An explanation given by Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) for activating a fire alarm in a congressional office building in September when there was not an emergency did not add up‚ investigators said in a newly released report. The House “stood adjourned” when Bowman triggered the alarm despite a statement from the congressman that claimed he did so while “rushing to make a vote” on a stopgap measure to avert a government shutdown‚ the independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) found in an investigation into the matter. Bowman‚ a former middle school principal and member of the leftist “Squad‚” was actually “enroute to an emergency Caucus (Democrat) meeting — not to cast an imminent vote‚” according to the report‚ which cited obtained messages on Signal that showed the congressman’s chief of staff having an exchange with him about how there would be a meeting in the U.S. Capitol Building while a vote was being put off. The “exchange demonstrates that although Rep. Bowman may have initially believed a vote on the continuing resolution was imminent‚ Rep. Bowman had already been made aware of the emergency meeting and that it was necessary for him to attend — prior to activating the fire alarm‚” the report said. “In light of this evidence‚ the OCE finds the explanation provided by Rep. Bowman’s official statement and those published by his staff to be less than credible or otherwise misleading‚” the report added. 🚨 NEW FOOTAGE: Democrat Rep. Jamaal Bowman removes warning signs before pulling the fire alarm in a House office building last month pic.twitter.com/dhwOQN2G6y — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 26‚ 2023   Because the OCE’s board found there was not “substantial reason to believe that Rep. Bowman may have obstructed or attempted to impede an official House proceeding‚” it recommended the committee dismiss the allegation. But the board did vouch for further review of the allegation that Bowman “willfully and knowingly gave a false alarm of fire in the District of Columbia.” Bowman also said in his official statement that he “mistakenly” activated the fire alarm “thinking it would open the door‚” another claim disputed by the OCE report. “OCE staff obtained evidence appearing to contradict Rep. Bowman’s claim that he mistakenly activated the fire alarm. Surveillance video obtained by the OCE shows Rep. Bowman deliberately pulling the fire alarm lever without ever looking back to determine whether the alarm facilitated the opening of the emergency doors‚” it said‚ adding‚ “Indeed … Rep. Bowman casually walked away from the secured area upon triggering the fire alarm‚ appearing seemingly disinterested in actually departing through the exit.” The OCE report was published on Thursday by House Ethics Committee. Although the panel declined to open a probe in November‚ Ethics Chairman Michael Guest (R-MS) and ranking member Susan Wild (D-PA) explained on Thursday that some members wanted to wait on taking action until OCE made its referral. They said OCE submitted the referral in December‚ shortly after the GOP-led House voting in December to formally rebuke Bowman over the fire alarm incident. And that ended up being the deciding factor for the panel not to move forward. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “In light of the House’s intervening censure of Representative Bowman‚ the Committee determined that further review of Representative Bowman’s conduct would be moot‚” the leaders said‚ adding that their panel “separately confirmed that Representative Bowman has complied with the relevant terms of his deferred sentencing agreement” from a plea deal on a misdemeanor count of falsely pulling a fire alarm. Citing house rules‚ the leaders said their panel would not review the matter further. Another document published on Thursday was a transcript of an interview OCE’s counsel conducted with Bowman. Pressed on the Signal messages and why he did not reach out to Capitol Police to explain the circumstances for why he triggered the fire alarm‚ Bowman claimed his “whole mind” was focused on spending talks and the possible impacts of a government shutdown. Bowman also denied that he intended to obstruct an official proceeding.

Legislators in West Virginia are considering a bill that would permit libraries to be prosecuted for carrying books deemed obscene. House bill 4654‚ which the West Virginia House Judiciary Committee was scheduled to consider Monday afternoon‚ was instead put before a public hearing on Wednesday. It would remove the exclusions that had previously applied to schools‚ public libraries‚ and museums as to whether they could be prosecuted for displaying obscene matter to a minor even when the child was accompanied by a parent/guardian. “State Code defines obscene matter as anything an average person believes depicts or describes sexually explicit conduct‚ nudity‚ sex or certain bodily functions; or anything a reasonable person would find lacks serious literary‚ artistic‚ political or scientific value‚” the Parkersburg News and Sentinel reported. “According to State Code 61-8A-2‚ any adult who knowingly and intentionally displays obscene matter to a minor could be charged with a felony‚ fined up to $25‚000 and face up to five years in prison if convicted.” On Wednesday‚ supporters of the bill read excerpts from books they considered obscene‚ including “Let’s Talk About It” and “Me‚ Earl and the Dying Girl.” The sponsor of the bill‚ Brandon Steele‚ R-Raleigh‚ argued‚ “Quit creating the safe haven that allows our children to be presented material that would be unlawful felonious conduct outside of the walls of that library or school.” He said he wanted to move the bill through the House rapidly so it could be considered by the Senate. Carol Miley‚ a retired Kanawha County librarian‚ added‚ “I urge you to pass this bill. This is not about banning books. It’s about protecting our minor students from being abused. I call it mind rape or word pornography.” “We have a responsibility to protect our children; a God-given responsibility‚” Minister Daniel Curry of the Camden Avenue Church of Christ in Parkersburg stated. “I would ask what is the need for obscene matter in schools and libraries?”

On Wednesday‚ Governor Greg Abbott of Texas issued a letter announcing that the state of Texas was going to start enforcing the border. They’ve been doing this for a while. Yet the federal government has objected to the fencing they put in the middle of the Rio Grande barriers. So Abbott issued a historic letter in the face of a constitutional crisis that has been created entirely by Joe Biden and his evil activities on the border.  It is evil not to enforce the border of your country‚ to purposefully leave the border wide open‚ which is what Biden has done. I’ve been down to the border. It is‚ indeed‚ wide open‚ and that facilitates the incentivization of drug cartels to pour millions of people into the United States and move tons of fentanyl across the southern border‚ the cause of over 100‚000 American deaths a year. This is Biden abandoning his constitutional duties and abdicating the presidency of the United States. It is evil for the president of the United States to do such. The equivalent would be if a mayor of a large city simply announced they are not going to police crime anymore. The fundamental duty of the federal government is to protect the people and the borders of the United States of America. It is a federally mandated duty for the government of the United States to do that. It is a federal issue — not a state issue. Biden has not only signally failed‚ but he has also done the opposite of good. He has facilitated all of this — with terrible border policy. It is wrong. It should be against the law. The federal government has one job and one job only in the end: to protect you‚ to protect your rights.  WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show Laws preventing illegal immigration have been in place for decades in the United States. It is up to the president of the United States to enforce those laws. Again‚ it is worth noting that leaving the border wide open is not just incentivizing Mexican drug cartels to move millions of people across the southern border‚ but it is also incentivizing them to move tons of fentanyl across the southern border‚ which is effectively killing 100‚000 Americans a year. Biden has turned Border Patrol into a ferry service for illegal immigration. Members of Border Patrol will openly say that is what they are now. Their job used to be to track down people who were illegally crossing the border so they could be detained and then deported. Now‚ their job is to act as a facilitation service for illegal entry into the country. The first part of Greg Abbott’s letter reads:  The federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the States. The Executive Branch of the United States has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting States‚ including immigration laws on the books right now. President Biden has refused to enforce those laws and has even violated them. The result is that he has smashed records for illegal immigration.  Despite having been put on notice in a series of letters—one of which I delivered to him by hand—President Biden has ignored Texas’s demand that he perform his constitutional duties.  President Biden has violated his oath to faithfully execute immigration laws enacted by Congress. Instead of prosecuting immigrants for the federal crime of illegal entry‚ President Biden has sent his lawyers into federal courts to sue Texas for taking action to secure the border.  President Biden has instructed his agencies to ignore federal statutes that mandate the detention of illegal immigrants. The effect is to illegally allow their en masse parole into the United States.  By wasting taxpayer dollars to tear open Texas’s border security infrastructure‚ President Biden has enticed illegal immigrants away from the 28 legal entry points along this State’s southern border—bridges where nobody drowns—and into the dangerous waters of the Rio Grande.  That is true. Drug cartels don’t actually want illegal immigrants processed at these stations. Rather‚ they want to flood certain border points so as to draw the Border Patrol to those areas where it is their duty to care for the illegal immigrants entering the country and claiming asylum. If you take all the people spaced along the border‚ with very few border patrol agents trying to maintain eyes on miles of the border‚ and then you suddenly centralize the agents at one point where the illegal immigrants are rushing across‚ that leaves the rest of the border wide open. And that’s where you get drug smugglers being shifted across by the drug cartels. Abbott continues: This illegal refusal to protect the States has inflicted unprecedented harm on the People all across the United States.  James Madison‚ Alexander Hamilton‚ and the other visionaries who wrote the U.S. Constitution foresaw that States should not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border. That is why the Framers included both Article IV‚ § 4‚ which promises that the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion‚” and Article I‚ § 10‚ Clause 3‚ which acknowledges “the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.” …  The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV‚ § 4 has triggered Article I‚ § 10‚ Clause 3‚ which reserves to this State the right of self-defense.  For these reasons‚ I have already declared an invasion under Article I‚ § 10‚ Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself.  That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.    Abbott has done nothing to violate the law thus far. Nothing. He has not violated federal law.  People are accusing him of having done so because he had Texas state troopers put out razor wire in state parks; those people don’t know what they’re talking about. The Supreme Court ruled recently that the federal government has the capacity to withdraw the razor wire‚ but they said nothing about whether the state of Texas is allowed to put up the razor wire. The Supreme Court did not rule that it was illegal for the state of Texas to‚ for example‚ put barriers in the Rio Grande. They just ruled that the federal government is allowed to remove those barriers. Anyone who says Texas is doing something illegal is incorrect. Here’s the deeper issue: whether the state of Texas can unilaterally enforce immigration law‚ even if the federal government wants them not to. In 2010‚ the state of Arizona passed a law called SB 1070. The law contained four provisions.  The first provision was that it created a state level crime for being unlawfully present in the United States. You would be prosecuted by the federal government and deported. It would be a state law crime.  Second‚ it created a state law crime for working or seeking to work when you weren’t authorized to do so. It’s a federal crime for people to use a false Social Security number‚ for example‚ to work illegally in the United States. This created a comparative state law crime based on that.  Third‚ it required state and local officers to verify the citizenship or alien status of anyone who was lawfully arrested or detained‚ an anti-sanctuary city policy. If you were a cop and you pulled somebody over‚ you would have to check whether they were legally here or not.  And fourth‚ the law authorized warrantless arrests of aliens believed to be removable from the United States. So you could just arrest people and then presumably you would turn them over to the federal government. The question on the table was whether federal preemption prevented those laws from taking effect. When a state law comes into conflict with the federal law‚ the state law loses. The federal law — federal preemption — is actually a little bit broader in that it says a federal law takes up a certain portion of the law. If it occupies that portion of the law‚ the state laws cannot come into conflict with it. So the court in the Arizona case found items one‚ two‚ and four were in violation of the Constitution. Justice Scalia dissented‚ saying‚ “Today’s opinion‚ approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law‚ deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. … The naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want‚ but to vindicate it.” He was referring to the original reason immigration law was given to the federal government: Everybody at the beginning of the Republic was very much afraid of what has happened in the EU — where one country has open immigration policies‚ another says they don’t want all these immigrants coming into their country‚ but the EU says they must accept them. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP So the federal government took control of this to make homogenous immigration law around the United States‚ where there would be freedom of travel and freedom of residency. But in order for that bargain to be upheld‚ the federal government actually does have to police the border. That’s particularly true when laws on the books say the border must be policed. It would be one thing if the federal government had passed laws saying we basically have open immigration at this time‚ because presumably those federal laws would have been part of a Constitution that was signed on to by the states. But it is another thing for the federal government to have laws on the books requiring policing the border and removing illegal immigrants‚ but the executive branch says‚ “No‚ we’re not going to do it because now you’ve abrogated the compact.” Scalia said in that case‚ in the dissent‚ the reason the entire issue was federalized was to prevent open migration to one state from affecting all the states. That’s basically what Greg Abbott is arguing in this letter. And he’s right.

Jonathan Roumie did not hold back when he said he’s on a “mission” from God as he talked about playing Jesus Christ on the hit series “The Chosen.” During an interview with CBN News‚ the 49-year-old actor opened up about the life-changing role ahead of the release of the upcoming Season Four of the series — which explores the life of Jesus through those who were closest to him. “There’s — for me‚ there’s a sense of mission at what I’m doing and it happens to be in the form of entertainment‚” Roumie told the host. “And that’s the gift that I was equipped with by God‚ I believe.” ‘The Chosen’ season 4 ‘most intense‚ mature and challenging’ yet‚ says Jonathan Roumie https://t.co/gD8QAua0rA — The Christian Post (@ChristianPost) January 23‚ 2024 “So‚ I’m just kind of following where he’s leading me‚” he added. “And my entire life and career has led me to this point.” Speaking to the Christian Post‚ Roumie also reflected on the new season‚ calling it “by far‚ the most intense and mature and challenging season” yet‚ as the series heads towards the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. “Not just for me‚ but I think for everybody on the cast and crew‚” Roumie said. “But I think what we created is going to be pretty beautiful.” “I just had to really put it all to prayer and inform as much of my own humanity as was scripted in the page and hope that that kind of gets in the ballpark of what Jesus may have felt during these moments‚” he added. “The Chosen” star said he hopes the upcoming season allows viewers a chance to look at their own faith and resilience in the face of adversity‚ something Jesus’ disciples will be faced with in the series. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “If they’re surrendering to the idea of resisting‚ I think turning the other cheek is something that we really get out of season 4‚ and walking a mile in somebody else’s shoes while going the extra mile‚” Roumie said. “I think it’s contrarian to what [the disciples] would have normally expected‚ but I think it then builds this sense of compassion that they’re going to need for the rest of their fellow man as they go through all the trials that are going to be coming their way‚ as they mature in their leadership once Jesus is no longer with them‚” he added. “They are now being taught the ground rules for how to become ministers and leaders of the faith and perpetuators of the faith.” Starting next month — following the release of three episodes of season three on the big screen in 2023 — the first three episodes of Season 4 will hit theaters February 1‚ 2024‚ and run for two weeks. It will be followed by a release on February 15 of the next three episodes‚ 4-6. The conclusion will hit the big screen on February 29‚ when fans can catch the last two episodes‚ 7-8. “The Chosen” Season 4 will be distributed by Fathom Events. Tickets can be purchased here.

Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) delivered a sports analogy during a recent Fox Business appearance‚ where he was asked to give his thoughts on the ongoing crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border. Kennedy compared the Biden administration’s border policy to the game plan of a football program‚ noting that if any football team were to deliver such a dismal record‚ the people deemed responsible for the failure would have long since been fired. WATCH: It’s time for America to wake up and smell the incompetence: The border is wide open. I read somewhere that if the White House were a football team and performed like this‚ we would’ve already fired the coach‚ the athletic director‚ and the mascot. pic.twitter.com/RuzBK603gT — John Kennedy (@SenJohnKennedy) January 24‚ 2024 “It’s time for America to wake up and smell the incompetence‚” Kennedy began. “I mean‚ the border is wide open‚ and as I’ve said before‚ that’s man-made — and the man’s name is Joe Biden.” “And if the White House — how can I put this? If the White House were a football team and performed like this‚ we would have already fired the coach‚ the athletic director‚ and the mascot‚” Kennedy continued. “Americans want better and it keeps getting worse.” The situation at the border has come to a head in recent days as President Joe Biden’s administration has taken dramatic steps to prevent Texas authorities — under the direction of Republican Governor Greg Abbott — from enforcing federal immigration laws themselves. The Supreme Court handed Biden a win earlier this week‚ telling U.S. Border Patrol agents that they can cut down razor wire barriers put in place by the Texas National Guard — but Abbott has pushed back‚ declaring that Texas has the right to protect its own border if the federal government refuses to do so. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Twenty-five of the 26 remaining Republican governors — every one but Governor Phil Scott (R-VT) — have voiced support for Abbott’s course of action. UPDATE – 25 Republican governors issue a joint statement in support of Texas in its border dispute with the federal government‚ Vermont's governor was the lone exception. pic.twitter.com/ObXWfbyBHd — NewsWire (@NewsWire_US) January 25‚ 2024 “We stand in solidarity with our fellow Governor‚ Greg Abbott‚ and the State of Texas in utilizing every tool and strategy‚ including razor wire fences‚ to secure the border. We do it in part because the Biden Administration is refusing to enforce immigration laws already on the books and is illegally allowing mass parole across America of migrants who entered our country illegally‚” a statement signed by the 25 read.

A House Republican said this week he is introducing legislation to stop the federal government from removing barriers constructed by the states to prevent illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border. Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) announced the Restricting Administration Zealots from Obliging Raiders (RAZOR) Act on Wednesday after a Supreme Court decision allowed the Biden administration to temporarily dismantle razor wire installed by Texas while a legal fight brought by the state continues to play out. “Today‚ I’m introducing the RAZOR Act. This bill would ban the federal government from removing Texas or any other state’s border barriers. If the Supreme Court won’t allow states to defend their sovereignty and our nation‚ Congress has a moral imperative to act‚” Collins said in a post to X. “President Biden is aiding and abetting illegal aliens who are swarming our border and raiding our country’s resources‚” Collins added in a statement. “Why else would he try to stop the state of Texas from turning them back to Mexico? With the Supreme Court siding with the America Last policies of the Biden administration‚ Congress must stand with Governor Greg Abbott as he fights for the sovereignty of his state and our nation.” Since announcing the RAZOR Act‚ Collins has posted to X a number of times thanking various GOP colleagues for co-sponsoring the legislation. While Texas Governor Greg Abbott is being encouraged by some in the GOP to ignore the Supreme Court decision‚ which came in response to a Biden administration plea for intervention over an appellate ruling in favor of Texas as the Department of Justice argued the barriers impede U.S. Border Patrol agents from helping or apprehending migrants crossing the Rio Grande River‚ there are House Democrats calling on Biden to seize control of the Texas National Guard. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP There also seems to be a bipartisan appetite in Congress for changing the status quo‚ even if there is disagreement on how to address the border crisis amid a surge in crossings and blue cities around the country getting overwhelmed with migrants. Fourteen House Democrats recently broke ranks and joined with most Republicans in voting to denounce the Biden administration’s “open-borders policies” last week. And bipartisan Senate talks on a border deal are ongoing. Biden’s secretary of the Homeland Security Department‚ Alejandro Mayorkas‚ is assisting in the Senate immigration negotiations while he faces impeachment proceedings at the committee level over his handling of the border crisis.

Fr. Alfonso Benito López was accused of engaging in sexual activities with some of his young guests