This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One note: Zal uses the unusual literary device of telling his own life story in the third person, referring to himself as "he" and "him" throughout. This is because, as he explained to WND, he is not the same person he was earlier in life. Looking back, however, Zal has managed to piece together a powerful and disturbingly revealing assessment of the revolution – and why and how it happened.
[Cyrus Zal] had arrived in Iran from Dubai in March of 1978 on the same day that one of the first mass demonstrations had taken place against the Shah in the city of Tabriz in northern Iran. The demonstrations and protests had started a couple of months earlier in January of 1978 in the city of Qom, the religious center of the Shi'a branch of Islam in Iran.
It was obvious to everyone that the Americans who were advising the Shah on what he should do, from the time that the demonstrations first started until the bitter end of the Revolution, had given the Shah terrible, useless and very harmful and counter-productive advice. The advice and counsel given to the Shah by the Americans was so bad and counter-productive that he ended up being driven out of his own country, and it was President Jimmy Carter and the Americans who pushed him out.
It should be noted that the Shah's chief advisors were Americans, and it was these American advisors who gave the final bad advice for the Shah to flee Iran on January 16, 1979, paving the way for Ayatollah Khomeini to leave France and to come to Iran on February 1, 1979, to take over the leadership of the country:
In fact, it was individuals in the American foreign policy establishment, led by Henry Kissinger, who had wanted the Shah deposed beginning several years before the Revolution, and with the cooperation of President Jimmy Carter, it was really President Carter and the American foreign policy establishment who deposed the Shah and forced him to leave Iran, a betrayal of the Shah that has had tragic and terrible consequences ever since for Iran, for America and for the entire world.
In betraying the Shah, President Carter (God rest his soul) traded a true friend of America for a terrorist regime that proudly and arrogantly shouts out "Death to America!" and a regime that to this day still refers to America as "the Great Satan" and to Israel as "the Little Satan." Before his death, President Carter never publicly took responsibility or accepted blame for betraying a true friend like the Shah and trading him for an insane and bloodthirsty enemy like Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (the supreme leader and first dictator of the Islamic government).
By President Carter's intentional act of losing Iran, and thus losing stability in the Middle East and elsewhere, he was responsible for unleashing the terrorist Islamic Regime on the world, with terrible consequences still occurring to this very day.
Cyrus was always an observer right in the middle of the demonstrations against America after Khomeini came to power, and he watched as the demonstrators performed on cue for the news crews who videotaped the events. Without the presence of news cameras to videotape the crowd, there was a carnival and happy atmosphere among the people pretending to be demonstrators, as they were having a big outdoor picnic and celebration, complete with food and snacks. But as soon as the news cameras would show up, these people would rush to the news cameras, affect an angry demeanor and, rhythmically beating their arms into the air to emphasize their words, they would begin shouting in Persian over and over "Death to America! Death to America!" These were ordinary people putting on a fake show for the fake news cameras and the fake news media of the day.
Anyone watching these news casts in America and around the world would undoubtedly think this was an angry mob ready to go to war against America, but they would be completely wrong. In reality, these "demonstrators" were "performers" who put on a very convincing show for the news cameras. As soon as the news cameras were gone, the people would revert to the happy and carnival atmosphere they had before the cameras showed up, and would begin enjoying the outdoor picnic again, until the next news camera crew showed up. Of course, the news reporters who accompanied the news cameras knew it was all an act and pure fake news, but why ruin a good story with actual facts? "Fake news" seemed to be the hallmark of the so-called "news media" covering Iran before, during and after the Revolution.
The most interesting conclusion reached by him about the aftermath of the Revolution was the real reason why Khomeini authorized the storming of the U.S. Embassy by "militants" and the subsequent taking of the American hostages who worked at the Embassy. To his knowledge, no other historians or analysts have reached the same conclusion because they were not eyewitnesses, and they did not have feet on the ground in Tehran like he did.
Here is the real reason for Khomeini's taking of the American Embassy and holding of the hostages:
While always referring to America as "the Great Satan," and with having people in the streets pretending to enthusiastically yell "Death to America!" for the fake news media and cameras, Khomeini and the entire Islamic government were chagrined, angry and embarrassed to see the many thousands and thousands of people who would line up day after day after day at the American Embassy in Tehran to try to obtain visas to go to America. (Many of these people waiting in line for visas to America were undoubtedly some of the very same people who were yelling "Death to America!" in the streets for the benefit of the fake news cameras.)
It was a great embarrassment and a harsh judgment on the Islamic regime, and a great embarrassment for Khomeini personally, that so many thousands of people were visibly trying to flee from Iran to live in America, the country officially declared by Khomeini to be the "Great Satan" and the Islamic regime's number one arch enemy. The people lining up every day in the thousands to go to America represented a big, intentional poke in the eye to Khomeini and the Islamic Regime. It was a highly visible, stark and public rejection of Khomeini and his Islamic Regime occurring day after day at the American Embassy, and a severe counteraction by Khomeini became necessary to demolish this peaceful, quiet, but very damaging and subversive, "counter-revolution" of people openly thumbing their nose at Khomeini and his Islamic Regime by going to America.
As of November 4, 1979, the day that the Embassy was stormed by militants and the hostages were taken, Cyrus had been employed for several months by Iran Air, the national airline of Iran, as an instructor to teach English to the cadet pilots who would one day be piloting aircraft for Iran Air. English is the universal language of air controllers in all international flights, and all pilots of all countries had to be proficient in English before they could be licensed as commercial pilots.
The Iran Air building where he taught English was only about a block and a half away from the American Embassy. He would always walk by the Embassy in the early morning when he reported to work, and again walk by it when he got off work in the afternoon to catch a taxi to his home in the northern part of Tehran. He would see the unending long lines of Iranians, with people standing 8 or 9 abreast on the broad sidewalks outside the high walls of the huge Embassy complex, patiently waiting to gain entry to the Visa Section via an outdoor entrance door which was in the back corner of the Embassy. These people were all trying to get visas to travel to America, and some of them even camped overnight to save their place in line in their desperation to get to America.
The Embassy occupied a huge square area of land, with each of its four sides consisting of several big city blocks, and the line of people trying to get visas to America were all lined up on one side of the Embassy, and the line with 8 or 9 people abreast continued for many, many blocks down the street away from the Embassy. People near the front of the line looked like they had camped out the night before to save their place in line. The line was seemingly without end, as he could never see the end of the line when he arrived in the morning to report to work at Iran Air. When he got off from work in the late afternoon, the line had not seemed to have shrunk at all, as he could still not see the end of the line, which went on for many blocks far away from the Embassy. But he did notice that the line was definitely moving forward, because the people in line he saw in the afternoon were always different folks from the people who were in line in the morning when he arrived for work.
These multitudes of people seemed to be openly mocking Khomeini and his mullahs day after day after day by voting with their feet – in effect, by conveying a very unfavorable and unmistakable visual for everyone to see, and giving the unspoken and unmistakable message that going to America (the supposed Great Satan!) was so much more preferable to living in Iran under the Islamic rule of the mullahs! That people were willing to go to such very great trouble, even camping out overnight in the streets, to give them a small chance to go to America, was a very unfavorable and damning judgment by the people of Khomeini and his Islamic Regime. Khomeini, a very prideful man, simply could not allow it to continue.
About nine months after the Revolution, and with no end in sight of people lining up to get visas for America, the situation finally became intolerable for Khomeini and the mullahs, as the optics were just terrible for Khomeini personally – thousands and thousands of Iranians lining up every day trying to flee from Iran to go to the country of the supposed enemy! No other foreign embassy in Tehran came close to generating the multitudes of people and the long lines found at the American Embassy – in fact, no other embassy in Tehran generated any crowds, or any lines at all, for Iranians wanting to obtain visas to go to that country.
Of course, none of this was ever reported by the fake Western "news" media "reporting" from Iran – for some reason, the news media had all become the public relations arm of Khomeini and his Islamic Regime, and they chose not to report any news as being seen unfavorable to the Regime. Since the fake news media had all unanimously promoted Khomeini as the "savior" of Iran before he came to Iran, they were all deeply invested in making sure Khomeini would continue to enjoy the illusion of success after he became the Supreme Leader of the country.
Khomeini and the mullahs were forced to do something drastic to end this embarrassing and intolerable situation representing a public slap in their faces administered by many thousands of ordinary Iranians publicly showing their preference for America over the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nothing significant or important was ever done at that time without Khomeini's specific approval and authorization, and Khomeini decided that it was finally time to do something about the strong rebuke and great embarrassment the Iranian people were inflicting on him by their very public, but quiet and peaceful, rejection of the Islamic Regime at the American Embassy.
Khomeini found the logical pretext for the attack on the Embassy when the deposed Shah was admitted into the United States as a humanitarian gesture for treatment of his advanced and fatal cancer. Khomeini demanded that the Shah be sent back immediately to Iran to stand trial for his supposed "atrocities," a demand Khomeini knew would never be granted by the U.S. government. (Although it was rumored that President Carter, after the taking of the American hostages and their captivity for many months, had seriously considered accepting Khomeini's proposal to trade the Shah for the Embassy hostages.)
Shortly after the U.S. rejected Khomeini's demand for the return of the Shah to Iran to stand trial, Khomeini had his perfect pretext to invade and take the Embassy. The invasion took place at his command. Thus, Khomeini was able to shrewdly hide and disguise his real reason for taking the Embassy – to get rid of the long, embarrassing lines of thousands and thousands of Iranians trying to escape Iran by seeking visas, or even worse, asylum, in hated America.
With the Embassy taken over by the Iranian "militants" (they were probably Iranian military, including special forces), there were no more long lines of Iranians outside the Embassy every day publicly thumbing their noses at Khomeini and poking him and the mullahs in the eye by showing everyone their preference to go to America instead of staying in Iran under Islamic rule. In short, there were no more harmful and embarrassing optics every day of thousands and thousands of Iranians openly rejecting Khomeini and his Islamic Republic as a place where they wanted to live. Totalitarian regimes always seek to keep their people captive in their own country by making it difficult, dangerous or impossible to leave, and now Iranians had to travel to other countries in order to obtain a visa to travel to America, something that was out of reach for many Iranians.
Of course, the Fake Western News Media to this day has never acknowledged or provided any coverage at all to these many, many thousands of Iranians lined up day after day and month after month at the Embassy who were trying to get visas to go to America. Not surprisingly, the Fake News Media never bothered to interview any of those many thousands and thousands of people in the lines, who undoubtedly had interesting and newsworthy stories to tell, and so people in the West have never been made aware of this important and newsworthy development which had gone on for many months at the American Embassy after the Revolution, from February to November of 1979.
These lines at the Embassy ran counter to the false narrative that the Fake News Media was promoting at that time – namely, that the Revolution was a huge success and a good thing for Iran and that it had the universal support of all Iranians – and so there were no "news" reports about these many thousands of Iranians who were lined desperately trying to flee the Islamic Regime. As a news person, you had to be willfully blind not to see the importance and newsworthiness of the thousands of people lined up every day in hopes of obtaining a visa for America, but the Fake News Media of that day shamelessly lived up to its name and never reported a word of any of this amazing story.
As a result of this fake news, historians and commentators to this day falsely claim that the refusal of America to return the Shah to Iran for trial was the triggering event for the invasion of the Embassy, but that is simply false and inaccurate. That was merely the pretext Khomeini used to disguise the real reason why the Embassy had to be taken – to get rid of the embarrassing long lines of Iranians eager to flee from the Islamic rule in Iran to enjoy true freedom in America.
On that fateful day of November 4, 1979, when the American Embassy was stormed by militants and taken, Cyrus got off work from Iran Air as usual in the mid-afternoon. As was his custom, he walked by the American Embassy on his way to catch a taxi home to see if anything of interest was happening there. As he got near the Embassy, he could hear some kind of commotion with loud chanting and yelling. When he arrived at the front of the Embassy, he saw that there were about one hundred or more very young school children lined up in the middle of the street, facing the main entrance of the Embassy. The Embassy had a big wall surrounding it and the children were facing the wall, which had a large and very high gate which could be opened to allow vehicles to enter the Embassy. The front gate was firmly closed and locked now.
The school children, all boys who looked to be no more than five or six years old, were raising their arms and enthusiastically yelling (in Persian) "Death to America!" The children were being led in their chants by numerous mullahs, who were prompting the children so that the yelling could be done in unison. Many of the children were even smiling and laughing as they yelled "Death to America!" The children looked like they were enjoying themselves immensely, as they got a lot of attention from the many bystanders watching the event.
He watched the scene in amusement for about half an hour, wondering if the situation would "escalate" into something more interesting for him to see. But the children just kept yelling the same death chant over and over, and other than the many spectators, he did not notice any adults who were part of the demonstration. There were the mullahs who were in charge of the children, but they were responsible for watching over the children as the kids were much too young to be left alone without supervision. He decided it was not worth his time to stay and watch, because he could not see or anticipate any further developments worth watching. So he left.
But was he ever wrong thinking that there would not be any further developments! To his everlasting regret at what he had missed, he found out later that same day that he had missed one of the most historic and important events of the entire Revolution and its aftermath – the storming of the Embassy and the taking of American hostages by the professional and elite soldiers of the Iranian military, disguised and wrongfully identified by the Western media as "students" or "militant students." The hostages who were taken were mostly Embassy staff, diplomats, attachés and other American citizens, including the Marines assigned to protect the Embassy.
Apparently, the attackers (who self-identified as "students" to perpetrate the ruse that mere students had captured the Embassy) had used the children in the street as a diversion and a decoy, to lull the Embassy security forces (consisting of U.S. Marines) into a false sense of security that nothing threatening or eventful was going to happen that day. The children were also used as a potential shield to protect the attackers, if necessary. The attackers, like professional soldiers, had suddenly come up and had stormed and climbed the Embassy wall and gate in overwhelming numbers, and even without defenseless small children in the street, it is doubtful that the Marines were ever going to fire their weapons in defense of the Embassy at "civilians."
It was obvious that mere "students" could never have arranged for the diversion provided by the school kids and the accompanying mullahs – the attack was clearly a well-planned professional operation carried out by professionals on behalf of Khomeini and his regime. None of the news stories ever mentioned the scores of small children who were chanting in the street just prior to the attack on the Embassy. Even today, if you Google "Were there children at the scene on November 4, 1979 when the U.S. embassy was taken in Iran," you will find no results with respect to the scores of children facing the Embassy and chanting "Death to America" which he had witnessed himself with his own eyes.
The Embassy was quickly overrun and taken over by the attackers, who were supposedly a group of students belonging to an organization called the "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line," with the "Imam" being Imam Khomeini himself. He thought it was more likely that these "students" were actually highly trained commandos and special forces from Iran's military branches.
The hostages were held for exactly 444 days, from November 4, 1979 until the day and the very hour when Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the president of the United States on January 20, 1981. President Reagan was a strong president as compared to the weak and pitiful Jimmy Carter, and Khomeini and the mullahs realized that if they did not immediately free the hostages, President Reagan was likely to take aggressive action against Iran and the mullahs. The hostages were released a few minutes after Reagan was sworn in as president.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The move is designed to allow Senate Democrats more time to parse through the myriad provisions within the massive legislative text before debate commences
Despite Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi's infamous line about needing to pass a behemoth spending bill "to find out what's in it," her fellow Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Saturday it was important to read President Trump's entire 940-page "big beautiful bill" on the Senate floor before any debate on the legislation commences.
The exercise by the clerk could take 15 hours.
"I will object to Republicans moving forward on their Big, Ugly Bill without reading it on the Senate floor," Schumer said on X. "Republicans won't tell America what's in the bill.
"So Democrats are forcing it to be read start to finish on the floor," he said. "We will be here all night if that's what it takes to read it."
As Fox News explains, Schumer's move is designed to allow Senate Democrats more time to parse through the myriad provisions within the massive legislative text. It also serves as a significant delaying tactic. Trump has said he expects the Senate to approve the bill before July 4th.
Once the bill reading is done, 20 hours of debate evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans will begin, likely early Sunday morning. Democrats are expected to use their entire 10-hour chunk, while Republicans will go far under their allotted time, Fox reported.
Then comes the "vote-a-rama" process, where lawmakers can offer an unlimited number of amendments to the bill.
The last time clerks were forced to read the entirety of a bill during the budget reconciliation process was in 2021, when Democrats held the majority in the Senate.
At the time, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., demanded that the entire, over-600-page American Rescue Act be read aloud. At the time, Schumer, who was then the Senate majority leader, objected to the reading.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump announced on Friday after the Supreme Court ruled in his favor in a fight over nationwide injunctions from entry-level judges in the federal judiciary that a number of disputes now will be litigated.
Refugee resettlement, sanctuary cities, birthright citizenship, federal funding freezes, taxpayer money used for radical and injurious "trans" surgeries and more.
The actual dispute was over lower court judges who took over the decision-making for the executive branch and issued nationwide injunctions on Trump's birthright citizenship order. The ruling Friday didn't address that dispute.
But one senator, John Kennedy of Louisiana, put the legal controversy in terms for the common man: "Anybody who knows a law book from an L.L. Bean catalog knows that federal judges just made up the concept of universal injunctions. … If you disagree with a president or Congress, fill out a hurt feelings report – but you can't put their actions on hold because you don't like them."
The Supreme Court found that the nationwide injunctions at issue went far beyond the authority of the local judges, and those injunctions now are limited to the actual case participants.
Trump's contention is that "birthright citizenship" has been misused to deliver citizenship to any person born on U.S. soil, when the Constitution actually stipulates that citizenship goes to those who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
That raises the question whether those visiting in America, inside its borders with temporary permission, or even illegally, should be granted that exceptional right.
A report at the Gateway Pundit said, "DOJ Solicitor General John Sauer previously highlighted that federal judges have issued more than 40 nationwide injunctions since January, effectively stalling key executive actions, including the administration's controversial order to end birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A U.S. Navy ship that previously was saddled with the "Harvey Milk" name in a move that promoted the LGBT lifestyle choices, as Milk was a homosexual activist who was shot and killed in San Francisco, has been renamed. As WND reported, the Pentagon announced earlier this month that the ship would be renamed.
The vessel, a fleet replenishment oiler, now honors Oscar V. Peterson, a Medal of Honor recipient who was injured while saving his ship in the Battle of the Coral Sea.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed the name change, and emphasized that the move was to take politics out of the process of naming vessels.
A Fox report said Peterson, a 20-year veteran of the Navy, was awarded the Medal of Honor after his death.
He was seriously injured in World War II "in an act of self-sacrifice that saved lives," the report said.
He was in charge of running the steam engine in the U.S.S. Neosho when it came under Japanese attack in the Philippines in 1942. He was seriously injured during the Battle of the Coral Sea when he was doing repairs, and was hurt while closing four bulkhead steam valves.
The move kept the ship afloat, the report said, but he was seriously burned, and although the ship kept afloat and 123 survivors aboard later were rescued, Peterson died of his injuries.
"People want to be proud of the ship they're sailing in," Hegseth explained. "We're not renaming the ship to anything political. This is not about political activists, unlike the previous administration."
He said the politics are being taken out of the process.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision has affirmed a requirement in the state of Texas that pornography sites online verify the age of their users.
The fight was brought by organizations that objected to the new law, adopted in 2023.
That, in Texas, requires that "certain commercial websites publishing sexually explicit content that is obscene to minors to verify that visitors are 18 or older."
"The court viewed H. B. 1181 as a 'regulatio[n] of the distribution to minors of materials obscene for minors.' It therefore determined that the law is not subject to any heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment."
The ruling, delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, who was joined by Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, affirmed.
Justice Elena Kagan disagreed, contending that porn should be readily accessed by children.
Violations can include injunctions and civil penalties.
"Petitioners—representatives of the pornography industry—sued the Texas attorney general to enjoin enforcement as facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. They alleged that adults have a right to access the covered speech, and that the statute impermissibly hinders them."
The 5th U.S. Court of Appeals said the plaintiffs weren't likely to succeed on that claim, so they did not deserve an injunction.
She was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, who earned a spot in America's history books during her Senate confirmation by being unable, or refusing, to define "woman."
The majority opinion said the required standard for the case is "intermediate scrutiny" and under that the law survives.
"To determine whether a law that regulates speech violates the First Amendment, the court considers both the nature of the burden imposed by the law and the nature of the speech at issue. Laws that target protected speech 'based on its communicative content' are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if 'they satisfy strict scrutiny.' Laws that only incidentally burden protected speech are subject to intermediate scrutiny."
"History, tradition, and precedent establish that sexual content that is obscene to minors but not to adults is protected in part and unprotected in part. States may prevent minors from accessing such content, but may not prevent adults from doing the same. H.B. 1181 has only an incidental effect on protected speech, and is therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny. The First Amendment leaves undisturbed states' traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective. That power includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech."
"It follows that no person—adult or child—has a First Amendment right to access such speech without first submitting proof of age. The power to verify age is part of the power to prevent children from accessing speech that is obscene to them. Where the Constitution reserves a power to the states, that power includes 'the ordinary and appropriate means' of exercising it," the ruling said.
Annie Chestnut Tutor, policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Technology and the Human Person, said, "The Supreme Court's decision is a historic victory for the fight to protect children from obscenity. Texas's age verification requirement is constitutional, and states nationwide have a clear pathway forward to implement similar safeguards.
"Exposure to pornography does irrefutable harm to children, and this ruling holds online platforms accountable for willfully providing access to children. Age verification is the only technical solution to consistently and reliably keep children off adult websites. The state not only has a compelling interest to protect children from obscenity—it has a duty."
"Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and a senior legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, said, "This ruling rightly places the power in the hands of the people and their elected lawmakers to protect children from sexually explicit content online. The decision is a step toward grounding free speech law in the Constitution, not in decades of judicial invention, and allowing parents and lawmakers to act in the best interests of the next generation."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A huge thumbs up was being offered to the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday from multiple high-profile organizations that work to protect the rights and freedoms of Americans.
In the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, the justices, 6-3, said Montgomery County, Maryland, schools could not force LGBT indoctrination on young children, and the constitutional issues involve religious rights of families, parents, and children.
The decision provides an injunction that parents now can opt their children out of the ideological teachings of the leftist school district.
Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver said, "This U.S. Supreme Court has once again upheld that parents have the right to direct the education and provide for the welfare of their children. The First Amendment simply does not allow government schools to require families to sacrifice their religious beliefs for their children to attend school. Parents in all states should be given adequate opportunity to review any instructional material and must be given the ability to opt their children out of instruction that violates their faith."
The ruling itself warned that the materials the district was using for its indoctrination program were not merely providing information, they were making LGBT choices "normative," meaning they promoted the alternatives LGBT lifestyle choices as "normal" to the children.
"They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected. Take, for example, the message sent by the books concerning same sex marriage. Many Americans 'advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.' That group includes each of the parents in this case. The storybooks, however, are designed to present the opposite viewpoint to young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher's instruction," the ruling said.
Further, said the ruling, "The storybooks present same-sex weddings as occasions for great celebration and suggest that the only rubric for determining whether a marriage is acceptable is whether the individuals concerned 'love each other.' The storybooks similarly convey a normative message on the subjects of sex and gender. Many Americans, like the parents in this case, believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly. The storybooks, however, suggest that it is hurtful, and perhaps even hateful, to hold the view that gender is inextricably bound with biological sex."
In fact, Montgomery County's books "impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are 'hostile' to their parents' religion beliefs."
ADF spokesman John Bursch said, "The U.S. Supreme Court's decision is a monumental victory for parents and their fundamental right to make decisions consistent with their religious beliefs about the upbringing and education of their children. Government officials can't force parents to give up that right or violate their religious beliefs in exchange for a public education.
"In line with American history, tradition, and judicial precedent, the court affirmed that school officials cannot act like their job is to replace parents and their beliefs. Our Constitution forbids schools from indoctrinating children with uniform views on sexuality and gender—hotly debated topics—in conflict with their families' religious beliefs. We applaud the court's protection of parents' right to choose what's best for their children's education. We also congratulate our friends at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty for their hard-fought win in this important case."
Kayla Toney, of First Liberty Institute, said, "The U.S. Supreme Court today strengthened the rights of parents by ensuring that they have a say when it comes to the education of their children, especially when families' religious beliefs are at stake. Our children do not belong to the state, and the government should not be able to hide what it's teaching in schools simply because it doesn't agree with parents' values or religious beliefs."
Becket explained, "The new 'inclusivity' books were announced in 2022 for students in pre-K through fifth grade. Instead of focusing on basic principles of respect and kindness, however, the books champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality. For example, one book tasks three- and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes 'intersex flag,' 'drag queen,' 'underwear,' 'leather,' and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn't have to 'make sense.' Teachers are instructed to say doctors only 'guess' when identifying a newborn's sex anyway. The School Board revoked notice and opt-outs for these storybooks, which violates Maryland law, the Board's policies, and the advice of its own elementary school principals. "
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump's White House on Friday celebrated a peace deal signing between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, an event that is ending three decades of war between the neighbors.
Vice President JD Vance praised Trump's role, "If I think about what I know about these two countries, for 30 years, pretty much the entire time that I can remember these two countries being in the news, much of the story has been about them fighting one another, about them killing one another. And now, we can look forward to a future where my children will look at this moment as the beginning of a new story, a story of prosperity and peace."
The U.S., under Trump, brokered the agreement, described as an attempt to end bloodshed in that part of the work.
Reports noted the agreement allows the U.S. to access the DRC's gold, copper and lithium deposits for development.
Trump said, "This is a tremendous breakthrough. In a few short months, we've now achieved peace between India and Pakistan, India and Iran, and the DRC and Rwanda, and a couple of others, also."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Iran's "Supreme Leader," Ali Khamenei, has insisted that there was nothing significant done to Iran's nuclear weapons production facilities by last week's bombings by Israel and the U.S.
But his own foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, has admitted there was.
And President Donald Trump has confirmed that if the rogue Islamic regime tries to build back better, it won't, because if there's such evidence there will be another bombing.
A report at Fox News explains Araghchi admitted on a state TV interview tat there was, in fact, "serious damage" to Tehran's nuclear operations.
The "level of damage is high," he admitted.
"All three countries — Iran, Israel and the U.S. — have reached similar conclusions about the extent of the damage, despite what a leaked intel report indicated," the report explained. "The only leader who seemingly does not agree with the assessments is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who said that 'the Americans failed to achieve anything significant in their attack on nuclear facilities.'"
Even officials with the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed inspectors have "seen extensive damage at several nuclear sites in Iran, including its uranium conversion and enrichment facilities."
Trump has expressed optimism in the chances for resumed nuclear talks with Iran, pointing out "They had a war," but, "The only thing we would be asking for is what we're asking for before about, we want no nuclear [program]."
He also confirmed that should the evidence suggest that the nuclear program was being rebuilt, there would be repercussions.
Such as another bombing.
"Sure, without a question. Absolutely," he said.
He said, on social media, "His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life. I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH,' Trump wrote.
"They have no hope, and it will only get worse! I wish the leadership of Iran would realize that you often get more with HONEY than you do with VINEGAR. PEACE!!!."
Actually, according to reports, it was Araghchi who left alive the possibility his country could return to talks.
He did caution that "no time has been set."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Officials in the sanctuary city of Denver have decided to close down a successful anti-theft program in order to protect illegal aliens, including criminals.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley explained the program was "a highly successful anti-theft auto license plate tracking system."
But the fight against crime was not derailed because of privacy concerns, or finances.
"It was shut down because Democratic members believed that ICE could use the data to deport illegals," he explained. "In May, the council refused to renew the $666,000 contract with Flock for camera monitors around 70 Denver intersections to screen for car theft. That system resulted in the recovery of 170 stolen cars and 300 arrests. It is also credited with key evidence in the investigation of hit-and-run and murder cases."
But, he noted, "It could also be used to assist ICE, and that is all that matters."
He cited the confirmation from Councilman Kevin Flynn: "We know that it can help solve crime. But I think since maybe Jan. 20 of this year, those concerns are greatly heightened and have a new reality about them."
And Sarah Parady, another sanctuary city council member, said, "We're living in an era where just this last week, actually, an executive order came out instructing the Department of Justice and the FBI to look for reasons to prosecute local elected officials and activists who they believe are, quote, unquote, obstructing ICE enforcement. This kind of surveillance technology is a gift if you have that kind of ill intent, and the federal government has that ill intent right now."
Mayor Mike Johnston said the program had to go because of "community concerns."
Turley noted, "The police are obviously not happy but car thieves are thrilled. If this seems utterly insane, keep in mind that this was a unanimous vote of the city council."
A Fox affiliate said Flock previously was contracted to provide more than 100 license plate readers throughout Denver.
The original contract cost the city $339,450, but "the cost wasn't the main reason why council members voted no," the report said.
Instead, the issue became just who has access to the data because of Denver's sanctuary city status.
"Members worried that federal agencies would gain access to data and information that would be detrimental to immigrant communities," the report said.
The report explained, "One of Denver's southern neighbors, Douglas County Sheriff Darren Weekly, spoke out against the vote. Weekly posted to X on May 6, referencing a FOX31 story on the contract extension failure, saying, 'This morning we caught a robbery suspect from another jurisdiction using @Flock_Safety. This tech helps catch murderers, rapists, kidnappers, robbers, & ID sex offenders near schools. Meanwhile, @CityofDenver policies empower criminals and make our entire metro area less safe.'"
The station said, "FOX31 asked Flock to weigh in on the privacy concerns. The company noted first that its technology has been used to solve 'hundreds of cases' by the Denver Police Department, including a multi-million dollar jewelry heist at the Cherry Creek Shopping Center."
"The Sheriff is correct in all of these assertions. All searches conducted in the Flock LPR (license plate reader) system are saved in a permanent audit trail, which records the user, the parameters of the search, and the reason for the search (typically a case number)," Flock said. "All data collected by the LPR system — both vehicle images and metadata — are owned by the customer, in this case DPD, stored in the cloud encrypted, and purged automatically after 30 days. Denver has instituted an LPR policy that guides acceptable use and data sharing, along with additional best practices like regular audits and user training."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has unleashed a response that scorched a reporter demanding to know why administration references to the pilots who bombed Iranian nuclear weapon sites did not pointedly note that some were male, and some female.
"We don't play your little games," he said. "When you spin it as because I say 'our boys in bombers' as a common phrase – I'll keep saying things like that, whether they're men or women. I'm very proud of that female pilot, just like I'm very proud of those male pilots.
"I don't care if it's a male or a female in the cockpit, and the American people don't care. But it's the obsession with race and gender in this department that's changed priorities, and we don't do that anymore."
A report from the Daily Wire characterized it as when Hegseth "laid into a reporter who asked why he hadn't specifically congratulated the female pilots who had been a part of the United States' recent strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities."
In the wake of the attacks, Hegseth had congratulated "the boys."
Among those complaining that Hegseth did not meet their required standard of language for inclusiveness was the New York Times, that had pointed out women were involved.
It was Times Pentagon reporter John Ismay who complained.
The Daily Wire, said, "When that topic came up during Thursday morning's briefing, Hegseth bowed his head slightly, laughing, before responding."
"See, this is the kind of thing the press does," Hegseth said. "Of course, the chairman mentioned a female bomber pilot. Fantastic. She's fantastic. She's a hero. I want more female bomber pilots. I hope the men and women of our country sign up to do such brave and audacious things."
He explained the fault lies in the media "spin."
Social media joined Hegseth in ripping the media, with, "From the folks who can't define a woman!" and "The left constantly lauds the accomplishments and reserve's accolades for specifically one race or gender. Ironic."
It wasn't Hegseth's only word on the bias in the press.
"You, and I mean specifically YOU, the press corps, because you cheer against Trump so hard, in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump., because you want him to be unsuccessful so bad, you have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes.
"You have to hope, maybe they weren't effective. … So let's take half-truths, spun information, leaked information, and then spin it, spin it in every way we can to try to cause doubt and manipulate the minds of the public."