This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
States run presidential elections but federal law sets the standards that must be met, and that specifies that election day in America is "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November" of even-numbered years.
So can states arbitrarily say they're going to have an election week, accepting ballots that arrive after the election day deadline?
That's now pending before the Supreme Court.
It used to be that voters lined up at polling stations and waited their turn to cast a ballot on election day. Now, in the days of more easily manipulated mail-in ballots, that's not the case in many states.
But a report in the Washington Examiner explains there soon may be very specific guidance on those issues, as the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the legality of counting mail-in ballots that are late.
The decision, one way or another, probably will affect laws in a dozen states or more.
It is Watson v. Republican National Committee out of Mississippi that the court is reviewing.
That law allows state officials to count ballots when they are mailed, and received, up to five days late.
The RNC sued the state, charging that Mississippi is in violation of the federal statute that designates Election Day as the single day on which elections are held.
The RNC contends that means ballot collection is done, that day.
A federal appeals court agreed, but Louisiana appealed, sending the case to the Supreme Court.
The court will review whether federal requirements for election day preempt state laws allowing for those ballots that are postmarked on time, but arrive days late, to be counted.
Louisiana pointed out that holding an "election day" would require changes to state processes in dozens of states.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Lee Zeldin, President Trump's administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is warning of "far more severe, drastic" layoffs at the EPA as the federal government shutdown continues.
"It was about three weeks ago where EPA had a 4,000 staff furlough kick in, Zeldin said on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel.
"This is the last pay period before a far more severe, drastic furlough is going to kick in at the EPA."
The administrator explained there would be "impacts for environmental protection across the board."
"The Office of Air and Radiation, we're talking Clean Air Act, we're talking about air pollution, they're gonna be operating at less than 15%," he said. "The Office of Water which is responsible for the Safe Drinking Water Act will be operating at less than 40%.
"Big impacts at the Office of Land and Emergency Management. Think Superfund, Brownfield, emergency response. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance will be down over 70%. That is enforcement and compliance of the environmental laws of this country.
"So I don't want to hear congressional Democrats in the future talking about how important it is to be dealing with Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and these other laws if right now they're talking about this environmental impact as leverage to be able to gain more power.
"We at the EPA want to be operating with a federal government that's open, employees at the office and getting paid. Unfortunately we're at a crossroads moment where congressional Democrats are choosing to use this as leverage and it's wrong."
Zeldin indicated he came into office with an employee staff size of about 16,000, and expected that number to be 12,000 by the end of this year.
Prior to his stint at the EPA, Zeldin unsuccessfully ran for governor of New York, and he was asked about the big change in New York City with last week's election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor.
"Drastically, it's a sad moment where I feel bad for the New Yorkers who tried to stop it," Zeldin responded.
"I feel bad for the former New Yorkers who have fled. But I don't feel bad for those who voted for it and others who decided to stay on the sidelines."
"The Democratic Party chose to nominate a guy who is a socialist, who is a communist, who has talked about defending the police and will absolutely set the New York City back."
"This isn't even the Democratic Party of a few years ago. The far left is tail-wagging the dog here and is taking over the Democratic Party and it's harming all of America because of it."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The legal fight involves a rubber-recycling company and its alleged securities violations.
But the real dispute is something about which Americans must have concern: Whether those targeted by a government action have a right to a jury decision, or if some government functionary can simply rule against them and order them to pay a penalty.
The fight is being handled by the Pacific Legal Foundation.
"The Arizona Supreme Court's decision to hear this case recognizes that fundamental constitutional rights are at stake," said Adi Dynar, an attorney for the foundation. "When government agencies act as prosecutor, judge, and jury, they violate the basic American principle that everyone deserves a fair trial before an impartial jury of their peers."
It is the EFG America corporation that asked the Arizona Supreme Court to protect the constitutional right to jury trials, and the justices have agreed.
It was a state agency's bureaucrats at the Arizona Corporation Commission that forced the Mesa-based company into unfair in-house tribunals.
Last year, the commission claimed in an enforcement action that EFG America and its founder, Douglas Fimrite, committed securities violations.
"The commission refused to allow the case to be heard in superior court with a jury, instead forcing it through the agency's own administrative process where the same agency that investigated and charged EFG also judged the case," the foundation reported.
It then was the Arizona Court of Appeals that ruled against EFG, claiming that defendants have no right to jury trials.
"This decision eliminates jury trials for a significant portion of civil cases in Arizona, undermining constitutional protections that have safeguarded Americans since the founding," PLF said.
But, it noted, "Both the Arizona Constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Seventh Amendment guarantee jury trials in civil cases where the government seeks monetary penalties. The U.S. Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this principle in SEC v. Jarkesy. Now, the Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the same checks and balances protect the fundamental constitutional rights of Arizonans."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Since Jan. 25, the day after the Senate confirmed him as President Donald Trump's pick to lead America's military, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has emphasized warfighting and the restoration of a "warrior culture," prioritizing a "maximum lethality" approach to military readiness.
Despite this, some service members are expressing certain doubts regarding America's potential to achieve victory in a major war with a "near-peer adversary" like China or Russia.
Early in 2024, during the Biden administration when then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was leading America's military, this writer carried out a small, independent, unscientific survey of more than 200 people currently serving in the U.S. military, just to ascertain their views with regard to the prospect of engaging in a significant conflict with a major adversary.
As WND reported at the time, when asked if the U.S. could win a conflict against a near-peer adversary like China, Iran, North Korea or Russia, 188 of the 229 respondents – 82% – replied "No."
Recently, a second such small, independent survey was conducted, now with Hegseth at the helm.
A few complicating factors, which themselves raise significant questions: Some of the participants in the earlier survey have since resigned, retired or been discharged from the military due to the highly unpopular COVID-19 vaccine mandate and their unwillingness to subject themselves to the controversial shot, often on religious grounds. Likewise, it is undeniable that the Biden era's tyrannical enforcement of the COVID shot negatively impacted the morale of many service members, including some of those taking the survey. And finally, considering the thousands who are no longer actively serving due to the shot mandate, the question of whether overall readiness of the force could be affected by their loss also arises.
And of course, as with any informal survey, it's impossible to determine how accurately the relatively small population of those surveyed reflects the feelings and views of the larger force.
Here are the new survey results: Among the 66 currently serving members of America's armed forces participating in the current survey, 49 (74%) responded "No." That is, nearly three-quarters of today's respondents lack confidence in the U.S. military's current ability to secure victory in a conflict against a near-peer adversary.
For some insight, WND interviewed two survey participants who agreed to share their responses anonymously. As is customary, each emphasized that their views don't reflect those of the Department of War or their respective branch of the military.
Among those with a positive outlook, a service member in the Army said, "The bottom-line answer is yes, as we have the overwhelming tactical, operational and strategic advantage when it comes to kinetic warfare."
A second participant from the Army provided an even more thought-provoking answer, arguing: "Our competitors, and ourselves, have the capability to destroy life on this planet many times over." For that reason, he explained, "Any conflict we enter with a near peer will be within an agreed level of conflict, but if one gets backed into a corner, would they really surrender before pressing the proverbial red button?"
He added, on a more personal note, that as he grows older he is increasingly convinced there are "spiritual influences behind the global cabal," citing Matthew 24:21-22 (NIV), which reads: "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now – and never to be equaled again. 'If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.'"
The slight reduction of just 8% – down from 82% last year to 74% today – of participants believing the U.S. could not win a war against a near-peer threat should concern the current administration, perhaps even prompt a request for more information from current active-duty service members.
But why exactly do some military members think the U.S. cannot succeed in a war against a near-peer adversary? Is it even possible that the U.S. military is under-prepared, despite Hegseth's public push for lethality and force readiness? In the previous survey, roughly half of the 229 participants said their own units had sufficient training and equipment for combat deployment.
However, in the fall 2025 survey, even fewer – 27 out of 66 respondents, just 41% – believe their units are adequately trained for such a deployment. Moreover, just 26% – 17 out of 66 – believe their units are sufficiently equipped for combat.
The previous survey also revealed that the administration of former President Joe Biden was widely considered to be the greatest threat to America's freedoms. In stark contrast, fewer than 1% of current respondents view President Donald Trump in the same light.
Notably, 52 of the 66 participants – almost 79% – identify Xi Jinping of China as America's foremost threat. Other notable leaders and regimes cited, though to a much lesser extent, included Ali Khamenei of Iran and Vladimir Putin of Russia. But if America were to enter an armed conflict with what is seen as its greatest threat, China, the survey results concerning training and equipment levels of military units today appear to indicate the U.S. military might not yet be adequately prepared.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
New York has fallen.
Trevor Loudon, anti-communist researcher and author, joins Elizabeth Farah to expose how a Marxist-Islamist alliance just captured the most powerful city in America. Together, they reveal how immigrant radicalization, global communism, and Islamic networks converged to install a foreign revolutionary as mayor of New York.
Loudon traces the deep ties between CAIR, the Democratic Socialists of America, and communist regimes in Cuba, China, and Iran. He shows how these forces used immigration policy and ideological infiltration to breach America's defenses from within.
Elizabeth Farah drives the conversation to its core, warning that this is the spiritual and political beachhead of a new world revolution, one now rooted in American soil. What began as an election has become a declaration of war against the Republic.
This is America under occupation.
And the fight for her soul has begun.
WATCH on Rumble:
Join the discussion on X:
Here are the links to watch the Elizabeth Farah Show interviews on other platforms:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a stunning revelation of the warped thinking behind the transgender agenda, a Maine select board member publicly has accused parents who oppose boys in locker roomss and showers with their young daughters of having "pedophilic tendencies."
The wild and perhaps injurious claim came from Leslie Trentalange who spoke remotely to a school board meeting in Kennebunk.
Listen:
A report at the Maine Wire said Trentalange, the Kennebunk Select Board's vice chair and a liaison to the RSU 21 school board, immediately was the subject of complaints to the select board, as chairman Miriam Whitehouse confirmed it has gotten demands that Trentalange quit or be removed.
Whitehouse confirmed the remarks "were not a reflection of her role on the board, nor did she intend to speak for the select board."
"I understand that members of the public sometimes do not see us separately from our official select board roles, but we do not give up our rights as citizens when we decide to serve on the select board," she added.
But resident Melissa McCue-McGrath told the board in a letter, "Accusing her constituents of being sex offenders is one of the worst charges someone can make."
She pointed out, "Even prisoners go after pedophiles in jail. This is a dangerous assertion."
The district recently was in headlines when a teacher "expressed a hope that the assassinated conservative commentator Charlie Kirk would 'rest in hell,'" the report said.
Federal Title IX antidiscrimination standards require schools to designate sports and private spaces by biological sex, although state officials in Maine repeatedly have affirmed opening up girls showers to boys at will.
Under its "Corruption Chronicles" category, Judicial Watch wrote such a wild claim "is shocking even for an attention-seeking liberal politician."
The report said, "The Maine public official who blasted concerned parents is also sticking to her highly offensive words, refusing to apologize for calling them pedophiles because they want to protect their children."
Trentalange's rant included, "Their obsession with what private parts are sitting in between the legs of our students is nothing less than creepy and should absolutely be raising eyebrows in and around our school district. … Their obsession with genitalia points not to caring for the students in this district, but perhaps to an underlying guilt for their own pedophilic tendencies. There is a registry for that."
School board chair Matthew Stratford attempted to interrupt Trentalange's tirade, according to the local news report and video of the meeting, and called her comments "inappropriate," the report said.
But she kept talking.
"The unhinged lawmaker insisted she did not think her comments were inappropriate and that she stood by them.," the report said.
The select board's code of conduct, the report confirms, "includes a provision that states 'discussions should be conducted in a professional manner with all participants treating each other with civility and respect.'"
The report continued, "Accusing parents of being pedophiles for trying to shield their girls from the detriments of the transgender revolution does not seem to demonstrate integrity required under the town's code for elected officials."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There's a new, and serious, warning on social media for those who envision stepping into a car at a gas station for ill purposes like robbery or theft.
It's the image of an intruder, found in a car by the woman who owns the car.
He's pulled out of the vehicle, and thrown away.
A report at the Blaze explains that the woman pulled the man "out of her car" and threw him to the ground "with ease."
Her husband, watching, said, "She is indeed my hero."
The report described the surveillance video as "astonishing" when it revealed the incident at a Hollywood gas station.
"The woman, Star Carter, was sitting in the driver's seat of her red Alfa Romeo at the gas station Tuesday when a male stranger walked up and tried to open her passenger door, KCBS-TV reported," the Blaze explained.
"It was just like that Kendrick Lamar verse [from 'Peekaboo'] was playing in my head, you know like, 'Bing bop boom bop boom bop bam!'" she said.
Husband Michael Carter was pumping gas at the time.
He first had shooed the invader away, but he returned, sneaking into the back seat on the driver side.
Michael said he was "wrestling" with the guy and "all I know is he just disappeared."
The report said, "His wife got out of the driver's seat, got the back door, ripped the intruder right out of the car, and tossed him to the ground."
"I don't condone violence, but I do condone self-defense," she said later.
The intruder picked himself up, and fled.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Editor's Note: Be aware of extremely offensive language in videos:
One more elected official has been caught in a self-promoting video unleashing, perhaps spewing is a better word, a vile and uncontrolled rant condemning Christians.
Mayor Don Gookin, of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, called Christians "mindless, cult-member morons," accused them of white nationalism and said they can "f— themselves and go to hell."
Which, according to one commenter, simply proved the accuracy of the Bible, which in the New Testament explains Christ said, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."
Gookin's spewing:
Other commenters said:
"This is what a possession looks like in case anyone needs to know."
"Canceled my stay in Coeur d'Alene. Won't go and spend money where I'm not welcome."
"So full of hate…"
"That there is demon talk."
It appears Gookin has unleashed earlier anti-Christian diatribes.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There are some odd members of Congress already.
The New York Post recently generated a list of them, to include Rep. Barbara Lee, who wanted a $26 per hour minimum wage to "increase diversity," Sen. Kay Hagan, who was the "empty chair" at a debate with her opponent, Bernie Sanders, the perennial leftism promoter who claimed conservatives are donating to hospitals to make the VA look bad, Sen. Mary Landrieu, who called her own constituents racists and sexists, Nancy Pelosi, who once, after Republican Rep. Tom Marino gave a speech mentioning that Pelosi had done nothing on immigration reform when she ruled the House, chased him down two aisles, gesturing wildly and hurling imprecations until a group of fellow lawmakers intervened.
And that doesn't even get into the Democrats' "squad."
But now there's been the suggestion that the "diversity" of Congress should be expanded further.
Much further.
With a "furry" member.
A report at the Free Beacon explains Sam Smeltzer, known online as Elyon Badger, is campaigning for Congress on schemes to tax the rich, and fight for furries.
"A 'furry' who identifies as a honey badger, celebrated the assassinations of Charlie Kirk and UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and was banned from X for saying 'america deserved 9/11' is running in the Democratic primary for a competitive House seat in Michigan," the report explained.
Smeltzer is a 36-year-old IT contractor from Lansing and dresses as a honey badger at political events and more.
He wants to represent the state's 7th District.
"His campaign has drawn local buzz including an October front-page photo shoot in Michigan's Between the Lines LGBT newspaper that touts his 'honey badger energy,'" the report said.
Explained the publication, "The campaign is the latest example of the online-activist wing of the Democratic Party rising up to challenge mainstream leaders and a window into how these activists have merged online memes with fringe political views and support for violence."
For example, Smeltzer posted memes online after Charlie Kirk, co-founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinate in Utah just weeks ago.
He included the statement, "I for one, celebrate the death of every Nazi."
Also cited the assassinate of United Health chief Brian Thompson, allegedly by Luigi Mangione with, "Seeing the public support of the man who took action has actually started to cure my depression."
And he said America deserved 9/11.
"In an email interview with the Washington Free Beacon, Smeltzer said he is running a 'healthcare and tax the rich campaign' and wants to use a role in Congress to advocate for fellow furries," the report said.
Furries are individuals who identify as animals, sometimes wearing costumes and prancing about on all fours, depending on their fantasy.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the multitudes of organizations across America that actively promote alternative sexual lifestyle choices as ordinary and normal, even privileged, GLAAD, is complaining that the entertainment industry soon won't have as many LGBT characters.
Originally known as the Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the group's focus now is on advocating for LBGT lifestyles, and it specifically concentrates its activism on making sure those ideologies are in programming, pushing for "acceptance."
However, it now is alarmed because, according to a report at the Daily Wire, soon there will be fewer LGBT characters on television.
The report said GLAAD's "Where We Are On TV" monitor cited a looming 41% drop in the number of characters that are LGBT.
Last season there were 489 in the profile, but many are not returning because of program cancellations, limited appearances or being "killed off" by the writers of their shows.
"There is a definite concern that it's not going to bounce back next year and see a growth just in terms of what's been announced up to this moment," Megan Townsend, of GLAAD, said in an interview with TheWrap. "We have not had a ton of announcements or news about new series and returning series within the research period that would make up for some of these losses."
Her claim is that shows are a "business success" when they are "inclusive," because more than 84 million American adults believe they are more likely to watch a show if it includes LGBT promotions.
Also unhappy, the report said, was GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis, who said, "Nearly a third of non-LGBTQ+ Americans say that LGBTQ+-inclusive media has changed their perception of our community.
"Today, we are at a critical juncture, with hateful rhetoric running unchecked from politicians and news media and given a falsely amplified platform, even as the majority of this country overwhelmingly supports the LGBTQ+ community. With so many diverse, entertaining and impactful series being canceled at an alarming rate, it is imperative that networks and streamers do not back down."
Social media commenters actually provided explanations to GLAAD, "They actually track this nonsense? Of course the shows get canceled, no one wants to have this crap shoved down their throat. A DEI statement forced into a script always causes an eye roll and channel change. If it's subtle, no one cares. Instead, they have to go for shock value."
Other verdicts: "Call me crazy but that's the free market. If demand isn't there, characters and shows will be canceled."
And, "If you don't make money, you get canned. Not rocket science."