This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Dear Lila,
We've never personally met, but as a pro-life journalist I've appreciated your activism since way back when you were a teenager doing awesome hidden-camera sting operations with James O'Keefe. Here at WorldNetDaily we've highlighted your work for many years. My wife and I support Live Action. Enough said.
As for me, my main pro-life contribution has been exposing how legalized abortion was sold to a largely Christian America decades ago, starting with my 1991 interview with Bernard Nathanson (during which the repentant former top abortionist revealed all the lies and marketing techniques they employed), and then later in much greater detail in my book, "The Marketing of Evil."
But Lila, we need to talk.
Recently, expressing your disappointment in Donald Trump's current stance on abortion (essentially, he says each state should determine its own abortion laws, plus, whether wise or not, he has strategically moderated his prior abortion positions because he thinks it will help him win a very tight and all-important election) you declared, "I think that it's the job of the pro-life movement to demand protection for pre-born lives. It is not the job of the pro-life movement to vote for President Trump."
You added, "If the election were today, I would not vote for Harris or Trump based on their policies and their statements and their positions."
Please allow me to explain why I believe you're wrong on this point. Perhaps catastrophically wrong.
But first, let's back up for a moment. As you know, for half a century America's pro-life movement has had two major long-term goals.
First goal: Reverse Roe v. Wade. Dissenting Justice Byron White described the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling as "an exercise of raw judicial power," since there was obviously no basis in the Constitution for striking down the anti-abortion laws of all 50 states and thereby removing all legal protection from the unborn child.
Second goal, once the first goal was accomplished: Pass a Human Rights Amendment to the Constitution, explicitly enshrining within the highest law of the land the preborn child's right to life.
As president, Donald Trump did what none of his pro-life predecessors, including the great Ronald Reagan, could accomplish: While under continual heavy fire from Democrats, the media and the Deep State, who persecuted, impeached, undermined and lied about him at every turn, Trump somehow managed to appoint three pro-life, Constitution-honoring justices to the U.S. Supreme Court … and thereby threw the doors wide open to accomplishing the first of the pro-life movement's two great goals.
Of course, as the Catholic News Agency reported, Trump also "used his executive power to restrict foreign aid funding of abortion and to prevent Title X funding from going to the abortion industry. As president, Trump also signed an executive order to protect infants who were born alive after a failed abortion." And in June, "Trump said in a speech to the Faith and Freedom Coalition that, if elected, he would 'rapidly review the cases' of pro-life activists and 'every political prisoner' who has been jailed under President Joe Biden's administration and get them 'back to their families where they belong.'"
Now consider what Kamala Harris and Tim Walz will do with regard to abortion if elected next month. Both are beyond radical in their passionate love for abortion. Harris has repeatedly vowed to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law. She and Walz have absolutely no problem with performing abortions all the way through nine months of pregnancy up to the moment of birth, and in fact oppose "born-alive infant protection" laws of any sort. (In May 2023, Walz signed a bill into Minnesota law removing a requirement to try to save the life of a baby born alive after an attempted abortion.)
Considering Harris' and Walz' abortion advocacy from within a religious framework, it's clear that their giddy obsession with, and open glorification of, sacrificing beautiful unborn children can reasonably be called satanic. For America to elect Kamala Harris and Tim Walz – knowing what they stand for – would be to spit in God's face.
Please also consider a couple of unchangeable facts:
1. By all accounts, November's election will be very close, which means every vote counts.
2. If a registered voter decides not to vote, or to write in someone else's name on their ballot, he or she is voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. The math is simple and inescapable: Not voting for Trump is mathematically identical to voting for Harris when the ballots are counted. The candidate with the most votes wins and takes over the country.
And as I wrote shortly before the 2020 election: "When you vote for a president, you are not choosing only one leader and his policy agenda, but a multitude of leaders and policies in every area of life, and therefore a whole 'future' for the country, as Franklin Graham put it. Most prominently, you are choosing a vice president who may well become president (as has happened 14 times in U.S. history). You are also choosing Cabinet and department heads. And you are choosing federal judges, including Supreme Court justices with lifetime tenure who will decide issues of stupendous importance that affect every American. And you are choosing thousands of other people – about 4,000 federal government appointees in all – who will profoundly shape the nation in which your children and grandchildren will live for a long, long time – whether for good or for ill."
Yet, in every U.S. election, huge numbers of Christians fail to vote, and all for reasons they consider righteous! For some, their particular church denomination tells them they are "citizens of Heaven" and "not part of this world," and therefore don't need to vote; others believe God will determine who leads America without their help, while others believe church and state should be "separate"; some simply believe "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the two candidates, while others insist their focus as Christians should be solely on the gospel, not "politics."
Or, in the current election, perhaps some believe they're called to make their stand for the unborn … while ironically contributing to the victory of the most rabidly pro-abortion president ever, while defeating the pro-life president who finally got Roe overturned.
With all love and respect, Lila, this is a huge mistake you are about to make. I beg you to reconsider.
One last point: These are not normal times. This is not an era when one can reasonably greet defeat by saying, "Oh well, so the Democrats won this time, that'll teach the Republicans to be more diligent in their pro-life walk the next time." There may be no next time, as many of today's best historians and analysts are currently warning. If Trump loses, this could be the last genuine election America ever has.
Also, Lila, even if – as I suspect – you regard your public statements ("If the election were today, I would not vote for Harris or Trump") as strategic, a form of leverage you hope will influence Trump to publicly adopt more purely and explicitly pro-life positions prior to the election, you're still making a huge mistake: You're an influential pro-life leader and many people will follow your lead and not vote for Donald Trump, which will constitute de facto electoral support for Kamala Harris.
I'll end with a prediction. And I say this with genuine, heartfelt love and respect for the pro-life movement, of which I have been a part for close to five decades: If you fail to vote for Trump and advocate that others do likewise, and he loses, you will come to bitterly regret it for the rest of your life. I would rather spare you that personal agony – in addition to the greater agony of unwittingly contributing to the demise (or as Obama put it, "the fundamental transformation") of the nation you obviously love.
Lila, you're all about LIFE. Innocent life. Which includes not only the lives of the preborn, but also the lives of tens of thousands of children currently being sold into sexual slavery thanks to Biden-Harris immigration policies, as well as the lives of young people killed by fentanyl poisoning (currently the biggest cause of death of young Americans 18-45), and the lives of countless children being destroyed by being seduced into transgender madness (Tim Walz last year made Minnesota into a "sanctuary state" for minors seeking mutilating transgender surgeries, even against the wishes of their own parents) and on and on. All of this madness, heartache and death will increase exponentially under a Harris/Walz administration. It cannot be otherwise.
God bless you, Lila Rose, and may He give you wisdom, humility and grace. Before it's too late, please rethink your public position on this election and voice your support for the president who, by God's grace, finally accomplished the first of the pro-life movement's two greatest goals.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge has determined that a written assault on a young football fan wearing facepaint in honor of his team and his heritage by Deadspin, in the words of a column on its pages, is actionable.
A report from the Associated Press said the judge found the "image of a child displaying his passionate fandom as a backdrop for its critique of the NFL's diversity efforts and, in its description of the child," actually crossed the line of protected speech.
"Having reviewed the complaint, the court concludes that Deadspin's statements accusing H.A. of wearing black face and Native headdress 'to hate black people and the Native American at the same time,' and that he was taught this hatred by his parents, are provable false assertions of fact and are therefore actionable."
The decision is from Delaware Superior Court Judge Sean Lugg, who rejected Deadspin's demand that the lawsuit by the family of the child be dismissed.
The publication had argued its blast at the child was "opinion."
Case was brought by Californians Raul Armenta Jr. and his wife, Shannon, on behalf of their son, Holden, 9.
He wore the costume at a game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Las Vegas Raiders last November.
The court documents explained that Holden's family heritage is Chumash-Indian, and he wore his face painted half black and half red at the game.
But Deadspin used an image of the boy showing only the black side, and writer Carron Phillips said, "The NFL needs to speak out against the Kansas City Chiefs fan in Black face, Native headdress. They're doubling up on the racism. Are you going to say anything, Roger Goodell?"
Phillips claimed that the child "found a way to hate black people and the Native American at the same time" and suggested such "hatred" was taught by his parents.
The falsehood of the Deadspin report soon were documented online, but Phillips just doubled down, with, "For the idiots in my mentions who are treating this as some harmless act because the other side of his face was painted red, I could make the argument that it makes it even worse. Y'all are the ones who hate Mexicans but wear sombreros on Cinco."
The result was threats against the Armentas.
A month after the lawsuit was filed, G/O Media, which owned Deadspin, sold the name to Lineup Publishing and the entire staff was dismissed.
WND reported it took months for a "correction" to appear.
The publication said its "report" was based "upon the available photo" of the child.
"Unfortunately the article drew attention to the fan, though our intended focus was on the NFL and its checkered history on race, an issue which our writer has covered extensively for Deadspin," it said.
"We regret any suggestion that we were attacking the fan. To that end, our story was updated on Dec. 7 to remove any photos, tweets, links, or otherwise identifying information about the fan. We have also revised the headline to better reflect the substance of the story."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Kamala Harris can't think of anything she would have done differently than Joe Biden.
That, apparently, defines her plans for America for the next four years if she's elected.
In a sympathetic and supportive television interview, she was asked about that specific subject.
After all, she's been campaigning on how voters are ready to "turn the page" and to "move on" from the most recent administration, which would be Joe Biden and her.
"If anything, you would have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?"
"There is not a thing that comes to mind," she said.
JD Vance had an immediate comment ready for that.
"In her defense, I'm not sure she can think of ANYTHING off the top of her head."
One person on social media explained, "Maybe she was just trying to give her brain a warm-up lap before tackling that question. It's tough when your thoughts are on a coffee break!"
But the fact is she's been campaigning as if she is a new and promising candidate with new ideas. In fact, she's had nearly four years to implement her solutions for America, and has not brought any to fruition.
In fact, Biden has confirmed she was an integral part of his administration's decisions that left Americans with 21% inflation, massive costs for food and fuel, a deteriorating international reputation with multiple wars on the horizon and a catastrophe at the southern border, where millions of illegal aliens essentially have been invited in by Biden and Harris.
Trump pointed out the failing in Harris' argument during the presidential debate.
"Why hasn't she done it" already, he wondered about her plans. "She's been there for three and a half years."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
China's President Xi Jinping has ordered his public sector employees to hand in their passports after a colossal expansion of travel restrictions was imposed by the Chinese Communist Party.
Public sector employees are subject to "personal travel abroad management," in which the government controls who travels, how often they travel, and to where.
According to the Daily Mail, China has expanded the list of employees on the "management" list, which now includes school teachers and employees of universities, local governments and state-owned groups.
The Financial Times reported a teacher in the Sichuan region said while teachers are technically able to travel, the permit to do so would likely be denied. Xi has recently elevated the state's involvement in cracking down on official corruption, while simultaneously increasing the Chinese government's campaign to stop foreign spies, and tightening its grip on society.
Further, public sector employees who refuse to hand over their passports could be referred to the Chinese anti-corruption authority, face "criticism and education," and be slapped with a travel ban of two to five years.
In early September, Bloomberg reported the passports of investment bankers from at least three state-backed brokerages in China were seized. The bankers were detained by Chinese authorities, and were told they must seek permission for both professional and personal travel.
Meanwhile, the South Korean Coast Guard has seized two Chinese-owned vessels after they were allegedly caught in South Korea's economic exclusion zone – which extends 200 miles from a country's coastline – fishing illegally. Tensions are currently high between China and South Korea, after the U.S. has been conducting joint military training
South Korea's Coast Guard said the vessels were located 7.5 miles within restricted waters 50 miles from Socheong Island, according to a report from Newsweek.
China is well known for its practice of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, which poses a threat to fishing grounds and ecosystems. China currently has over 500,000 fishing vessels making it the largest fleet in the world.
During an earlier incident this year, China denied it was encroaching into South Korean waters and allowing fishing vessels to illegally catch fish, with the Chinese embassy in the U.S. telling Newsweek in a statement China was simply exercising its rights to develop and use fishing resources.
"China exercises the right to develop and use the fisheries resources on the high seas in accordance with relevant international law including the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas," the Chinese embassy said.
However, China has been upping its aggression toward its neighbors, attempting to bully them away from fishing grounds and oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. In response, South Korea and the Philippines have agreed to deepen their maritime cooperation to counteract the actions of China.
South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol met with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos in Manila Monday, where both agreed closer ties between the two nations are essential.
"President Yeol's visit marks an important milestone in our bi-lateral relations with the Republic of Korea. This year, we celebrate our 75th anniversary of the diplomatic ties between our two countries. Those ties have been enriched and strengthened by moments of solidarity, including during the Korean War of 1950," Marcos said.
Marcos added the Philippines and South Korea have had a long partnership of cooperation, and have enjoyed a cordial relationship over that time which spans political, defense, economics, social, cultural, maritime, and many other fields across various levels of engagement.
"President Yeol and I likewise exchange views on regional and international issues such as the West Philippine Sea, and in the Korean peninsula. I welcome the Republic of Korea's efforts to promote peace and stability in the Korean peninsula. The audacious initiative in the August 15th reunification doctrine, are important efforts in this regard."
A free-trade agreement between the Philippines and South Korea has been ratified, and the two nations have further agreed to establish strong supply chains for critical raw materials.
"It's my pleasure to announce that we have signed the following key agreements that will propel the momentum of our strategic partnership in the decades to come. To strengthen understanding, mutual trust, and confidence for the purpose of promotion, preservation, and protection of our mutual maritime interests, including maritime order and safety in the Asia-Pacific region," Marcos said.
Yeol and Marcos signed a memorandum of understanding between the Philippine Coast Guard and the Korean Coast Guard on maritime cooperation, while also signing the memorandum of understanding on the Economic Innovation Partnership Program. This establishes a framework for cooperation between the two nations for the advancement of national, regional, and urban development in the Philippines.
Yeol said the agreements between the two nations has "opened a new chapter" and they will be cooperating on keeping maritime security a top priority.
"Today, President Marcos and I opened a new chapter of our partnership, elevating our relationship to a strategic partnership … First, our two countries concurred to strengthen strategic partnership in the security front, we agreed to our cooperation in defense industry … our two countries will reinforce maritime security partnership in such areas as tackling transnational, information sharing and conducting search and rescue," Yeol said.
Yeol stated economic cooperation will be boosted through mutual trade agreements, and South Korean companies will be playing a major role in infrastructure projects in the Philippines.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – Despite heavy losses, including most notably in its leadership cadre, and the presence of IDF troops in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah still poses an enormous threat to Israel's home front, evidenced by the firing of more than 100 rockets across the border at Haifa.
Despite recent reports – and even an Israeli intelligence assessment – that he had been killed in an airstrike, Qatari sources suggest Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar has renewed contact with Doha.
Israel eliminates Hezbollah's Suhail Hussein Husseini, in Beirut
Husseini, who was a member of Hezbollah's Jihad Council, participated in weapon transfers between Hezbollah and Iran and was responsible for distributing the advanced weaponry among Iran's proxies.
Netanyahu seeks to rename 'Swords of Iron' war as 'War of Revival'
At a special government memorial session on Monday – during which previously unseen footage of Hamas' murderous attack on southern Israel was shown – Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for an official renaming of the Oct. 7 conflict from the 'Swords of Iron' war to the 'War of Revival.'
Houthi ballistic missile sends hundreds of thousands of Israelis scrambling for shelter
Iran's Yemeni proxy – the Houthi – decided to commemorate Oct. 7 by firing a ballistic missile at Israel. The projectile was brought down outside of Israeli airspace, but its firing shows they have not been deterred by heavy reprisals for previous launches.
Senate Minority Leader McConnell backs military response to Iran ballistic missile attack on Israel
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as other lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, have called on the U.S. to either support or participate in retaliatory strikes against Iran for its unleashing of nearly 200 ballistic missiles against Israel on Oct. 1.
Friends of Zion Museum founder said the window of opportunity was currently open for Israel to retaliate against Iran over its ballistic missile strike on Oct. 1, but that it would rapidly shut, especially if the Biden-Harris administration is followed by a Harris-Walz one.
Donald Trump, with podcast host and conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro in tow, visited the grave of the last Chabad-Lubavitch Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, in Cambria Heights, Queens, New York. He paid a personal prayer visit on the first anniversary of Oct. 7.
Erdogan accuses Israel of 'planning to invade' Turkey
Turkey's Islamist dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan, used Oct. 7 to liken Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Hitler, while also making a bizarre claim Jerusalem had eyes on Anatolia, wanting to make it part of "Greater Israel."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge has delivered a stunning blow to a teacher's agenda to teach very young students that they could be transgender.
The lessons were delivered by a first-grade teacher, Megan Williams, in the Mt. Lebanon School District in Pennsylvania.
Without notifying parents she pushed the kids into a non-curricular lesson about transgenderism, and shockingly informed them that their parents guessed about their being male or female when they were born – and their parents could have been wrong.
The court decided for the three mothers who brought the case, Carmilla Tatel, Stacy Dunn and Gretchen Melton, and awarded them nominal damages for the constitutional rights violations by the teacher and district.
"A teacher instructing first-graders and reading books to show that their parents' beliefs about their children's gender identity may be wrong directly repudiates parental authority," the court wrote in its opinion. "The heart of parental authority on matters of the greatest importance within their own family is undermined when a teacher tells first-graders their parents may be wrong about whether the student is a boy or a girl."
The court noted the school refused even to provide parents notification, or opt-out options, for the extremist ideology that the teacher was presenting and in doing so violated the U.S. Constitution.
The judge found, "In elementary school, it is constitutionally impermissible for a school to provide teachers with the unbridled discretion to determine to teach about a noncurricular topic—transgender identity—and not to provide notice and opt out rights based on parents' moral and religious beliefs about transgender instruction, while providing notice and opt out rights for other sensitive secular and religious topics."
Vincent Wagner, a lawyer for ADF, which has fought this type of dispute over and over, said, "Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. School districts violate that right by leaving parents out of key decisions about their own children. The school district here failed to notify these parents about instruction their young elementary schoolers would receive on the sensitive topic of gender identity.
"Worse, it instructed these kids that their parents might be wrong about whether they were boys or girls—striking at the heart of parents' role in forming their children's identity. Parents' fundamental, constitutional right to make decisions about how to raise their children includes the right to the information they need to make those decisions."
Wagner added, "Without notice and a real chance to opt their children out of instruction like this, parents can't exercise their constitutional rights. We are grateful the district court protected the rights of parents to receive information and be able to make good decisions for their children."
The judge explained, "This case is about the extent of constitutional rights of parents of young children in a public elementary school to notice and the ability to opt their young children out of noncurricular instruction on transgender topics. A first-grade teacher, without providing notice or opt outs, decided to observe Transgender Awareness Day by reading noncurricular books and presenting noncurricular gender identity topics to her students. During that classroom presentation, the teacher told her students 'parents make a guess about their children's – when children are born, parents make a guess whether they're a boy or a girl. Sometimes parents are wrong.'"
The judge noted the children's "confusion" after the teacher's indoctrination.
The transgender agenda, in fact, has been a primary goal of the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, as they have promoted transgenderism in multiple ways and through multiple programs, sometimes simply re-writing various rules for the federal government in order to promote the belief, unscientific though it may be, that boys can become girls and vice versa.
The facts are that a percentage of children experience an uncertainty about their sexual identity and bodies while growing up, called gender dysphoria. Also fact is that, if left alone, a huge majority of those children resolve themselves comfortably in their physical sex after time.
The judge pointed out the obvious: "Here, the parents assert the teacher, by reading noncurricular books and instructing their young children, without notice or the ability to opt out, that parents make guesses about their children's gender at birth and may be wrong violates their constitutional rights. How to resolve whether the teacher's beliefs or the parents' beliefs are correct would be beyond the ability of most first graders."
He disposed of a long list of motions in the case and found against the district and Williams, awarding the parents "nominal damages of $1.00" on multiple counts.
Further, his ruling outlined actions for the future: "Absent a compelling governmental interest, parents have a constitutional right to reasonable and realistic advance notice and the ability to opt their elementary-age children out of noncurricular instruction on transgender topics and to not have requirements for notice and opting out for those topics that are more stringent than those for other sensitive topics."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new polling reveals that it was not the "Hamas" atrocities inflicted on Israel's innocent civilians, some 1,200 of whom were massacred often in horrific ways, just one year ago on Oct. 7, 2023.
It was the "Palestinian massacre."
"Every poll of Palestinians since October 7, 2023, by both AWRAD – Arab World for Research and Development, and PSR – Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, shows that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians supported and continue to support the rapes, torture, beheadings, and murder of more than 1,100 people in southern Israel led by Hamas, and their kidnapping of 250 hostages," explained a report from Palestinian Media Watch.
"Significantly, the polls found that the support in the West Bank was higher than that in the Gaza Strip. Asked if they supported the attack on Oct 7, the first poll in November 2023 found West Bank support at 83%. Half a year later, in June 2024, after the destruction in Gaza, 73% still said that the decision to attack Israel was correct. In the Gaza Strip, two months into the war support had already dropped to 63% and continued to fall to only 31% in March 2024, saying it was correct to attack. Astonishingly, the joy over the rape, torture, beheadings, and murder of Israelis was so great that even after much of Gaza was in rubble following Israel's counter attack, for West Bank Arabs that one day of horror inflicted on Israelis, made the destruction of Gaza an acceptable price to pay."
AWRAD, in November 2023, had asked, "Considering the ongoing events do you feel a sense of pride as a Palestinian?"
The report pointed out, "Incredibly, 98% of Palestinians felt 'pride as Palestinians.'"
The report noted, "Another very significant question asked which political parties Palestinians supported. In the West Bank in the poll prior to the October 7 massacre, Fatah … was more than twice as popular as Hamas in the West Bank. Since the massacre, all three polls show Hamas … 2 ½ to 3 times more popular than Fatah."
Hamas, in fact, just before last year's terrorism, was chosen by 12% of respondents. That exploded to 44% immediately after the massacre, and has remained about that level, the report said.
The report explained the horrific implications:
"Israelis must accept the reality that the murder of Israelis and atrocities committed against Israelis is what creates popularity among Palestinians. Another astonishing finding is that even though most of Hamas' terror army is destroyed, and most of the infrastructures in the Gaza Strip either destroyed or damaged, still 79% of West Bank Palestinians believe that Hamas will win the war."
The report said, "To understand this, we must recognize what victory means both for Israel and Palestinians. For Israel, victory means destroying Hamas both militarily and politically so that it can never rebuild and launch missiles into Israel or be a threat to commit another October 7. For Palestinians, if Hamas avoids destruction and the members who survive continue to impose their military and political rule on the Gazan population that will be a complete victory for Hamas."
The report pointed out that the world, and Israelis, should stop calling the October 7 horrors as the "Hamas" massacre, and it should fall under the reputation of "Palestinians."
"The atrocities made 98% of Palestinians proud."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A team of animal rights activists has filed a lawsuit in the state of Colorado seeking an order that a highly respected zoo free its elephants.
And the state Supreme Court actually is going to consider it.
Apparently, "free" is a relative term, as they animal rights activists would just prefer they go to a "sanctuary" instead.
The fight comes from the Nonhuman Rights Project, which sued the zoo and its officials for the elephants' freedom.
"We are so thankful that they felt this case was important enough to hear it," explained Courtney Fern of the animal rights group. "So we're very excited and optimistic about the hearing on October 24."
Fern charged, "So elephants suffer in captivity, they should never be held captive and so we hope the with the Supreme Court that they will right this wrong and they will recognize elephants right to liberty and really demonstrate that the law is following up with science and what many people know to be true."
The zoo explained, in a statement to the broadcast outlet, "Because our community is smart and capable of seeing through their sensationalism, let's lay out how absurd their legal position is and let's call this what it is … a fundraising act playing off people's love of animals, complete with a publicity stunt in Denver this weekend."
The animal rights activists explained, "We came to Colorado because Colorado has a very favorable case law for the types of cases that we file and the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, the elephants there are in great need of rescue, they are five wild born female African elephants who are suffering greatly."
The zoo warned, of course, that the wrong precedent could have far-reaching impact.
"We hope Colorado isn't the place that sets the slippery slope in motion of whether your beloved and well-cared-for dog or cat should have habeas corpus and would be required to 'go free,' at the whim of someone else's opinion of them."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Biden-Harris regime already has faced epic levels of criticism for being out of touch regarding the damage and death inflicted on North Carolina and several other states from Hurricane Helene, which cost some 200 lives and billions in damages.
After all, Joe Biden was lounging on a beach when the storm crashed into America and Harris was fully occupied – with fundraising events so that her campaign would have more cash.
"First, there was Joe Biden's comments at the White House briefing on Friday, bragging about 'jobs numbers' yet saying virtually nothing about Helene. There was Secretary of State Antony Blinken posting about the humanitarian need … in Lebanon and giving them $157 million. Not to mention Samantha Power saying how they were providing Ukraine with transformers to help keep the power on there when so many are still without power in storm-affected areas here in this country," the report explained.
But, the report noted, the chorus wouldn't be "complete" without Harris' agenda, "and she came through with her own comments about money being given to Lebanon."
Actor James Wood credited her with establishing "the gold standard of stupid."
The report explained, "Kamala's post then went viral and got more than 11 million views, with virtually all the people ratioing her into next week. Many asked how was this real, how could anyone vote for this? Some asked if she was trying to lose. Many told her to 'read the room.' So many still don't have power in the storm-affected areas, and there's still so much to deal with."
U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, suggested the funding would be for Lebanon, North Carolina? And Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., wondered about an explanation for "giving money to a country overrun by Iranian-backed terrorists."
The messaging must have gotten through. Shortly later, Harris was back to social media to explain:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Twice-failed Democrat White House hopeful Hillary Clinton first demanded that Democrats have control of the press.
Now she's added social media to her demand list.
Or she warns "we" will "lose control."
WND reported only days ago her demands that Democrats must control the press.
She said, "Well I do think that, uhm, the, the press needs a consistent narr … I mean the, the press is not supporting Trump, blatantly, very persistently. The press is trying to be the press, be objective, reporting the facts… uhm. The press needs a consistent narrative about the danger that Trump poses, because you know people may still look at the dangers and say 'I don't care, doesn't you know doesn't affect me I'm going to vote for him, for X Y or Z' but ok … But at least people need to be woken up and given the facts about what he has done, is saying and would do."
Now the Daily Mail reports she wants control of social media, too.
She said in an interview on CNN that "we" could "lose control" if they don't do enough to censor digital content.
Her agenda drew a backlash online, in fact.
"Democrats see the internet as a propaganda tool rather than a medium for the open exchange of information!!" warned Tom Callahan on social media.
The report explained, "Clinton called for the federal government to imitate states like California and New York to place more controls on social media."
She charged, "We need national action and sadly our Congress has been dysfunctional when it comes to addressing these threats to our children."
She continued, "[I]f the platforms, whether it's Facebook or Twitter/X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don't moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.:"
Another social media participate said, "Who is 'we'?"
And Keth Outen said, "They're all telling us what their goal is. Only totalitarian governments use the phrase we must ban free speech or we lose control."
Clinton advocated removing protections for social media companies regarding what others post on their platforms, as a way to establish "guardrails … regulation."
The report elaborated on Clinton's agenda: "Since she first lost her life-long dream of becoming the first female president of the United States to former President Donald Trump in the 2016 election, Clinton has blamed the rise of 'misinformation' and 'fake news' for convincing voters not to trust her."
In September, Clinton called for more controls on online activity, specifically against Americans who were paid by foreign countries to spread online propaganda."
Her earlier comments about control of the press pointed out she believes, "This is dangerous stuff! It starts online often on the dark web. It migrates. It's picked up by the pro-Trump media. It's then reported on by everybody which makes sure it has about 100% coverage and people believe it! So I don't know what it's going to be but it will be something and we will have to work very hard to make sure that it is exposed as the lie that it is.""
Of course, what Clinton and other leftists repeatedly have claimed is misinformation, disinformation and malinformation – with their demands that it be suppressed, is nothing more than a political opinion that contradicts her own political opinion.