Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., is planning to force a vote on directing the House Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest Attorney General Merrick Garland sometime this week.

Luna is sending a letter around to fellow House Republicans on Monday arguing that the Department of Justice (DOJ) undermined Congress by refusing to act on the contempt resolution passed by the GOP majority earlier this month.

‘The only option to ensure compliance with our subpoena is to use our constitutional authority of inherent contempt,’ Luna said. ‘In the next few days, I will call up my resolution holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in inherent contempt of Congress, and I look forward to each of you voting in favor of it.’

‘Our ability to legislate effectively and fulfill our constitutional duties is at stake. We must act now to protect the integrity and independence of the legislative branch.’

Inherent contempt differs from the criminal contempt resolution passed on June 12. The latter referred Garland to his own department for criminal charges. However, inherent contempt, if passed, could force Garland to stand trial before the House of Representatives and, if found guilty, would lead to his detention by the House Sergeant-at-Arms.

‘This is a broad power that courts have recognized as necessary for Congress to fulfill its legislative functions. Under inherent contempt, the individual is brought before the bar of the House by the Sergeant at Arms, tried by the body, and can then be detained either in the Capitol or in D.C.,’ Luna wrote. 

She said it ‘demonstrates the seriousness with which Congress views non-compliance and the potential consequences for those who refuse to cooperate.’

House Republican leaders moved to hold Garland in contempt for refusing to turn over audio recordings of special counsel Robert Hur’s interviews with President Biden, despite a congressional subpoena.

Republicans seeking the audio recording argued it would provide critical context about Biden’s state of mind. Democrats, meanwhile, have dismissed the request as a partisan attempt to politicize the DOJ.

The DOJ said it would not prosecute Garland because he was acting on Biden’s own executive privilege claims over the interview tapes.

‘The Department of Justice and the attorney general cannot be the ultimate deciders of whether or not a congressional subpoena is enforced. If Congress allows this to happen, we risk being subordinated to the attorney general and being completely neutered in our ability to legislate,’ Luna argued. ‘Why would anyone from the executive branch comply with our demands for information if the enforcement of those demands relies on the actions of another department in its own branch?’

Congress has not invoked its inherent contempt power since 1934, when it resulted in Washington lawyer William MacCracken getting a 10-day jail sentence for not sufficiently complying with a Senate subpoena. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which backed Congress’ right to exercise its inherent contempt powers in its February 1935 decision in Jurney v. MacCracken. 

To force a vote on her resolution, Luna will have to deem it ‘privileged’ – meaning House leaders will have two legislative days to act on it. 

It is not immediately clear if the effort will succeed, however. The resolution will likely get no support from Democrats, and only a few Republicans would need to vote to table the measure, which would kill it before a House-wide vote. 

The House-wide vote on holding Garland in contempt got support from every Republican save Rep. David Joyce, R-Ohio, who opposed it over concerns it would politicize the justice system.

Inherent contempt has never been used on a Cabinet official nor on a matter over which the president has exerted executive privilege. There are also some questions about logistics, with no formal roadmap for inherent contempt proceedings and Garland having his own FBI security detail.

The DOJ declined to comment on Luna’s letter.

Former Trump administration national security adviser Robert O’Brien on Sunday laid out a potential game plan to divide the so-called ‘axis of evil’ as relations continue to grow between Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

O’Brien appeared on CBS’ ‘Face the Nation’ and remarked that the Biden administration’s ‘lack of American leadership’ has allowed this new alliance to flourish.

‘We haven’t seen peace or strength,’ O’Brien said of America’s role on the world stage under Biden.

When asked how former President Trump would drive a wedge between the axis of evil after Russian President Vladimir Putin was seen driving with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in North Korea last week, O’Brien said the first thing the U.S. can do is increase domestic energy production.

‘These countries are reliant on Russian energy to run their economies,’ he said. ‘We need to increase our energy production.’

The former Trump official said Biden diminished American energy production after taking office and canceling the Keystone XL pipeline in the U.S., while allowing Putin to open the Nord Stream Two pipeline that runs from Russia to Germany.

Alongside increasing U.S. energy production, O’Brien called for sanctions on the Russian Federation Central Bank, as well as cutting back on Russian oil sales. Regarding Tehran, O’Brien said the U.S. and its allies ‘need to put maximum pressure back on the Iranians.’

In addition to those steps, O’Brien said that rebuilding the U.S. military and Navy, and getting ‘our shipyards producing ships again,’ would help assert ‘peace through strength.’

‘Those are the things that’ll divide the alliance, this axis of evil,’ O’Brien said.

After failing to stop Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, O’Brien said the U.S. must take a strong posture in Asia to deter China from a similar invasion of Taiwan. He said moving U.S. Marines out of Germany and other garrisons in Europe to Guam, Hawaii, the Philippines and Australia would act as a strong message to China not to invade.

‘The key is to deter war, not to fight and win a war, which we would need to do if it happens,’ O’Brien said. ‘Strength will deter the Chinese from invading. It’s not talk. It’s how they see our force posture.’

Kaspersky is a multinational cybersecurity company that makes antivirus software, but it’s now banned in the U.S. The Biden administration recently announced plans to stop the sale of antivirus software from Russia’s Kaspersky Lab in the States, saying the company’s ties with Russia pose a risk to national security. It’s also believed that Kaspersky’s software lets bad actors install malicious software and withhold critical updates.

Why is the US banning Kaspersky?

Kaspersky is getting banned in the U.S. after the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) conducted a review of the company’s cybersecurity and anti-virus transactions. BIS notes that the company poses ‘unacceptable risks to the United States’ national security and the security and safety of its people.’ The main concerns are Kaspersky’s connections to Russia, the potential security weaknesses in Kaspersky’s products, and the chance that Russia could exploit these weaknesses.

In an announcement, BIS specifically listed five risks Kaspersky poses to national security. Kaspersky’s ties to Russia are a major concern. BIS states that Russia is a foreign adversary that poses ongoing threats to the United States. According to the agency, Kaspersky is under the jurisdiction and control of the Russian government, allowing it access to sensitive information from U.S. customers.

Other reasons given for the Kaspersky ban include the software’s ability to install malware. ‘Kaspersky software allows for the capability and opportunity to install malicious software and withhold critical updates,’ says BIS. ‘The manipulation of Kaspersky software, including in U.S. critical infrastructure, can result in data theft, espionage, and system malfunctions. The products also threaten economic security and public health in the U.S., potentially resulting in injuries or loss of life.’

Kaspersky’s ban in the U.S. shouldn’t come as a surprise since the firm has been on the government’s radar for quite some time. In 2017, the U.S. banned the use of the Moscow-based cybersecurity firm’s products across all government agencies.

Kaspersky’s response to the ban

Kaspersky denied Friday that it is a security threat, saying the government had based its decision on the ‘geopolitical climate and theoretical concerns’ rather than independently verifying if there was a risk. The company says it cannot obtain sensitive data on Americans and that its operations and employees in Russia can only access aggregate or statistical data not attributable to a specific person.

Below is part of the company’s official statement. The full statement can be read on Kaspersky’s website.

‘For over 26 years, Kaspersky has succeeded in its mission of building a safer future by protecting over a billion devices. Kaspersky provides industry-leading products and services to customers around the world to protect them from all types of cyber threats, and has repeatedly demonstrated its independence from any government. Additionally, Kaspersky has implemented significant transparency measures that are unmatched by any of its cybersecurity industry peers to demonstrate its enduring commitment to integrity and trustworthiness. The Department of Commerce’s decision unfairly ignores the evidence.’

What does this ban mean for you?

The Kaspersky ban essentially means you will not be able to purchase its software products, and if you already have one, it will stop working soon. Starting July 20, Kaspersky and any of its partners will not be able to sell or license cybersecurity or antivirus software in the U.S. Resellers who already have the products in stock will be able to sell them, but only until Sept. 29.

It’s worth noting that while BIS has banned most Kaspersky products, some have been exempted. These include Kaspersky Threat Intelligence products and services, Kaspersky Security Training products and services, and Kaspersky consulting and advisory services.

Existing Kaspersky customers have until Sept. 29 to find an alternative, as the company will no longer be able to provide antivirus signature updates after this date.

Which antivirus should you choose now that Kaspersky is banned?

Kaspersky’s antivirus was widely used, but now that it has been banned, it’s important to look for alternatives. An antivirus is the best way to protect yourself from clicking malicious links that install malware, which may gain access to your private information. It can also alert you to phishing emails or ransomware scams.

Kurt’s key takeaway

The U.S. government raised serious national security concerns regarding Kaspersky’s ties to the Russian government. If true, a ban is absolutely necessary. However, Kaspersky maintains it’s a private company with no ties to Moscow. It remains unclear whether these claims are credible. One thing’s for sure: Kaspersky’s absence would leave a significant gap in the cybersecurity market, creating a prime opportunity for competitors to step up.

Do you believe the concerns about Kaspersky’s ties to Russia and potential threats to national security are justified? Let us know by writing us at

For more of my tech tips & security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to

Follow Kurt on his social channels

FacebookYouTubeInstagram

 Answers to the most asked CyberGuy questions:

What is the best way to protect your Mac, Windows, iPhone, and Android devices from getting hacked?What is the best way to stay private, secure, and anonymous while browsing the web?How can I get rid of robocalls with apps and data removal services?How do I remove my private data from the internet?

Copyright 2024 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.

A pro-life lawyer who helped work on the case before the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade said ‘all life is valuable, no matter how small,’ as she reflected on the ruling on its second anniversary.

In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Erin Hawley said the Supreme Court reaffirmed on June 24, 2022, that the states and their people ‘have the ability, finally, to protect life’ and that the court was ‘very clear that there simply was no fundamental right to abortion enshrined in the Constitution.’

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which two years ago overturned the 1973 ruling Roe. v. Wade and the 1992 ruling Planned Parenthood v. Casey, allowed states to make their own laws regarding abortion. The Dobbs case was sparked by a Mississippi law that banned most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

‘In fact, at the time the 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868, nearly every state criminalized abortion at every stage,’ Hawley told Fox News Digital. ‘So the court really explained that in no time had the Constitution had this fundamental right to abortion, and that Roe errored by imposing this through judicial fiat. And finally, the people of the states could choose to protect life.’

‘Dobbs was clear there is no constitutional right to abortion in the Constitution, it never existed,’ Hawley added. ‘It was illegitimate from the start, and that means that people can and do protect life, and we’re seeing these debates happen all over the country.’

Hawley, who serves as senior counsel and vice president of the Center for Life and Regulatory Practice at Alliance Defending Freedom, said there have been ‘some great advances’ since the Dobbs case was decided two years ago.

A total of 41 states have enacted abortion bans, although many have exceptions for rape, incest and risk to the health of the mother, and every state with abortion restrictions includes exceptions for risk to the life of the mother. There are 14 states with near total abortion bans and 27 with bans based on gestational duration, including three states with six-week bans.

States that have abortion bans in effect also have laws that support new mothers during and after pregnancy.

‘A number of states have moved to protect life,’ said Hawley, also the wife of GOP Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley. ‘In addition, those states that do protect life with their laws have really expanded empowerment opportunities for women. In fact, every state that has laws on the books protecting life has expanded support for pregnant and new moms, some to the tune of tens of millions of dollars annually, and I think this is just such a powerful example of how pro-life states are serving women and children, not only during pregnancy, but also beyond.’

Pro-life activists made their way to Washington, D.C., and other cities across the country over the weekend ahead of the second anniversary of the Dobbs decision to advocate for abortion restrictions because, despite no abortion protections at the federal level, Democratic-led states still allow women to obtain abortions and some states have even passed laws, following the Supreme Court’s ruling, that further protect abortion access for women in their state and those traveling from other states to undergo the procedure.

The national March for Life is also held in January of each year around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which was decided by the Supreme Court on Jan. 22, 1973. 

Hawley said the March for Life continues to be important, as is any state advocacy or effort to inform the American public of the ‘value of life.’ She said science shows that life begins at conception and that she and her colleagues at Alliance Defending Freedom believe ‘life is valuable no matter how small or no matter how vulnerable,’ adding that ‘the value of the human life doesn’t depend on its size.’

‘After the Dobbs decision, the American people finally have an opportunity to embrace the reality that every life matters again, no matter how small,’ she said.

Now, Americans have a chance through ballot measures to vote on their convictions regarding abortion. Voters in several states the past two years have voted on these ballot measures, and other states have ballot initiatives for this November’s election in which voters will have the opportunity to decide the fate of abortion access in their states.

Hawley stressed the importance of ‘changing hearts and minds’ on the subject of abortion restrictions, noting that she believes the pro-life movement should ‘continue to support women and to show them that there are other choices and that those choices can empower both them and their unborn child.’

A #WeCount survey released last month found that, despite states’ abortion bans, the number of abortions has not been reduced, as women receive abortion pills in the mail from states that have laws protecting prescribers. And a new study by the Guttmacher Institute found that women in states with abortion bans are traveling to other states for the procedure.

‘The pro-life movement really does need to work on convincing the American public that all life is valuable, no matter how small,’ she said, adding that surveys showed before the Dobbs decision that most people thought Roe went too far, believing that ‘babies were deserving of protection earlier in pregnancy than what Roe allowed.’

Last year, a Texas woman made an unsuccessful legal challenge attempting to receive a court exception to the state’s abortion ban to abort her fetus, which had a condition with low survival rates, citing concerns that carrying out the pregnancy could impact her health and her ability to have more children. The woman, Katie Cox, ultimately left the state to have an abortion. 

There have been other legal challenges against state abortion bans claiming there is a lack of clarity on when doctors can legally perform an abortion in a medical emergency, although guidance was recently issued in Texas by the State Medical Board, seeking to offer clarity to medical professionals on when they can perform the procedure without fear of repercussions.

Hawley said state abortion laws make it clear when a doctor can legally perform an abortion to protect the life of the mother.

‘The Supreme Court is currently deciding to leave that decision to the reasonable view of the doctor,’ Hawley said. ‘So long as the doctor’s action is objectively reasonable within his or her professional medical judgment, then there’s no reason that the doctor would run afoul of any state’s laws.’

‘Every state in the nation has a law that accepts lifesaving procedures from the definition of abortion, every state allows for the treatment of miscarriages, and every state allows for the treatment of ectopic pregnancies,’ she continued. ‘So this idea really is just a falsehood. Women deserve and should not be denied lifesaving treatment, and no state’s pro-life law requires that be done.’

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruledagainsta challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory approval process of the abortion drug mifepristone, ruling that challengers to the agency lacked standing to sue on claims the drug has a high rate of complications.

Hawley argued the case against the FDA.

‘The FDA should be held to account for its 2021 decision to remove the most basic of safeguards before a woman takes a high-risk abortion drug,’ Hawley told Fox News Digital. ‘In 2021, what the agency did was take away that first in-person visit that is the only opportunity to screen for things like ectopic pregnancy and to accurately assess gestational age. We very much hope and expect the FDA to ultimately be held to account.’

Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York gave a fiery address during a rally on Saturday, criticizing U.S. involvement in Israel in a profanity-filled speech against AIPAC.

Bowman specifically called out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which recently launched a $14 million dollar campaign against his reelection due to his criticisms of Israel.

‘We are gonna show f—ing AIPAC the power of the motherf—ing South Bronx,’ Bowman told the cheering audience.

‘People ask me why I got a foul mouth,’ Bowman continued. ‘What am I supposed to do? You coming after me. You coming after my family. You coming after my children. I’m not supposed to fight back? I’m not supposed to fight back? We’re gonna show them who the f— we are.’

Bowman has been a longstanding critic of the Israel government and the ongoing war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, characterizing the conflict as a genocide against Palestinians. 

He repeated these positions at length during his rally, saying U.S. dollars are being used to kill innocent civilians.

‘We are not gonna stay silent while the U.S. tax dollar kills babies and women and children. My opponent supports genocide. My opponent and AIPAC are the ones destroying our democracy,’ Bowman said.

He continued, ‘And it is on us, it is on all of us to save our democracy and save our collective humanity. Because this race is about our collective humanity.’

Bowman received an endorsement from Sen. Bernie Sanders at the rally, telling the crowd they must vote ‘against oligarchy’ regardless of individual disagreements with Bowman.

‘If you are a Democrat, if you’re voting in the Democratic primary, you must stand up against the oligarchy,’ Sanders told the crowd. ‘Maybe you disagree with Jamaal on this or that issue. That is not the key point of this campaign. The key point of this campaign is whether billionaires are able to buy the election — on that issue, every person who votes for the Democratic Party must be united.’

Bowman will stand against challenging candidate Westchester County Executive George Latimer the culmination of one of the most expensive House primary races in U.S. history.

A recent poll by Pix11, which hosted a debate between Bowman and Latimer, conducted along with Emerson College and The Hill, showed Latimer leading Bowman 48% to 31%.

If he wins the June 25 primary, Latimer will be the first moderate Democrat to knock off a member of the left-wing ‘Squad.’

Fox News Digital’s Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.