This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Surprise! Jesus is coming soon ... to Disney of all places.

The popular crowdfunded Christian series is headed to Disney+ and Hulu, according to the Disney news blog Inside the Magic.

"Adding 'The Chosen' to the magical streaming service might be a case of divine intervention."

Dallas Jenkins, creator and director of the series, shared the news online, noting, "Not exactly a 'partnership,' but Seasons 1-3 are getting to another new audience. "

"The Chosen" combines accurate Bible events with imagined, yet plausible, scenarios of what life was like for Jesus and His followers during the first century.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A lawsuit that challenges a Chicago Public Schools plan that forced students to participate in Transcendental Meditation and Hindu religious practices has been turned into a class action case.

Lawyers at Mauck & Baker, who already are representing Kaya Hudgins, have confirmed they have gotten an order from a federal court in Illinois adding others in the class – those who were subjected to the religious indoctrination – to the complaint.

The case is pending against the Chicago board of education and the David Lynch Foundation, which is accused of setting up a program that students were forced into, in which they were forced into TM and Hindu religious rituals.

The case charges those actions violated the students' constitutional rights.

The law team's account said, "The design, implementation, and conduct of a Chicago Public Schools program, dubbed Quiet Time, was handled by the David Lynch Foundation for World Peace, an organization teaching Transcendental Meditation. As alleged in Hudgins’ First Amended Complaint, the Foundation worked together with Chicago Public Schools and the University of Chicago to implement the program at Chicago Public School high schools."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Iranian officials have stepped up their open threats about a coming "nuclear" breakout, apparently to acclimate the international community to the idea that an Iranian nuclear weapon no longer is "taboo."

A new report from the Middle East Media Research Institute explains the talk has escalated ever since Iran's April 14 drone and missile attack on Israel.

They are coming "against the backdrop of statements by International Atomic Energy Agency director general Rafael Grossi" that the rogue regime is weeks rather than months away from having enough enriched uranium for a bomb.

"Hints, and even warnings, that Iran will be changing its declared nuclear doctrine from civilian to military, and will act to develop nuclear weapons, have come from the following officials: IRGC Brig. Gen. Ahmad Haq Taleb, who is in charge of security for Iran's nuclear facilities; Javad Karimi Ghadossi, a member of the National Security Committee in the Majlis; Abdallah Ganji, a member of the government's informational council; Saeed Lilaz, reformist activist who served as advisor to Iranian President Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005); and Mahmoud Reza Aghamiri, president of Beheshti University who is himself a nuclear scientist. Also issuing these hints and warnings were various Iranian media outlets," MEMRI documented.

A website, Asr-e Iran, has confirmed Iran can produce a nuclear warhead and "it would do so and would use it in its next missile attack on Israel."

Abdallah Ganji of Iran's government also said in a subsequent publication Iran "was in direct war against the Western nuclear powers and that the smallest mistake on their part could prompt Iran to change its nuclear program."

The West long has been concerned about Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, as it's been working in that direction for years. Under Barack Obama, the U.S. sent billions of dollars in cash to Iran and entered an agreement, but it effectively did little to limit Iran, and President Donald Trump withdrew America from the pact.

The problem is that Iran's stated intent is to wipe Israel off the map, a direct threat to America's primary ally in the Middle East.

Later, MEMRI reported, that the general in charge of securing Iran's nuclear operations said his country who act to produce a nuclear weapon if there was a threat from Israel, which long has been believed to possess nuclear armaments.

And Javid GArimi Ghadossi, a national security member, said on social media it would take Iran only "a week" to be ready for a first nuclear test.

Further, MEMRI reported, "Regime officials have frequently mentioned the nonexistent nuclear fatwa attributed to Supreme Leader Khamenei that they say bans the production of nuclear weapons ... This has been to lay to rest the international community's fears about Iran's development of its nuclear program."

But Iranian officials now are saying that can be changed at any time.

In addition, Hooshang Amirahmadi, of Rutgers University and founder of the American Iranian Council, has called for Iran to declare that Islam does not ban nuclear weapons they should be produced as a "deterrence" against Israel.

MEMRI noted, "The proliferation of these messages from so many Iranian sources within a short time calling for producing nuclear weapons for 'self-defense' indicate a new line of policy, decided in advance and supported by Iran's leadership."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

School officials in a Florida district have been warned not to force a student to censor religious references from his scheduled valedictory speech.

Legal experts with the Rutherford Institute have written of officials at Collegiate Academy at Armwood High School in Hillsborough County, Florida, because of their orders to student Lucas Hudson, the class valedictorian.

"If America’s schools are to impart principles of freedom and democracy to future generations, they must start by respecting the constitutional rights of their students," said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. "While the government may not establish or compel a particular religion, it also may not silence and suppress religious speech merely because others might take offense. People are free to ignore, disagree with, or counter the religious speech of others, but the government cannot censor private religious speech."

Hudson had been ordered to remove references to his faith from his proposed graduation speech.

He wants to thank people who helped shape his character and reflect on how quickly time goes by.

And he wanted to urge listeners to "use whatever time they have to love others and serve the God who loves us," the legal team said.

But school officials handed him an ultimatum: Censor it or he would be banned from speaking.

That, however, would violate the Constitution's protections from speech and religion as well as Florida law, the legal team said.

Lucas first modified the speech, but it still wasn't enough censorship for the school.

"In coming to Lucas’ defense, The Rutherford Institute sent a letter to school officials, explaining that in addition to the protections under the First Amendment, the 'Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberties Act' provides that student speakers at graduation ceremonies be given a limited public forum which does not discriminate against the speaker’s voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint," the institute explained.

The letter to the district gives officials until the end of business on April 30 to retract their demands of Lucas.

"It is imperative that school officials allow Lucas to speak freely about his religious beliefs in his valedictorian speech at graduation," the institute said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

There are hundreds, no thousands, of university-age students participating now in the anti-Israel protests on campuses across the nation.

Most of them have little idea of the reason for their protests, according to longtime liberal lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

But the threat is that they are being groomed for future terrorists.

Dershowitz, the Felix Frankfurther Professor of Law, emeritus at Harvard, wrote in a column at the Gatestone Institute, where he is a fellow, that those protesters include university, high school and even middle school students.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

With Joe Biden's vast open-borders agenda attracting millions of illegal aliens to the U.S. and the moves by leftist states to put them in positions that they could be registered to vote, state election officials are going to have to provide the necessary election security, a new report explains.

It is the Daily Caller that is reporting on a demand by American First Policy Institute for that very action.

The report explains AFPI has written letters to election officials in Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New York, Nevada, Michigan, Illinois, California and Arizona demanding the states ensure that only U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote, in fact, do so.

"This issue should be straightforward – the federal government should be doing everything in its power to ensure that only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections," explained Chad Wolf, the executive director for the institute, and a former Acting Homeland Security Secretary.

"This is their constitutional duty. Yet, the actions of the Biden administration paint a different story," he said. "The American people deserve to know that states will take all necessary steps to ensure only American citizens exercise our sacred right to vote."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The attorney general in California is being accused of launching a new intimidation campaign against pro-life centers.

It's through subpoenas he's issued demanding specific information about how those centers offer ultrasound exams to women.

The American Center for Law and Justice, which already is representing one of the centers subpoenaed, explained what is developing.

It noted the "coordinated efforts across the country by the abortion industry and its political allies to target pro-life Pregnancy Resource Centers."

Now, it said, California AG Rob Bonta has advanced that campaign by issuing individual subpoenas to at least 10 PRCs in the state.

He is demanding details of their compliance with a new pro-abortion law that the state adopted only last year.

"The law is an attempt to limit how ultrasounds can be performed, especially by pro-life centers," the legal team explained, "The pro-abortion bureaucrats who wrote the rule know full well that an ultrasound – actually getting to see the baby on the monitor – is the most effective way anyone can be convinced to allow an unborn child to live."

The new rule imposed by the abortion advocates in the state demands that ultrasounds "only be performed in licensed clinics, outpatient settings, and licensed health facilities by a physician, a surgeon, a medical group practice, a chiropractic practice, a physical therapist practice, or a facility affiliated with those settings."

The penalty starts out at $2,500 and rises to $5,000, plus costs, fees, and additional civil punishment.

The centers routinely follow the specifics of the law, as they want to guard their ability to provide ultrasounds.

"However, it is clear that Attorney General Bonta is on a fishing and intimidation expedition by issuing these subpoenas to the California PRCs," the ACLJ explained.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden repeatedly has launched his own agendas – absent any approval from Congress – to "forgive" the student loans of tens of millions of people.

He's actually not "forgiving" the loans, he's just transferring the liabilities from the people who took the money to taxpayers who didn't get either the money or the college degree.

Critics have charged he's trying to buy votes in this election season with the plan that already is costing American taxpayers half a trillion dollars – even though some of his schemes have been turned back by the courts and others remain under challenge.

But Washington Examiner columnist Jon Miltimore, of the Foundation for Economic Education, now has documented that the biggest winners of the plan by Biden, a very rich man who has taken in millions and millions of dollars in income in just the past few years, are others in his elite class, the rich.

In fact, the report said in Biden's latest strategy, "the primary beneficiaries are high-income earners.

The report cited a study from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A court case that already has been in the system for years is being pushed up to the level of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and it is expected ultimately to be before the Supreme Court, where it could be a vehicle to overturn that institution's creation of same-sex marriage for the nation.

That 2015 ruling, the Obergefell case, has been described by no less than the chief justice of the high court as unrelated to the U.S. Constitution and exploded limits on same-sex marriage in dozens of states.

But the U.S. Constitution doesn't mention marriage and does provide that issues not specifically reserved for the federal government are under the control of the states.

That, in essence, was one significant factor in the high court's precedent recently that overturned the faulty Roe v. Wade creation of a "right" to abortion, with the decision concluding the Constitution contains no such right, so the issue is left to the states.

The case at hand is the attack on former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis. She was in office at the time the Obergefell decision exploded on the American public and was caught in a dilemma: Her faith would not allow her to issue certificates to same-sex duos, nor did her state law at the time allow it. Yet the court ruling demanded it.

She ended up being sued by some duos who bypassed other jurisdictions where marriage licenses were available to seek her out and target her. When she declined to issue the documents, a leftist federal judge, David Bunning, put her in jail and the duos sued her.

At separate trials, one jury decided there was no evidence the same-sex duo had been injured, so there were no damages due. The other jury decided on $100,000, and to that punishment Bunning added a quarter of a million dollars in additional penalties.

But the foundational problem, according to Liberty Counsel, representing Davis, is that she was due a religious accommodation from the Supreme Court's ruling that violated her Christian faith.

"Liberty Counsel will now appeal this case and argue that Kim Davis was entitled to religious accommodation and that 5-4 opinion in Obergefell should be overruled," the team said.

The legal team pointed out that several of the justices who voted for mandating same-sex marriage in the 5-4 ruling, Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsburg, no longer are on the court. Since then, three appointees from the desk of President Donald Trump have been added.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, "Kim Davis deserves justice in this case since she was entitled to a religious accommodation from issuing marriage licenses under her name and authority. This case has the potential to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and extend the same religious freedom protections beyond Kentucky to the entire nation."

The appeal plans were confirmed after Bunning refused to reverse the punitive jury verdict that was based on no evidence of emotional damages, or other damages.

And, the team has argued, Davis has protection under the First Amendment's Free Exercise of Religion clause.

The attack on Davis came during the short period between the court's ruling, and the decision by then-Gov. Matt Bevin to grant all clerks, by executive order, a religious accommodation. State lawmakers later confirmed that.

WND previously reported on Liberty Counsel's analysis of the issue when Congress adopted the Respect for Marriage Act, which it described as "a strategic blunder by advocates of same-sex marriage."

"Until the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, the biggest hurdle to overturning Obergefell was not on the law but on policy. Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, has no support in the Constitution. Like Roe, Obergefell was 'egregiously wrong from the start.' As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, 'The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent,'" the Liberty Counsel analysis said at the time.

It predicted the Supreme Court eventually will return "the matter of marriage" to the states to decide state-by-state, just as abortion now is supervised by state legislatures, not the Supreme Court.

"States will then be free to return to their laws prior to 2015 that marriage is the union of one man and one woman," it said.

Several justices on the high court already have suggested that Obergefell be reviewed in light of the Roe precedent.

And they had warned that the Obergefell's decision created a collision with religious liberty. It has multiple times already, with repeated rulings from the Supreme Court that states cannot impose their religious ideology on those in their community who hold other beliefs.

Colorado, for example, has been stung twice by Supreme Court opinions slapping down its "non-discrimination" ideology that discriminates against Christians.

Justice Clarence Thomas has noted, "In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several members of the court noted that the court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the states had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs."

He continued, "Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other anti-discrimination laws. It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law. But it is quite another when the court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch."

Thomas said the Supreme Court "has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"

And Roberts said, "The court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every state to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none of their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their views. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."

He said the ruling was "an act of will, not legal judgment" and it has "no basis in the Constitution."

In the case at hand, Bunning not only jailed Davis over her faith but repeatedly has taken the side of leftists above all. He repeatedly refused to recognize Davis' religious rights.

Bunning, the son of Jim Bunning, the famed major league pitcher who once threw a perfect game and later served in Congress, in fact for the Davis trials allowed lawyers to sort out jurors and throw out the ones with religious beliefs.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Justice Neil Gorsuch on the U.S. Supreme Court is being credited with hitting the bull's-eye of the dispute over presidential immunity.

He's concerned about how political operatives in the future could weaponize criminal law to target their political opponents.

The questions already have been raised: Could Barack Obama face criminal charges – now – for his decision as president to unleash a drone strike that killed civilians?

The current dispute is over the lawfare attacks by Democrats against President Donald Trump, multiple cases that all are erupting just as the 2024 presidential race is underway.

Observers have pointed out that it appears Democrats fear Trump would beat their candidate, Joe Biden, and so they are trying to bankrupt him, tie him up, and evthe en put him behind bars to protect the Democrat incumbent.

Online, a recording of comments by Gorsuch were posted:

He was sparring with lawyers for Jack Smith, a special prosecutor who has created charges against Trump out of his comments following the 2020 election. Trump has said his comments cannot be prosecuted because he had, as president, immunity.

Gorsuch's concern: "It didn't matter what the president's motives were … That's something courts shouldn't get engaged in… I am concerned about the future uses of criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives."

Observers have pointed out that without a clear immunity standard, Biden, out of office, could be prosecuted criminally for allowing multitudes of illegal aliens into the nation, an act many analysts have confirmed actually is a threat to the national security.

As the case was argued on Thursday, the three Democrat appointees fell into alignment with their party suggesting there's no immunity at all for President Trump.

The six others, including three appointed by Trump, seemed to seek a sort of middle ground, with presidents accessing some immunity, but perhaps not a blanket immunity.

Gorsuch pointedly noted that if Democrats have their way, every outgoing president would "pardon" himself, to avoid being jailed by a successor who is of another ideology.

"What would happen if presidents were under fear that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in office?" he questioned.

“Let’s say a president leads a mostly peaceful protest sit-in in front of Congress because he objects to a piece of legislation that’s going through. And it, in fact, delays the proceedings in Congress. Now under 1512(c)(2), that might be corruptly impeding an official proceeding. Is that core and therefore immunized or whatever word euphemism you want to use for that? Or is that not core and therefore prosecutable?” Gorsuch asked.

"After listening to arguments at the Supreme Court, it’s clear the justices will narrowly hold the president of the United States — any president — is immune from criminal prosecution for official (not personal) acts," Mike Davis, a Trump ally and former clerk to Gorsuch, told the Washington Examiner in a statement.