Wisconsin Supreme Court puts Democratic governor in his place with unanimous ruling



The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers "breached his constitutional boundaries" when he partially vetoed and modified substantive portions of a bill in a literacy package last year.

Evers clearly did not appreciate being put in his place.

In the wake of the ruling, Evers claimed that the majority-liberal court's decision was "unconscionable."

Republicans, meanwhile, celebrated the ruling, in one instance throwing leftists' NoKings hashtag back at them.

State Sen. Julian Bradley (R) noted that the governor's "ridiculous and unlawful veto that held up money to teach kids to read has been UNANIMOUSLY ruled unconstitutional," adding that "even the far left-wing justices couldn't find a way to justify @GovEvers' actions. #NoKings."

Shot

Wisconsin's Republican-led legislature sued Evers in April 2024 over his partial veto of a bill intended to help fund literacy programs in the Badger State.

RELATED: Democrat governor brutally mocked on social media for posting video of himself trying to throw a football

Daniel Steinle/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Senate Bill 971 empowered the GOP-controlled state Joint Committee on Finance to direct $50 million set aside in the biennial budget to specific Department of Public Instruction programs created after the budget bill passed, including the literacy coaching program, the DPI's Office of Literacy, and grants for early literacy curriculum.

While Evers approved SB 971, he improperly exercised partial-veto power to strike certain sections of the legislation in part and others in full that he claimed overly complicated "the allocation of funding related to literacy programs in Wisconsin by creating multiple appropriations for what could be accomplished with one."

'Wisconsin families are the real winners here.'

The Democratic governor suggested further that his actions would ensure greater flexibility in meeting the "investment needs for coaches, grants, and professional development alike."

While Evers may partially veto an appropriation bill under Article V, Section 10(1)(b) of the Wisconsin Constitution, this was not an appropriations bill.

The Republican legislators' complaint noted that if the governor mistakenly believed SB 971 was an appropriations bill, "he should have requested the legislature recall the bill in order to pass both houses of the legislature with the proper vote." After all, any bill that appropriates funds must pass both chambers with a roll-call vote — something that had not taken place in this case.

The complaint noted further that the unconstitutional partial veto of SB 971 left the legislature in a dilemma: While the JCF wanted to fund the appropriate literacy programs, "any money directed under the partially vetoed version of [SB 971] might (but should not) be treated by DPI as money that can be used by the Office of Literacy for any nondescript 'literacy program' of DPI's invention."

Chaser

The Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the Republican legislature against Evers Wednesday and torpedoed his narrative concerning the JCF, which he suggested had been wrong to withhold funds.

The court noted that the Wisconsin Constitution "does not authorize the governor to partially veto a non-appropriation bill, which the governor may veto only in its entirety."

"We hold the governor breached his constitutional boundaries because the bill he partially vetoed was not an appropriation bill," said the ruling. "We also hold JCF did not improperly withhold funds the legislature appropriated to JCF."

RELATED: 'Inseminated person': Wisconsin Gov. Evers tries to erase mothers with gender-neutral language overhaul

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

As a result of the court's decision, SB 971 as passed by the state legislature — without Evers' changes — is the law.

The Associated Press suggested that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling might also result in the legislature pushing budget and other spending bills in a similar manner to get around Evers' future partial vetoes, thereby securing greater control over spending.

State Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) said in a joint statement that the ruling "is a rebuke of the Governor’s attempt to break apart a bipartisan literacy-funding bill and JCF's constitutional authority to give supplemental funding to agencies."

"While the governor wanted to play politics with money earmarked for kids' reading programs, it is encouraging to see the court put an end to this game. Wisconsin families are the real winners here," they added.

Evers did his best to spin his efforts and pin the holdup of funds on Republicans, writing, "I will never apologize for fighting for our kids and our schools. Not today, not ever."

"Twelve lawmakers should not be able to obstruct resources that were already approved by the full legislature and the governor to help get our kids up to speed and ensure they have the skills they need to be successful," continued Evers. "It is unconscionable that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is allowing the legislature's indefinite obstruction to go unchecked."

The Democratic governor urged the JCF to immediately release the $50 million before the money goes back into the state's general fund next week.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Russ Vought gives Glenn Beck hint about where things stand between Trump and Musk



President Donald Trump and Elon Musk traded jibes on Thursday, which escalated over the course of the afternoon and culminated in threats of creating a new political party as well as of SpaceX contract cancellations.

Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck spoke on Friday to Russell Vought, the director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, about the spat as well as about the president's "big, beautiful bill."

'But look, Glenn, we're moving forward, and Elon has been an important ally and patriot throughout all of this, and we've got a job to do.'

Beck refrained from beating around the bush and asked at the outset whether a reconciliation was imminent — not legislatively but between the world's richest man and the world's most powerful leader. Vought responded with a strong hint.

Prior to Vought jumping onto the call, Beck noted, "Boy, yesterday was just a wild, wild ride. And I hate to see it. You know, kids don't like to see Mommy and Daddy fight — and they're both so important. We need both of these guys, but we also need the truth on the big, beautiful bill."

Beck had also posted on X on Thursday that the disagreement between Trump and Musk was "sad to see" and that he hoped the two "patriots" who "have done heroic things" can make amends and help America "see our way forward to find a win win."

RELATED: I was against Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' — Stephen Miller changed my mind

Photo by ALEX WROBLEWSKI,ALLISON ROBBERT/AFP via Getty Images

With Vought on the phone on Friday, Beck asked, "Yesterday was a tough day. Do you know — has the president had his phone call yet? Are they coming back together?"

"Well," responded Vought, "I think the president made some comments to the press this morning that, you know, he's not looking to have a phone call any time soon."

"I think he expressed disappointment yesterday with regard to ... some of the comments made by Elon," continued Vought. "But look, Glenn, we're moving forward, and Elon has been an important ally and patriot throughout all of this, and we've got a job to do."

— (@)

The OMB director stressed that the priority now is getting the bill across the finish line, making improvements where possible.

Whereas Vought was diplomatic in his response, when asked whether he had a call scheduled with Musk for later in the day, Trump told ABC News on Friday morning, "You mean the man who has lost his mind?"

The president suggested he was "not particularly" interested in having that conversation at the moment.

Musk now appears willing to mend fences.

When hedge fund manager Bill Ackman suggested that Trump and Musk "should make peace for the benefit of our great country" and that "we are much stronger together than apart," Musk responded, "You're not wrong."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

I was against Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ — Stephen Miller changed my mind



After the House narrowly passed President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” — in true Washington fashion, it’s already been reduced to an acronym: BBB — the usual suspects sounded the alarm. Libertarians and deficit hawks recoiled. Elon Musk, the former DOGE chief, called it a “disgusting abomination.” He warned it would pile another $2.4 trillion onto the national debt over the next decade. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) slammed it as hypocritical, saying Republicans can’t keep pushing tax cuts without real spending cuts to match.

I sympathized. I flinched at the trillion-dollar price tag too. My immediate thought: “This is what Democrats and GOP sellouts do — not fiscal conservatives.”

The BBB is the first major Republican bill in decades that doesn’t bend to Democratic narratives. It doesn’t apologize for putting American citizens first.

Then Stephen Miller showed up.

While critics accused the bill of being just another bloated omnibus, Miller pushed back. He took to X to argue that the BBB isn’t some lobbyist-driven monstrosity. It’s a focused, unapologetic conservative package: secure the border, overhaul welfare, and revive the economic growth unleashed by the 2017 tax cuts. For the first time in a long time, I decided to hear the argument out.

Border security for real this time

I didn’t need much convincing on border security. But Miller pointed out something the corporate left-wing media barely mentioned: The BBB fully funds the border wall — both physical infrastructure and new tech. Republicans have promised that since 2016. Nearly a decade later, they finally have a bill that delivers.

— (@)

This isn’t more messaging fluff. The bill puts $45 billion toward border security — the largest commitment in U.S. history. It increases Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention capacity by 800% over the previous fiscal year, funding facilities to detain more than 100,000 people per day. It also includes $8 billion to hire 10,000 new ICE officers and staff.

If the bill ended there, it would be a no-brainer. But I still had concerns — starting with the deficit.

Does it add $2.4 trillion to the deficit?

We can’t call ourselves fiscal conservatives while borrowing like Democrats. Miller knows that, and he didn’t dodge the question.

The bill, he argued, enacts the most sweeping welfare reform in U.S. history. It includes over $2 trillion in net spending cuts. Programs like Medicaid and food stamps would be tied to citizenship and work requirements — policies conservatives have supported for years but rarely fought for seriously in Congress.

And then there’s the tax side.

The BBB extends the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — one of the clearest drivers of economic growth during Trump’s first term. That’s what triggered the $2.4 trillion deficit estimate, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But here’s the twist: The CBO’s figure isn’t based on new spending. It’s based on continuing tax relief. Miller’s argument is straightforward — there’s a world of difference between scoring a bill that way and actually running up the national credit card.

RELATED: Trump’s $9.3B rescission push faces a GOP gut check

Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Attributing the deficit to tax cuts is like blaming hydrogen peroxide for the wound it’s meant to treat. The real cause of the deficit isn’t lower taxes. It’s decades of spending on bloated welfare, bureaucratic waste, and corporate handouts that the DOGE identified — exactly the kind of garbage the BBB cuts.

Even ABC News, buried in the middle of a critical write-up, admitted that the bill would cut taxes by $3.7 trillion and reduce spending by $1.2 trillion. If that’s not a conservative win, what is?

Letting the 2017 tax cuts expire over CBO scoring fears would amount to a massive tax hike on the working and middle classes. Extending them strengthens the economy, boosts small businesses, and keeps the government from choking growth just to massage a deficit number.

Why not pass these reforms separately?

Border security — check. Welfare reform — check. Pro-growth tax cuts — check. So why cram it all into one bill? Why not pass each measure individually, on its own merits?

Miller addressed that too. In a perfect world, each item would pass as a clean bill. But in the real world, every one of these provisions would require 60 votes in the Senate — including Chuck Schumer’s. That’s not happening.

— (@)

The reconciliation process, however, only requires a simple majority. It’s the only legislative path available. For once, Republicans are using the rules the way Democrats do: to win.

I didn’t like it at first. It felt like a compromise. But now I see it as the only way to do what we’ve been saying we want to do for years.

Miller won me over

The BBB is the first major Republican bill in decades that doesn’t bend to Democratic narratives. It doesn’t water down core principles. It doesn’t apologize for putting American citizens first.

And unlike Louisiana Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson’s endless parade of “small ball” continuing resolutions, the BBB actually moves the ball down the field. It lays out a coherent conservative agenda — and the administration is determined to get it passed.

— (@)

I’m still a fiscal hawk. I still want smaller bills, much less spending, and a federal budget that doesn’t look like a summertime pig roast. But I also want results. And this might be the only chance we have to deliver the policy victories we’ve been promised for a generation.

Stephen Miller changed my mind. I hope other conservatives will give him a fair hearing too.

Democrats to spend $20 million to study how young men talk and what content they like: Report



The Democratic Party will spend millions to find out why its messaging has increasingly failed with young male voters, especially in the 2024 election.

A report from the New York Times revealed the outlet had obtained a financial document circulating among Democrat donors about the proposed $20 million effort, which the party hoped would crack the code regarding its flailing support among young men.

'Above all, we must shift from a moralizing tone.'

The prospectus was named "Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan," or "SAM" for short. The eight-figure investment promised to find out how young males talk to each other and what attracts them in terms of content.

The document recommended a focus on online initiatives, including buying advertisements in video games and studying "the syntax, language, and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces."

The document also allegedly urged Democrats to stop speaking to male voters from a position of moral authority.

"Above all, we must shift from a moralizing tone," it stated.

RELATED: The Democratic Party is not dying — it’s evolving

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

A comprehensive analysis on the shift of young voters in the 2024 presidential election revealed that while voters ages 18-24 favored Vice President Kamala Harris over President Trump by 10 points, that gap shrunk from a 29-point advantage in favor of President Biden in 2020.

For young voters, categorized as ages 18-29, Democrats lost ground in every major category in 2024.

The study by Circle showed young men shifted to the right by 15 points between 2020 and 2024, resulting in a 56-42 edge for Republicans. Republicans also gained eight points from young women, moving up from 33% support in 2020 to 41% support in 2024.

RELATED: Caught on camera: Illegal immigrant allegedly votes in 2024 US election

A young boy cheers outside the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 18, 2024. Photo by VINCENT ALBAN/AFP via Getty Images

BlazeTV contributor and conservative commentator John Doyle told Blaze News that while Democrats have promised big results to his voting bloc, the efforts will only amount to the circulation of funds.

"This is just a way for Democrats to pay each other to fake work now that USAID funding has been cut," Doyle said.

"The apparatchiks may smile and nod along and assure the donors that they, surely, can attract the young male vote since the donors are understandably concerned about it following the 2024 election trends," he continued. "But the truth is that there is no way to frame dispossession as attractive to young men. And in fact, the apparatchiks are offended at the idea that they would even have to pitch it to them, as opposed to them just volunteering for it."

Democratic pollster Zac McCrary told the Times that Trump's popularity has diminished since the election and that he's "pretty optimistic Democrats will have some real opportunities in 2026."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Why Trimming NASA To Focus On The Lunar Space Race Is The Right Move

NASA has long suffered from shifting political winds, its mission rewritten every few years. This move gives NASA the right goals.

Mississippi phasing out income tax, reducing tax on grocery sales



Republican Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves ratified legislation Thursday eliminating the individual income tax in his state by 2037 through annual decreases. The bill also decreases the tax on grocery sales from 7% to 5% and raises the gas tax by 9 cents over three years.

"Mississippi will no longer tax the work, the earnings, or the ambition of its people," the governor said in a statement. "The legislation I'm signing today puts us in a rare class of elite, competitive states. There are only a handful of states in the country that do not tax income. Today, Mississippi joins their ranks — and in doing so, we plant our flag."

Up until now, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming were the standout states that refused to confiscate wealth from Americans in the form of income taxes. While New Hampshire still taxes investment and interest income, it is presently in the process of phasing those out.

Mississippi House Bill 1, the "Build Up Mississippi Act," will reduce the income tax from 4% to 3.75% in 2027 then down to 3.5% in 2028, 3.25% in 2029, and 3% in 2030. There will be annual decreases in the following years until the income tax falls to 0%.

'This is a transformation.'

House Minority Leader Robert Johnson III (D) suggested that a typo in the trigger language of the act may, however, actually move up the time schedule for abolishing the income tax, reported WJTV-TV.

"The trigger is actually no longer a trigger because at the 80/500 of a percent, we essentially are in tax cut mode right now," said Johnson, who voted against the bill.

The Mississippi Free Press reported that lawmakers were under the impression that the tax would be further reduced in 2031 if the state's surplus in revenue from the previous fiscal year was greater than 85% of $407 million. The legislation as enacted instead states that the reduction will be triggered if the state's surplus that year is greater than 0.85% of $407 million.

Mississippi House Speaker Jason White (R) noted that one way or another, the legislation "eliminates the income tax in as soon as 14 years. While that's not fast enough for some, the House plan was a little faster than that — 11 years."

When the Mississippi legislature passed HB1 by a vote of 92-27 on March 20 — where all opposed were Democratic lawmakers — National Federation of Independent Business director Leah Long stated, "This is great news for Main Street businesses."

'Government should take less so that you can keep more.'

"Most small businesses in the state are structured as pass-through entities, meaning the revenue passes through the business to the owners, who pay taxes at the individual rate," said Long. "Eliminating the state income tax will allow small business owners to reinvest more revenue into their businesses, create jobs, and support their communities."

The Republican Governors Association called the ratification of HB1 a "historic achievement."

"This is more than a policy victory," said Reeves. "This is a transformation. And it's a transformation that I have believed in, fought for, and worked toward for many years."

"I believe in a simple idea: that government should take less so that you can keep more. That our people should be rewarded for hard work, not punished. And that Mississippi has the potential to be a magnet for opportunity, for investment, for talent — and for families looking to build a better life," added the governor.

While Reeves and other Republicans suspect that the elimination of the tax will lure talent and investment to the state, some critics claim Mississippi's prosperity might be at stake.

Kyra Roby, the policy director of the leftist activist outfit One Voice, noted in a recent op-ed that the loss of the $2.1 billion that Mississippi's income tax nets the state annually "would severely impact funding for education, healthcare, roads, and other vital services."

Roby also complained that the tax cut would save wealthier people more money, claiming that "disparities could worsen."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Senior staff jumping ship at Dem fundraising platform ActBlue amid congressional probe



The major Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue, which has raised over $16.5 billion for left-wing candidates since 2004, has in recent months faced intense scrutiny over whether it has complied with federal campaign finance laws and prevented illegal contributions.

This pressure and threat of corrective legislation appears to have created cracks in the organization — likely bad news for Democratic candidates and incumbents counting on ActBlue to raise money ahead of the midterm elections.

Several top officials, including the highest-ranking legal officer at ActBlue, have reportedly jumped ship in recent weeks, while those who remain are allegedly stuck dealing with a culture of "volatility and toxicity," and in at least one instance, retaliatory measures.

In a letter to ActBlue's board of directors obtained by the New York Times, unions representing the group's workers identified seven officials who recently quit and stressed that the "alarming pattern" of high-level exits was "eroding our confidence in the stability of the organization."

The senior staff departures reportedly began on Feb. 21, two weeks after the organization reportedly provided congressional investigators with an "update regarding ActBlue's security, fraud prevention measures, and related procedures."

Alyssa Twomey, who went to work for ActBlue in 2010 and has served as the organization's vice president of customer service for the past two years, was among those racing for the exit. She noted in a lengthy LinkedIn post last week that "after 14+ years of living and breathing all things ActBlue, it's time for a reset."

The Times indicated that the organization's associate general counsel, its assistant research director, its chief revenue officer, its partnerships director, a senior engineer, and a human resources official have similarly quit but would not go on the record to detail precisely why.

'This is ILLEGAL.'

Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), chairman of the Committee on House Administration, issued a subpoena to ActBlue on Oct. 30 for documents related to its donor verification policies and to the potential for foreign actors to use the platform to launder illicit money into American political campaigns.

In December, Steil revealed that the organization had admitted in documents under subpoena that prior to a policy change in September, it had not automatically rejected donations made with foreign gift cards.

Rep. Marc Molinaro (N.Y.) was among the Republican lawmakers who lambasted ActBlue over the revelation, noting that "as Congressional candidates were reporting millions of dollars in donations, they didn't require the CVV code verification and allowed foreign gift card donations! This is illegal and outrageous."

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) similarly stressed that "this is ILLEGAL."

Despite such accusations of illegal dealings, the organization managed to avoid an immediate reckoning; however, congressional Republicans sought to ensure there would be no reversion to bad habits.

'Part of a growing pattern of volatility and toxicity stemming from current leadership.'

The House passed Steil's Secure Handling of Internet Electronic Donations Act in December, which would have required political committees to collect the credit or debit card's verification value when accepting corresponding contributions over the internet. The legislation would have also required that the card's billing address be located in the United States unless the contributor is an American national living abroad or lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

The so-called SHIELD Act was not, however, passed by the Senate by the end of the 118th Congress. Nevertheless, the Times indicated Democrats fear such legislation could be used to paralyze their top fundraising operation.

While the prospect of the other shoe dropping may have prompted some ActBlue workers to leave, the unions intimated in their letter that the organization's leadership might also be a factor.

The last remaining lawyer in the general counsel's office at ActBlue, Zain Ahmad, alleged that his access to email and other platforms was suspended after the departures, possibly as a form of retaliation.

The unions suggested that Ahmad's allegations were "unsettling and disturbing, and part of a growing pattern of volatility and toxicity stemming from current leadership."

The Times indicated that the unions implored the board to bring in outside counsel and take "investigatory actions to better understand the current state of the organization and evaluate if our C.E.O. is doing her job in an appropriate, competent, and responsible manner."

ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones reportedly elected not to comment on the matter.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Senate Republicans identify tool White House can use to make spending cuts stick — but there's a catch



The U.S. Supreme Court declined a request by the Trump administration on Wednesday to void an order by a Biden judge to pay roughly $2 billion to foreign aid organizations.

Justice Samuel Alito noted in his dissenting opinion that he was "stunned" that the majority — which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — apparently thinks that a "single district-court judge who likely lacks the jurisdiction [has] the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars."

'Let's get over the impoundment idea.'

Facing the prospect of more judicial activism and overreach, Republican lawmakers suggested to Elon Musk during a closed-door meeting Wednesday that there is a way the White House can ensure further DOGE-championed spending cuts and federal workforce reductions are successful: a rescission package.

The catch, however, is that the White House will need virtually all Senate Republicans to be on board — something President Donald Trump couldn't count on the last time around and may not want to bank on now.

When the first Trump administration sent Congress a $15.4 billion rescissions request in 2018, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and former Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) joined Democrats in voting against the cuts, sinking the bill. CNN noted at the time that Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a nominal Republican who has proven more than willing to work against Trump, nearly voted against the bill as well, stating, "I don't support any of this."

Citing the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling on Wednesday and its implications for Trump's impoundment authority — the president's ability to delay or avoid spending funds appropriated by Congress — Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told reporters after the meeting, "To make it real, to make it go beyond the moment of the day, it needs to come back in the form of a rescission package," reported The Hill.

"I love all the stuff they're doing, but we got to vote on it. My message to Elon was: Let's get over the impoundment idea and let's send it back as a rescission package," continued Paul, who Roll Call indicated asked Musk to consider a rescissions bill of at least $100 billion.

'Certainly a possibility and one that we would entertain.'

To execute a rescission — a presidential tool under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 — the president must identify an appropriated federal program he feels should undergo a budget reduction or elimination, then notify both houses of Congress specifying the amounts he would like rescinded, the impacted agencies or programs, the reasons for rescission, and other relevant details.

The House and the Senate, now both controlled by Republicans, then have 45 days to vote on whether to proceed with the proposed rescission. All that is needed is a simple majority vote in both chambers.

Senate Republicans indicated that Musk was "elated" by Paul's indication that the process of rescission would circumvent the Senate's 60-vote filibuster, reported Reuters.

Every president from Gerald Ford to Bill Clinton successfully rescinded funds.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, noted on X, "It is now time for the White House to put together a rescissions package so that Congress can turn DOGE's work product into law and save money for the American people."

"Elon seemed to be very enthusiastic over the prospect of a rescissions package — I couldn't agree more." added Graham.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) reportedly expressed an openness to a rescissions bill, noting that it is "certainly a possibility and one that we would entertain, if it's appropriate."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Zeldin To Claw Back $20 Billion That Biden’s EPA Dumped Into Leftist ‘Climate’ Groups

EPA Secretary Lee Zeldin said he reviewed "stunning" documents about Biden's scheme to dump $20 billion into leftist "climate" groups.

DOD ‘Social Engineering’ Program Developed Bots Capable Of Psychological Warfare

The Department of Defense has allocated millions of dollars to create phony social media profiles the government could turn against Americans.