untrustworthy and lied to Congress. Indeed, it caused not only a large segment of the nation that despises all things Trump regardless of reality, but also rational and reasonable viewers, not to trust or find credibility with Mr. Bobulinski. Defendant made the statements with malice."

Among Raskin's claims was that the witness was a "Ttrump campaign plant and pawn," and that he "engaged in criminal acts."

The narrative of the complaint points out Bobulinsk's successful U.S. military career, in which he was honored with the Navy-Marine Corps Commendation Medal, the Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal and the National Defense Service Medal.

It was after his military career that he got involved eventually in business deals with Hunter Biden.

His testimony is key in that he witnessed Joe Biden's personal involvement in the family "influence" operations, dealings that Joe Biden has claimed he never knew about.

WND reported earlier when Bobulinski's lawyers demanded a retraction from Raskin, a demand he ignored.

That letter warned Raskin, "You are not entitled to any immunity for your defamatory statements. The Speech and Debate Clause comes from Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, and it includes, in relevant part: 'for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.'"

But that only protects activities "undertaken in the House and Senate," and provides no immunity "beyond its carefully defined scope," the lawyers warned. "Anything that is not a legislative activity will not be protected."

The letter warns Raskin, "Your statements are derogatory falsehoods, rendering them legally actionable. Your pattern of maliciously defaming Mr. Bobulinski is well-established and will not be tolerated."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

An election fraud investigator who has documented multiple cases of "Smurf" campaign donations, those made in the name of a person who was unaware his or her name was being used, has been arrested, then released, in a Wisconsin election fraud dispute.

A report in the Wisconsin Daily Star documents the case involving Peter Bernegger, the chief of Election Watch in Wisconsin.

He was charged with sending a document through the mail, "simulating a legal process," after he filed numerous complaints against officials and candidates who, he charges his evidence shows, took donations facilitated by activists in the names of unsuspecting voters, the report said.

He posted a signature bail and was released.

"This is politically motivated where they are trying to shut me up, to shut us all up. For those who don’t know, this is the second time they have come after me; the first time was dismissed in 15 minutes when the judge learned the truth of the matter," he explained.

The previous case involved claims he harassed Meagan Wolfe of the Wisconsin Elections Commission but there was no evidence, resulting in dismissal.

His second arrest came after he filed six complaints against Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, which are before the Wisconsin Ethics Commission, the report said.

He was given an unsigned letter from Ismael Ozanne, a DA in Dane County, accusing him of the "legal process."

"Wisconsin statute 946.68 states that it is illegal to send or deliver legal documents, including a complaint 'that directs a person to perform or refrain from performing a specified act and compliance with which is enforceable by a court or governmental agency,'" the report explained.

But he got no summons and had filed for dismissal, so he didn't appear in court.

The judge, however, issued an arrest warrant and Bernegger told the publication he was released on a signature bond.

"All they wanted was for me to shut and stop filing lawsuits," he explained.

The report documented his research has uncovered "Smurfing" in elections dating back to 2010, when ACORN, which later turned into ActBlue, was active and donating.

He explained, in the report, progressive activists use bots to take names from the FEC website, where the donor has indicated they are retired or have left the employment space blank. He said he believes they target these types of donors since 'they are unlikely to be able to fight back.' They then make thousands of small donations in those donors’ names without their knowledge to ActBlue and Democratic candidates."

He said the real crimes involved are identity theft, money laundering, violations of banking regulations, and such.

He alleged on social media Kaul, formerly a lawyer for Hillary Clinton, benefited from Smurf donations.

"One of the elderly donors whose name was used, 79-year-old Lydia Foght, allegedly made 26,880 political contributions to him and others over about five and a half years," the report explained.

He also charges that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis of Georgia, who has faced multiple scandals of her own in trying to create a RICO case against President Trump, allegedly accepted $184,916.45 in smurfing contributions.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The government's decision to force landowners to comply with an ideological "wetlands" campaign, under the threat of the loss of their rights and benefits, is being challenged in court as unconstitutional.

The Liberty Justice Center and Pacific Legal Foundation have filed an action in U.S. District Court in Iowa charging that the Congress-approved "Swampbuster" law is violating farmer's property rights.

First, the case charges, the government is "conditioning" the receipt of federal benefits on the waiver of a constitutional right. Then, too, it is taking private property without just compensation.

"The lawsuit also alleges that Swampbuster violates the Commerce Clause, and that regulations implementing it unlawfully expand the USDA’s power beyond what the law authorizes," the Liberty Justice Center reported.

The background is that the "Swampbuster" law was adopted in 1985, and was intended to protect the nation's wetlands.

To do that, it demands farmers leave idle "any land on their property deemed 'wetlands.'"

"To ensure compliance, the federal government makes farmers sign an agreement to give up their wetlands to be eligible for U.S. Department of Agriculture benefits—which include everything from disaster relief and crop insurance to the ability to apply for loans. If farmers ever do anything to an area deemed wetlands, they could lose all USDA benefits for every property that they, or anyone affiliated with them, own," the organizations reported.

The government does have the power to take private property for public use, through eminent domain, but then the Fifth Amendment requires "just compensation."

The legal groups are representing CTM Holdings, a family-run Iowa company that owns and manages approximately 1,075 acres of Iowa farmland. CTM Holdings rents parcels to local farmers.

Jim Conlan, owner and manager of CTM Holdings, grew up in a farming family and has invested in Iowa farmland, including his grandparents’ old farm, to reconnect with his roots after a successful career as a corporate attorney and amid a current career in the finance/private equity industry, the law firms reported.

But the federal government has claimed that nine acres of a 71-acre parcel of CTM Holdings’ property are wetlands, "even though the area is dry, arable land that is not connected to any water source, contains no standing water, and is not inundated by water at any point in the year," the report said.

Because of "Swampbuster," those nine acres no longer can be used – for literally anything. If they are farmed, all of the tenants on the entire acreage are threatened with the loss of USDA benefits.

"While well-intentioned, this conservation scheme is unconstitutional. The government cannot condition benefits on the waiver of a constitutional right—in this case, the Fifth Amendment right to be compensated when the government takes some or all of your land. If welfare recipients had to promise to never criticize the government to receive welfare benefits, it would be plainly unconstitutional. Why should farmers’ rights be any different?" charged Loren Seehase, of Liberty Justice.

Added Paige Gilliard, of Pacific Legal, "The Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate any piece of land in the country it wishes. Nor may government force people to give up their rights in exchange for a government benefit."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The emergence of COVID-19 during the 2020 presidential election in the United States spawned a flood of fear about the virus that came out of China and circled the globe.

And activists jumped on the opportunities that emergency threat posed, changing election laws and procedures, sometimes even simply ignoring longstanding statutes, in order to "accommodate" voting during the pandemic. Mark Zuckerberg handed out $$400 million plus to help officials "accommodate" the situation, and it mostly ended up getting spent recruiting Joe Biden voters.

The result was that early voting, absentee voting, vote gathering, counting ballots for weeks after the election, surprise boxes of ballots and multiple vote influence operations boomed, even though such procedures are wide open to fraud.

And Joe Biden won, collecting, as voters were told, millions and millions of votes MORE than the popular Barack Obama had gotten during his elections.

Now there's the 2024 election, and word that Biden may declare, just as the campaign is getting hot, a climate "emergency."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe and Jill Biden are continuing to use a scheme – available in the U.S. Tax Code – that means they can designate some of their income as exempt from Medicare taxes, Social Security taxes, and even Obamacare taxes, according to a new report.

The Bidens have been in the headlines before for using a procedure in which they set up S-corporations, and then direct their income to those companies.

That allows the money they take in from those S-corporations to be taxed as corporate profits, not wages, which are subject to the above taxes.

A report from Christopher Jacobs at The Federalist explains:

These pages have chronicled how in prior years, Joe Biden and his wife Jill set up S-corporations through which they funneled their earnings from books and speaking engagements. By characterizing those earnings as corporate profits rather than wages, they have avoided more than $523,000 in payroll taxes since 2017 — taxes that fund a combination of Medicare, Obamacare, and Social Security.

The report noted they've done it again, although on a "small beer" scale.

The report noted, "The president and his wife have little interest in practicing what they preach when it comes to 'tax fairness.'

"As they have in previous years, President Biden made a theatrical show of releasing the income tax returns of him and his wife Jill on Tax Day. As in previous years, the corporate press once again did a lousy job of pointing out an important theme concerning the Bidens’ finances. For someone who spends much of his time purporting to defend Medicare and Social Security, Joe Biden hasn’t made any steps to put his own money where his mouth is."

For the tax year 2023, Biden’s S-corporation, the CelticCapri Corporation, reported no income, the report said, "Perhaps because 'Bidenflation' has eroded American families’ ability to spend money on relative luxuries like Biden’s book."

But the report noted Jill Biden’s Giacoppa Corporation had $4,115 in income, which the Bidens subtracted from their payroll tax obligations.

Had it been documented as "income," "Jill Biden would have had to pay $666.63 more in taxes — $119.33 for Medicare (2.9 percent of $4,115), $510.26 for Social Security (12.4 percent of $4,115), and $37.04 for the Obamacare surtax (0.9 percent of $4,115)."

"These numbers seem like small beer. But it speaks to how the president and his wife have little interest in practicing what they preach when it comes to 'tax fairness.'"

The report noted the Bidens, millionaires with multiple homes and extensive pensions because of his long political career, actually took more than $64,000 from the government in the form of Social Security benefits.

"On the one hand, it makes sense that our oldest president and his wife would both claim Social Security. One article that dug into Biden’s old tax filings suggests that Biden first started claiming Social Security benefits when he turned 66, his full retirement age," the report said.

"But while Joe and Jill Biden certainly can claim Social Security legally, should they? If Biden began claiming benefits upon turning 66, in late November 2008, he would have been vice president-elect, with a guaranteed government job for the next four years. Did Biden and his wife need that income, when as vice president, during an interregnum out of office from 2017 through early 2021, or while president currently?"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The feds routinely have been destroying public records that are supposed to be preserved, but no one is prosecuted whose name isn’t Trump, according to a new lawsuit.

"You have maybe tens of thousands of government records every year that are destroyed without authority," explained Dan Epstein, an official with the America First Legal team that sued.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, he continued, "But when it comes to Donald Trump, he gets prosecuted. Everyone else who doesn't have to stand for election gets a free pass."

The lawsuit takes aim at Health and Human Services and the National Archives, including the radical abortion promoter Xavier Becerra, who heads HHS.

The charge is that the government routinely deletes federal employees' emails in violation of the law.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The U.S. Supreme Court has unveiled a 9-0 ruling setting out a definitive path for people whose property is impacted by government actions, even well-intentioned actions, to claim compensation.

The decision came in DeVillier et al. v Texas where the state of Texas decided to designate a highway, Interstate 10 between Houston and Beaumont, as a flood evacuation route, and so built a high concrete barrier in the median to contain floodwaters.

The problem developed when the barrier worked, and held floodwaters on lands belonging to Richard DeVillier and more than 120 others, damaging that property.

The state rejected any compensation claims, and that led eventually to the Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The opinion said, "The dispute here arose after the state of Texas took action to use portions of I–10 as a flood evacuation route, installing a roughly 3-foot-tall barrier along the highway median to act as a dam. When subsequent hurricanes and storms brought heavy rainfall, the median barrier performed as intended, keeping the south side of the highway open.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden's bureaucrats have smuggled his pro-abortion agenda into a new rule that originally was intended to protect pregnant workers.

Biden's tenure in the White House has revolved around his two major talking points – transgenderism for children and abortion for all.

Now the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has announced a rule change that, according to the ADF, "hijacks" a bipartisan rule proposal in allegiance to Biden's pro-abortion demands.

Involved is a rule for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

"This rule is just the latest example of the Biden administration abusing its power to advance abortion. The new rule seeks to punish the speech of pro-life employers and restrict their hiring practices. The Biden administration and the EEOC don’t have the legal authority to smuggle this illegitimate rule into a law that was created to protect and support women and that had nothing to do with abortion," explained a statement from Julie Marie Blake, of the ADF, which counseled the federal agency against moving to promote abortion in this situation.

Biden's agenda apparently is to impose pro-abortion regulations on virtually every employer in the country, even those whose religious beliefs dictate that life begins at conception.

In fact, ABC reported that the proposal got robust bipartisan congressional support that then erupted into controversy when the Biden EEOC demanded abortions be protected in the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that was intended to address time off and other accommodations.

The report noted, "The EEOC says its decision to keep the abortion provisions in its final rules despite criticism from some conservatives is consistent with its own longstanding interpretation of Title VII, as well as court rulings. The federal agency added that the new law does not obligate employers or employer-sponsored health plans to cover abortion-related costs, and that the type of accommodation that most likely will be sought under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act regarding an abortion is time off to attend a medical appointment or for recovery, which does not have to be paid."

The process provides for "reasonable accommodations" for workers with pregnancy-related limitations.

It is to be imposed on employers within a few weeks.

The EEOC's insistence on incorporating Biden's pro-abortion agenda brought denunciations from Republican lawmakers and pro-life organizations.

Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the lead Republican sponsor of the law, accused the Biden administration in August of "going rogue," the report said.

He said Biden was disregarding the intent of Congress in order to pursue his abortion-for-all agenda.