Trump Sues ABC News, Stephanopoulos for Defamation over False ‘Rape’ Claim

(Headline USA) Former President Donald Trump filed a defamation lawsuit against ABC News and George Stephanopoulos this week after the host claimed on air that Trump had been found “liable for rape,” The Hill reported.

Stephanopoulos made the false claim during an interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., when he asked her why she, as a past victim of sexual assault, supported Trump.

When Mace pushed back on his framing, Stephanopoulos insisted at least 10 times that Trump had been found “liable for rape” in a civil lawsuit filed by author E. Jean Carroll.

“Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape. How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw?” he said to Mace.

The case against Trump resulted in a jury decision that Trump was liable for sexual assault and defamation, but not for rape. Trump has still denied any wrongdoing in regards to Carroll’s accusations.

The sexual assault charge involves any form of unwanted contact, not necessarily sexual penetration.

Despite every card in the deck being stacked against Trump receiving a fair trial, a Manhattan jury specifically found, following Carroll’s erratic and patchy testimony, that evidence did not meet the standard, even for a civil trial, to prove that Trump had raped the serial accuser in a store dressing room more than 30 years prior.

In the newly filed suit against ABC News, Trump’s lawyers accused Stephanopoulos of repeatedly making “false” and defamatory claims about Trump with “actual malice or with a reckless disregard for the truth, given that Defendant Stephanopoulos knows these statements are patently and demonstrably false.”

The lawsuit notes that Trump’s team reached out to ABC News to request a retraction after the interview between Stephanopoulos and Mace aired, but the network refused to apologize or correct the record.

“Since making such false, malicious, and defamatory statements, many news and press outlets have continued to quote Stephanopoulos by wrongfully broadcasting that Plaintiff was found liable for rape,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. 

ABC News did not comment on the lawsuit but stood by Stephanopoulos’s comments in a statement last week.

“George did his job by asking meaningful questions that are relevant to our viewers,” an ABC News spokesperson said prior to the lawsuit being filed. 

Trump Hints He Might Deport Prince Harry If Elected

(Headline USA) Former President Donald Trump said this week that he would consider deporting insufferably woke British royal Prince Harry if elected in November, the Daily Beast reported.

Trump was responding to a report that the Windsor family black-sheep, who married American actress Meghan Markle, may have lied on his visa application about his drug use. 

In his recent memoir, Spare, the duke of Sussex admitted to taking illegal drugs—including cocaine, cannabis and psychedelic mushrooms.

He’s spoken about them candidly on past occasions, as well, and his marijuana use was even a topic portrayed on the hit Netflix series The Crown, a fictionalized account of the family spanning several generations through the reign of his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II.

As noted in a recent lawsuit filed by the Heritage Foundation, Prince Harry’s drug use would have prevented him from legally entering the U.S. and obtaining a visa.

In an interview with GB News’s Nigel Farage on Tuesday, Trump said Prince Harry should not receive “special privileges” if he did, in fact, lie on his visa application.

“We’ll have to see if they know something about the drugs, and if he lied, they’ll have to take appropriate action,” he said.

When pressed on whether “appropriate action” would include potentially deporting Prince Harry, Trump said, “Oh, I don’t know. You’ll have to tell me. You just have to tell me. You would have thought they would have known this a long time ago.”

Trump—who considered himself an admirer of the late queen but less so of her offspring—has previously questioned Prince Harry’s immigration status, saying last month at the Conservative Political Action Conference that the British royal would be “on his own” if Trump beats President Joe Biden in November’s election.

“I wouldn’t protect him,” Trump said. “He betrayed the Queen. That’s unforgivable.”

Harry “would be on his own if it was down to me,” Trump continued, noting that he thought the Biden administration had “been too gracious to him after what he has done.”

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have made their dislike of Trump clear, with Markle blasting the former president after he won the White House in 2016 as “divisive” and “misogynistic.”

In response, Trump allegedly said, “I didn’t know she was nasty.”

Left Triggered as Musk, Murdoch Named Ruth Bader Ginsburg Award Honorees

(Molly Bruns, Headline USA) During her tenure on the Supreme Court, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was among the most liberal members at the time, maintained a storied personal friendship with one of its most conservative members, Justice Antonin Scalia.

That bond has given hope and inspiration to many, even as the political climate grows increasingly dark and acrimonious, largely due to the growing intolerance and demagogical rhetoric coming from the Left.

Sadly, Ginsburg failed to impart her virtues even to her own family, who opted instead for petty, partisan bickering rather than to bestow upon those they disagreed with an award in her name.

That ultimately led the nonprofit foundation in charge of the award to cancel the event altogether.

According to NPR, the Dwight D. Opperman Foundation presented the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Leadership Award, conceived in 2019, to “an extraordinary woman who has exercised a positive and notable influence on society and served as an exemplary role model in both principles and practice.”

Queen Elizabeth II and singer-turned-activist Barbra Streisand both received the award in previous years.

This year, the Opperman Foundation attempted to drop the sex qualifier to include both “trailblazing men and women.”

Nominees for this year’s award included  Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch, actor Sylvester Stallone, financier Mike Milken, Twitter CEO Elon Musk and TV personality Martha Stewart.

Ginsburg’s family came out in direct opposition to the nominees, claiming this list was an affront to Justice Ginsburg’s philosophy behind the award.

“Each of this year’s awardees has achieved notable success in their careers, and each may well deserve accolades of one form or another,” the Ginsburg family lawyer, Trevor Morrison, said in a statement to the foundation. “But the decision to bestow upon them the particular honor of the RBG Award is a striking betrayal of the Justice’s legacy.”

Musk and Murdoch, both known for their contributions to conservative media, appeared to draw particular scorn from unhinged leftists on social media, including the far-left Streisand, who—ironically enough—tweeted a statement decrying the nominees.

“Last year I was proud to accept the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Woman of Leadership Award in memory of one of the most esteemed public figures in American history,” she said.

“… I join the Ginsburg family in condemning the choice of honorees this year,” she added. “I had the privilege of meeting Justice Ginsburg on several occasions, and I strongly doubt she would approve of these awardees.”

Many leftists and mainstream news publications celebrated the cancellation of the award ceremony, which was originally scheduled for April.

Navarro Warns of Chilling Consequences on Eve of Prison Sentence

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) After his last-resort request for a delay was rejected by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, former Trump adviser Peter Navarro was due Tuesday to begin serving a four-month jail setence for contempt of Congress, Politico reported.

Navarro will have to serve time at a low-security federal prison in Miami, Florida, for defying a subpoena to appear before House Democrats’ partisan Jan. 6 committee two years ago.

Following the highly politicized lawfare attack against him—made all the more odious by the double-standard afforded to Hunter Biden, who managed to skate on the same charge while Navarro was being sentenced—the 74-year-old becomes the first former White House official ever jailed for contempt of Congress, CNN reported.

Navarro was convicted along with Steve Bannon, although both insisted that they had nothing to do with the scope of the committee’s investigation and slammed it as a fishing expedition.

Subsequent revelations have shown that the committee was, in fact, attempting to push a false and deceptive narrative by cherrypicking the information it released to the public.

Although Bannon was convicted first, he was permitted to remain free throughout his appeals process.

However, Judge Amit Mehta, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who has been notoriously heavyhanded in his sentencing of Jan. 6 defendants and allies of former President Donald Trump, insisted that Navarro report to prison while his appeal was working its way through the courts.

If Trump wins the November election, it is likely that both Navarro and Bannon will be promptly pardonned.

In a one-page order, the Roberts dismissed Navarro’s request to intervene, saying that, despite the DC Appellate Court ruling against him, Navarro still has recourse to his appeal, and so it makes procedural sense to allow that process to play out before going to the Supreme Court.

“I see no basis to disagree with the determination that Navarro forfeited those arguments in the release proceeding, which is distinct from his pending appeal on the merits,” Roberts wrote.

In response, Navarro released a statement before reporting to serve his time noting that this latest milestone was yet another low point as the Left abandons all legal and political norms in its effort to “get Trump.”

He warned, also, that the reality he was facing had the potential to completely upend the 2024 election if and when they attempt to do the same thing against Trump himself.

“The partisan nature of the imprisoning of a top senior White House aide should chill the bones of every American,” Navarro tweeted. “… If anybody thinks these partisans and politicians in robes aren’t coming for Donald Trump, they must think twice now.”

Trump Reportedly Crosses Key Names off Running-Mate List

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) As he prepares for the 2024 campaign, former President Donald Trump is whittling down his shortlist for potential running mates.

Most recently, the former president personally told former 2024 challenger Vivek Ramaswamy that he would not be his VP pick, Bloomberg reported.

In many informal polls, the 38-year-old businessman—who built a strong case during the GOP primary for being Trump’s successor in the MAGA movement—has frequently emerged as a crowd favorite.

Moreover, Ramaswamy, the son of immigrants from India, had been touted by some pundits as a good VP option because he would disarm accusations from the Left that Trump promoted racism and nationalism.

But for Trump, it seems, Ramaswamy would not provide his campaign with enough of a boost as he prepares to face off with incumbent President Joe Biden.

He may also be too likeminded and ambitious when it comes to leadership styles, while Trump prefers someone who will serve in a more auxiliary role.

According to a report from the Post Millennial, Trump sees Ramaswamy as a more viable Cabinet member than a vice president. It suggests that Ramaswamy could be looking, in particular, at the position of Homeland Security secretary, oversees border security—one of the most vital and challenging aspects of the Trump agenda.

As for vice president, Bloomberg reported that Trump and his campaign team were in search of a candidate who was not interested in achieving fame or celebrity, but would give him a leg up in the race.

In addition to Ramaswamy, there were indications that Trump also may have ruled out another early frontrunner, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.

Sources close to the former president told Bloomberg that Trump was judging potential VP candidates based upon their loyalty to his platform, their ideological compatibility and “perceived electoral power.”

Sens. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and John Thune of South Dakota have pushed for South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott to be Trump’s running mate. Scott briefly ran in the 2024 primary, but he dropped out early after his polling numbers boded ill.

Rumors have also swirled that former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., may secure a role as Trump’s chief-of-staff.

That, in turn, could make the case for Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla.—who briefly but loyally served with McCarthy in House leadership after the latter became speaker—becoming Trump’s running mate.

Donalds could help deliver African–American voters, but also has more charisma than Scott. Donalds, furthermore, may be considered to be more of a MAGA conservative, while Scott tends to be more of a traditional conservative, rooted in religious values rather than populist pragmatism.

Two women—South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, also made Trump’s shortlist. Gabbard would certainly be the boldest and riskiest choice, and may require careful vetting to ensure her idealogical loyalty and commitment to the cause.

While Trump already has a lock on South Dakota, Noem might help him deliver more female voters, which has proven to be an elusive demographic. Idealogically, Noem’s conservative values are as safe as they come—although she has had a few minor scandals as governor, on which the media would be likely to pounce.

Trump has previously said that he already made up his mind about the VP selection and that voters were not likely to be surprised by it, which could be an indication that either Noem or Scott is in the favored spot, since both already have an aura of safety and predictability.

Bloomberg further reported that Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah had both been floated as possible picks for attorney general.

However, if Trump is thinking back to his last election, he would be wise not to choose a senator from a state that Democrats could potentially flood with funding and steal in a special election. Such was the case after Trump chose former Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., as his first AG.

Sessions had been a staunch and early supporter on the campaign trail but quickly recused himself in the Mueller investigation, handing it over to deep-state toady Rod Rosenstein, who offered to wear a wire in his conversations with Trump.

Adding insult to injury, Democrats were able to stage a political upset and claim Sessions’s former seat, which narrowed the GOP Senate majority to 51-49.

Cruz is currently locked in a tight reelection race of his own, with some fearing that the demographic changes from Biden’s open border policies and the influx of California leftists fleeing their home state could upset the balance in Texas, turning it permanently purple.

Headline USA’s Ben Sellers contributed to this report.

Oops! Self-Purported FBI Informant Concedes Congressional Race before Polls Close

(Ken Silva, Headline USA) The polls were still open for the Ohio 2024 primaries as of the publication of this article, but a man vying to become the GOP’s candidate to represent Ohio’s 2nd congressional district had already published a concession speech Tuesday.

The candidate, self-purported FBI informant Derek Myers, who helped the feds target former GOP Rep. George Santos, attempted to retract the concession, which he apparently released by accident.

However, his message had already proliferated throughout the internet.

“Tonight did not go as we had hoped, but as we know, this race is decided in the primary. I want to give my congratulations to the Congressman-Elect. I’m looking forward to uniting behind him and working with him to get President Trump re-elected to the White House and evicting Joe Biden,” said Myers, who claimed that he gave his speech “from a private watch party in Chillicothe, surrounded by 100 of his close friends and supporters.”

“Listen, I’m in my thirties and as I’ve told everyone on this campaign trail, ‘if I don’t win this race, that’s okay! I’ve got thirty-or-fifty more years left — and that’s if I live a good life. I’m looking forward to staying in the arena of Ohio politics and working with all Republicans to make Ohio great again!” Myers’s concession statement read.

Eight minutes after blasting out his concession, a second email asked recipients to disregard it, blaming a “technical issue.”

The campaign sent out a more detailed account a half-hour later, explaining in Yoda-esque syntax to cap off its exasperating day, “Accidentally, the ‘send now’ button we clicked instead of ‘draft.'”

If it was a last-minute ploy to get his name in headlines across the country, Myers succeeded. However, he remained near the bottom of the pack in a field of 11 as returns in Ohio’s 2nd Congressional District, spaning much of the southern portion of the state, showed businessman David Taylor with the early lead to fill the seat of retiring Rep. Brad Wenstrup.

Myers’s seemingly inadvertent concession is the latest bizarre move for the recently minted Republican.

Myers ran for office in 2022 as a Democrat. He’s also the same person who claimed to have been recruited by the FBI to target former GOP Rep. George Santos.

Myers was a staffer for Santos, and said he left his role with the congressman and filed a sexual-harassment complaint against him last February. Myers told NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo last May that the FBI had approached him to inform against Santos while he was still working for the congressman.

“When I was working for the congressman as a legislative aide, I was approached by the FBI about infiltrating the congressman,” Myers said at the time. “The FBI was actively looking for someone close to the congressman so they could infiltrate him and try to get information from within his inner circle.”

To top it off, Myers purported to come out as an “FBI whistleblower.” Last month, he released a video in which he claimed to have been recruited by the FBI to infiltrate the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill protest.

“I can tell you 100% definitively that there were indeed undercover human assets and plainclothes FBI agents inside the crowd on January 6, 2021,” said the candidate, Derek Myers, who claimed to have documents to prove his assertions.

“I know this because I was the member of a program and recruited by the FBI to take part in such events. I was recruited in 2017 to be a part of the FBI’s program—known as confidential human assets, or what we call field operatives.”

Santos, who was expelled from Congress last December and who faces federal fraud charges, has warned Ohio voters about Myers’s past.

“During my time in office he stalked me and my staff, offered bribes and much more… he’s a physical danger to all of the people who cross him, and was in my list of priorities with Capitol Police,” Santos said last month on Twitter.

“I urge you all to protect yourself and your staff as he is unhinged and unstable.”

Santos had a chuckle at Myers’s early demise on Tuesday.

“For those wondering what video is in the trash! LOL,” he said in a Twitter video sharing Myers’s speech.

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/jd_cashless.

Headline USA’s Ben Sellers contributed to this report.

Gen. Milley Changes Story about When He Knew Afghan Drone Strike Killed Innocents

(Ken Silva, Headline USA) Amidst the chaotic August 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, a botched U.S. military drone strike killed 10 civilians, seven of which were children—and no terrorists.

For days after that attack, Biden administration and Defense Department officials repeatedly portrayed the strike as a successful attack, even as family members of the deceased insisted they were innocent civilians. It wasn’t until Sept. 17 that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley admitted that the drone strike wasn’t “righteous”—as he first called it—but instead a child-killing catastrophe.

At a Tuesday congressional hearing, Milley, who is now retired, was questioned about the matter. When did he know that the drone strike killed innocent civilians, and did he try to suppress that information as the Biden administration insisted that the attack was against legitimate terrorists?

“When did I know drone strike was a failure? I probably knew day 4 or day 5, around that range,” Gen. Milley said in response to questions from Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa. “I didn’t know right away.”

Milley’s answer, however, contradicts what he said in Congress on Sept. 29, 2021, when he told lawmakers that he knew about the dead civilians within hours of the botched drone strike. At that hearing, Milley expressed verbal agreement when his colleague, then-Central Command Commander Gen. Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie said that Pentagon officials “knew the strike hit civilians within four to five hours after the strike occurred.”

“Same thing,” Milley said after McKenzie’s statement.

Milley’s change of tune on Tuesday was the latest public contradiction U.S. military officials have made about the Aug. 29, 2021, drone strike.

For weeks after that attack, U.S. military leaders repeatedly portrayed the strike as successful.

“At this point, we think that the procedures were correctly followed and it was a righteous strike,” Milley said on Sept. 1, 2021, painting the strike as a proper course of action to retaliate against a suicide bombing at the airport in Kabul that killed 13 U.S. service members.

But after a Sept. 10, 2021, New York Times investigation raised doubts about the veracity of the military’s claims, the Department of Defense admitted that the drone strike killed innocents.

“We now assess that it is unlikely that the vehicle and those who died were associated with ISIS-K or were a direct threat to U.S. forces,” Milley said Sept. 17. “I offer my profound condolences to the family and friends of those who were killed. This strike was taken in the earnest belief that it would prevent an imminent threat to our forces and the evacuees at the airport.”

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/jd_cashless.

House Strikes Deal to Fund Mayorkas’s Dept. of Open Borders, Avert Gov’t Shutdown

(Congressional leadership and the White House announced Tuesday a deal had been reached to fund the Department of Homeland Security, the last piece needed to complete the budget before a government shutdown scheduled for this weekend.

Lawmakers agreed on the other half of the budget last week. If leadership can get the votes, this will mark the first time a full budget, and not a stopgap funding measure, has been passed since Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., handed over the speaker’s gavel in January 2023, after Democrats lost control of the House.

“An agreement has been reached for DHS appropriations, which will allow completion of the FY24 appropriations process,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said in a statement. “House and Senate committees have begun drafting bill text to be prepared for release and consideration by the full House and Senate as soon as possible.”

Lawmakers in the House and Senate now need to vote on the legislation and get Biden’s signature by Friday.

Members of both parties, with a few exceptions, have been keen to avoid a shutdown, which most negatively impacts them and their staffs while helping people to realize how little of the federal government is actually needed. However, it could also spill over into areas such as the military and parks services that have the potential to adversely impact their constituents.

With tax season fast approaching, it might also derail the newly militarized IRS’s plans for enhanced audits of the middle class and potentially create bedlam at filing season.

Big stumbling blocks in the negotiations have been funding for Ukraine and the southern border—two controversial issues dividing the parties and setting the stage for this election year. During his State of the Union address, Biden addressed both topics and called on Congress to act.

The announcement of a deal Tuesday did not include details.

The White House released a statement Tuesday indicating it had already signed off on the deal, meaning it will likely speed into law unless any controversial measures can rally a defiant contingent.

“We have come to an agreement with Congressional leaders on a path forward for the remaining full-year funding bills,” Biden said in a statement. “The House and Senate are now working to finalize a package that can quickly be brought to the floor, and I will sign it immediately.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., echoed that sentiment and the need to move quickly.

“Senate and House leaders and the White House have reached an agreement to finish the final set of full year appropriations bills,” Schumer tweeted. “The Senate and House Appropriations Committees are in the process of finalizing text and reports for Congress to closely review and consider ASAP.”

Deluge of Factors Leading to Layoffs in Most Sectors as Recession Fears Loom

() As the economy worsens, multiple industries continue to shed jobs.

The gaslighting Biden administration has often touted job growth reports. Yet those numbers frequently get revised downward. Moreover, many of the jobs are benefiting non-citizens exclusively. And all but one of the sectors in which jobs are gaining are government subsidized, meaning that the growth actually contributes to inflation.

U.S.-based companies laid off 82,307 employees in January, a 136% increase from the previous month, according to a report by the business and coaching firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

The Wall Street Journal reported companies were still cutting white-collar jobs in an attempt “to do more with less.”

With the exception of January 2023 job cuts, January 2024 job cuts were the highest announced for the month since January 2009, according to the Challenger report.

Layoff factors include 2024 being an election year and economic trends, said Andrew Challenger, SVP of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

In an election year, “companies begin to plan for potential policy changes that may impact their industries.” But “layoffs are also driven by broader economic trends and a strategic shift towards increased automation and AI adoption in various sectors, though in most cases, companies point to cost-cutting as the main driver for layoffs.”

The financial sector announced the most job cuts in January of 23,238, the highest monthly total for the sector since September 2018, according to the report. The technology sector announced 15,806 cuts, the most since May 2023. The food production industry announced 6,656 layoffs, the highest since November 2012. Retailers announced 5,364 job cuts in January.

The media industry, including television, film, streaming, and news, announced 836 job cuts in January, down 24% from December 2023 but up 11% from January 2023.

Notably, the news sector, including digital, broadcast, and print, announced 528 layoffs in January, up 1,660% from December 2023, the report notes, with January 2024 cuts being the highest since March 2023.

This comes after multiple outlets have warned about the solvency of the news industry. Last year, more than 3,000 digital, broadcast and print news jobs were cut—the most since 2020, according to a December 2023 Challenger report. This year, the trend has continued.

The Texas Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, NowThis, the Intercept, Vox Media, NBC News, among others, recently announced layoffs. Vice dissolved its website and laid off hundreds of employees; BuzzFeed folded last year.

A Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism 2022 report suggested that one-third of U.S. newspapers existing 20 years ago would be out of business by 2025.

“The newspaper industry is collapsing and we’re at a point of no return—and magazines are even worse off,” Victor Pickard, a University of Pennsylvania professor of media policy, told The Guardian, citing lack of profit.

This comes after the Center Square reported last month on layoffs in the tech industry and by major companies, including Ford Motors, GM, UPS, Citigroup, Paramount Global, and Estée Lauder.

Other major chains—David’s Bridal, Sears, Foot Locker, CVS, Walgreens, Pizza Hut, Boston Market, Macy’s—also filed bankruptcies, or closed stores and announced layoffs.

As of Feb. 15, 149 tech companies laid off 39,000 employees, the Center Square reported. One month later, that number increased to 209 tech companies laying off 50,312 employees, according to Layoffs.fyi, a site that tracks technology sector layoffs.

Another Challenger report noted that nearly 1,200 CEOs left their jobs by the last quarter of 2023, a 51% increase from the previous year and the highest increase since it began tracking the data in 2002.

As a new Economic Policy Innovation Center brief warned that Americans’ purchasing power decreased because of high federal budget deficits driving inflation, economists also warned a recession is on the horizon.

This is as consumers added a record $50 billion in credit-card debt and total household debt reached a record $17.5 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2023, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of New York report.

Additionally, under the Biden administration, food stamp costs for family meals increased 31% over the past three years; car insurance rates increased 26% nationally, with some states reporting 44% increases in one year; home buyers currently need 80% more income to purchase a home than they did four years ago; and to combat hard economic times, one CEO recommended Americans eat cereal for dinner, the Center Square has reported.

President Joe Biden has blamed businesses for higher consumer costs, or “shrinkflation,” and has proposed taxing corporations to reduce the federal deficit. He also claimed he reduced the deficit, the Center Square reported and fact checked to be false.

The federal government began adding $1 trillion worth of debt about every 100 days beginning last June, the Center Square reported.

High budget deficits caused by federal government borrowing to spend more money it doesn’t have has fueled increased prices, the Economic Policy Innovation Center has explained. Fiscal hawks have called on Congress to rein in spending and implement other regulatory reforms.

Obama-Appointed Judge Rules That Illegals Have Right to Bear Arms

(Ken Silva, Headline USA) Conservatives are typically pleased when U.S. judges strike down firearms laws on Second Amendment grounds.

However, an Obama-appointed judge has sparked an uproar among gun enthusiasts after ruling that a law prohibiting illegal immigrants from possessing firearms is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman’s March 8 decision stems from the arrest of Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, who was charged with possessing a firearm while in the country illegally in June 2020.

In defending her decision to dismiss the charge against Carbajal-Flores, Judge Coleman noted that he did not have any felonies on his record, and that he purportedly received and used the handgun for self-protection and protection of property.

Judge Coleman applied a centuries-old case precedent about rules barring former British loyalists from possessing weapons. There, a court eventually ruled that only “untrustworthy” or “dangerous” former British loyalists should be barred from owning firearms in America.

“Thus, to the extent the exception shows that some British loyalists were permitted to carry firearms despite the general prohibition, the Court interprets this history as supporting an individualized assessment for [illegal immigrants],” the judge said in her decision.

“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense. Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional,” she said, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The ruling sparked heated discussion among firearms enthusiasts. Some libertarians defending the ruling, while conservatives voiced concerns.

“Yes, I believe is it is your natural right to defend yourself. No, I do not think we have any obligation to extend our protection of those rights to people who are not US citizens,” said the ammo company Fenix Ammunition on Twitter. “The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/jd_cashless.