This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
War is raging in Ukraine, a result of Russia's invasion. And in the Middle East, where Hamas terrorists butchered some 1,400 Israeli civilians before scurrying back to Gaza to hide mostly behind children.
And in how many other smaller venues.
And while the U.S. might not have made a declaration of war, it might already be caught up, as new reports confirm just over the weekend, a U.S. warship as well as multiple commercial U.S. ships came under attack in the Red Sea.
According to a report from One America News, the Pentagon is reporting a major escalation of "attacks."
The Defense Department confirmed that not only was the USS Carney targeted, so were a number of "commercial vessels."
OANN revealed, "Yemen’s Houthi Rebels, which is a Shia Islamist political and military organization, announced attacks on two ships that they claimed were linked to Israel, but did not recognize targeting a U.S. Navy vessel.
"The strike might have been a significant escalation in a sequence of maritime assaults in the Middle East connected to the conflict between Israel and Hamas."
The Pentagon did offer confirmation it was "aware" of reports of attacks on the USS Carney and nearby commercial vessels.
It is Houthi rebels, backed by Iran, who have been launching drones attacks, and attacks with cruise missiles, at the American properties.
As Israel has responded to Hamas' terror with its own military action aimed at destroying the terror network, Houthi rebels routinely have been attacking ships with missiles and drones.
It was a spokesman for the Houthis, Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree, who confirmed attacks are under way, but he did not acknowledge knowing American vessels were targeted.
The report noted that U.S. forces in the region have been targeted at least 75 times in the last month. On Sunday, the Department of Defense confirmed one American warship and multiple commercial ships were under attack.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It's widely recognized that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school door.
Repeatedly, the Supreme Court has affirmed that some restrictions, things like time and place, are allowed, in very limited circumstances.
Now the American Center for Law and Justice is battling for the same thing for teachers.
While teachers unions, and some school districts, have gone off the rails with leftist, DEI, CRT and Marxist ideologies, many haven't.
But they were told they could not pray if they could be seen doing that.
The legal team explained, "Our client, a teacher in Texas, had gathered with two friends and fellow teachers to pray at the school flagpole before school began as part of 'See You at the Pole,' a national event where millions of people around the country gather at flagpoles to pray. The school principal called these teachers into his office. He told them that they could not pray at the pole or in the presence of students, because if they did so, students may see and join in. He told them that it was against the law for them to pray publicly where students could see them."
But, the legal team explained, "This is not the law. On the contrary, the Constitution protects the rights of religious employees to exercise their faith, even publicly, so long as they are not doing so in a coercive way. Recently, in Kennedy v. Bremerton, the Supreme Court made clear that teachers and coaches do not lose their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door. We filed an amicus brief in the case and fought for this victory for religious freedom, defending the rights of teachers to engage in appropriate acts of public religious expression."
The organization, previously, took action to "protect the rights of participants in the public school system to express their faith."
The ACLJ said, "The policy of the school in Kennedy was similar to the policy we addressed here; it ordered Coach Kennedy not to engage in any 'demonstrative' religious activity in front of his students in order to avoid any possibility that students might participate. The school attempted to justify this policy on the basis of the Establishment Clause. The court wholeheartedly rejected this policy as a violation of the First Amendment, repudiating its purported basis in the Establishment Clause."
The aggravating circumstance in this situation, the ACLJ reported, is that school officials said they "must" prohibit teachers from "demonstrative religious activity," because of the Constitution.
"In the name of protecting religious liberty, the district would have us suppress it. Rather than respect the First Amendment’s double protection for religious expression, it would have us [prefer] secular activity. Not only could schools fire teachers for praying quietly over their lunch, for wearing a yarmulke to school, or for offering a midday prayer during a break before practice. Under the district’s rule, a school would be required to do so."
In fact, the lawyers explained, "The Constitution protects the rights of public school employees to engage in religious speech, even before others, when that speech is not in their official capacity."
What schools cannot do, it explained, is "prevent school employees who are off the clock from expressing their religious faith."
The legal team said it sent a demand letter to the as-yet-unidentified district, demanding a halt to the First Amendment violations.
"If the school system refuses to protect her First Amendment rights, then we will . . . in court," the ACLJ said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The federal budget, borrowing, foreign policy, spending, transgenderism, abortion, global warming, race, special rights for some groups and more.
These are all issues on which Republicans and Democrats are deeply divided these days.
But there's one issue one which there's bipartisanship: Spying.
And that very bipartisanship has prompted advocates for the Joe Biden White House to fight tooth and nail to defeat congressional plans.
This is according to a commentary by Bob Goodlatte, who represented Virginia’s 6th District as a Republican in Congress from 1993 to 2019, and Matthew Silver, deputy director of Federal Government Affairs at Americans for Prosperity and previously served as legislative director for Rep. Warren Davidson.
They explained the Biden administration's fear of a two-party agreement at Real Clear Wire.
They explained that Americans are tired of, and members of Congress want to rein in, "intrusive and unconstitutional surveillance by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other federal agencies that rifle through our emails, text messages, and phone calls without a warrant."
They noted the bipartisan nature of the concern and then warned that has prompted "former intelligence agency officials to carry the Biden administration’s water by lobbying hard to kill this reform-minded coalition. Stewart Baker and Michael Ellis, lawyers who served in the National Security Agency and the National Security Council, warn conservatives that 'left-wing activists' are tricking conservatives. How are they tricking conservatives? By working across the aisle to support reforms that would force federal agencies to get a warrant before searching through American citizens’ personal communications and information," the column explained.
They called the campaign by Baker and Ellis a "clumsy attempt to paint surveillance reform as a 'left-wing' agenda," and an "insult to the countless conservatives who support strong reforms."
For example, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., "not usually referred to as a dupe of 'left-wing activists,'" said recently, "How much longer must we watch the FBI brazenly spy on Americans before we strip it of its unchecked authority?"
They explained, "Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also typically not seen as a pawn of the left – recently referred to an unsealed court document showing that the FBI brazenly abused Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This statute, designed by Congress to enable surveillance of foreign targets to catch terrorists and spies, has instead been used to spy on millions of Americans over the last few years."
The commentary noted targets of the Deep State have included "19,000 donors to an unnamed congressional campaign; people who came to the FBI to perform repairs; victims who approached the FBI to report crimes; business, religious, and community leaders who apply to participate in the FBI’s 'Citizens Academy'; college students participating in a 'Collegiate Academy'" and many more.
The authors warn Baker and Ellis complain that requiring a warrant is a "bad idea" in their scheme that "effectively discards the Fourth Amendment."
Baker and Ellis also, the commentary explains, are frightened of relying on "the same broken court process" that has been abused by Democrats in the past. That is the FISA court through which Democrats in Washington in the 2016 election made up statements about Trump and Russia to get permission to spy on his campaign.
"Their conclusion is that we therefore should allow the FBI to surveil Americans under Section 702 without even obtaining a warrant or judicial review. That’s like saying the best way to put out a fire is to add gasoline," the commentary said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
What essentially is a war has erupted in the island territory of the British Virgin Islands because a lesbian duo is demanding that its constitution be rewritten to accommodate them.
They were "married" in the United Kingdom and are demanding that that status be recognized in the BVI, where the law defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
It is Christian Concern that has documented the issue, which was the subject of a multi-day hearing that began this week.
A Christian coalition, in the territory, where 80% of the residents identify as Christian, is opposing the scheme.
The lawsuit was brought by Kinisha Forbes and Kirsten Lettsome and they are demanding a declaration that their "marriage," from 2019, be recognized as valid in the BVI.
"Furthermore, they are seeking a declaration that the prohibition of same-sex marriages by consenting adults with no familial relationships is contrary to the BVI constitution," the report explained.
The Christian Legal Center from the United Kingdom said it is helping with plans by the British Virgin Islands Christian Council to intervene in the case.
Lawyers for those organizations have argued that the BVI constitution is not delegated English law, so changes would have to be made by lawmakers there.
The dispute has developed just as the premier of the BVI, Natalio Wheatley, has called for a referendum on same-sex marriage.
Until then, he said, the government would be "vigorously defending our laws, which clearly provide that marriage should be between a man and a woman."
No date for the referendum has been announced.
Rosemarie Flax, of the BVI Christian Council, explained, "As a Christian body, the watchdog of our territory and the conscience of our community, the BVI Christian Council firmly believes that it is our duty to oppose any attempt to add conditions to marriage that change God’s teachings and standards.
"The BVICC truly believes that no governmental authority, no human being, no judicial society has the right or authority to re-define marriage.
"BVICC is not imposing its moral beliefs on non-believers. It is the other way around that advocates of same-sex marriage are imposing their views of sexuality on Christians. They are using governmental power to impose a new definition of marriage."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Special Counsel John Durham, in a report that is devastatingly critical of the FBI, the Department of Justice and others who conspired to create a "Russia collusion" investigation into President Trump when he was a candidate in 2016, says there was no evidence to support that collusion.
In fact, the nation now knows from the evidence that members of the Deep State in Washington worked with Democrats in the Hillary Clinton campaign to create claims of collusion against Trump.
Durham was assigned to review how those claims came to be, after Special Counsel Robert Mueller spent years of time, millions of dollars, and a good share of Trump's first term, finding no evidence of that collusion.
Durham's report said the agenda before there were claims regarding comments by George Papadopoulos, an unpaid foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, "the government possessed no verified intelligence reflecting that Trump or the Trump campaign was involved in a conspiracy or collaborative relationship with officials of the Russian government. Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the intant investigation, neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."
That investigation by the FBI was slated for termination when FBI agents, including one who boasted they would make sure that Trump never was elected president, demanded that it be continued, even without evidence.
That agent, Peter Strzok, "had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump. The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information. Further, the FBI did so without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases, (ii) collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interview of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence."
The report announced no further charges, the apparent punishment being the massive shaming by being named in the blast at the incompetencies of the FBI and DOJ.
Shortly after the report appeared, Trump released a statement calling for former FBI Director James Comey and Democrats to be held to account for their collusion and conspiracies that resulted in the years-long investigations.
"I, and much more importantly, then American public have been victims of this long-running and treasonous charade started by the Democrats — started by Comey," he said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "There must be a heavy price to pay for putting our country through this."
He said Durham's report took a long time because he is "thorough." But he said the result is "unequivocal and an absolute disaster in terms of justice. … The national security implications of what they did are very grave."
Had ordinary procedures been followed, instead of a "get-Trump" agenda, the FBI would have found immediately that "their own experienced Russia analysts had no information about Trump being involved…"
Durham found that instead of providing a "defensive briefing" to Trump, as would have been normal, the FBI launched immediately into its pursuit of special court permission to spy on the campaign. To obtain that permission, the FBI made up stories and presented them to the courts as facts.
Additionally, the FBI was unable to corroborate "any of the substantive allegations contained in the Steele reporting, which was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
The Washington Examiner said Durham concluded the DOJ and FBI "failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law."
Durham also said "Senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically-affiliated persons and entities."
"This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation," the report said. "In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents."
"The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director of the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence," the report said.
Durham indicted three people as part of his investigation: former Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann in September 2021, "source" Igor Danchenko in November 2021 and FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith in August 2020.
In trials in the highly politicized Washington atmosphere, where members generally oppose Trump by massive numbers, Sussmann and Danchenko were found to be not guilty. Clinesmith pleaded guilty and served community service time.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Kansas lawmakers have voted 84-40 in the House and 28-12 in the Senate to override a veto by Gov. Laura Kelly and adopt the "Women's Bill of Rights," which gives women significant new protections.
"This is common sense legislation by Kansas lawmakers that dispenses with the false, unscientific idea that people can change their gender," explained Mat Staver, the founder, and chief of Liberty Counsel.
"This ‘Women’s Bill of Rights' protects the privacy and safety of men and women. Biology is fixed at birth and enacting laws based on fact not fiction is what every state should be doing," he said.
The plan legally defines "male" and "female" based on a person's anatomy at birth, and requires that Kansans "must use public restrooms that correspond to their biological sex," the report said.
"The Kansas law differs from other states' bathroom protections by actually defining 'man' and 'woman.' The bill biologically defines the word 'woman' as a 'human female,' and goes further stating 'female means an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova [a female egg]," Liberty Counsel said.
It applies protections for women in the state's "restrooms, locker rooms, prisons, domestic violence shelters, and rape crisis centers" and "other areas."
Further, it forbids government officials from calling biological men women, or vice versa.
The Liberty Counsel report said, "Supporters of the bill say its enactment is a direct response to people’s concerns about people uncomfortably sharing bathrooms, locker rooms, and other spaces with people who are clearly the opposite biological sex."
"We want to have safety," said Kansas House Health Committee chief Brenda Landwehr. "This will protect women’s spaces currently reserved for women and men’s spaces [also]."
Essentially, the new requirements forbid officials and executives, even judges, "from unilaterally redefining the word 'woman' to mean anyone who 'identifies as a woman.'"
"Today is a huge win for Kansas women! I applaud the legislature for their leadership and commitment to protecting the sex-based rights of women," explained Riley Gaines, a 12-time All-American swimmer who was forced to compete again Lia Thomas, a man who identifies as a woman and was allowed to compete on a women's swim team.
"As a woman and a female athlete, I can attest firsthand to the importance of women having private spaces when safety and fairness are at risk. Now that the ‘Women’s Bill of Rights’ will be Kansas law, women have clarity that when they enter a space labeled for ‘women’, biological men will not be inside," she said.
The report said legal precedent is on the side of the state, as virtually anything that limits the LGBT agenda today gets sued.
In a related fight, out of Florida, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said policies based on biology do not violate the Constitution.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who assembled a 34-count case against President Trump that top legal experts have described as nothing but a political attack, now wants to make sure no one interferes with his claims.
Especially Congress.
Bragg's case essentially is based on claims of misdemeanor bookkeeping problems for which the statute of limitations has expired. But he claims they're felonies, and still can be prosecuted because they somehow contributed to the furtherance of other crimes, which he has not specified.
Now he's responding to members of Congress who have promised to investigate the political maneuver, and already have subpoenaed a former member of Bragg's staff who quit in a spat because charges against Trump weren't filed quickly enough.
That deputy, Mark Pomerantz, did what analysts have concluded was highly unethical – he published a book about his claims against Trump, outlining what he thought should happen.
The Washington Examiner said Bragg has filed a lawsuit against Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, claiming that Jordan's promise of a congressional investigation is "interference" in Bragg's case that got its start in claims of hush money being paid to Stormy Daniels over an affair that both Trump and Daniels deny happened.
Bragg claimed in his state court action that Jordan was committing an "unprecedentedly brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress."
"First, they indict a president for no crime. Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it."
Specifically, Bragg is trying to block the subpoena for Pomerantz.
He was investigating Trump in Bragg's office but quit in a disagreement with Bragg.
Bragg claims, "Chairman Jordan’s demands, including his subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz, seek highly sensitive and confidential local prosecutorial information that belongs to the office of the district attorney and the people of New York. Basic principles of federalism and common sense, as well as binding Supreme Court precedent, forbid Congress from demanding it."
Jordan, and others in Congress, have been reviewing Bragg's office's action following the indictment that many experts, both conservative and liberal, say is a political stunt that is the latest in a long line of Democrat attacks on Trump.
Bragg, in fact, campaigned for office on his agenda of trying to get Trump.
The House Judiciary said, "Why’s Alvin Bragg scared of congressional oversight? Really makes you wonder."
Jordan already has explained his committee has jurisdiction to review actions because of the federal funds being used, and the allegations made in the indictment during a federal election.
Trump has said Bragg's scheme is nothing more than election interference.
Fox News reports Bragg, a Democrat and longtime critic of Trump, wants the judge to cancel the subpoenas that Jordan has – or might – issue.
For Bragg's part, he has refused to answer any questions from Congress.
WND reported that Pomerantz repeatedly had urged Bragg to charge Trump with something.
But Bragg's determination at the time was there was no case, and so Pomerantz left the office and, in a move that critics say violated a major ethics boundary for prosecutors, wrote a book about how Trump needed to be charged.
Bragg ultimately caved, assembling a grand jury indictment. Pomerantz was subpoenaed when he refused to cooperate with Congress.
At the time, Jordan wrote, "We received a reply letter dated March 27, 2023, stating that, at the instruction of the New York County District Attorney's Office, you would not cooperate with our oversight. The New York County District Attorney's unprecedented prosecutorial conduct requires oversight to inform the consideration of potential legislative reforms that would if enacted, insulate current and former presidents from such politically motivated state and local prosecutions."
Trump has called Bragg's work a "witch hunt," following a long list of Democrat "witch hunts" launched against him, starting with the now-debunked "Russiagate" claims made against him during the 2016 campaign.
Federal prosecutors and lawyers with the Federal Election Commission already have reviewed the claims made by Bragg and found no case against Trump.