This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Back in the runup to the 2012 presidential election, as Barack Obama was seeking to maintain an iron grip on the "fundamental changes" he wanted in the United States for another four years, his administration weaponized the IRS.

That was when a lot of those "tea party" organizations were being organized. Also there were a lot of Christian groups that, like the tea party groups, were seeking legal IRS status so they could advocate regarding the issues that exploded under Obama's regime.

The IRS was used to identify those organizations, then deny them permission to operate. This was done by repeatedly asking long lists of questions – one interrogatory demanded to know the subject of the prayers of the group's members – and more.

Also, when delays didn't seem to provide the answer, the IRS simply declined to make a decision, making groups wait months, even years.

The result was that the speech of those organizations, which likely would have been highly critical of Obama, was suppressed.

Eventually, after the election, the schemes were exposed, and the IRS was called to account for the injuries it inflicted.

But the provisions in the IRS code used by Obama for that agenda still exist.

Which is why, according to a report at the Federalist, there's a lawsuit to change them.

The action has been brought on behalf of Freedom Path, a "now nearly inactive conservative issue advocacy organization" that filed for tax-exempt status in 2011.

The IRS grilled the organization about its donors in 2012, but movement only began on the request when two years later the scandal created under the direction of then-IRS official Lois Lerner wound down.

Then finally, in 2020, nine years after application, the IRS denied the group's nonprofit status based on its "Facts and Circumstances" evaluation – the agenda that was used then, and still exists.

Lex Politica attorney Chris Gober has been fighting for changes, the report said.

The case is back in court before Judge Jia M. Cobb in Washington soon.

The vague factors in the list are used by the IRS, which then can decide whether the group advocates over "issues" or whether it is involved in "political campaign" work, which precludes tax-exempt status.

Vague factors considered by the IRS include things such as whether, "The position of the candidate on the public policy issue has been raised as distinguishing the candidate from others in the campaign, either in the communication itself or in other public communications," and "The communication is not part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advocacy communications by the organization on the same issue."

The factors are subjective, so there are no clear standards for IRS officials making those decisions.

The circumstances, the report explained, are similar to those in the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The FEC then had been using a similar 11-factor test to decide if a group's communication was used to express political advocacy, and the court said it was ambiguous and interfered with free speech.

Anthony Kennedy, then on the court, said in that decision, "The FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Methodist preachers, historically, were the circuit riders who evangelized much of the western United States before the states all were states. They adhered to a tradition of John Wesley's teachings and followed the population as it moved into new lands.

Now not only are circuit riders gone, but apparently so are Wesley's teachings, as the United Methodist Church in America has established a solid reputation for leftist ideologies and agendas. Homosexual clergy? Old hat. Rainbow parades. Sure. Sins? Don't worry.

But an opinion piece released at EndTimeHeadlines reveals that one congregation has taken the agenda to an extreme.

With an F-bomb-laden, LGBT "worship anthem" in which a performer loudly proclaims "I'm f****** gay."

The commentary said, "It was once said that when the Church stops offending the world, it has stopped representing Christ. That grim warning came true again in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where Zao MKE Church – an official United Methodist congregation – recently led its Sunday worship with a profane, self-glorifying anthem titled, 'I'm F****** Gay.'"

The editorial explained the "pastors" are two biological females, Jonah and Cameron Overton, "who have transitioned and now present themselves as a gay male couple." The congregation rejoiced queerness, profanity and "Christian rejection."

"The chorus included the line, 'I'm f****** gay and thank God for that,' with the F-bomb blaring through the sanctuary. They even admitted replacing it with 'freakin" in other verses – for the kids in attendance – but kept one original for good measure. In a church. On Sunday. In the name of Jesus," the commentary said.

Explains the publication, "The United Methodist Church was once a movement of revival, holiness, and deep commitment to Scripture. It stood for Wesleyan theology, sanctification, the pursuit of righteousness. But today? It's quickly becoming a cautionary tale. A denomination drunk on cultural approval, hollowing itself out from the inside. You can call yourself 'Jesus-rooted' all you want – but if your message is indistinguishable from a drag club with a fog machine, something has gone terribly wrong."

That, it said, "is not a song lyric. It's a theological tragedy. It's what happens when man becomes the measure, when self becomes sacred, and when the Church forgets it is not here to mimic the world – but to confront it."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Just hours after President Donald Trump discussed the possibility of deporting Elon Musk to South Africa, the former DOGE chief appeared to change his recent negative tune about Trump, giving the commander in chief credit for resolving numerous world conflicts.

"Credit where credit is due," Musk posted on X early Wednesday.

"@realDonaldTrump has successfully resolved several serious conflicts around the world."

Musk attached a message Trump had posted Tuesday on Truth Social, in which the president stated: "My Representatives had a long and productive meeting with the Israelis today on Gaza. Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalize the 60 Day CEASEFIRE, during which time we will work with all parties to end the War.

"The Qataris and Egyptians, who have worked very hard to help bring Peace, will deliver this final proposal. I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better — IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

Musk recently has been vocal in his opposition to Trump's Big Beautiful Bill due to concerns about adding to the national debt.

On Monday, Musk wrote: "It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!

"Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people."

Trump pushed back early Tuesday, saying on Truth Social, "Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!"

When reporters asked Trump later Tuesday morning if he would deport Musk, the president said, "We'll have to take a look."

"We might have to put DOGE on Elon," Trump added, referring to the Department of Government Efficiency that Musk previously led. "You know what DOGE is? DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon."

Musk responded to Trump, saying: "So tempting to escalate this. So, so tempting. But I will refrain for now."

On Monday, Musk vowed to bankroll primary challengers of any Republican lawmaker who voted to pass Trump's bill "if it is the last thing I do on this Earth."

"He should've known I wouldn't do that, I couldn't do that. I campaigned on those things for two years. I never understand why he did what he did, but he's not going to get his mandate, and he better be careful, because he might not get anything else. You know what that means, right?" he said.

Follow Joe on X @JoeKovacsNews

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Religious chieftains in Iran, those purportedly directing the faith lives of millions of Iranians oppressed by the nation's Islamic regime, have issued a "fatwa" against President Donald Trump, calling him an "enemy of god," and insisting that the punishment for such an offense is "usually death."

They are insisting that Muslims worldwide rise up to enforce their ideological wishes.

They cite Trump's "threat" to assassinate Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, which actually never happened. In fact, Trump has stated he deterred a plan to assassinate Khamenei.

It is the Middle East Media Research Institute that described the threats to Trump from Nasser Makarem Shirazi, a "grand ayatollah," and Hossein Nouri Hamedani, another "grand ayatollah" operating in the Islamic regime.

Shirazi "issued a fatwa stating that the punishment for U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who threatened Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei with assassination, is the same as the punishment for muhareb – that is, a person defined as an enemy of God and Islam who is gravely threatening or conducting an armed rebellion against the Islamic public order."

The institute reported, "In Shi'ite Islam, and particularly under Iranian religious law, the punishment for this is particularly severe and is usually death; less often, it could be exile, amputation of the transgressor's right arm and left leg, or crucifixion. … It should be noted that President Trump never threatened to assassinate Khamenei and it was even reported that he had prevented such an assassination."

The demands by Shirazi, 98, an authority whose demands "obligates his followers to obey him," were echoed shortly later by Hamedani is a similar statement.

He stated, "that any harm or insult to Khamenei was fundamentally harm or insult to Islam, and that the punishment for anyone harming or threatening him was like that for a muhareb. He added that protecting Khamenei was a religious obligation for all Muslims, and that any assistance to those harming him is also considered punishable by death according to the religion."

And he actually pursued a threat against Trump, demanding his followers "are obligated to make these enemies regret their words and actions…"

Shirazi's statement was, "In the name of Allah the Merciful and Beneficent, any person or regime that threatens the leader of the Islamic ummah [Khamenei] or its religious authorities, with the aim of harming the ummah and its rule, or who actually attacks it, is considered a muhareb. Any cooperation with him [the attacker] or reinforcement of him by Muslims or Islamic governments is strictly forbidden. All Muslims around the world are obligated to make these enemies regret their words and actions, and if they must endure hardship or damage for doing so, their reward will be the same as that of a jihad fighter for Allah. May it be God's will to protect Islamic society from its enemies and to hasten the appearance of Imam Mahdi."

Reaction online confirmed "there is a lesson here" when Trump prevents an assassination attempt, then is condemned by the regime anyway.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A review by the CIA of a scheme by John Brennan, James Comey and others in the Barack Obama administration found the anti-Trump activists tried to use lies in official government assessments to "get" then-candidate and now-President Donald Trump.

A newly released eight-page review, unleashed by CIA director John Ratcliffe, puts in the crosshairs the government's December 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment about Russia and the just-finished presidential election.

The new report, ordered by Ratcliffe and done by the CIA's Directorate of Analysis, found the "decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment."

The dossier, created by ex-British agent Christopher Steele, made wild and unsubstantiated allegations about Trump and his, or his campaign's links to Russia. It claimed that Vladimir Putin was interfering to help Trump win the election, and more.

Only the claims all were fabrications.

The review "pointed the finger at Brennan as well as at the leadership of the FBI at the time," James Comey.

Ratcliffe confirmed that government document was done "through an atypical & corrupt process under the politically charged environments" imposed by Brennan and Comey.

A report at Just the News pointed out that Steele's complaints about Trump were "baseless."

Even so ,CIA and FBI chiefs at the time expressed "high confidence" that Putin had "aspired" to help Trump win.

The dossier, in fact, was funded by payments made through a series of companies, legal teams and individuals by Hillary Clinton's failed campaign for president at the time. In fact, her campaign later was fined for incorrectly reporting the cash turned over for the work of assembling the dossier.

"The procedural anomalies that characterized the ICA's development had a direct impact on the tradecraft applied to its most contentious finding. With analysts operating under severe time constraints, limited information sharing, and heightened senior-level scrutiny, several aspects of tradecraft rigor were compromised—particularly in supporting the judgment that Putin 'aspired' to help Trump win," the new report affirms.

"The DA Review identified multiple specific concerns, including: a higher confidence level than was justified; insufficient exploration of alternative scenarios; lack of transparency on source uncertainty; uneven argumentation; and the inclusion of unsubstantiated Steele Dossier material," it said.

The review revealed that "ICA authors and multiple senior CIA managers – including the two senior leaders of the CIA mission center responsible for Russia— strongly opposed including the Dossier, asserting that it did not meet even the most basic tradecraft standards.":

Some CIA officials even had warned using the lies would risk "the credibility of the entire paper," Just the News reported.

"Despite these objections, Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness. When confronted with specific flaws in the Dossier by the two mission center leaders—one with extensive operational experience and the other with a strong analytic background – he appeared more swayed by the Dossier's general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns."

Their report at the time "implicitly elevated unsubstantiated claims to the status of credible supporting evidence, compromising the analytical integrity of the judgment," the new report said.

Just the News explained, "CIA Deputy Director Michael Ellis tweeted Tuesday that newly-declassified documents 'show how Brennan and Comey personally intervened to insert the Steele dossier's lies into intelligence analysis. We must have zero tolerance for the weaponization of intelligence.'"

The House Intelligence Committee concluded in 2018, "The majority of the Intelligence Community Assessment judgments on Russia's election activities employed proper analytic tradecraft" but the "judgments on Putin's strategic intentions did not."

In fact, that report found "significant intelligence tradecraft failings" that were evident in the claims.

"A two-year investigation by Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller 'did not establish' any criminal Trump-Russia collusion," Just the News said.

Later, DOJ special counsel John Durham concluded, "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."

In fact, some operatives had wanted a review of Clinton's actions, and claims she "approved a plan concerning Trump and Russia" in order to distract the public from her own scandals.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A payment of an immediate $16 million plus another sum that is expected to push the total well beyond $30 million will be made by Paramount Global and CBS to President Donald Trump to settle his lawsuit charging the broadcast corporation with election interference.

What happened was CBS substituted a coherent answer from another part of the interview for a rambling, incoherent rant delivered by Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris during an interview during the heat of the 2024 campaign.

A report from Fox News said the $16 million will cover legal fees, costs of the case and contributions to a future presidential library, or charitable cause, to be determined by Trump alone.

"There is an anticipation that there will be another allocation in the mid-eight figures set aside for advertisements, public service announcements, or other similar transmissions, in support of conservative causes by the network in the future, Fox News Digital has learned. With these considerations, CBS would pay well in excess of the $15 million ABC paid Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit last year. Current Paramount management disputes the additional allocation."

Further, the report said, CBS will update its editorial standards to include a new rule: the prompt release of full, unedited transcripts of future presidential candidates' interviews," what has been referred to as the "Trump Rule."

Trump's legal action had demanded $20 billion over the election interference inflicted on his campaign by "60 Minutes."

"With this record settlement, President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit. CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle. President Trump will always ensure that no one gets away with lying to the American People as he continues on his singular mission to Make America Great Again," an official with Trump's legal said told Fox.

The report said CBS "is not acknowledging any journalistic wrongdoing."

"The settlement will include a release of all claims regarding any CBS reporting through the date of the settlement, including the Texas action and the threatened defamation action," Paramount confirmed.

It was Bill Whitaker who asked Harris why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't "listening" to the Biden-Harris regime. When the clip first aired, Harris was widely mocked for a "word salad," often nonsensical rants for which she has become well-known.

Later, on primetime, her answer was different, and more concise.

Critics charged CBS with trying to help Harris in the election by shielding her from her own statements.

Fox reported, "It was widely believed that Paramount Global controlling shareholder Shari Redstone wanted to settle the suit ahead of a planned multi-billion-dollar merger with Skydance Media in hopes of preventing potential retribution by Trump's FCC, which has the authority to halt the transaction."

Trump, earlier, said, "They cheated and defrauded the American People at levels never seen before in the Political Arena. Kamala Harris, during Early Voting and, immediately before Election Day, was asked a question, and gave an answer, that was so bad and incompetent that it would have cost her many of the Votes that she ended up getting."

The FCC also was looking into whether CBS News violated the commission's "news distortion" policy.

ABC also settled a defamation lawsuit in December with then-President-elect Trump for $15 million, for a incident when George Stephanopoulos repeatedly and incorrectly asserted Trump had been found "liable for rape" in a civil trial last year. ABC additionally paid $1 million for President Trump's legal fees.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Former Clinton pollster Mark Penn warned on Wednesday that Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani of New York City poses a major threat to the Democratic Party.

Mamdani, a democratic socialist who campaigned on a slew of left-wing policies, including city-run grocery stores, a $30 minimum wage and has espoused anti-Israel views, won the New York City Democratic mayoral primary in June. Penn, on "America's Newsroom," said Mamdani's views are "extreme," but that he could become mayor if he manages to frame the race as him versus President Donald Trump, rather than competing with other mayoral candidates.

"This is a 9-1-1 moment for the Democratic Party in the sense that he's an anti-Semitic socialist. I think you have to throw both of those things at him because he has really not disavowed the global intifada. He has not really disavowed his comments that we should seize the means of production," Penn said. "He is perhaps the most extreme major candidate ever to win such a major office. And the system itself, the primary system, has been hijacked. There normally would have been a run-off, which would have then exposed his views rather than his smiling through the primaries."

"But I think that it's absolutely essential here that this not become Mamdani versus Trump," he continued. "That's his strategy. If he can get rid of the idea that there are two other candidates or maybe one other candidate opposing him and he's running against Trump, well, you know, he'll win that one."

Fox News host Dana Perino asked why Mamdani could succeed with that strategy.

"Because the Democrats got 68% of the vote in New York City. So therefore, I think Mamdani's point is to make it him against Trump, win 60, you know, 60-40 or something like that," Penn responded. "And the other Democratic candidates have to come in here and say, no, this is about the future of the city and how we save it and how we reduce crime, not defund it, how we bring business and jobs here, not run them away, and how we make Jews as comfortable as any other minority to live in New York City."

Mamdani, speaking to "Meet the Press" on Sunday, failed to directly condemn the controversial phrase "globalize the intifada," which is widely perceived as a call to violence against Jewish people.

"That's not language that I use. The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead the city is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights," Mamdani said. "And ultimately that's what is the foundation of so much of my politics. The belief that freedom and justice and safety are things that to have meaning have to be applied to all people. And that includes Israelis and Palestinians as life."

ESPN's Stephen A. Smith also warned on "The Stephen A. Smith Show" Monday that Democrats will be electorally doomed if they embrace Mamdani's socialist politics.

"If the Democratic Party becomes him, you have no chance," Smith said.

"You might have a democratic socialist sprinkled here and there — but that ain't what America is! America is about capitalism!" he added. "America is about dollars and cents! America is about an economy, a flourishing economy, okay!?" he continued. "And you know what it's not about!? Free stuff."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Supreme Court just days ago declared unconstitutional a scheme by school officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, to impose mandatory LGBT indoctrination on children as young as three years old.

The practical effect of the ruling was to force school officials to allow parents to opt their children out of the offensive teachings, over the protests by the district that it really didn't have the ability to manage such a situation.

It was because of the obvious scheming in which officials insisted on feeding children a reading diet of books that "normalized" LGBT beliefs, including the scientifically impossible concept that boys can turn into girls, and the district's instructions to teachers to ridicule and correct students who disagreed.

The school, with its agenda, moved well beyond exposing children to other beliefs, according an analysis posted online at Scotusblog.

It moved into requiring students to adopt the school's "certain values and beliefs," in short, its religion.

The analysis charged, "The court didn't say that merely exposing children to ideas contrary to their faith is unconstitutional. [Justice Samuel] Alito acknowledged that not every curriculum dispute triggers a free exercise claim. The key, he explained, is the combination of normative messaging and institutional reinforcement. The majority pointed not only to the content of the books, which portrayed same-sex marriage and gender transition as joyful and self-affirming, but also to the teacher guidance documents distributed by MCPS.

"Those documents instructed teachers on how to respond to student questions or objections. If a child said that 'a boy can't marry a boy,' teachers were told to respond, 'Two men who love each other can decide they want to get married.' If a student said a character can't be a boy if he was born a girl, the teacher should say, 'That comment is hurtful.' One prompt advised teachers to explain that '[w]hen we're born, people make a guess about our gender and label us 'boy' or 'girl' based on our body parts. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong.'

"Teachers were told to '[d]isrupt either/or thinking' and were discouraged from presenting these topics as optional or neutral," the analysis said.

"In short, this was not passive exposure to diversity. It was, in the court's words, a curriculum 'designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' And when combined with mandatory attendance, a lack of opt-out rights, and the young age of the students – some as young as five – the court found that this amounted to more than discomfort. It was a constitutional burden on religious formation."

The analysis noted the school was imposing "moral instruction for young children without offering a way out."

The case was brought against the school by parents who charged that the school was violating the Constitution by imposing on their protected religious rights, with which the Supreme Court agreed.

The court found the school imposed on young children "real pressure to conform" to the school's religion.

"For advocates working at the intersection of religious liberty and public education, this case is both a warning and a roadmap. The warning is clear: Ignoring procedural pluralism – by eliminating opt-outs and dismissing religious objections as mere bigotry – risks violating constitutional protections. But the roadmap is more hopeful. If school districts want to honor inclusion without coercion, they must offer parents meaningful ways to participate and dissent. Opt-out policies, clear notice, and open dialogue with families aren't threats to diversity – they're how pluralism works in practice," the analysis found.

It said, "When public schools act as both educators and moral guides, they carry a responsibility to make space for conscience, not just as a matter of fairness, but as a matter of constitutional law."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Reports have confirmed that John McConnell Jr., a federal judge in Rhode Island, long has been a financial supporter of Democrats, contributing some $60,000 to the party's candidates.

He was nominated to the bench by Democrat Barack Obama.

He's a former treasurer of the Rhode Island Democratic Committee and chaired the campaign of Providence Mayor David Cicilline.

But what's gotten attention now is that he's also documented as being part of an organization that was funded, at least partly, by grants from the federal government.

Then at the same time he, instead of recusing himself from the case over government grants and funding, sided with a team of Democrat state attorneys general who oppose President Donald Trump's agenda to freeze and cut federal funds being handed out through grants to nongovernmental groups.

A report at Fox News explains that U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., are asking the judicial council for the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to investigate McConnell over that issue.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Raphael Warnock was a preacher at an Atlanta church before he was elected to the United States Senate.

And he still faces controversies over the money, tens of thousands of dollars, he continues to take from the congregation each year, and the lavish, luxury home, owned by the church, that he occupies.

In fact, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust has asked the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to investigate what "appears" to be his violation of Senate ethics rules by accepting the "lavish" housing scheme and then refusing to report it on his financial disclosures.

Notwithstanding his own behavior, the senator now is insisting that Christians abide by his beliefs about the Bible.

He recently delivered a lengthy diatribe against Republicans, accusing them of being Robin Hood in reverse and taking from kids to give to the wealthy.

"We're taking away health care from kids and then burdening them with the debt," Warnock said. "We are engaged in Robin Hood in reverse, this body of stealing from the poor in order to give to the rich. This massive transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top. This is socialism for the rich."