This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump says pollsters for major media companies including the New York Times, Washington Post and Fox News should be investigated for election fraud, as he expresses outrage at recent surveys about his approval rating.
In a Monday message on Truth Social, Trump stated: "Great Pollster John McLaughlin, one of the most highly respected in the industry, has just stated that The Failing New York Times Poll, and the ABC/Washington Post Poll, about a person named DONALD J. TRUMP, ME, are FAKE POLLS FROM FAKE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS.
"The New York Times has only 37% Trump 2024 voters, and the ABC/Washington Post Poll has only 34% Trump Voters, unheard of numbers unless looking for a negative result, which they are.
"These people should be investigated for ELECTION FRAUD, and add in the FoxNews Pollster while you're at it. They are Negative Criminals who apologize to their subscribers and readers after I WIN ELECTIONS BIG, much bigger than their polls showed I would win, loose (sic) a lot of credibility, and then go on cheating and lying for the next cycle, only worse.
"They suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, and there is nothing that anyone, or anything, can do about it. THEY ARE SICK, almost only write negative stories about me no matter how well I am doing (99.9% at the Border, BEST NUMBER EVER!), AND ARE TRULY THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! I wish them well, but will continue to fight to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
On Sunday, a poll by ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos claimed "Trump has the lowest 100-day job approval rating of any president in the past 80 years, with public pushback on many of his policies and extensive economic discontent, including broad fears of a recession."
ABC noted: "Yet he still beats the Democrats in Congress in terms of trust to handle the nation's main problems."
"Thirty-nine percent of respondents in this ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll said they approve of how Trump is handling his job as president, down 6 percentage points from February, while 55% said they disapprove.
"The previous low in approval for a president at or near 100 days in office, in polls dating to 1945, was Trump's 42% in 2017."
Interestingly, on April 16, CNN polling analyst Harry Enten dispelled the notion some Democrats have claimed that a huge segment of Americans regret giving Donald Trump their vote in November.
"The bottom line is, for all this talk of Trump voters regretting their vote, in the numbers it really just doesn't show up," Enten said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Wikipedia is viewed by many as an online resource for a lot of information, information on just about anything and anyone.
But those who look more closely have noted the leftist ideology to the point it actually contains wrong information on topics disliked by the left.
Now a prosecutor has put those concerns into words, announcing accusations that Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia among other projects, violated its 501(c)3 tax-exempt status by "allowing propaganda and misinformation from 'foreign actors' to flourish on the platform," according to a report at Breitbart.
Wikimedia Foundation is the organization that runs various projects including Wikipedia, Wiktionary and others.
Now, Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin is accusing the Wikimedia Foundation of lawbreaking.
The report explained the group's tax-exempt status has been questioned in a letter Martin dispatched to the foundation.
"As you know, Section 501(c)3 requires that organizations receiving tax-exempt status operate exclusively for 'religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or education purposes … [.] It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation, through its wholly owned subsidiary Wikipedia, is allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public," Martin charges.
The letter continues, explaining that the organization is allowing bad actors to be "rewriting of key, historical events and biographical information of current and previous American leaders, as well as other matters implicating the national security and the interests of the United States. Masking propaganda that influences public opinion under the guise of providing informational material is antithetical to Wikimedia's 'educational' mission."
Further, the letter explains, "Wikipedia's operations are directed by its board that is composed primarily of foreign nationals, subverting the interests of American taxpayers. Again, educational content is directionally neutral; but information received by my Office demonstrates that Wikipedia's informational management policies benefit foreign powers."
Further, "We are aware that search engines such as Google have agreed to prioritize Wikipedia results due to the relationship that Wikipedia has established with these tech platforms. If the content contained in Wikipedia articles is biased, unreliable, or sourced by entities who wish to do harm to the United States, search engine prioritization of Wikipedia will only amplify propaganda to a larger American audience."
Martin notes that the problem just gets worse, as "It has come to our attention that generative AI platforms receive Wikipedia data to train large-language models. This data is now consumed by masses of Americans and American teachers on a daily basis. If the data provided is manipulated, particularly by foreign actors and entities, Wikipedia's relationship with generative AI platforms have the potential to launder information on behalf of foreign actors."
His office said it wants answers to questions including, "What mechanisms does the Wikimedia Foundation have in place to fulfill its legal and ethical responsibilities to safeguard the public from the dissemination of propaganda, particularly in light of its designation as a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and in light of the Foundation's longstanding hands-off policy regarding Trust & Safety (including content moderation and editor
misconduct)?"
Also, how does it handle "editor misconduct," how does it handle accountability and how does it "exclude foreign influence operations."
"What is the Foundation's official process for addressing credible allegations that editors or contributors have materially misled readers, engaged in bad-faith edits, or otherwise manipulated content in ways that undermine Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality?" Martin wants to know. And, "Does the Foundation maintain a public, formally adopted policy explicitly prohibiting hateful content and conduct by editors?"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has warned "doctors" who have been doing various body mutilations on children to stop.
"I am putting medical practitioners, hospitals, and clinics on notice: In the United States, it is a felony to perform, attempt to perform, or conspire to perform female genital mutilation ('FGM') on any person under the age of 18. That crime carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years per count," Bondi said.
A report from NBC explained she directed U.S. attorneys to use those laws to investigate doctors who "mutilate" children under the guise of "care."
Transgender activists across the country repeatedly have claimed that body mutilations on children, as long as it's called "gender-affirming care" under that ideology, actually is a good thing.
Mat Staver, the chief of Liberty Counsel which has fought some of the battles on the issue of transgenderism, explained, "These common sense directives will help protect children from the harmful and often irreversible gender interventions caused by the false gender ideology.
"They will also help hold accountable those who hurt children in this way. The insanity of this ideology and greed in the medical community has monetized the act of mutilating children and adults into a billion-dollar industry. Through President Trump's executive order and this memorandum, the federal government can now return to sound science and promote treating these mental health issues with proven psychiatric therapies to heal rather than harm. Now, it is up to the federal and state legislatures to pass laws that protect children from medical mutilation."
Bondi also directed the Consumer Protection Branch of the DOJ's Civil Division "to investigate potential violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by drug manufacturers and distributors who engage 'in misbranding by making false claims about the on- or off-label use of puberty blockers, sex hormones, or any other drug used to facilitate' a minor's gender transition," the report said.
Physicians will be investigated under the False Claims Act if they submit for reimbursement for services related to "gender experimentation" that is not covered by federal programs.
Robin Maril, an assistant professor of constitutional law in Oregon, told the network it still is legal for doctors to perform those body modifying surgeries in states where such "care" remains legal, and charged that the announcement is meant "to have a chilling effect" on what she called "necessary care."
Leftist medical organizations, prominently the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association, all have claimed to support "transition-related care" for minors.
The industry, of course, is lucrative for physicians and suppliers involved.
Liberty Counsel reported the directives "align under President Donald Trump's January executive order that withdraws all federal funding for puberty blockers, hormones, or irreversible mutilating surgeries for minors, and directs rigorous enforcement of all laws to protect children from these destructive and life-altering procedures."
Bondi said the ideology has been pushed on Americans by those who "deny biological reality."
Following the science, no one can change from male to female or vice versa because being male or female is embedded in the body down to the DNA level.
Bondi said the ideology has been pushed by "the Biden administration, the medical community, Hollywood, legacy mass media, children's books, and public schools," the report said.
"This gender ideology is just 'junk science' that steers children to 'process adolescent stress and confusion' as 'mistaken identity,' and that the only solution is permanent and life-altering chemical and surgical interventions," AG Bondi wrote.
She noted how Biden 'personally advanced" the beliefs by going to court against state-level protections for children.
He also appointed "Rachel" Levine, a man who portrayed himself as a woman, as Assistant Secretary of Health.
The attorney general, in fact, noted how "politically captured profiteers" were taking advantage of families and children.
"These 'professionals' have deployed junk science and false claims about the effects of so-called 'gender-affirming care' to justify the barbaric practice of surgically and chemically maiming and sterilizing children. Between 2019 and 2023, an estimated 14,000 children received 'treatment' for gender dysphoria, with more than 5,700 subjected to life-altering surgeries. The practitioners who provided this so-called 'care' profited while their patients were left permanently disfigured, scarred, and sterilized."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Social Security Administration has reversed itself when confronted over its decision to refuse to grant a religious accommodation to an employee.
The news comes from Liberty Counsel, which worked on the case on behalf of an SSA worker who is now protected from requirements he work on issues involving same-sex issues.
"This settlement agreement complies with Title VII, allowing the employee to do his job without violating his religious beliefs. There simply was no hardship for the Social Security Administration in accommodating this employee's religious beliefs. In addition, President Trump's executive order recognizing biological reality and the binary nature of sex is now helping protect the free exercise of religion and free speech in the federal workplace. People have a right to live according to their conscience and religious beliefs," explained Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.
The legal team was able to reach a settlement with the SSA under which the agency is granting the worker an accommodation that allows him to be exempted from policies and tasks "that violate his religious convictions."
"Under the agreement, he no longer has to adjudicate 'same-sex marriage' claims and adhere to other gender-related policies that violate his biblical beliefs on gender and sexuality. After initially being denied a reasonable accommodation, the employee filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, which has now closed his complaint, making the settlement agreement final," the report said.
It noted that also playing a role in the settlement was President Donald Trump's recent executive order that rebukes the false gender ideology.
"Under the order, 'Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,' the federal government now rejects the concept of 'gender identity' and recognizes there are only two sexes, male and female," the report said.
The order provides that the worker now "will not be required to perform any actions in connection with his duties that would violate the terms of Executive Order 14168." This means the employee will no longer be required to address others by false pronouns and use restrooms with the opposite sex.
Under the SSA practices, it recognizes "same-sex marriage," but under Joe Biden, the options have been expanded to include "more than just two genders," resulting in the agenda calling for using false personal pronouns and more.
"The employee's sincerely held religious beliefs center on biblical teachings that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that God created people as 'male and female' where people cannot change their 'God-given gender,'" Liberty Counsel said.
The SSA already had proven his case for him, because when the issue arose, it assigned him to cases not involving "same-sex" issues with "no negative impact to agency operations," the report said.
It later claimed that the action was, in fact, an "undue hardship."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Forever bars qualified job applicants for indiscretions from years earlier
A Texas court ruling means that a lawsuit over the state's "irrational" rule regarding social workers can advance.
The rule simply bans people who ever have had a conviction from getting a license for social work, ever.
It's being challenged, according to a report from the Institute for Justice, by "two Texas grandmothers with masters' degrees who want to be social workers."
Their problem? Decades ago, while young and under the influence of substance abuse problems, each was convicted of an assault.
The favorable ruling for their arguments came from a Travis County Court, which refused a state motion to dismiss the case.
It's on behalf of Katherin Youniacuff and Tammy Thompson.
"Under a Texas law that the court deemed 'irrational,' each woman is permanently ineligible for a social work license based solely on an old and irrelevant conviction. But the Texas Constitution protects Texans' right to earn an honest living in an occupation of their choosing free from unreasonable government interference," the IJ reported.
"Should people be judged solely on old mistakes? That's what's happening in Texas. Katherin and Tammy both struggled with substance abuse issues early in their lives and each woman pleaded guilty to a single assault conviction during that time. Nearly two decades later, Katherin and Tammy have turned their lives around and want to help people facing similar problems," the IJ explained.
"Texas won't let them. A 2019 Texas law imposed a new, permanent punishment on Katherin and Tammy: Despite their rehabilitation, they are forever barred from working as social workers."
But, the legal team said, that hurts not only the two women involved, but others because of "an exploding mental health and substance abuse crisis coupled with a dire shortage of professional social workers…"
The court's ruling, rejecting the state's demand to dismiss, said, "[a] categorical ban on personal experience directly relevant to a job is irrational."
The IJ said, "The state can of course exclude individuals who truly pose a danger to their clients from practicing social work. But that's not Katherin, or Tammy, or many other aspiring social workers targeted by the state's ban."
The judge found, "any danger that otherwise qualified applicants . . . pose to potential clients is not rationally possible to determine on anything other than an individualized basis."
James Knight, an institute lawyer, explained, "This decision is the first step towards giving Katherin and Tammy and everyone in a similar situation the justice they deserve. Katherin and Tammy made mistakes and paid for them. Permanently punishing them doesn't protect the public. It just makes it harder for people to pull themselves up and provide for their families. That's unconstitutional."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has been waging a war of tariffs for weeks now.
He's trying to balance the international trade scene, where for years American companies have been subjected to high tariffs to get their products into foreign countries, while manufacturers in those countries essentially have an open door to American consumers.
Trump announced a long list of high tariffs for other countries, and as was his plan, they are now coming by the dozens to seek trade deals with America that would reduce those, possibly even reaching equality with those for U.S. producers.
One of the most belligerent respondents to Trump's campaign was China, which announced tariffs of more than 100% for American products when Trump did the same for Chinese goods.
But that standoff may be crumbling.
He believes there's now a "win" for Trump and China is now "caving" on the issue, as China apparently has been creating exemptions for its tariffs for some U.S. goods.
Trump has confirmed he's talked with China several times, but he wasn't ready to deliver details.
Chang concluded, "China is doing this, but it's not announcing it. It's just not imposing the tariffs on aviation products, industrial chemicals, and semiconductors. It's sort of like the Chinese way of doing it," Chang explained during an interview on Varney & Co.
Trump, responding to questions on the issue, said, "I don't want to comment on that, but I've spoken to him many times. I'll let you know at the appropriate time. Let's see if we can make a deal."
Fox noted that China said it was not negotiating with the U.S. on trade, but a later published report confirmed China's Ministry of Commerce taskforce was working on a list of items to be exempted from tariffs.
The report added, "Chang predicts the tariff back-and-forth between China and Trump's America 'can go on for a very long time.'" But he said Xi Jinping has put himself in a box.
"And I believe that if he comes to a deal with the U.S., he's got to explain that to the Chinese people. That's going to be very difficult for him. You can't say, 'Well, I'm now dealing with the U.S.,' because that would be undercutting everything that he has said to his own people for years," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A California dad's account of getting billed more for his daughter's medically needed ambulance ride because he has insurance has gone viral, with millions watching and hearing his stunning report.
It's because of a new state law that requires a "discount" for uninsured people, but in his case, the process billed a man four times as much because he has insurance. His insurance paid only a portion.
It is the Gateway Pundit that said it was "the latest example of how backward and broken California's Democrat-run healthcare system has become.
It is Robby Witt who went to TikTok with his story.
He initially was billed $600 for the ride. Then, when he informed officials he had insurance, his bill was jacked up to $2,342, of which is insurance paid less than $1,100, leaving the rest for him.
"This is not satire. This is the state of healthcare in America—a lifesaving ambulance ride for my daughter. The state of California is penalizing citizens who have insurance," he said.
He explained to the operator he got the bill for $600, then provided insurance information, and was billed more than double.
The first showed the state-mandated discount, he is told.
"Can I go back to the discount without the insurance?" he asks.
No, he is told. "Since you're insured, you're not eligible for the discount."
How about canceling the insurance?
Not good enough, because that would have had to have been done before the service was needed, he's told.
"You're only eligible for the discount if you're uninsured," he is told.
He's told, "This is just a new law that started in 2024—AB 716. The law is that you receive a discount if you're uninsured. When we first send an invoice to the patient, we bill them as if they're uninsured. If you're insured, unfortunately, you're not eligible for the discount."
The Gateway Pundit noted Witt was interviewed by Fox:
"Your whole life, you've been told, right? Like, you want to buy health insurance so that if something – God forbid – happens, then you will get a lower rate than if you didn't have the insurance. Like, that's what we've all been told our whole lives. And then the exact opposite happened. My real problem, I guess, is that it's based off of insurance and why this bill wasn't written based off of income… So in fact, you could have a higher-income family than me who decides to say, you know what? We're not going to buy insurance. And now, all of a sudden, their ambulance bills are going to be cheaper, even though they're higher income."
He noted, "Sometimes when they go to legislate these things, I don't know if they ran out of IQ points to get it done, but it just doesn't make sense to me that you would offer discounts based on whether someone's insured and not based off of their W-2 income."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Alan Schoenfeld is the lawyer hired by school officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, to defend their agenda to select explicit sex books and force children as young as three or four years old to study them.
And he got triggered when a Supreme Court justice, Neal Gorsuch, expressed observations that would be typical, given the material at hand.
Schoenfeld interrupted and objected, multiple times, when Gorsuch was explaining his perception of the book, "Pride Puppy," which formerly was used in the district but apparently now isn't.
The fracas arose during this week's oral arguments in a lawsuit brought by Muslim, Christian and Jewish parents against the district's decision to force that indoctrination on children, and refuse parents their rights to opt their kids out of such offensive material.
The district does allow opt-outs for other objectionable subjects, but refused to allow parents the same rights in this situation.
Hear the confrontation:
A report at Fox News explained Gorsuch was asking Schoenfeld about the book "that tells the story of a family celebrating Pride Day when their dog gets lost."
It leads readers to hunt for and identify items starting with the letters of the alphabet, incorporating words promoting the LGBT agenda.
Responding to Gorsuch's question, Schoenfeld confirmed "Pride Puppy" was used for pre-kindergartners, but no longer is.
"That's the one where they're supposed to look for the leather and things – and bondage – things like that," Gorsuch said.
Schoenfeld, clearly upset, interrupted. "It's not bondage. It's a woman in a leather…"
Gorsuch brought up another logical observation: "Sex worker?"
"No. That's not correct. No," said Schoenfeld.
Gorsuch said, "Gosh, I read it…drag queen?"
Schoenfeld said the leather reference actually is to a leather jacket, but confirmed, "one of the words is drag queen."
A lawyer for the plaintiff parents said the school is violating the First Amendment by denying parental requests to opt their children out of indoctrination subjects that 'contradict their religious beliefs."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It was only days ago that the Washington Examiner editorialized about the affinity Democrats have for violence.
Really bad violence.
The report noted more than half of Americans who "identify as 'left of center'" think assassinating President Donald Trump is 'justifiable."
"That's what a new study from Rutgers University has found. According to the survey produced by the university's Social Perception Lab that asked 1,264 U.S. citizens about their attitudes toward political violence, 55% of all self-identifying 'liberals' believe killing the president is a justifiable means of pursuing their political goals."
The Examiner explained, "This is the fruit of hysteria that Democratic politicians and their allies in the news media have nurtured in their followers for the past eight years. This is a political faction that considers 'misgendering' to be 'literal violence,' but it is one also building an assassination culture."
The attitude really isn't that new. Fox News reported months ago that Democrats' violent rhetoric was exploding.
That conclusion followed two assassination attempts against Trump during his campaign in 2024, including one in Butler, Pennsylvania, where a bullet nicked his ear.
Trump has said he thinks God allowed him to escape that assassination attempt so that he could be president and help America.
That violent rhetoric included comments from both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris that Trump is a "threat" to democracy.
One Democrat, Rep. Dan Goldman, a Democrat, said Trump is so dangerous he "has to be eliminated," and then quickly apologized.
Now, those circumstances have drawn from Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a warning about what result the circumstances could produce:
He said, "So, they are lowering the bar on what's permissible. And we're going to see something like we saw with these two assassination [attempts]. I don't want to predict it; I hope it never happens."
He added, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation, "But if they keep this language up and you start to see polls that say 50% of self-identified leftists think it's okay to shoot, and you see them romanticizing a assassin [allegedly] like [Luigi] Mangione, and you see them go fund an alleged murderer like Karmelo Anthony and basically saying that he was a victim and you see this [alleged] MS-13 wife beater who was pulled over for trafficking and let go and was found — yes, everybody, he was found by a immigration judge to have MS-13 ties. Even his wife did not deny it. She didn't deny that she was beaten by him either."
He explained that the result is a growing risk of more assassination attempts against the president.
In light of the Democrats' popularity being assessed as low as 27%, he said, there will be desperation.
"I'm just watching this and I see that the more impotent they are and the less actual power they wield, and the less the public likes them — if you look at the polls of the Democratic Party, 29%, 27%, one poll I think was 23% approval — they react to that by being crazier and more strident and upping the, you know, not just 'fascist,' but the other day [Democratic Texas Rep.] Jasmine Crockett said that Trump was like worse than the MS-13 gang member, you know."
In fact, Crockett claimed she believed alleged MS-13 member Kilmar Abrego Garcia was "less criminal" than Trump, the report explained.
Hanson said being created is a "climate of fear and legitimizing violence, and something's going to happen."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A plan being pushed by lawmakers in Washington state actually would allow "infanticide," according to a new report from a legal team that has announced its campaign to oppose the move.
The lawyers at the American Center for Law and Justice say they have written Gov. Bob Ferguson to urge him to veto Senate Bill 5093.
That piece, called "An Act Relating to Dignity in Pregnancy Loss," actually would strip legal protections from newborns and victims of abuse and trafficking, they explained.
The ACLJ explains the problem. "At the heart of our concern is the bill's repeal of Washington statute § 9.02.050, which criminalizes the concealment of a child's birth. This law plays a vital role in protecting both mothers and infants from abuse, violence, and exploitation. Its removal opens the door for infanticide to be carried out without fear of legal consequence, very relevant in cases involving trafficking, coercion, or domestic abuse."
The organization continued. "By decriminalizing the concealment of the remains of a child who was born alive and then died, it legalizes infanticide."
Then, too, it cancels a coroner's jurisdiction "to investigate the death of an infant after a botched abortion. Specifically, the bill strikes a key phrase from current law, removing the ability of the coroner to investigate 'where death results from a known or suspected abortion.' This dangerous bill effectively legalizes infanticide," the report said.
The proposal would conflict with state law that already exists, specifically multiple criminal statutes, "including those concerning murder, manslaughter, and unlawful disposal of remains."
Under state law now, the report said, "Infants born alive during abortion procedures must be given the same medical care as premature babies. SB5093, however, effectively legalizes disposing of the remains of a baby who was born alive after a botched abortion and removes the ability to investigate a 'suspected abortion,' thereby making it nearly impossible to enforce, creating a disturbing and unconstitutional disparity in equal protection under the law."
In fact, the ACLJ documented, supporters have stated specifically what they are demanding: To block "investigations of certain abortions."
The plan deserves a veto because it only offers "legal ambiguity" and "a weakening of law enforcement investigating authority," will would cancel legal protections now helping infants who are born alive.