This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Some comments have the power to simply bring the conversation to a halt.
Even when the conversation is on video, with a podcaster from the New York Times.
It is Greg Gutfield of Fox News that leveled the field when he was asked about Planned Parenthood getting mean letters.
"Well, I mean, they are killing children," he said, leaving the New York Times host with a stunned look on his face.
Commenters online gave Gutfield heart and thumbs-up emojis,
One abortion promoter oddly felt it important to add to the conversation about Planned Parenthood, one of the biggest abortion industry providers in the world: "Zero kids are killed at Planned Parenthood. Kids are born."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Trump has issued pardons to Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows and dozens of alternate electors who worked to make sure America's election processes would be followed should Democrat schemes that appeared during the 2020 presidential race prove to have corrupted the voting.
While the legacy media to this day still claims they were "false" electors, those individuals simply were following a process long established in American elections to set up alternate slates of presidential electors when the results of those votes are clouded with doubt, scandal and controversy.
A report at the Federalist explains while legal challenges to various state election results were under way, the individuals met and cast votes as alternates, supporting President Donald Trump in that scandal-plagued 2020 vote.
That was when Mark Zuckerberg interfered in the election by handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to elections officials who often used the flood of cash to recruit voters in Democrat districts. Further, the FBI interfered by falsely claiming scandals revealed in the laptop abandoned at a repair shop by Hunter Biden were Russian disinformation.
So while various controversies were raging, both Democrat and Republican organizations offered slates of elections to the Electoral College.
"Those actions were taken based on sound historical and legal precedent, and ensured that legislatures in the Challenged States could select the rightful winner of the Election in the event the legislatures or the courts determined there had been a flawed calculation of votes or an unconstitutional deviation from state election law resulting in the wrong electoral votes being counted.," explained a recommendation from the Office of U.S. Pardon Attorney Edward R. Martin.
He stressed legal challenges to various "unconstitutional changes to election laws, procedural violations, ineligible voters, and election irregularities" raised alarms.
Others in the pardons list were former law professor John Eastman; lawyers Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis; and Kenneth Chesebro and Boris Epshteyn.
The Federalist explained the process used simply mirrored one used by the campaign of John Kennedy in 1960 when the acting governor of Hawaii certified the Republican electors for Richard Nixon.
"There, as in Trump's case, Kennedy had filed a challenge to the results in state court, and accordingly Democrats certified three alternative electors to cast their ballots for Kennedy in the event the court ruled in his favor," the report explained.
"Two of the three Democrat electors were retired federal judges and yet they certified — as did the Trump alternative electors — that they were 'duly and legally qualified and appointed' electors for Kennedy. The Democrats further certified 'the votes of the state of Hawaii' were given to Kennedy. Kennedy later prevailed in his legal challenge, with his alternative electors then casting their votes in his favor," the Federalist explained.
However, when similar circumstances developed in the 2020 election, ex-FBI chief Christopher Wray and then-Attorney General Merrick Garland launched numerous "criminal" investigations of individuals, claiming that their efforts were "fraudulent."
Despite the processes being routine, and historic, legacy media outlets to this day claim that those individuals were trying "to overturn the outcome" of the election.
CBS referred to the individuals as "so-called" alternate state electors.
The pardon document confirmed it is done to end "a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election and continues the process of national reconciliation."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that it was persecution against those Americans, and Joe Biden put them "through hell."
Democrats' schemes to make similar claims against President Trump failed in federal court earlier this year.
While some of the cases against the Trump supporters developed in state courts, results that a president cannot pardon, some of those have been dismissed and others are on appeal.
The list included a total of 77 people who had been targeted by Democrats.
State officials involved in the attacks on the Republican-named electors included Arizona AG Kris Mayese, Nevada AG Aaron Ford, Michigan AG Dana Nessel, Wisconsin AG Josh Kaul and the now-disgraced Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis.
Martin had explained that the prosecutions are "attempts by partisan state actors to shoehorn fanciful and concocted state law violations onto what are clearly federal constitutional obligations of the 2020 Trump campaign: the establishment of the contingent electors, the actions attendant to their roles as presidential electors, and their duties under established historical and legal precedent to exercise their responsibilities as electors – all of which are functions of federal – not state – law."
"The memorandum noted because the states are prosecuting the 2020 Trump electors, and those connected to the decision to use alternative electors, for exercising a solely federal function, the president of the United States can pardon them for their supposed state law crimes. This novel theory seeks to sidestep the normal limitation on the president's pardon authority — an authority limited to pardoning individuals for solely federal crimes," the Federalist explained.
Now, the report noted, "The Democrat attorneys general behind the prosecutions may not wish to push the matter because doing so could expose either their complicity with the Biden administration or with Democrat activists. Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis already learned that lesson when her efforts to prosecute the Georgia electors and Trump attorneys led to the discovery that 'both the Fulton County prosecutor and her paramour-paid junior prosecutor engaged with Biden administration officials both before and after obtaining the indictment.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – As the head of BBC and its news chief resigned over the weekend amid a firestorm for deceptively editing Donald Trump's remarks on Jan. 6, 2021, the president wasted no time threatening a $1 billion lawsuit if the network does not retract its "false" and "defamatory" statements by Friday.
Fox News reports the president's "litigation counsel sent a scathing notice of intent to bring a civil action lawsuit on Sunday to BBC Chair Samir Shah, along with general counsel Sarah Jones. The letter, which has been obtained by Fox News Digital, demands that 'false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements' made about Trump must be retracted immediately."
Attorneys for Trump said statements by the network's "Panorama" documentary were "fabricated and aired by the BBC," leaving him no other option than to seek legal remedy.
"Failure to comply will leave President Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to recover damages for the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that the BBC has caused him to suffer, with all rights and remedies being expressly reserved by President Trump," the letter states.
"In the Panorama documentary, titled 'Trump: A Second Chance,' which was first broadcast on October 28, 2024 – a week before the 2024 United States presidential election – the BBC intentionally sought to completely mislead its viewers by splicing together three separate parts of President Trump's speech to supporters," the letter continues.
"The documentary showed President Trump telling supporters: 'We're gonna walk down to the Capitol, and I'll be there with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.'"
Trump's actual statement was: "We're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down any one of you but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
Also edited out, according to the letter, was Trump indicating: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
The letter was written by Trump attorney Alejandro Brito, who noted: "Due to their salacious nature, the fabricated statements that were aired by the BBC have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums, which have reached tens of millions of people worldwide. Consequently, the BBC has caused President Trump to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm."
"Consequently, the BBC lacks any viable defense to the overwhelming reputational and financial harm it has caused President Trump to suffer."
Lawyers for the president believe "the BBC's reckless disregard for the truth underscores the actual malice behind the decision to publish the wrongful content, given the plain falsity of the statements."
Trump is seeking "a full and fair retraction of the documentary and any and all other false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, and inflammatory statements about President Trump in as conspicuous a manner as they were originally published," along with compensation and an immediate apology.
The British Broadcasting Corporation is now examining its options.
"We will review the letter and respond directly in due course," a BBC spokesperson told Fox News Digital.
Meanwhile, BBC Chairman Samir Shah is reacting to the controversy, saying: "This issue has led to over 500 complaints. These are now being dealt with in the normal way. It has also prompted further reflection by the BBC.
"The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgement."
As WorldNetDaily reported Sunday, two top officials at the BBC both quit the state-funded, left-leaning media giant Sunday amid fierce pressure after allegedly twisting Trump's words to make it look like he was inciting a riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
BBC boss Tim Davie, a 20-year veteran at the network who has been in charge for the last five years, resigned after "reflecting on the very intense personal and professional demands of managing this role over many years in these febrile times."
"Like all public organizations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable," Davie added. "While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision."
Also leaving her post is Deborah Turness, the CEO of BBC News.
"The ongoing controversy around the Panorama on President Trump has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC – an institution that I love," Turness said.
"The buck stops with me," she added. "While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong."
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.