This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump wants Fox News host Jeanine Pirro to be the top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C.

Interim U.S. attorney Ed Martin had been nominated, but his named was pulled after a single senator announced his opposition.

"I am pleased to announce that Judge Jeanine Pirro will be appointed interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia," Trump wrote. "Jeanine is incredibly well qualified for this position, and is considered one of the Top District Attorneys in the History of the State of New York. She is in a class by herself."

Martin's progress had been blocked by opposition from Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who objected to Martin's work with, and in defense of, some of the J6 protesters who trespassed at the Capitol four years ago.

Tillis has explained he wants someone in that role "who believes that every single person who came into this building illegally should've suffered some consequences."

They were pardoned by Trump, of course.

But with Tillis holding a key vote on a Senate committee that must approve the nomination, reports appeared Thursday with Pirro's name.

A commentary at RedState explained, "'Be careful what you wish for' is something I routinely think when mulling over political strategy. Whenever you want a certain politician or appointee removed, you have to be sure that the replacement won't be worse."

It continued this is "something Sen. Thom Tillis (R-RINO) should have thought about when obstinately and publicly dissing President Trump's selection for U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin. While taking questions from reporters Thursday, Trump signaled that he would be naming someone else for that office since Martin's nomination wouldn't be able to get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee due to Tillis' opposition, which seemed to be a Tillis victory."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new lawsuit alleges the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is running what's being called an "unconstitutional shadow agency," going beyond the responsibilities of the judicial branch by taking regulatory actions.

The fight was launched by America First Legal Foundation, which was started by Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy.

Chief Justice John Roberts was cited in his capacity as the head of the U.S. Judicial Conference. Also named was Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

A report from Fox News explains: "The complaint accuses both the U.S. Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts of performing certain regulatory actions that go beyond the scope of resolving cases or controversies, or administratively supporting those actions, which they argue are the 'core functions' of the judiciary."

It also charges that records of those organizations should be subject to Freedom of Information Act requirements.

The newest fight comes amid a campaign by district judges, those who run the entry level of the federal court system, to issue a long list of nationwide injunctions through which they claim the authority to make decisions for the executive branch, which by the Constitution is the responsibility of the president.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

It's the great mystery of our time.

On the one hand, it's been rabidly undermining America's culture, government, morality, religious faith and core sanity for decades – from championing the mass amputation of healthy body parts of children, to justifying the importation of vast armies of convicted murderers, rapists, drug dealers, sex traffickers and terrorists, to insisting everyone from surgeons to airplane pilots to vice presidents be hired not based on their merit or experience, but on their skin pigment, gender or sexual preferences.

Insane, yes. But when attempting to justify these catastrophic, civilization-destroying forces – and why skin color and sex/gender should trump common sense and reality – virtually all defenders speaks in strange, largely indecipherable code.

You see, they continually assure Americans, it's all because of the absolute necessity of "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" or "DEI," along with "Intersectionality," based on "Critical Race Theory" – which achieves "Social Justice" for "Marginalized Communities," because "Trans Lives Matter." All championed by "The Left" and "Progressives," who are "Woke." Oh, and who champion "Democracy!"

What on earth do these and other intentionally opaque terms actually mean? Almost never are they stripped down to their core reality. Let's find out why.

By now, most Americans realize an increasingly dark and destructive transformation has been ripping their beloved country apart in a thousand different ways.

For example, after a shocking string of plane crashes, Americans recently learned that the Federal Aviation Administration, tasked with the profoundly vital job of safeguarding all civilian air travel within the United States, announced during the "woke," "DEI"-obsessed Biden administration its brand-new "special emphasis in recruitment and hiring." Incredibly, the FAA – which hires virtually all U.S. air traffic controllers, who in turn single-handedly prevent, or fail to prevent, deadly aircraft catastrophes – initiated a hiring mandate with a strong preference for people with disabilities, specifically to include "hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism."

As the saying goes: What could possibly go wrong?

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

'It took media elites 2,000 years to ask'

The New York Times, under the headline, "A Hot Accessory, at the Intersection of Faith and Culture," has unleashed its 1,400-word investigatory piece about the … Christian cross.

It seems that members of the faith wear them, on necklaces and such.

And the Times' discovery has prompted merciless trolling online.

"It took 2000 years for the media elites to ask what those funny T-shaped necklaces are that everybody's wearing," was one snark, from Not the Bee.

"This is real. People wear crosses and the NYT is ON IT," announced Mary Katharine Hamm.

Not the Bee explained, "Across TikTok, young Christian women have been sharing the meaning behind their own cross necklaces, saying they help cultivate a sense of belonging and connection with others. Sage Mills, a student at the University of Oklahoma who has posted videos about her cross necklace, said that seeing women in government like Ms. Leavitt and Ms. Bondi wear their own 'makes me feel good. It makes me feel like God is the important thing for people that are governing our world.'"

It continued, "The Times has the history lesson for anyone confused by this strange symbol. The cross, a symbol most associated with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, first emerged during the Roman Empire when it was an instrument of mass torture, said Robert Covolo, a theologian and associate pastor at Christ Church Sierra Madre near Los Angeles. By the 4th century, Mr. Covolo said that Christians had begun to use the cross as an emblem of their religion. Not long after, the cross became a focal point for daily jewelry. Cross jewelry dating as far back as the 5th century is prevalent in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London."

The report said, "Think about it: A 1,500 word article … in what used to be the most prominent newspaper in the world … explaining the cross to an American audience."

Twitchy also had assembled some of the comments:

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Chuck Todd, the former longtime anchor of NBC's "Meet The Press," is melting down over recent claims the national news media covered up the failing mental health of former President Joe Biden.

"I just refuse to accept this stupid premise because it's a ring-wing manufactured, right-wing premise in order to stain the media," Todd told ex-CNN pundit Chris Cillizza on his Substack channel Monday.

"This is not a media failure. This is a failure of the Democratic Party."

"This isn't WMDs [Weapons of Mass Destruction], where the White House worked with the mainstream media to manufacture a story that did not exist. That was a press failure, massive press failure," Todd explained, alluding to biased news coverage of President George W. Bush's "War on Terror."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Democrats across America have used the talking point "destroying democracy" to describe anything they don't like.

It's Donald Trump. It's identification for voting. It's secured ballot counts.

Now, apparently, it's a majority of Democrats.

That's because a report at Complete Colorado explains how the majority of Democrats in the state are trying to banish citizen comments from the state's "democracy." Democrats hold the majority in both the House and Senate in Colorado, as well as the governor's office.

This is the state where all Democrats on the state Supreme Court tried to ban President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. This is the state that has gone to the Supreme Court twice, in its attempts to dictate the thoughts and censor the statements of business owners.

And lost twice.

Now the Complete Colorado article confirms, "A new Democrat-backed bill moving rapidly through the Colorado legislature poses a serious threat to one of the most fundamental rights in our state Constitution: the right of citizens to initiate laws through the petition process."

This comes at a time when lawmakers are also attacking the state's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, a constitutional amendment from decades back that requires voter approval for tax increases beyond the growth of the population and inflation.

It's already been undermined by state lawmakers who repeatedly have claimed that their new taxes actually are not taxes but "fees."

For example, there are road and bridge "fees" that apply only to Colorado-registered vehicles, whose owners must pay to use roads and bridges. Of course, travelers using the same roads and bridges pay no such "fees."

Leftist courts in the state have agreed that those taxes, in fact, are "fees."

The report noted the legislation has already passed the House and a Senate committee.

It would "significantly restrict the ability of Coloradans to bring citizen initiatives forward. Among other provisions, it shortens an already tight timeline for title-setting, imposes new procedural hurdles, and adds new fines of up to $1,500 on petition organizers for non-compliance with reporting requirements," the report said.

"What makes this particularly alarming is the inclusion of the 'safety clause' — legislative language that declares the bill is necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety. The practical effect? Voters are prohibited from filing a referendum to challenge the law at the ballot box. It's an ironic — and telling — twist that a bill restricting petition rights also blocks any citizen-led challenge of its own passage."

The report noted that both Republicans and Democrats have previously used the initiative process.

The moves in Colorado, the report warned, "reflect a troubling trend: elected officials using their power not to expand democratic engagement, but to restrict it. Colorado voters have repeatedly voiced support for transparency, fiscal limits, and the right to challenge government action through the initiative process. Yet here we are again — with those same rights back on the chopping block."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Social Security Administration has reversed itself when confronted over its decision to refuse to grant a religious accommodation to an employee.

The news comes from Liberty Counsel, which worked on the case on behalf of an SSA worker who is now protected from requirements he work on issues involving same-sex issues.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Forever bars qualified job applicants for indiscretions from years earlier

A Texas court ruling means that a lawsuit over the state's "irrational" rule regarding social workers can advance.

The rule simply bans people who ever have had a conviction from getting a license for social work, ever.

It's being challenged, according to a report from the Institute for Justice, by "two Texas grandmothers with masters' degrees who want to be social workers."

Their problem? Decades ago, while young and under the influence of substance abuse problems, each was convicted of an assault.

The favorable ruling for their arguments came from a Travis County Court, which refused a state motion to dismiss the case.

It's on behalf of Katherin Youniacuff and Tammy Thompson.

"Under a Texas law that the court deemed 'irrational,' each woman is permanently ineligible for a social work license based solely on an old and irrelevant conviction. But the Texas Constitution protects Texans' right to earn an honest living in an occupation of their choosing free from unreasonable government interference," the IJ reported.

"Should people be judged solely on old mistakes? That's what's happening in Texas. Katherin and Tammy both struggled with substance abuse issues early in their lives and each woman pleaded guilty to a single assault conviction during that time. Nearly two decades later, Katherin and Tammy have turned their lives around and want to help people facing similar problems," the IJ explained.

"Texas won't let them. A 2019 Texas law imposed a new, permanent punishment on Katherin and Tammy: Despite their rehabilitation, they are forever barred from working as social workers."

But, the legal team said, that hurts not only the two women involved, but others because of "an exploding mental health and substance abuse crisis coupled with a dire shortage of professional social workers…"

The court's ruling, rejecting the state's demand to dismiss, said, "[a] categorical ban on personal experience directly relevant to a job is irrational."

The IJ said, "The state can of course exclude individuals who truly pose a danger to their clients from practicing social work. But that's not Katherin, or Tammy, or many other aspiring social workers targeted by the state's ban."

The judge found, "any danger that otherwise qualified applicants . . . pose to potential clients is not rationally possible to determine on anything other than an individualized basis."

James Knight, an institute lawyer, explained, "This decision is the first step towards giving Katherin and Tammy and everyone in a similar situation the justice they deserve. Katherin and Tammy made mistakes and paid for them. Permanently punishing them doesn't protect the public. It just makes it harder for people to pull themselves up and provide for their families. That's unconstitutional."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Democrat party has decided, apparently, that going pottymouth, cursing, swearing, being crude and vulgar, is an excellent strategy to win back voters they've lost.

Even leftist publications are noting the development.

"S*** talking is Democrats' new strategy," charged CNN. And PBS, noted for its far-left agenda, stated, "What the #$@! Democrats are swearing more. Here's why…."