This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Under the administration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, girls' and women's sports in America have taken a huge hit: They essentially are being ordered to open up their competitions to men.

These are men who say they are women, and they may have even had chemical and surgical alterations to make them look like women, but since being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level, they remain male.

Now the ADF, a legal organization that fights for civil, personal and constitutional rights, says a coalition – of "multiple states, women's sports advocacy groups, businesses, and other organizations" – wants the U.S. Supreme Court to hear two cases over state laws that protect women's sports.

Those states are West Virginia and Idaho.

The ADF explained, "In B.P.J. v West Virginia State Board of Education, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and ADF attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to hear their case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled to undermine West Virginia's ability to protect fairness in women's sports."

ADF is representing former college soccer player Lainey Armistead.

Then in the other case, Hecox v. Little, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and ADF attorneys are asking for affirmation of the state's Fairness in Women's Sports Act after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stopped the law from going into effect.

There, ADF represents former college track and field athletes Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall.

"Back in April, the Fourth Circuit handed down a 2-1 ruling that reversed an earlier decision upholding the West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act. I promised back then that I would keep fighting for the safety, wellbeing and fairness in women's sports, and I'm keeping that promise. I am thankful for the support coming from Alliance Defending Freedom and my many colleagues in other states," Morrisey explained in a prepared statement released by the ADF.

And Labrador added, "While we've been fighting for fair and equal athletic competition, activists have been pushing a radical agenda that will ultimately sideline women and girls from sports. Many athletic associations around the world have seen the obvious truth that men and women are biologically different and allowing men in women's sports would create a dangerous, unfair environment for women to showcase their incredible talent in sports. These voices from different backgrounds have joined us as we ask the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold our law and ensure that women and girls get the opportunities they deserve."

ADF lawyer John Bursch explained, "Women and girls deserve to compete on a level playing field, but activists continue their quest to erase differences between men and women by forcing women's sports leagues to allow men to compete. This contradicts biological reality and common sense. We should be seeking to protect women's sports and equal opportunities, and West Virginia's and Idaho's women's sports laws accomplish just that. Lainey, Madison, Mary Kate, and millions of girls across the country deserve to compete on a level playing field with other women. The wide range of backgrounds from these groups petitioning the court proves that this isn't political or partisan—it's basic fairness."

The West Virginia case was triggered by a male athlete competing on a girls track team who finished ahead of almost 300 girls in three years of various events.

The court filing said, "Neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause compels West Virginia to classify biological males as girls."

Yet, it states, that's what the Fourth Circuit is demanding.

In the Idaho case, Kenyon and Marshall participated in track at Idaho State University and, when forced to compete against males, moved down in the rankings.

There are testimonies in the case from more than 100 female athletes, coaches, sports officials and parents, including those women who were forced to compete against Lia Thomas, a male who was an also-ran among male swingers in college, but suddenly rose in the rankings when he started competing with women.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden has, in the past, stated flatly that he did not share any classified information with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer while he was helping the Democrat assemble a book that was released some years ago.

But that now has been contradicted by evidence: Joe Biden's own words in a transcript of his conversations with Zwonitzer.

"There do exist written transcripts of President Biden's interviews with his ghostwriter where they discuss classified material, and that Special Counsel Hur relied upon those written transcripts in coming to his conclusions [that Biden was a 'well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory']," explained Kyle Brosnan, counsel to the Oversight Project, in an interview with Fox News.

The revelations about the documents were made during a court hearing on the organization's freedom of information case involving the federal government.

The confirmation came from the Justice Department, which told the court the documents were found.

The case is pursuing records from Special Counsel Robert Hur's investigation into Joe Biden's mishandling of classified government documents. Those documents were found in Biden's private offices, in his home, and in his relatively unsecured garage stashed next to a collectible car.

Biden repeatedly has denied any such conversations, but the whole issue has taken on a political perspective since no charges were recommended by Hur against Biden – who cited Biden's status with a diminishing mental ability – but the same federal laws were used to trigger a long list of charges against President Donald Trump for his possession of government documents.

The cases were not, in fact, identical. Trump held the power as president to declassify what he chose; Biden, as senator and vice president then, did not.

The DOJ confirmed it had found 117 pages of transcriptions.

"The ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer, was previously subject to a March subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee, which sought any documents, contracts and recordings of interviews and conversations with Biden," the report said.

"However, Oversight Project counsel Kyle Brosnan said on Wednesday this particular revelation is both new and further animates the need for transparency with questions about Biden's competency."

Brosnan pointed out that the discovery of the documents has been the subject of discussion with the DOJ over the next step in the process.

Federal officials earlier had claimed that there was not a verbatim transcript of those recordings, which now are being pursued by GOP members in Congress who say they are needed to continue their review of Biden's' mental competency, and whether impeachment is the proper remedy to the problem.

Trendingpoliticsnews explained, "The investigation stemmed from a 2022 discovery of classified documents found in the garage of President Biden's Delaware home and came shortly after the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago in search of equally top-secret documents in former President Donald Trump's possession. Trump for months has called the incident an example of hypocrisy by a two-tiered Biden Justice Department. Last month U.S. Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Trump case citing problems with the unlawful appointment of special counsel Jack Smith."

Smith, however, is insisting that an appeals court overlook questions about his suspect appointment and restore his case against Trump.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new legal war is looming over a series of attacks by officials in a Massachusetts town on a pastor who wanted to arrange a time and location for some of his church's members to meet for a Bible study.

Many of the details, including the town, the names of the officials, and the pastor, are not being released immediately because the American Center for Law and Justice explains it has written a demand letter in the hope that the dispute can be resolved short of formal court action.

But the ACLJ charged that some of the town's actions were "utterly unthinkable."

Including officials' demand that a local newspaper remove an ad promoting a meeting time and place in a park for the study.

The ACLJ explained the local government not only "blocked a church from using a public library's community meeting room" but also ordered the newspaper to drop a church ad promoting a Bible study.

"Our client is a pastor. He requested the use of the community meeting room of his town's library to conduct Bible studies for his church and to hold gatherings for grief support. The Massachusetts town policy for the meeting room makes clear that the meeting room is open for the public for informational, educational, cultural, and civic benefit. The meeting room rules also allow people to reserve the room for regular use, for example, a monthly reservation," the ACLJ documented.

At first, the library director agreed to a pastor's request for biweekly meetings, but then abruptly reversed course in an email, insisting that "legal counsel" said the rooms were NOT available for "recurring" events.

"Her statement directly contradicted library policy. Our client sent follow-up letters trying to reserve the room and to figure out whether the library would let him use it at all. But he received no response. At this time, he has still not received any confirmation of any ability to use the space, whether for occasional use or recurring events," the legal team explained.

So the pastor wanted to meet with five or six others for a Bible study in an open area of a local public park, a meeting that does not require a fee for a formal "social function" in the park.

"Our client sent an informational ad to the local newspaper, which agreed to publish the ad about his Bible study in the grass. His ad made clear that this Bible study would not be inside a building like a park gazebo that required a reservation; rather, it asked people to bring chairs and indicated that the regular Bible study would only occur if the weather permitted."

Town officials then ordered the newspaper to pull the ad.

"Both these acts are egregious constitutional violations, flying in the face of decades-old Supreme Court precedents. The library violated the First Amendment by prohibiting our client from regularly using the library meeting room, even though the library policy expressly allows people to do so. The library told him that the rules only allowed occasional use of the library meeting room, even though the meeting room application itself allowed him to select that the use was not a one-time use. And then, further evidencing animus, the library stopped even responding to our client's requests to reserve a room, whether occasional or not," the ACLJ said.

Regarding the park meeting, "The Supreme Court has emphasized that 'streets and parks, which have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. . . . In these quintessential public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity,'" the legal team said.

"Requiring a permit before a small group gathers on the grass of a public park is antithetical to the First Amendment. And ordering a newspaper to remove an ad for a private event is utterly unthinkable."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

An official with the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration has been subpoenaed by Congress to come to the Capitol and provide details on a $500,000 grant of taxpayer dollars delivered to promote atheism.

It is House Foreign Affairs Committee chief Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who called for Secretary of State Antony Blinken to produce documents for the congressional investigation into a grant from the State Department.

That went to a group called Humanists International and handed over $500,000.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Democrats have established a long record of objecting to election results they don't like and challenging them. Multiple times in Congress they have been at the forefront of trying to reject the results of a presidential election.

But during 2020, when some members of the GOP had concerns about the local election procedures and processes, and wanted their questions answered before certifying the results, Democrats sued them.

In a court system impacted in a major way by leftists such as the district attorney-sponsoring George Soros, they mostly got cases highlighting election irregularities thrown out.

Now there's a threat for court cases all over again if anyone suggests wrongdoing in the 2024 results.

The report at the Federalist warns leftist activist Marc Elias issued the threat online.

Elias, who played a critical role in the Democrat fabrications about President Donald Trump that generated the "Russia collusion" fantasy during the 2016 election, as he hired the "research" company that generated the lies against Trump found in the "Steele dossier," threatened:

"In 2020, Trump tried to overturn the election. My team and I beat him in court 60+ times. In 2022, Republicans in several counties refused to certify. We sued and won. Here is my message to the GOP: If you try to subvert the election in 2024, you will be sued and you will lose."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

After decades of monitoring Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R.-S.C., recently introduced S.J. Res. 106. The joint resolution would "authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against the Islamic Republic of Iran for threatening the national security of the United States through the development of nuclear weapons."

Does Iran have nuclear weapons? Over two decades ago, Alireza Jafarzadeh, the deputy director of the Washington office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, publicly announced the existence of Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program. And a November 2011 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that "Iran was working on a project to secure a source of uranium suitable for use in an undisclosed enrichment program, the product of which would be converted into metal for use in the new warhead which was the subject of the missile re-entry vehicle studies."

Then last year, Iranian parliament member Ali Motaheri admitted on Iran's ISCA News that "when we [Iran] began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb, [adding] there is no need to beat around the bush."

Fast-forward to May of this year, when Persian-language TV news channel Iran International reported member of parliament Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani's claim that the Iranian regime already possesses nuclear weapons. The insider politician said: "[Iran has] achieved nuclear weapons, but we do not announce it. It means our policy is to possess nuclear bombs, but our declared policy is currently within the framework of the JCPOA" – that is, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known in the West as the "Iran nuclear deal." He added, "The reason is that when countries want to confront others, their capabilities must be compatible, and Iran's compatibility with America and Israel means that Iran must have nuclear weapons."

But Army Lt. Col. (Ret.) Darin Gaub, a former UH-60 Blackhawk pilot and global strategist, says it's time to hit the pause button. In an exclusive interview with WorldNetDaily, Gaub said the introduction of the resolution from Graham, a longtime war hawk, "feels almost pre-staged or choreographed in the expectation that we're going to end up going to war with Iran."

While most Americans don't want the U.S. to be involved in a foreign war, he said, it appears the government has no problem entertaining the thought.

With regard to "the choreography," Gaub recalled the failure of the Biden administration in Afghanistan as an initial step. Withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country in August 2021 did nothing more than bolster "the global perspective of a weak administration in the U. S.," he said.

Considering this, he said, the war between Russia and Ukraine, the militaristic activity of China in the Pacific region, as well as the explosion of violence in the Middle East were "easily predictable. You have a whole bunch of thugs and dictators around the world seeing that the U.S. can no longer enforce peace and calm as [former President Donald] Trump accomplished in his previous administration." Rather, most countries see "a weak U.S. military" and "an opportunity for conflict and war" because of the inept leadership currently at the helm.

"At a time like this, the U.S. needs to start thinking from Iran's perspective," Gaub advised. "What's in Iran's best interest, and specifically in [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei's best interest, with regard to keeping the power for his thugocracy?" Answering his own question, Gaub argued, "Khamenei has to first project strength to his own nation, and then eventually follow through with threats."

According to Gaub, the days between the 2024 presidential election and the inauguration will be the most dangerous time for America, especially if Trump wins. Why?

"The greatest risk to this nation is the time between a Trump victory and when he would take office," he explained. "At this point, anything can happen – the current administration could be looking for an excuse to go to war, and even leave something in Trump's hands that is extremely hard to handle as he walks into office."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A reporter for a legacy publication in Washington, D.C., is wondering what the White House can do to censor the social media statements of President Donald Trump, the GOP nominee for president this election.

A report by Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, cited the comment by Washington Post writer Cleve Wootson Jr. at a White House press conference.

He said, "I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue … it's an American issue."

Then he lobbed a "softball" at Biden press secretary Karine Jean Pierre, with, "What role does the White House or the president have in sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of intervening in that? Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but, you know, it's a wider thing, right?"

The advocacy for censorship came on the heels on President Trump's two-hour long conversation with X chief Elon Musk on social media, which has attracted the attention of billions who have watch at least part of that. This is at a time when Democrat hopeful Kamala Harris is avoiding the press, declining to make her policy positions known, similar to Joe Biden's hide-in-the-basement scheme during the 2020 election.

Turley, who has written widely on free speech and recently released a book on the topic, said, "In my new book on free speech, I discuss at length how the mainstream media has joined an alliance with the government and corporations in favor of censorship and blacklisting. The Washington Post, however, appears to be taking its anti-free speech campaign to a new level with open calls for a crackdown. The newspaper offered no objection or even qualification after its reporter, Cleve Wootson Jr., appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. Under the guise of a question, Wootson told White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that censoring its leading political opponent is 'an America issue.'"

Turley explained how Wootson's question "was really a political statement. Wootson begins by stating as a fact that Musk and X are engaging in disinformation and it is a threat to the country."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Chinese scientists are bragging about finding a way of developing hypersonic missiles that are capable of "skipping" on the atmosphere, extending the missile's range.

In the peer-reviewed Journal of Astronautics published in June, researchers from the China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center state the missiles could use a method similar to skipping a stone on water – the missile would skip along the denser part of the atmosphere, extending its range by up to 34%.

According to Business Insider, the article's principal author Yong Enmi said the work was partly inspired by aerospace engineers in Nazi Germany who envisioned a space plane, and the Dyna-Soar project carried out by the U.S. Air Force during the 1950s. Both were designed for long distances and skipping capabilities, however, neither was ever built.

The director of Military Analysis at Washington-based Defense Priorities, Jennifer Kavanagh, told Business Insider the implications of the People's Liberation Army having such weapons are a serious threat, as missiles could reach U.S. soil and are harder to track and intercept.

"It will be easier for the PLA to protect, and harder for the United States to find and target missile systems based deep inside China than those that must be positioned along the coast," Kavanagh told Business Insider, but added the research did not include actual missile tests, only simulations.

While China works on developing weapons capable of mass destruction in the U.S., the Chinese government is simultaneously asking the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Australia to scale back their nuclear submarine cooperation.

On Wednesday, the Chinese foreign ministry announced they are aware Australia has entered into a cooperation agreement with the U.S. and the U.K. on nuclear-powered submarines, which would allow the three nations to exchange nuclear–related material and information.

Foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said the cooperation harms efforts to keep the region secure and peaceful, and exacerbates the arms race that could lead to military confrontation.

"The U.S., the U.K. and Australia formed AUKUS to advance cooperation on nuclear–powered submarines and other cutting-edge military technologies. Their moves exacerbate the arms race, undermine the international nuclear non–proliferation regime, incite bloc politics and military confrontation and hurt regional peace and stability. China and relevant countries in the region have expressed more than once serious concerns and firm opposition," Lin said in a statement.

Lin further added the alliance contravenes the object and purpose of the Treaty on the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

"The cooperation involves the transfer of nuclear-powered submarine reactors and a large amount of weapons–grade highly enriched uranium from nuclear-weapon states to a non–nuclear–weapon state, which constitutes grave nuclear proliferation risks," Lin said, adding that many countries have expressed concerns.

Lin stated the international community should take the alliance seriously, and the negative effects it has on safeguards.

"Until the international community reaches consensus on safeguards and other issues, the U.S., the U.K. and Australia should not proceed with their nuclear–powered submarine cooperation," Lin said.

Under the alliance, Australia would receive a fleet of eight nuclear powered and armed submarines by 2050.

According to a 2021 statement from the office of the U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the alliance was formed to enhance the development of joint capabilities and technology sharing, to keep their respective citizens safe from harm, while reinforcing shared goals.

The statement goes on to say AUKUS would deepen defense, security and foreign policy ties. The three nations already share intelligence with the Five Eyes alliance that includes the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

Johnson said in the statement the alliance would drive jobs and prosperity.

"The U.K., Australia and U.S. are natural allies – while we may be separated geographically, our interests and values are shared. The AUKUS alliance will bring us closer than ever, creating a new defense partnership and driving jobs and prosperity. This partnership will become increasingly vital for defending our interests in the Indo–Pacific region and, by extension, protecting our people back at home," Johnson said.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice announced in a news release Tuesday, that a U.S. Army sergeant has pleaded guilty to charges of selling national defense secrets to China for $42,000 after being indicted by a grand jury in March.

Korbein Schultz was charged with conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information, exporting defense articles without a license, conspiracy to export defense articles without a license, and bribery of a public official.

Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen of the Justice Department's National Security Division said in the statement Schultz abused his access to restricted government systems to sell military information to a known foreign national.

"By conspiring to transmit national defense information to a person living outside the United States, this defendant callously put our national security at risk to cash in on the trust our military placed in him. Today's guilty plea is a stark reminder that those who would betray their sworn oath for personal gain will be identified and brought to justice," Olsen said.

Executive Assistant Director Robert Wells of the FBI's National Security Branch said the arrest of Schultz should be a warning to any U.S. service member who is considering betraying the U.S.

""The U.S. is governed by the rule of law and when persons, placed in a position of trust violate that trust, the FBI and our partners will hold them accountable.  Governments like China are aggressively targeting our military personnel and national security information and we will do everything in our power to ensure that information is safeguarded from hostile foreign governments,"" Wells said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The state of Colorado, far left, even extreme, based on its Democrat majority in the legislature and Democrat in the governor's office, has been on a tear in recent years to control what people say.

And it's been losing.

The latest case involves a man who wore a shirt while observing the state legislature. But the shirt had a message that state officials hated, so they threw him out.

Now those officials have had to backtrack, and say they were wrong, and to allow the man's shirt.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A Christian pancake maker who declined to work on Sundays in order to attend church services has been awarded $40,000 from his former employer, who fired him.

According to the Christian Institute's report on the fight, Eddie Moton Jr. was fired from his position as a cook at International House of Pancakes for declining to work on Sundays.

When he was hired in 2021, he was granted a religious accommodation to his schedule, but, the report said, "when a new manager required him to work two Sundays, Moton was fired for refusing to do so again."

The franchise owner, Suncakes, also will provide annual training to managers on religious liberty, tell employees of the case, and change its policies to protect religious accommodations.

"The manager reportedly told other employees that 'religion should not take precedence' over the workplace and that Moton 'thinks it is more important to go to church than to pay his bills,'" the report said.

Taittiona Miles, a lawyer on the case, explained, "Employers must respect all sincerely held religious beliefs, which includes providing reasonable accommodations when no undue hardship exists."

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the Suncakes restaurant is in Charlotte, N.C., and the "new manager" was the one who "expressed hostility" toward the accommodation initially given Moton.

The EEOC explained, "Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides for religious accommodations in the workplace and protects individuals from religious discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Suncakes NC, LLC and Suncakes, LLC, d/b/a IHOP, Civil Action No.: 3:23-cv-00274) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process."

Melinda C. Dugas, regional attorney for the EEOC's Charlotte District, said, "Requesting an accommodation for a religious observation is protected activity under federal law. And employers are prohibited from taking adverse employment action against an employee for exercising that right."