This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Social media has decided on President Donald Trump's "best line" during his address to a joint session of Congress:

"It turns out all we needed ,,, was a new president!"

"The media and our friends in the Democrat party kept saying we needed new legislation, we must have legislation to secure the border. But it turned out that all we really needed … was a new president," Trump said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

"I have been stealing the money."

That purported comment from Volodymr Zelensky begins a hilarious parody video of the infamous meeting between the Ukrainian president and U.S. President Donald Trump.

"I'm sorry, what's that now?" responds Trump in the spoof.

"I must to speak honestly," says Zelensky. "I steal many of USAID dollars to Ukraine. Millions. Some dollars for some oligarchs, also some for American bureaucrats also."

Trump replies, "Well, we know that, but, why are you telling me this?"

"Because, Mr. Trump, if you end war, we cannot steal any more money. We must continue war," says Zelensky.

The overdubbed video is the work of YouTube parody videomeister "Mr Reagan," and the clip has already received more than 4 million views in a single day over various social media.

At times, the spoof gets somewhat prurient, but it does correlate to real life as Trump is shown telling Zelensky, "You're not going to convince me to keep the war going. You don't have the cards."

Zelensky: "I not play cards."

Trump: "No, I know you're not literally playing cards. It's a metaphor. It's like I'm playing 4-D chess and you're paling checkers."

Zelensky: "No, I not play checkers. There is no checkerboard. You see?"

Trump: "OK, let's try this. I am in the driver's seat. OK? Do you understand that expression?"

Zelensky: "No, but we are not in car."

Trump: "No, you're right, you're right. We're not in a car. That's true."

Zelensky: "Listen, Mr. Trump, I am actor/comedian. I crave attention. Since start of war, I get worshiped by presidents. I am worshiped by Hollywood. If war ends, no more attention. No more worship. With all due respect, Mr. Trump, this was must last forever."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A Democrat in Congress may have accidentally spoken the quiet part out loud in a heated statement blasting President Donald Trump, Department of Government Efficiency chief Elon Musk, and other Republicans.

In a tactic seldom before used, Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove exclaimed, "We are going to continue to speak lies to his truth."

Her full quote was, "You don't care about this country and that is unacceptable if you claim to be the president of the United States. So we are here, we are not going anywhere. We are going to continue to fight back, and we are gonna continue to speak lies to his truth, to his stealing and to his cheating. Thank you."

Kamlager-Dove isn't unfamiliar with wild statements: She previously suggested race may have been a factor in the devastating Los Angeles wildfires that burned thousands of homes.

And she has mounted a raucous defense of the concept of "birthright citizenship," a current question that was raised by President Trump which has yet to be ruled on by the Supreme Court.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

One of the major targets of President Donald Trump's Make America Great Again campaign is the Panama Canal.

That asset, he pointed out, was built with American lives and American money, and turned over to Panama to operate.

However, he charged that China had embedded itself in the control functions of the canal, and he said that wouldn't be allowed, suggesting that America could "take it back."

Now that has happened, more or less.

An announcement has confirmed that money manager BlackRock has taken control of key canal ports in a $19 billion deal.

The announcement said, "BlackRock, the world's top money manager, is acquiring two key Panama Canal ports—Balboa and Cristobal—in a $19 billion deal with Hong Kong's CK Hutchison. The acquisition secures control over 40% of the canal's container traffic."

It said, "Trump has long claimed China 'runs' the canal and vowed to 'take it back'" Now, BlackRock's move effectively does it for him. With two-thirds of the canal's cargo linked to the U.S., this deal reshapes control over a critical global trade route."

Business Insider said BlackRock's acquisition brings ports "on both sides of the Panama Canal" under U.S. control and the move "removes them from the control of CK Hutchison Holdings."

The report explained BlackRock is acquiring "a 90% interest in the Panama Ports Company alongside Global Infrastructure Partners and container terminal group Terminal Investment."

Panama's participation in China's "Belt and Road Initiative" in which China takes control of various infrastructure around the world earlier was canceled.

CBS pointed out that the deal transfers control of "43 ports in 23 countries," including Mexico, the Netherlands, Egypt, Australia and Pakistan.

"This agreement is a powerful illustration of BlackRock and GIP's combined platform and our ability to deliver differentiated investments for clients. These world-class ports facilitate global growth," BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said.

The report explained, "U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Panama in early February and told President José Raúl Mulino that Panama had to reduce Chinese influence over the canal or face potential retaliation from the United States. Mulino rejected the idea that China had any control over canal operations."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Ahead of Tuesday night's Joint Address to Congress by President Donald Trump, numerous Democrat U.S. senators have released videos of themselves blasting the commander in chief, apparently using identical scripts.

The videos commence with a clip from Trump, stating: "When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One."

And the Democrats all respond with: "Sh** that ain't true. That's what you just heard. Since Day One of Donald Trump's presidency, prices are not down, they're up. Inflation is getting worse, not better. The price of groceries, gas, housing eggs, of essentials. It's not getting better, it's getting worse."

Online journalist Collin Rugg is among those noticing the phenomenon, stating: "Senator Tim Kaine and Senator Mark Kelly join the list of Democrat Senators who all released the same message at the same time. Puppets."

Rugg later added: "I'm just wondering how no one at any point thought to themselves: Maybe this is not a good idea because it will look like we were all given the same script…"

DOGE leader Elon Musk also reacted to the clips, stating, "They are all actors reading a script" and "Who is writing the words that the puppets speak? That's the real question."

Musk is even offering a free Tesla Cybertruck to the person who can prove the author, saying: "Now we're up to 22 Dem senators all doing the same cringe video simultaneously! I will buy a Cybertruck for anyone can provide proof of who wrote this particular piece of propaganda. First person to post proof in the replies to this post gets the truck!"

Actor and director Kevin Sorbo wondered aloud: "Do they not realize that we can see these?!"

Others commented:

"A bunch of Ron Burgundys."

"Remember, Democrats always assume American citizens are idiots."

"Yet we're the ones in a cult???!! Dear lord."

The parroted scripts are reminiscent of a recent compilation of many TV news broadcasts voicing the same verbiage word for word.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new study published in the Oxford Academic Journal of Sexual Medicine has confirmed the worst for subscribers to the transgender ideology, that men can become women and vice versa through the use of chemicals and surgical mutilations.

It states that the results "demonstrated that those undergoing surgery were at significantly higher risk for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance use disorders than those without surgery."

It added, "Males with surgery showed a higher prevalence of depression … and anxiety. Females exhibited similar trends, with elevated depression … and anxiety. Feminizing individuals demonstrated particularly high risk for depression … and substance use disorders."

The results of the study have been explained in a report at RedState.

It explains that even though medical "professionals" who threaten parents that their child, if not given mutilating sex-change surgeries, will lead to suicide, the opposite is true.

"The results of the national database study, published on February 25, revealed that 'transgender individuals face heightened psychological distress, including depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, partly due to stigma and lack of gender affirmation,'" the report said.

Analyzed were U.S. patients with gender dysphoria from June 2014 to June 2024.

"Mental health outcomes included depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, substance use disorder, and body dysmorphic disorder, assessed over two years post-surgery using clinician-verified ICD-10 codes," the report explained the study confirmed. "Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) was analyzed separately and not conflated with gender dysphoria cohorts to ensure the distinction between these conditions."

Some 107,000 patients' cases were reviewed.

Explained RedState, "Unconscionably, the study's conclusion didn't recommend against 'gender-affirming' surgery, but rather, simply suggested mental-health therapy to attempt to ward off post-surgery mental health issues."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A $30 million lawsuit against the federal government over the death of Ashli Babbitt, who was summarily shot and killed by a police officer during the protest at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2001, apparently is in settlement talks.

That's because the defendants and plaintiffs, the estate of Babbitt and her husband, Aaron Babbitt, jointly have asked a court to delay a hearing on a motion to dismiss part of the case, as well as a motion for discovery.

Columnist Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner posted online a copy of the details in a joint status report by the parties to the U.S. District Court in Washington.

The report described it as "the latest indication that the Trump Department of Justice wants a truce in former President Joe Biden's war on those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot."

That is that federal lawyers "for the first time have signaled support for settlement talks" in the wrongful death case.

Babbitt was shot and killed by officer Michael Byrd, who had a reputation for misbehavior including once leaving his loaded service firearm unattended in a public restroom.

Byrd shot Babbitt as she was entering the House Speaker's lobby off the House floor amid the protest, and some rioting that day, by those who held doubts about the legitimacy of the 2000 presidential election.

In fact, the course of that election was altered by several undue influences, including Mark Zuckerberg's decision to hand out $400 million plus to leftist local elections officials who often used it to recruit Democrat voters, and the FBI's decision to interfere in the vote by falsely claiming that details of Biden family scandals contained in Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop were Russian disinformation.

"The parties have agreed to work in good faith to narrow or resolve issues in this case," the new filing states. It was submitted jointly by federal lawyers as well as lawyers for Judicial Watch, which brought the case on behalf of Babbitt.

The reversal by the DOJ in the case follows President Donald Trump's actions to pardon hundreds of individuals who were pursued, arrested, charged and convicted by the federal government sometimes for no more than walking through an open doorway into the Capitol that day.

Judicial Watch spokesman Tom Fitton told the Examiner, "All we want is justice and we hope the Justice Department under President Trump would share that goal ultimately."

Police actually tried after the shooting to conceal Byrd, who later was promoted by Capitol Police.

The damage lawsuit charges, "Ashli remained conscious for minutes or longer after being shot by Lt. Byrd. Ashli experienced extreme pain, suffering, mental anguish, and intense fear before slipping into pre-terminal unconsciousness. The autopsy report identified the cause of death as a 'gunshot wound to left anterior shoulder' with an onset interval of 'minutes.' The fact that Ashli was alive and conscious in extreme pain and suffering is documented in videos of the shooting. Furthermore, nothing about the wound track described in the autopsy report would be expected to result in immediate death or instantaneous loss of consciousness, and Ashli's lungs contained blood, further confirming that she was alive and breathing after being shot. Ashli was pronounced dead at Washington Hospital Center at 3:15 p.m. The medical examiner determined that the manner of death was homicide."

Earlier, the court scheduled a trial for the case on July 20, 2026.

Further, court documents show, "Byrd later confessed that he shot Ashli before seeing her hands or assessing her intentions or even identifying her as female. Ashli was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty, and in plain view of Lt. Byrd and other officers in the lobby."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Supreme Court has signaled it likely will end Mexico's demands, through the American court system, that multiple gunmakers in the U.S. pay it billions and billions of dollars.

It demanded, in a lawsuit brought in the state of Massachusetts, that seven major U.S. gun manufacturers and a gun wholesaler be held responsible financially for the horrific death toll from the drug cartel warfare that has engulfed parts of Mexico now for a generation.

A report at Scotusblog, which monitors, reports on, and analyzes Supreme Court actions, said the justices on Tuesday "signaled" they were likely to end Mexico's claims.

"A majority of the court appeared to agree with the gun makers that the Mexican government's suit is barred by a 2005 law intended to shield the gun industry from lawsuits in U.S. courts for the misuse of guns by others," the report said.

Mexican officials had demanded not just billions of dollars but "an end to the marketing and trafficking of illegal guns to Mexico."

Those officials have made claims that American gun makers "deliberately" designed guns knowing that military-style machines will be appealing to drug cartel members. Then, the officials claimed, gunmakers sell their weapons to gun dealers, who sell them to gun buyers, who act as "strawmen" for delivery of guns in Mexico.

It ended up at the Supreme Court after the 1st Circuit noted Mexico's claims that gunmakers "aided and abetted illegal sales."

Lawyer Noel Francisco told the justices on behalf of the gunmakers that "when Congress enacted the law at the center of the case, the Protecting Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, it intended to 'prohibit lawsuits just like this one"" the report explained.

A representative for the Mexican government claimed that the lawsuit should be allowed to go forward.

At issue is whether gun makers helped cartels violate U.S. gun laws and whether the resulting injuries were the responsibility of the gunmakers.

The report said Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out that for a violation to have occurred, the gun makers had to have intended to do that.

"Other justices questioned whether Mexico had provided enough details in its complaint for its case to move forward," the report noted.

Even leftists on the panel, including Ketanji Jackson and Elena Kagan, expressed doubts about the legitimacy of Mexico's case.

It was left to Justice Samuel Alito to cite the elephant in the room, President Donald Trump's insistence that Mexico do more to prevent the flow of illegal drugs into America, a dispute that has triggered tariffs already.

In this case, he said, Mexico alleges that U.S. gun manufacturers are contributing to illegal conduct in Mexico. But he noted there are "Americans who think that Mexican government officials are contributing to a lot of illegal conduct" in the United States.

Then, he wondered, should a U.S. state sue Mexico in a U.S. court for "aiding and abetting illegal conduct within the state's borders" that causes harm?

A report at Courthouse News suggested that "Mexico received little sympathy from the Supreme Court" in the dispute.

Defendants include Smith & Wesson Brands, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Beretta U.S.A. Corp, Glock, Sturm, Ruger & Company and Colt's Manufacturing Company.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A man entered in the finals for the 400-meter race at the USA Track and Field Open Masters Championships in New York has won the event.

That was assured because he was the only competitor in the race.

A report from the Post Millennial explains how Sadie Schreiner, a man, took first place when two women who were qualified to compete against him refused to participate.

The report said the other competitors were scheduled to include Anna Vidolova, 17, and Amaris Hiatt, 16.

The report explained they refused to compete against the 21-year-old man.

The report explained, "Schreiner previously came under fire while competing for Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) after breaking numerous records in the 2023-24 indoor season. In the 2024 outdoor track season, Schreiner won multiple women's races in times that would have seen the athlete place last among the men."

When Schreiner competed in the 200-meter race, he was not alone, but there were multiple competitors who were marked DNS, for "Did Not Start."

The report said under USATF policy, men are allowed to compete in women's races under the requirements laid out by the International Olympic Committee.

That organization, however, has been warned by the administration of President Donald Trump that when the Olympics are scheduled for Los Angeles in a few years, athletes who are found to be planning to compete as transgenders will be barred from U.S. soil.

The NCAA, which previously allowed men in women's events, now has reversed course after Trump issued an executive order that the nation now recognizes only two sexes, male and female.

That particular result left Schreiner outside looking in at collegiate events, and he complained, "They are hearing word that I was assigned male at birth and that is enough for them to ban any athlete they want to."

Social media had little sympathy for Schreiner.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Democrats since before President Donald Trump was elected a second time have claimed that his very presence in the presidential race was a constitutional crisis.

After all, their talking points portrayed him as a "Hitler" who was setting himself up for a lifetime tenancy in the White House, how he would be a "dictator," how he would destroy "democracy."

Then after he took office their rhetoric ratcheted up, as he was doing things that the Constitution allows the president to do, but they didn't like, like cracking down on illegal alien criminals, the flow of illegal drugs into America, the rampant waste fraud and corruption in the federal government.

Now, there is a real constitutional crisis, according to a new report in the Federalist, but it's not because of something Trump did; it's because of what a judge did in response to Trump's Constitution-authorized management of the executive branch.

It was Judge Amy Jackson, one of Barack Obama's choices for the federal bench, who ordered multiple individuals in the executive branch to "recognize" Hampton Dellinger as "Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel" and not "obstruct" his job.

It sets up the possibility of a constitutional crisis because Trump, in ordering Dellinger dismissed, was within the authorities the Constitution grants him, the report said.

"Consider the scenario: Donald Trump calls Hampton Dellinger, telling him 'I'm firing you again.' The president then directs other officials — not the named defendants — to process Dellinger's termination papers, to prevent Dellinger's access to federal property or his former office, and to disconnect Dellinger's cell phone and computer access," the report explained.

"As Judge Berman Jackson recognized in her accompanying 67-page opinion, federal courts lack the power to enjoin the president of the United States. So, the Obama appointee could not — and thus did not — order Trump to recognize Dellinger as the special counsel, enjoin him from firing Dellinger again, or otherwise prohibit Trump from doing anything to obstruct or interfere in Dellinger's performance of his duties. Instead, she entered that command against the five defendants in the case."

Her orders are for five people only, so that means "Trump could easily sidestep them to out Dellinger as the special counsel."

The report noted that's unlikely to happen as the Supreme Court is expected to step in.

"But the fact that scenario could play out, launching a revolving door of new defendants ordered by a federal judge to ignore the staffing decisions of the president of the United States, reveals the danger that efforts over the last month to obtain a coup by court order represents to our constitutional republic," the report said.

The facts are that Article II of the Constitution gives the president executive power.

"American voters elected Donald Trump president, giving him the executive power and the authority to delegate it, or not delegate it, as he believes appropriate. The Constitution provides some checks to that authority, for instance by requiring 'the Advice and Consent of the Senate' for certain appointments, such as 'Officers of the United States.' In contrast, Article II's silence concerning removal, 'confers upon the President an absolute and unqualified removal authority.'"

Jackson claimed Trump couldn't remove Dellinger because Congress allocated to him a five-year term.

But the Supreme Court previously has ruled that such congressional provisions cannot violate the actual words of the Constitution, in multiple previous cases.

In fact, the report said, Joe Biden in 2021 fired the head of the Social Security Administration without cause.

Two members of the Supreme Court already have pointed out that it's interference in the president's command of the executive branch for a judge to order the administration to recognize and work with someone who was fired.

Trump's lawyers already have argued that the order "manifestly violates the Constitution."

The report explains that Jackson's orders "represent a clear and intolerable interference in the president's executive authority."