This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Another Department of Justice worker has been dismissed for attacking federal law enforcement, by messaging if not physically.

Earlier, Sean Charles Dunn, a DOJ paralegal, was canned after throwing a sub sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agents.

He was accused of felony assault but a grand jury in the leftist enclave of Washington declined to indict, so prosecutors came back with a misdemeanor charge that now is pending.

But he lost his position immediately.

Now it's happened a second time, with constitutional expert Jonathan Turley commenting on the firing of Elizabeth Baxter, another intern, who was fired by Attorney General Pam Bondi "for abusive conduct toward federal officers."

"Baxter shouted profanities and flipped off a member of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., on her way to work. The termination raises legitimate free speech issues, but Baxter may have crossed the line by recounting the abuse at work," he said.

Baxter's case is different from Dunn's in that she's not accused of any assault.

However, he explained, "According to the New York Post, after arriving at a DOJ building on the morning of August 18, Baxter bragged to a security guard about how she had just made the gesture at the Metro Center Metro Stop. She also recounted how she told the guardsman, 'F–k the National Guard.'"

Her original "protest" was not at work, or during work hours and DOJ guidelines affirm protection for expressing opinions on political subjects and candidates.

But her employment rules also state she may not: "Participate in political activities (to include wearing political buttons) while on duty; while wearing a uniform, badge or insignia of office; while in a government occupied office or building; or while using a government owned or leased vehicle."

Turley explained Baxter's insistent on repeating the "protest" to a security officer took her actions "into the workplace."

"Not only did security footage capture her flipping off the National Guardsman and exclaiming, 'F–k you!' but she is also seen demonstrating to a department security guard how she held up her middle finger. She boasted to the security guard that she hated the National Guard and that she told them to 'F–k off!'" he wrote.

She could challenge the action, he noted, but, "She elected to repeat the political expression inside the federal building to at least one other federal employee during office hours. As such, she destroyed much of the constitutional protection afforded to her earlier statements and demonstration."

According to the Washington Examiner, "DOJ spokesman Gates McGavick praised the termination on Friday, writing in a post on X, 'if you don't support law enforcement, [Attorney General Pam Bondi's] DOJ might not be a good fit.'"

Bondi's termination notice said Baxter was booted "immediately" because of "inappropriate conduct."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday signed into law the state's new congressional districts.

State lawmakers assembled the new map in order to give Republican candidates a better position in at least another five districts, any one of which could be needed for the party to maintain the majority of the U.S. House in 2026..

The redistricting has prompted California Gov. Gavin Newsom to try to redistrict his state, already sporting Democrat over-representation, to give his party additional power following the next congressional vote.

However, he's having to go to statewide voters, at an expense tallied in the millions, because he wants to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting committee that the state has.

A report at the Washington Examiner explained the state's redistricting sparked outrage from Democrats, whose party is falling rapidly from favor of the American voters after they doubled down on their transgender, green and open borders ideologies after their catastrophic loss in the 2024 presidential election.

In Texas, Democrat lawmakers, in fact, fled the state for weeks trying to derail the GOP-majority plan, and failed.

Abbott said, "Today, I signed the One Big Beautiful Map into law. This map ensures fairer representation in Congress."

The Democrats inside the state have responded with lawsuits, hoping they will find favor with some leftist judge, as their party repeatedly has done in battles with President Donald Trump.

"This isn't over — we'll see these clowns in court," claimed Texas Democratic Party Chair Kendall Scudder.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

An appeals court ruled Friday that most of President Trump's many tariffs on other nations are illegal and unconstitutional, striking down the policies.

As Fox News reported, the ruling stated:

"We affirm the CIT's holding that the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA's text. We also affirm the CIT's grant of declaratory relief that the orders are invalid as contrary to law."

The IEEPA is the International Emerge Economic Powers Act. While the law gives the president broad authorities, the court ruled, they do not include the power to impose tariffs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., was divided in the ruling, 7-4, and says Trump's tariffs can continue until Oct. 14. In the meantime the White House is expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Trump vehemently opposed and decried the ruling on social media, saying it would be "a total disaster" if the tariffs were to be stopped.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Democrats in one Georgia County are facing charges they are threatening democracy for their persistent refusal to seat properly nominated and appointed Republican members to a county board.

And now they are going to be fined $10,000 per day, payable to the court every day, which of course will be coming from the county's taxpayers.

The fight is in Fulton County where the commissioners have refused to allow two Republican nominees to take part in the county Board of Elections "as required by law," according to a report in the Gateway Pundit.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new report at Fox News explains that newly declassified government papers have confirmed that Barack Obama was at key meetings with key government bureaucrats "that led to critical steps in the opening of the Trump-Russia investigation."

That would be "Russiagate," the fabricated conspiracy theory apparently started by Hillary Clinton's failed campaign that claimed Trump's campaign was colluding with Russia.

A years-long investigation by a special counsel came up with no evidence, but that didn't stop some diehard anti-Trump activists like then-Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., from claiming they'd seen the evidence. Some even continue to claim it to this day.

The investigation, called "Crossfire Hurricane," now is being exposed by government documents being released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

Obama was, according to Trump, a "ringleader" in the conspiracy. Obama denies that, and his spokesman described the suspicions as "bizarre" and "ridiculous."

However, Obama and his key administration players now are under investigation by Congress, and the Department of Justice, in the case and the Fox report cited a number of meetings at which the scheme was promoted, and Obama was there, over and over.

For instance: On Aug. 3, 2016, then-CIA chief John Brennan reportedly briefed Obama on how Clinton was allegedly creating a plan to link Trump to Russia, in order to distract voters from her own email scandal.

Another meeting, July 31, 2016, involved a decision to open the investigation into the Trump campaign.

Fox said it got details about a Counterintelligence Operational Lead in 2020 that said, "The following information is provided for the exclusive use of your bureau for background investigative action or lead purposes as appropriate."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

One by one, the cases where the Joe Biden administration actively injured people, people like whistleblowers trying to protect their country, are being reversed.

The American Center for Law and Justice now has released some details about the resolution of the case involving FBI whistleblower Garret O'Boyle, who was blindsided with a grilling when he arrived at a new post assignment and immediately suspended without pay.

On unproven claims that he leaked information to the media, a charge that he denied.

O'Boyle has been, in a "comprehensive settlement agreement with the DOJ," awarded a return to his position, full back pay, benefits, damages and his security clearance.

"Today marks a watershed moment in the fight for constitutional rights and the protection of government whistleblowers. The ACLJ is proud to announce a complete and total victory for our client, FBI Special Agent Garret O'Boyle, who has been fully vindicated through a comprehensive settlement agreement with the DOJ made possible by President Trump's Administration and his new leadership at the DOJ and FBI," the legal organization explained.

It was O'Boyle, who utilized approved protocols in a legal fashion to expose corruption in Washington, who made headlines with his ominous warning to Americans: "The FBI will crush you. This government will crush you and your family if you try to expose the truth about things that they are doing that are wrong. And we are all examples of that."

The ACLJ credited O'Boyle's whistleblower activities with revealing how the FBI "was weaponizing the threat tags to target pro-fliers in the wake of the Dobbs decision…"

"In the face of increasing violence against pro-life Americans and pro-life Pregnancy Resource Centers, Biden's FBI decided to target peaceful pro-lifers, and it was Special Agent O'Boyle who brought this travesty to light before Congress," the report said.

The ACLJ said, "The despicable actions of the Biden Administration's DOJ and FBI – unconstitutionally targeting whistleblowers – have been reversed. This unprecedented victory was achieved through a powerful legal partnership between the ACLJ, Empower Oversight, and the Binnall Law Group. Together, our coalition of constitutional lawyers and government accountability experts assembled a formidable legal team in defense of a government whistleblower. The combined expertise, resources, and unwavering commitment of our efforts ultimately delivered complete vindication for Agent O'Boyle."

The legal team said because the settlement, including financial details not made public, has been finalized, a pending appeal on behalf of O'Boyle in federal court will be dismissed.

The ACLJ recounted the attack: "On September 26, 2022, the Biden Administration's FBI indefinitely suspended Agent O'Boyle without pay and revoked his security clearance – effectively ending his career and leaving his family without income. This wasn't just an employment action; it was part of President Biden's systematic campaign to silence truth-tellers and weaponize federal agencies against those who dared expose the Administration's overreach."

The Democrats in the Biden regime surprised O'Boyle when he reported to a new station in Virginia, putting him under an interrogation "where he was falsely accused of leaking FBI information to the media."

The facts are that he made disclosures, all of which were legally allowed and even protected, to Congress.

"The dramatic change in Agent O'Boyle's journey to justice was only possible thanks to President Trump's return to office and his commitment to restoring constitutional governance to federal agencies – and appointing leaders who share his commitment to undoing past harms as much as possible," the ACLJ said.

His reinstatement will be effective September 26, 2022, the date of his original suspension.

Further, the resolution "establishes a crucial precedent and sends a clear message that the days of Biden-style weaponization and retaliation are over."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

When the U.S. Supreme Court, with the extremist liberal votes of several justices no longer there, fabricated "same-sex marriage" for all of American in 2015, there were warnings about how the ruling would be used against people of faith, those the values of family that have endured for millennia, and more.

All of those warnings were rejected by progressives and other leftists as likely not to exist, or be extremely rare.

Now that those observations have been proven wrong, there is a new movement, a new sentiment, that the precedent fabricated in Obergefell, a precedent that even dissenters on the Supreme Court warned was unrelated to the Constitution, should be overturned.

It's in a report in the Federalist that experts now confirm, "We can either recognize gay marriage or recognize children's right to their mother or father. We can't have both."

That's according to Katy Faust, of Them Before Us, an organization that advocates for the right of children to their biological parents.

"Marriage has, throughout our country and nearly every other culture throughout history, been the pathway to secure that right. But as every one of the 38 countries which have legalized gay marriage has learned, when you make husbands and wives optional in marriage, you make mothers and fathers optional in parenthood. The problem is, from the child's perspective, their own mother and father are never optional. Not in terms of their identity, their development, their safety, or their rights," she said.

The report in the Federalist warns the "tentacles" of the decision now are "in media, schools and curricula."

"The decision has left in tatters the single most important institution in society — marriage and family — while ushering in an LGBT indoctrination agenda, annual state-enforced homosexuality, a boost to the rent-a-womb industry, and a burgeoning acceptance of eugenics to service the rent-a-womb industry," the report warned.

The backlash has been developing for some time already. The report noted support for "gay marriage' among Republicans has dropped 14% since 2021, when it reached its high.

Faust is going to be part of a panel explicitly calling for the overturn of Obergefell at National Conservatism's fifth annual conference in September, the report said.

She will be joined by Claremont Institute senior fellow and constitutional lawyer Dr. John Eastman and Hale Institute Director Jeffrey Shafer.

The fight already has been pending at the Supreme Court, where several justices have pointedly noted the precedent should be reviewed. It is Kim Davis — the former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk known best for refusing to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple in the aftermath of Obergefell, who has asked the high court for a resolution.

It was Justice Clarence Thomas in the Dobbs decision that overturned the faulty Roe decision creating a "right" to abortion that didn't really exist in the Constitution who said Obergefell was endangered, because it was presupposed on the same faulty groundwork, substantive due process, as Roe.

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [right of married persons to obtain contraceptives], Lawrence [right to engage in private, consensual sex acts], and Obergefell," he wrote.

He noted any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," so the court needs to "correct the error."

Eastman told the Federalist how Obergefell has damaged American law.

"There is no question that the ability to 'marry' someone of the same sex was never any part of the history and traditions of this, or any other, country. Normally, when articulating new unenumerated rights, the Court looks to whether the asserted right was part of the history and traditions of this country."

The Obergefell activists on the court did no such thing.

Which opens "the door to other novel claims, such as a 'right' to polygamous marriages, to polyamory, even bestiality — claims which followed on the court's decision in fairly short order," he noted.

Justice Samuel Alito also expressed concern when Obergefell was argued, and in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out the problems.

Anthony Kennedy wrote the Obergefell decision, ignoring the dangerous social experiment he was mandating.

But even he allowed that people of sincere belief and good faith would continue to advocate against gay marriage, and he said they should be allowed to do so.

But the Davis case showed how wrong that has been: "For in adhering to and advocating for her sincerely-held religious view, [Davis] was hounded out of office, prosecuted, and financially ruined. Her First Amendment rights of speech and the free exercise of religion have been trampled beneath the foot of the LGBTQ+ agenda," Eastman said.

Faust warned, "In the post-Obergefell world, it's not just marriage that has been redefined. It's parenthood, infertility, and natural familial relationships. Children are now regarded as objects to be awarded to whichever adult has the money and means to assemble them. But children are not commodities. They are humans. With fundamental natural rights. The first of which is their right to life. But a close second is their right to be known and loved by both mother and father."

The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also could be used against "same-sex marriage." Neither abortion nor marriage actually is in the U.S. Constitution, so justices over the years have manufactured reasons to support both "rights."

The analysis, from several years ago, cited the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe for being based on "substantive due process," a doctrine adopted by some justices over the years to create "implied fundamental rights."

"Through various opinions, the Court has recognized a right of personal privacy, which has been extended to other activities such as inter-racial marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing," the analysis said.

To manufacture same-sex "marriages," the court relied on "substantive due process" to claim same-sex "marriage" is constitutionally protected.

And the analysis said, "The aftermath of the Dobbs decision spans beyond abortion by calling into question other decisions that were decided on similar grounds to Roe — Obergefell (same-sex marriage), Lawrence (same-sex sexual conduct), and Griswold (contraceptives)—and whether the overturning of Roe presents a similar fate for these decisions."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A federal judge has given a complete free pass to a long list of other federal judges – the entirety of the judicial branch in Maryland – in a fight with the administration of President Donald Trump over the nation's immigration and deportation agenda.

It was Thomas Cullen who ruled for the judges in the state by dismissing the action brought by the Department of Justice over the Maryland court's decision to grant automatic delays to the deportation cases that the Trump administration brought in the state.

The fight is over Trump's agenda to secure American borders and remove illegal aliens, especially criminals, through deportation procedures.

The judges in Maryland worked against that by adopting a plan, from George Russell, the chief judge, to give deportation defendants an automatic stay in their cases.

That would halt the DOJ's enforcement of the nation's immigration laws for a multi-day period, regardless of the evidence at hand and without any court proceedings.

The Department of Homeland Security said the so-called standing rule for the judges to interfere in the government's prosecution of deportation cases without review or hearing was against the law.

It seems there had been an increase in the workload because of the cases, and the judges were upset.

"A sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law. Nor does their status within the judicial branch," the case charged.

The Washington Examiner said Cullen dismissed the DOJ's action, claiming allowing it to continue would "run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law."

Cullen refused to recognize the Executive Branch arguments that the order was unlawful because it was inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as they were designated for a "special class" of offenders, were beyond the power of the court, and violated procedures for local court rules.

Cullen claimed, "In their wisdom, the Constitution's framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign. That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another's authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the Judiciary's constitutional role."

The DOJ had argued, "Every unlawful order entered by the district courts robs the Executive Branch of its most scarce resource: time to put its policies into effect. In the process, such orders diminish the votes of the citizens who elected the head of the Executive Branch."

Cullen actually instructed the DOJ to potentially raise its concerns "in a habeas proceeding" in an appeals court.

"The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where the challenged order remains in place, has been the venue for multiple lawsuits against the Trump administration, as the left-leaning bench has become a popular place for opponents of the administration to bring their legal challenges," the Examiner confirmed.

The Maryland court's standing rule, in fact, disrupts the DHS procedures to deport or change the legal status of the immigrant.

It was one of the defendant judges, Paula Xinis, who had ordered the Trump administration to return to the United States a Salvadoran national named Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was brought back to face human trafficking charges.

The judges, demanding dismissal, had claimed they are "absolutely immune" "despite the "potential merits of the executives' argument that defendants exceeded their power in issuing the standing orders."

Cullen reached back to England to build his case to dismiss the complaint against the judges, citing a Supreme Court dissent, which said, "[S]uits for injunctive relief against a judge could not be maintained either at English common law or in the English courts of equity. And even the equitable remedy that the Court found to be a 'common-law parallel to the § 1983 injunction at issue [t]here'—'the King's prerogative writs'—were never used against judges on the sovereign's courts."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who while in the U.S. House orchestrated some of the failed impeach-and-remove battles against President Donald Trump by falsely claiming there was evidence of that "Russiagate" conspiracy theory, now is in the U.S. Senate.

And he's facing possible charges of mortgage fraud over his claims that a Maryland home is his "primary residence," while he also claimed his residence in California was his "primary residence."

The issue is that mortgage rates are better for primary residences than for second and third homes, but one may not be able to claim multiple primary residences without lying on various government and mortgage forms.

Schiff over the weekend insisted on his innocence.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump is making the case for Major League Baseball pitching legend Roger Clemens to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame immediately, as he blasted the "rumor" the athlete took performance-enhancing steroids during his stellar career.

Trump played golf with Clemens and his son, Kacy, on Saturday, and Sunday afternoon he said on Truth Social: "Roger Clemens was easily one of the few Greatest Pitchers of All Time, winning 354 Games, the Cy Young Award seven times (A Record, by a lot!), and played in six World Series, winning two!

"He was second to Nolan Ryan in most strike-outs, and he should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame, NOW!