This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An analysis of this week's Supreme Court arguments in a Maryland fight over a school's decision to teach sexually deviant behaviors to children and not allow parents to opt their kids out of those classes has concluded that Justice Ketanji Jackson is "either the dumbest or most evil member" on the court.
Dumbest might be in ascendance, as this was the same individual who, during her Senate confirmation hearing, was unable to tell inquiring senators what is a "woman."
A recording of her revealing her agenda was posted online:
An analysis at RedState explained that it should have been a "red flag."
On the court, she's reliably been a "left-wing vote," it said.
"There is no level of partisanship she won't stoop to in order to defend a Democrat viewpoint, and that was on display again in recent oral arguments surrounding parental rights," it said.
"While a majority of the court seemed to be leaning toward affirming that obvious right, Jackson showed she's either the dumbest or most evil member of the court," it said.
It pointed out that she wasn't even "aware" of the fact that the fight is over Montgomery County School District's actions, which "require" the books to be taught.
She argued that perhaps those books are just "sitting on the shelves," meaning that a temporary injunction to affirm the parents' rights would be inappropriate.
The analysis notes that Jackson does come across "as vapid and ill-equipped," … or "the other option is that she's just evil, and the rest is an act."
"Returning to the core issue, why is it this important for public schools to talk about topics that violate the religious principles of some parents?" the analysis noted. "Does LGBTQ ideology really trump religious liberty? It doesn't, but Jackson thinks it does, and that's a scary proposition. Imagine a court with a few more justices in her mold, and where that would leave the country."
It explained, "Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought some sanity to the discussion by pointing out how absurd Jackson's arguments were."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Court of International Trade has ruled that small businesses have failed to prove the "immediate and irreparable harm" they fear from President Donald Trump's tariffs.
The court declined to issue a temporary restraining order that the businesses had sought, which would have prevented the president's sweeping tariff program from taking effect.
A report from Fox Business explained it was "a win for the Trump administration."
It was a three-judge panel at the court that said plaintiffs in the lawsuit "failed to show a likelihood that they would suffer 'immediate and irreparable harm' as a result of the tariffs," which is the standard required for courts to issue a TROI.
The result is that the tariffs are being left in place while the dispute actually moves through the court system.
To that effect, the judges told both sides to provide information to the court by May.
"The lawsuit was brought earlier this month by the Texas-based Liberty Justice Center, on behalf of four small businesses in New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Vermont," the report said, noting those companies count on imported goods for their operations and profits.
The businesses wanted an immediate halt and claimed the president's decision based on the International Emergency Economic Powers was wrong.
They argued that the president's claim to have the authority to make executive branch decisions was "extreme."
"Any grant of such authority by Congress to the president should qualify as a major question subject to the strictest judicial scrutiny, which this claim of authority under IEEPA cannot survive," they claimed in their filings.
The decision, the report said, is "a near-term victory for Trump."
It's one of a multitude of lawsuits that mostly leftist interests have filed against the Trump administration over his efforts to balance world trade. For years, Americans and American businesses have been charged premiums to get their products into foreign countries, while producers from those nations have frequently been given an open door to access America's markets and its consumers.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has ordered dozens of strikes where terrorist leaders have been confirmed to be during his first few weeks in office, and those missions have taken out at least 74 threats to America, according to a report.
Already.
It was National Security Adviser Mike Waltz who told Just the News during an interview of the success the administration has had so far in killing terror organization leaders plotting to strike Western assets and the U.S. homeland.
"I can tell you, from ISIS to al-Qaida, to groups like Al-Shabaab, all have plots and plans to hit the homeland once again, and if you look under the Biden administration, with a wide-open border, that was incredibly dangerous," Waltz confirmed.
"President Trump has eliminated 74 named terrorist leaders that the Biden administration wasn't going after. You add to that 45 Americans who are being held hostage by various regimes and groups around the world that he's brought home, and that is just an incredible achievement in just a couple of months."
He said, "Americans should sleep better at night. We're only three months in, and look at the results President Trump is getting. The mainstream media doesn't want to talk about those."
Waltz told Just the News the strikes have reached far beyond the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who recently have garnered media attention, and have targeted organizations like al-Qaida and ISIS in the Middle East and Al-Shabaab in Africa.
The report explained, "U.S. military and intelligence officials confirmed to Just the News on Tuesday the numbers Waltz provided and offered details about some of the top targets who have been eliminated by strikes carried out by U.S. Central Command."
For example, an airstrike in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on March 13 killed the Global ISIS #2 leader Abdallah Makki Muslih al-Rifai, also known as Abu Khadijah, who was the emir of ISIS' governing body.
And on March 2, there was a joint operation with Somalian military forces that killed three dozen leaders and fighters of Africa's Al-Shabaab, a violent Islamic terror group.
In Syria, in February, a strike killed Muhammed Yusuf Ziya Talay, a leader of an al-Qaida affiliate called Hurras al-Din.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A lawyer for parents calling for protections for their religious rights has told justices on the Supreme Court the practices by the school district in Montgomery County, Maryland, don't involve "exposure" to children of its LGBT ideologies.
"It's indoctrination."
"Our clients' faith teaches they shouldn't expose children during their years of innocence to instruction about sexuality without moral context," Becket lawyer Eric Baxter told the justices. "That's not just exposure — it's indoctrination."
A report from the Washington Examiner pointed out that at least five of the justices appeared to be willing to be granting protections for parents' religious rights in the fight.
The dispute is over the decision by school officials to push LGBT ideologies to children as young as three years old, and then refuse permission for parents to opt their children out of indoctrination that would violate their religious faith.
Bringing the case was a coalition of Muslim, Christian and Jewish parents.
"Several justices appeared sympathetic to the parents' concerns, especially regarding the young age of the students. Justice Samuel Alito noted that some of the books were approved for children as young as three or four years old," the report said.
Baxter explained Montgomery County's curriculum imposed a "uniquely coercive" environment on much younger children, in part by designing instruction to "disrupt cisnormativity:" and challenge traditional gender beliefs.
Leftists on the court argued for giving the school district absolute authority to decide what its mandatory lessons would include, the report noted. "Justice Elena Kagan warned that granting such a right whenever a parent has a sincere religious objection could effectively turn every classroom into a battlefield."
Baxter explained there are three levels of violation in the district program: Substantial interference with religious upbringing, pressure to abandon beliefs to access a public benefit, and discriminatory treatment, such as granting opt-outs for some religious views but not others."
The Daily Caller News Foundation explained Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that Maryland was founded on religious liberty, but now appears intent on denying it.
"Maryland was founded on religious liberty and religious tolerance, a haven for Catholics escaping persecution from persecution in England going back to 1649," the justice said. "I guess I'm surprised, given that this is the hill we're going to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty."
The arguments revealed the district does allow opt-outs for musical performances, dissections, high school sex ed classes, and more, but refuses to allow them for the books used to indoctrination young children.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that the district presents the LGBT ideology as fact, and that's not the same as simply exposing students to an idea.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A screaming pro-Palestinian protester apparently was trying to take over a town meeting assembled by U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, a Florida Republican running for governor in his state, by screaming at him for minutes.
But he had the microphone and she lost.
"What you're doing is yelling now and you're being disrespectful. You, ma'am, you are being disrespectful. And I will respect you. And I will honor the fact that you are here trying to get answers. But if you're gonna hold this thing up and be disrespectful, then it's time for you to be removed. You can leave," he said.
She was escorted out of the room, still screaming, "Free, free, Palestine!"
The woman began shouting at Donalds about the Middle East conflict. It was the terror group Hamas, from Gaza, that dispatched soldiers to invade Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. They slaughtered, often in horrific fashion, some 1,200 Israeli civilians, and took hundreds more hostage.
Since then, Israel has been pursuing the terrorists on-again, off-again depending on the nature of ceasefire negotiations, to protect its civilians and prevent future terror atrocities.
Donalds responded, "The Palestinians have voted for Hamas and they have not done anything to remove Hamas. So you want to have a shouting match with me? Let's have a shouting match on the facts. The truth is, is that Hamas held elections one time. One time. And they never held elections again. Because they would prefer to keep the Palestinian people under their boots."
According to the report, he continued, "So if you're going to ask who has blood on your hands, it is Hamas and it is the people that empower them…. That's the truth. If you want to continue to have a shouting match with me at least come with the facts. Next question."
The protester, not identified, refused, however, to let others move on their questions. Eventually, she was removed, still screaming, "Free, free, Palestine."
Donalds also was challenged because of the work being done by Elon Musk and President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency.
He explained, "You can boo if you want to, but those are the facts. Because if you go back in time, back to 2009, then-President Obama famously said that he wanted to examine the efficiencies or lack thereof in the federal government. Elon Musk is doing the exact same thing."
Donalds said, "When it comes to what Elon Musk is doing, he's everything that he does right now is in the auspices of being a special employee under the presidency of Donald Trump. So how this works is the president's allowed to have special employees. Every president basically had these special employees. They're tasked with specific duties, specific responsibilities. Some of them have been tasked with going overseas, trying to negotiate climate policy. That was John Kerry when he was the climate czar under President Biden. And this instance, Elon Musk is essentially the head of the DOGE that Donald Trump has set up in his administration."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court's schedule for Tuesday included oral arguments in the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, which essentially involves a decision by school officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, to impose their ideological agenda on children and families by force.
They are doing this by requiring young students to be subjected to LGBT indoctrination, and giving parents no opportunity to opt their children out of the offensive lessons.
Parents charge that's a violation of their legal and constitutional rights. But even before the arguments, a constitutional expert and legal scholar has expressed his opinion: that such mandatory ideologies in public schools have gone way too far.
"Teachers and boards are killing the institution of public education by treating children and parents more like captives than consumers," explained Jonathan Turley, law professor and popular commentator.
He's also testified as an expert before Congress on constitutional issues, and has represented members in court on constitutional disputes.
"They are force-feeding social and political priorities, including passes for engaging in approved protests," he explained. "As public schools continue to produce abysmal scores, particularly for minority students, board and union officials have called for lowering or suspending proficiency standards or declared meritocracy to be a form of 'white supremacy.' Gifted and talented programs are being eliminated in the name of 'equity.'"
He explained when parents have a "choice" in education, then "these teachers lose a virtual monopoly over many families. They are no longer a captive audience."
He said the Maryland fight is over officials requiring children "to participate in instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes."
He said at the heart of the issue is the fact that "parents object to the use of public schools to advance social and political agendas."
He explained while the school insists on using the ideological books to recognize "diversity," it is the parents who "have the stronger argument." And he said a ruling for the parents "could prove one of the most important victories for parental rights in decades."
He noted the Supreme Court already has recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder that it was "beyond debate" that parents have a First Amendment right "to guide the religious future and education of their children."
He warned of the consequences of teachers and administrators "destroying public education by elevating agendas over academics."
He said, "There is an irony in the position before the Supreme Court by public educators. A reversal may be a critical change in slowing the departure of families from public schools. One of the families discussed in this case sold their house to afford private schooling for their children. By limiting such mandatory programs, some families may be less likely to seek alternatives to public schools. These families want to send their children to public schools while retaining their role in instilling religious values for their children. Montgomery County is forcing a choice that few parents will make against their family values."
He said, "Democrats will find that this is not partisan; it is primal for parents."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt has confirmed that there is progress on President Donald Trump's agenda to get fair international trade standards for American manufacturers and consumers alike.
The president launched a series of tariff battles because for years American producers have had to pay high tariffs to get their products and services into other nations, while those nation's often have been given virtually free access to American markets.
The imbalance is what has caused America's large trade deficit and other financial complications.
Trump's tariffs have been producing results, she said.
"We're doing very well in respect to a potential trade deal with China. There have now been 18 proposals and more than 100 countries around the world who are wanting to make a deal with the United States of America," Leavitt confirmed.
"The president and administration are setting the stage for a deal with China. … We feel everyone involved wants to see a trade deal happen — and the ball is moving in the right direction."
The Daily Mail pointed out the Dow Jones Industrial Average rocketed up 600 points on the announcement. Actually, the market surged about 1,000 points on the news.
Fox News reported she continued, "You have Secretary Bessent, Secretary Lutnick, Ambassador Greer, NEC Director Hassett and Peter Navarro, the entire trade team meeting with 34 countries this week alone. We are moving at Trump speed to ensure these deals are made on behalf of the American worker and the American people."
Reports confirmed that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent at the same time was telling an investor summit he believes the tariff impasse between the U.S. and China will de-escalate soon.
Reports also have cited progress on deals major trading partners like Japan, Indian and more.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Police in Minneapolis are expressing their anger that, after they investigated vandalism done to multiple Tesla cars, identified a perpetrator and provided all the evidence, the local prosecutor is refusing to file criminal charges.
The case involves Dylan Bryan Adams, an aide to Gov Tim Walz, who was caught on video damaging the cars, apparently part of a nationwide wave of people deciding to vandalize other citizens' vehicles because they dislike the car company owner, Elon Musk, who is working with President Donald Trump to find fraud, corruption and waste in the federal government and remove it.
A statement from police said, "The Minneapolis Police Department did its job. It identified and investigated a crime trend, identified, and arrested a suspect, and presented a case file to the Hennepin County Attorney Office for consideration of charges. This case impacted at least six different victims and totaled over $20,000 in damages. Any frustration related to the charging decision of the Hennepin County Attorney should be directed solely at her office. Our investigators are always frustrated when the cases they poured their hearts into are declined. In my experience, the victims in these cases often feel the same."
A report in the Gateway Pundit turned blunt, explaining, "Soros-backed Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty will not seek criminal charges for the Tim Walz staffer who vandalized at least six Teslas in Minnesota, causing $20,000 in damage."
Instead, officials in the office for the leftist-funded leftist prosecutor said they will seek a "diversion" in the case.
A spokesman said, "Our main priorities are to secure restitution for the victims and hold Mr. Adams accountable. As a result, we will file for pre-charge diversion to best facilitate both of those goals."
Previously reported was that Adams, a fiscal policy analyst for Walz, "was captured on vehicle surveillance footage allegedly dragging a key across the exteriors of several Teslas, stripping paint and causing thousands of dollars in damage."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Take a confirmed superstar in the entertainment world, Carrie Underwood, who has won multiple Grammys and sold millions of tunes, and add a song from the 1800s, and you get this:
It is what RedState confirmed as "unforgettable."
Her performance was of "How Great Thou Art," a Christian church hymn that started out as a poem, "O Store Gud," by Swedish poet Carl Boberg in 1885 whose words were wedded to a traditional Swedish folk song tune and first sung in a church in 1888.
RedState explained it came during an appearance on the "American Idol – Songs of Faith" special.
"At one point, the camera panned to the judges, who appeared to be just as moved by the performance as the audience. Social media users noted that they got goosebumps, chills, and more listening to Underwood share the powerful words," the report said.
Also on the show were singers CeCe Winans, Brandon Lake, "American Idol" alum Roman Colins, country star Jelly Roll and more, the report said.
"The "American Idol' faith-focused show comes at a time when audiences seem to be sending the message to Hollywood for stories and shows about faith," it said. "One example of that is the success of Angel Studios' new animated biblical movie 'King of Kings.' Going into its second weekend, the movie remained in the top 5 at the box office, coming in second place behind the monster hit 'A Minecraft Movie.'"
Underwood started her path to superstardom by winning the fourth season of "American Idol" in 2005. She later judged the show.
She's been topping various song charts since she launched her career, has won multiple Grammys, has sold records at a figure approaching 100 million, and was called by "Billboard" the top female country artist of the 2000s and 2010s.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An ethics and accountability organization is calling for a special investigation into U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia, for a sweetheart deal he enjoys: A $1 million luxury home bought for him about the time he was elected and to which he has complete access.
Without paying rent.
It is the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust that charges that Warnock is living rent-free in a home that Ebenezer Baptist Church bought in 2022 for $989,000 just as he was elected to the Senate, but he "has not included any information about being provided housing on his financial disclosure report."
He does report an annual "income" from the church of just under what the Senate determined is a maximum amount a senator can "earn" from an outside source, a limit that was about $32,000 in 2023.
In a letter to Sen James Lankford, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, the organization said, "The rules which allow for a senator to accept lodging or housing are only applicable in a narrow set of circumstances—they are not an open-ended loophole that can be abused. Aside from the letter of the law laid out here, which is extremely clear and persuasive, this is a matter of plain common sense.
"It is difficult to fathom any citizen could look at this situation (a U.S. senator being a part-time employee of an organization that happens to buy him a million-dollar house to live in for free after he was elected to Congress, and after which he sells his own house) and not think something potentially very wrong is afoot. One must ask, if the laws written do not prohibit this particular situation or, at a bare minimum, at least merit a mere investigation, then what were they even written for? It is inarguable that the known facts do not appear to comply with the Senate ethics rules."
Implicated in the situation are ethics rules and conflicts of interest, and corruption.
"Senators must conduct themselves according to the Senate Ethics Rules and the Senate 'may discipline a member for any misconduct, including conduct or activity which does not directly relate to official duties, when such conduct unfavorably reflects on the institution as a whole.' One theme throughout federal law and Senate Ethics rules is that members may not generally accept anything of value unless an identified exception applies, and if they do accept something it must be disclosed to the public. These laws address both conflicts of interest and corruption of members of Congress. Senator Warnock's acceptance of lavish housing and failure to disclose it implicates federal law and several Senate rules," the complaint explained.
A report at the Free Beacon noted that the free home for Warnock, "came equipped with a plethora of luxury accommodations, including a 100-bottle wine fridge, a bluetooth-enabled cooking range, and remote-controlled privacy curtains."
The complaint noted the free home is "a great deal for Warnock, but it may violate Senate ethics rules that limit how much lawmakers can accept from outside employment."
"This is a matter of plain common sense," FACT executive director Kendra Arnold said in the complaint.
Possible standards being violated include the Ethics in Government Act.
Arnold explained the salary, plus the free housing appear to be "excessive and unreasonable for the services he is actually performing."
The Free Beacon explained, "Arnold's belief that Warnock's housing benefit is excessive is shared by Dr. Albert Paul Brinson, a former associate of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who was ordained at Ebenezer Baptist Church by the civil rights icon in 1965. Brinson said during an interview with a local activist in March that King 'would have never endorsed' church funds being used to facilitate luxury living for its pastor. Brinson said Ebenezer Baptist Church's housing allowance was designed to provide modest accommodations for its pastors."
The report also pointed out that the church itself was involved in a scandal over housing and its costs, when, while underwriting Warnock's living arrangements, officials there "tried to evict residents during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic for as little as $28.55 in past-due rent" from a low-income apartment building the church owns.