This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Among the many events held in conjunction with President Donald Trump's inauguration was a party hosted by black conservative CJ Pearson.

New York Magazine took a photograph of the event, put it on the cover, and complained that "almost everyone is white."

How could that happen?

Simply crop the blacks at the event out of the picture.

From the magazine itself, which bragged about Brock Colyer reporting on the "young, gleeful, confident, and casually cruel Trumpers."

Pearson noted that the magazine "intentionally left me out of their story because it would have undermined their narrative that MAGA is some racist cult."

Further reports confirmed that Colyar is a man who poses as a woman.

The report addressed the magazine, "You literally cut the black people out of the cover photo, refused to mention the black organizer, and made yourself even more of a laughing stock than you already were."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Welcome to another episode of WorldNetDaily Live, where we dive deep into the stories shaping our world today.

Hurricane Helene: Months after Hurricane Helene wreaked havoc, many in North Carolina and surrounding areas are still grappling with the aftermath. Despite the destruction and the months since the hurricane, the aid has only just begun to trickle in, leaving victims in ruin.

California Fires: As wildfires rage across California, we examine the extreme devastation they've caused, the growing toll on communities, and the still unanswered questions about the true cause of these fires. What's being done to prevent future disasters?

Trump's Deportation Policies: In the immigration arena, President Trump's administration has escalated its deportation efforts, aiming for what some describe as the most extensive operation in U.S. history. We'll break down the latest news, including the nationwide immigration enforcement blitz, the implications for communities, and the international reactions to these policies.

Join us as we navigate through these critical issues with in-depth reporting, exclusive interviews, and analysis that you won't find anywhere else.

Subscribe to WorldNetDaily Live for more updates, and don't forget to like and share this video to spread the word about these pressing matters.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A powerful Republican in Congress investigating Joe Biden and his family members for corruption says the former president's last-minute pardons for his relatives are not only "an admission of guilt," they're also not legitimate.

"I don't think these preemptive pardons would hold up in court," House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told Maria Bartiromo on "Sunday Morning Futures."

"This is an admission of guilt by Joe Biden. Everybody in America knows it."

Bartiromo replied: "Wow. So you think the preemptive pardons are not legitimate."

"I don't, but there are a lot better legal minds than mine I'm sure," Comer answered.

"But, you know, I don't think the average person that works hard and pays taxes has much sympathy for a president that in his last act in office pardoned his entire family for financial public corruption and didn't have the guts to tell anybody why he did it."

Bartiromo noted her audience was "disappointed" with the lack of legal action against the Bidens, and asked Comer: "With these pardons, should we just expect after all that work you put into it, after all the conversations we've had, they got away with it?"

"I certainly hope not," Comer responded. "The ball's gonna be in [Attorney General nominee] Pam Bondi's court. We're communicating with her people right now. I've had a good meeting with [nominated FBI Director] Kash Patel.

"One thing I'm confident is going to happen and you saw that with [CIA Director] John Ratcliffe, we're gonna hold people in the government accountable that were involved in the cover-up. He's already held the 51 intelligence officials that lied to the American people when they said the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation when most of them, in fact, knew that it was not Russian disinformation.

"Now we want to get the people that were involved in the cover-ups because what we found in our investigation, and I write about it extensively in my book, is that there were four different agencies investigating the Bidens, the IRS, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the Securities and Exchange Commission. And, obviously, they wanted to get to Joe Biden because none of this money would be coming into the president's son or brother were it not for Joe Biden.

"Every time they got ready to ask Joe Biden, they were told to stand down by a Deep State actor. I want those people held accountable."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Religious symbols have been part of American public life, "since before the Founding," according to a new report from Becket, which was at a federal appeals court this week defending the state of Louisiana and its acknowledgement of the Ten Commandments from the Bible.

"Just after declaring independence, the Continental Congress tasked Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams with designing a national seal. Though the Great Seal eventually adopted a different design, all three proposed overtly religious designs drawn from the Hebrew Bible," the report said.

"Over the centuries, many state and local governments have followed the Founders' lead by including religious elements in their flags, seals, and buildings to commemorate history and culture and to acknowledge the beliefs of their citizens. Among the most enduring of these religious symbols is the Ten Commandments, which is featured prominently on the walls of many government buildings, including the U.S. Supreme Court."

The background is because Becket was defending Louisiana in its plan to have posters with the Ten Commandments displayed in schools, specifically explaining their influence on America's law and history.

"Schools have broad flexibility in designing the displays, and no public funds are needed for their installation," the report said.

It was the ACLU that sued the state, and a federal judge temporarily put the law on hold.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Those of us celebrating the New Year at home – some perhaps choosing to watch another country's earlier celebration on television, wistfully resigned to the fact our older bodies would not enable us to stay up to see the New York City Times Square ball drop – were shocked to awaken to reports the next morning about two deadly vehicular attacks. The first occurred in New Orleans; the second soon thereafter in Las Vegas. For those of us with military service, we were further shocked to learn both involved fellow veterans.

News about both attacks shared similarities but overlooked a key last-second difference distinguishing the two. Observable to both attackers in the last seconds of their lives, it was a telling sign as to why entirely different motivations were responsible.

The first attack, occurring early on New Year's morning in New Orleans, was committed by Staff Sgt. Shamsud-Din Jabbar, 42, who was no longer on active duty; a few hours later, Master Sgt. Matthew Livelsberger, 37 – still on active duty serving as a U.S. Army Green Beret who had taken leave from his base in Germany – committed the Las Vegas attack. Sadly, this veteran involvement triggered liberal press members, such as MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, to ridiculously suggest the demographic about which to be most worried now concerning domestic terrorism is the veteran community.

Both veterans served at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, and also in Afghanistan, with a likely overlap, although no evidence emerged they knew each other.

Both decided to use the timing of the New Year's celebration to commit their attacks, most likely to leave a deeper footprint upon the American psyche by acting on the first day of 2025.

Both used the car-sharing platform Turo – an online app marketing privately owned vehicles for rent directly from their owners. The timing of the attacks as well as the mutual use of Turo initially caused investigators to examine whether there might be some connection between the two; however, further investigation proved none existed.

Both rented trucks for their attacks: Jabbar's was a Ford F-150, undoubtedly selected for its 6,000 pound weight to help propel it through the heavy crowd of holiday celebrants he intended to target; meanwhile, Livelsberger rented a Tesla Cybertruck, which, although a slight bit heavier, may have been considered for an entirely different reason, as discussed below.

So what is the distinguishing difference between the attacks?

Jabbar's motivation for the New Orleans attack is clearly supported by ample evidence. Seeing the jam-packed Bourbon Street crowd in the city's French Quarter and physically driving around a police car serving as a barrier, he plowedforward with murderous intent. Two blocks from the first point of crowd impact, he crashed into a crane and began shooting at police. Returning fire, the police killed him but not before Jabbar claimed 14 lives and injured more than 30 others. For those killed, the last vision they probably had was of the Islamic extremist group ISIS flag flying from the bed of Jabbar's truck.

A review of Jabbar's Facebook postings indicated he joined ISIS before the summer. The newly converted Islamic radical's initial plan was to attack family and friends; however, he then decided such would not convey the right message to the American public. He feared a family attack "would not focus on the war between the believers and disbelievers," simply being dismissed as a domestic dispute. There is no doubt Jabbar wanted to leave this world as a terrorist responsible for killing as many non-Muslims as he could, dying in a blaze of Islamist glory.

Turning to Livelsberger's Las Vegas attack, two intriguing points emerge.

First, he was an experienced Special Forces operative with 19 years service. Therefore, he clearly had knowledge about explosives and what they were capable, or not capable, of doing. He had packed his Cybertruck with firework mortars and gas cans, which caused the vehicle to explode and burst into flames just after he had pulled in front of the Trump International Hotel and shot himself. But as a video of the explosion shows, while the Cybertruck burst into flames, it remained fairly much intact, obviously attributable to the less-explosive nature of the materials he chose to use combined with the vehicle's weight.

Second is what Livelsberger saw in the seconds before the explosion. He pulled behind a truck whose driver appears to have already entered the hotel, perhaps to register. But, unlike Jabbar – to whom hundreds of pedestrians were visible as targets – video shows there was no one visible in the front entrance to the Trump hotel. While seven people received injuries, all were minor, with virtually no damage to the hotel itself. This appeared to reinforce what investigators later discovered in writings Livelsberger left behind.

Although fearing he would be labeled a terrorist, Livelsberger wrote his action was only intended as a "wake up call" for the nation's troubles with no intention to kill anyone else. There was no animosity expressed toward President Donald Trump or Elon Musk despite selecting the Trump hotel as the explosion site and using a Tesla Cybertruck as the delivery vehicle.

Evidence suggests Livelsberger, after several combat tours, was suffering from PTSD – contrary to Jabbar who suffered from hatred of non-Muslims, triggered by his conversion to Islamism. Livelsberger left a cellphone note explaining he had to "cleanse" his mind "of the brothers I've lost and relieve myself of the burden of the lives I took."

In a recent interview, Livelsberger's wife emphasized her husband's dedication to his country and love for his family. Looking for answers herself, she said, "I just want to make sure that people understand who my husband was. None of this makes sense. I hope at some point we will receive answers."

What motivated both Jabbar and Livelsberger to act as they did on New Year's morning was different as night and day. Jabbar saw a target-rich environment of victims; Livelsberger saw a target-poor one. Thus, the former was the violent act of a committed terrorist; the latter the unfortunate act of a veteran suffering from battle fatigue and the political division of the country for which he had made great personal sacrifices.

One loved America; one did not.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

While abortion takes the life of another human being, Tim Walz, Kamala Harris' former running mate, on a CBS News interview, called abortion "a basic human right." It's demented to think that killing your baby is "a basic human right." It was true in the days of Ahab and Jezebel when people sacrificed children to pagan gods, but today, people trying to kill their children are considered wicked and in need of being locked away somewhere … unless that person is getting an abortion, or, excuse me, "reproductive health care."

Sometimes medical procedures are necessary to save a woman's life, like in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. In those cases, it happens so early in the pregnancy, medical science is not able to save the baby. To save the mother, the child is removed; otherwise, both would die.

The Democratic Party seems intensely occupied with encouraging mothers to kill their children. Before the 2022 election, the party spent $31 million on television ads concerning inflation, $140 million on spots concerning crime, but a whopping $320 million on abortion ads. How sad that the Democratic Party thinks killing babies is their best selling point.

Our first baby was ectopic, which ruptured, sending our child to heaven and nearly sent my wife there too. Afterward, we suffered two miscarriages. My wife and I wanted children. After 10 years, she became pregnant. Having learned some things about faith, the first thing we did was to purchase baby clothes, because we set ourselves to having this baby. At six months the doctor told us there was a problem and asked if we wanted to have an abortion. For us, that option was not on the table.

When our baby girl was born, I realized I had purchased the wrong color clothing – but when my daughter smiled, I saw she had my wife's million-dollar contagious smile. I loved that baby and still do.

I determined no one was going to speak evil over our child, or her future. The doctor we had, before we fired him, told us all the things she would never do. Then we'd take our baby home, and she would do them. We believed God for our child and spoke God's blessings over her.

In Denmark, 98% of the pregnancies with the problem we were fighting, are terminated. In France, it is 77%. In the United States, 67%.

Did we have to fight some issues? Yes, but we also saw God's intervention in our lives, the lives of our new doctors and in the life of our beautiful daughter.

I've had many experiences where I learned so much from my daughter. When she was 3 years old, wild dogs came into our backyard and killed about 20 chickens in an enclosure. When the dogs came back, my wife fought them with a broom handle until they left. So, I decided to put up a fence.

I purchased 5-foot dog-wire fencing and posts, which had to be driven 2 feet into the ground. Here I was, in hot July, standing on a 6-foot stepladder, with a three-pound sledgehammer, trying to drive the first of 30 metal posts into clay ground after work.

Hitting the first post with the sledgehammer, it wobbled all over the place, and I could hear a voice speak to my spirit saying, "If you hit your hand, you are going to break every bone." Thinking I was by myself, in frustration, I let something fly out of my mouth that I should have never said.

I then heard a small voice say, "What'cha doing up there, Jesus?" (Look, I am not confused in thinking I am God, for I know the job is taken and there will be no openings, and no one has called me "Jesus" before or since.) To my horror, I looked over and saw my precious 3-year-old daughter sitting in the shade of a tree, watching me.

I came down the ladder realizing that all that my daughter had ever seen me do is preach and teach Bible studies, yet here I had said this awful thing. She walked over to me and said, "Do you think we ought to pray?" Embarrassed, I had not even thought about prayer. I said, "yes," and we held hands and prayed.

I heard a voice speak to my heart and say, "Richard, put out a soaker hose and have your wife put it on an hour before you come home from work. Then put in three post a night and quit." That is what we did, and it worked. People at my work made a steel cup to go on the top of the post, so I wouldn't mangle the tops. It took around 120 hits per post, but we got the job done.

At 8 years old, my daughter could quote more King James Bible verses than I knew when I was 23. She also has this amazing ability to memorize music, not just the first verse of a song, but all the verses. It is amazing. We sing in the car all the time, and she usually starts it.

When she was 10 years old, we were doing one of our campground services with an amphitheater somewhat full. I could smell alcohol at the podium. As I was preaching, an intoxicated woman became very disruptive. Her continual disruptions were causing a problem, and I thought of asking her to leave, but then my daughter walked over, put her arm around the woman and prayed for her. The woman began to weep. I felt so convicted. Here this 10-year-old little girl showed more of the compassion of Jesus and knew better how to express it than the minister … me. The woman was calm the rest of the service and encouraged us in our campground work as she left. I learned something very important that day from a 10-year-old full of the Spirit of God.

Today my daughter is in her 30s, and there are many more stories. She's funny too.

So, should we have followed the 67% of Americans who would have aborted our daughter? The answer is definitely, "In Jesus name … No."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Most of the J6 protesters were subjected to the harshest treatment the Joe Biden Department of Justice could hand out.

They were jailed, without bond, sometimes without even hearings, for months or years. They were charged with inappropriate charges. Prosecutors tried to enhance their sentences with claims of obstruction. Judges, mostly Democrats in the District of Columbia, went along.

The result was a level of punishment not ever seen before in American justice.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Today is the day we "right-wing" Americans have all been waiting for, the return of Donald Trump to the presidency, driving a bulldozer. For the first time since Ronald Reagan we have a Republican president devoted not to "conservatism" but to a vision of a better America that requires demolishing Marxist cultural and political infrastructure and rebuilding the constitutionalist structures the left has been systematically supplanting since the 1920s.

Most Americans are focused on the MAGA pushback against the outrages of this generation such as DEI, two-tiered justice, open borders and the near death of parental rights, but I am hoping Trump intends not just to trim the hedges of Marxism but to cut them down to the ground and dig out the roots. In order to do that he must eliminate ALL its elements, including its first principle. atheism, and its central strategy for conquest, LGBTism.

First a word about time-horizons and their importance to reformers. As my long-term readers know, I was in my teens and 20s a sometimes homeless alcoholic and drug addict who drifted around the U.S. sleeping under bridges and begging spare change to survive. My time horizon – the furthest point in the future I planned for and cared about – was about six weeks. Sometimes it was just a day or even hours. I plumbed the depths of Maslow's "Heirarchy of Needs," focused totally on short-term gratification and largely unconcerned about the long-term consequences of my decisions. Through countless reckless adventures and wrong turns, it was only by the grace of God I escaped death or long-term institutionalization.

Years later as a Christian, saved and healed from my addictions through a trauma-inspired prayerful surrender of my life to Jesus Christ, I became an avid student of history – both biblical and secular – and acquired the longest possible timeline, stretching from the Creation to Eternity. In my mid-30s, with only a high school diploma under my belt, and a wife and two small children to support, I set a goal to become a lawyer, which took six years of diligence and determination. At Simon Greenleaf University (now Trinity Law School) I studied both biblical and constitutional law and graduated Magna cum Laude with a Juris Doctor degree (J.D.). I then immediately pursued and earned a Doctor of Theology degree (Th.D.)

I'm the only person I know who got through law school as a missionary, funded by a mailing list of supporters who wanted to help me gain better skills to fight the culture war. I attracted most of those supporters (some of whom are still on my list) by hawking my first book, "The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party," on talk radio shows. I self-published to retain total control of the book, sold them only by phone orders from the shows (and person-to-person at speaking events) and sent fundraising letters to the buyers.

I say all this not for self-aggrandizement – there is no good thing in me but Christ – but to establish my credentials to advise Donald Trump on culture-war fighting. I'm an accomplished academic scholar of "culture war studies" (a maverick's self-created career path) who has also been in the front-line trenches fighting this war at huge personal cost since the 1980s.

And so, with this foundation, and a far more educated and realistic perspective of how far back we need to go to "purge" Marxism than the average MAGA patriot has, I contend there are two SCOTUS rulings that must be reversed to restore authentic constitutionalism as it was intended by the founders.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947). "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord" (Psalm 33:12), and conversely, the Christian nation that expressly rejects him is cursed. The wicked jurist and KKK member Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion in Everson, replacing the God of the Bible with Secular Humanism on America's throne, by elevating Jefferson's metaphor "separation of church and state" to the status of binding constitutional law. Prior to Everson, God was honored in our law as the Supreme Being (as detailed in the Holy Trinity case), and the truths of the Bible were nationally revered and taught to our children in public schools. Everson set us on a new trajectory away from God toward legally enforced polytheism in the populace and Secular Humanism in the government.

While America was not perfect in the generations prior to Everson, this ruling collapsed our moral underpinnings and triggered the storm of social and cultural chaos that has ever since ravaged this nation in waves of exponentially compounding domestic and international crises. America can never be made great again within the founders understanding of greatness so long as Everson stands as the law of the land.

I've written extensively on this topic over the years, including this essay. (Search "Everson" on my website for more). And for those with an interest in demonology, my book "Dynasty of Darkness, Vol. 2," details the mind-blowing demonic activities associated with the Everson ruling and related cases and historical events. (You should also read Volume 1 for the extensive biblical support for my claims.)

Lawrence v. Texas (2003). "A man shall not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination" states God Himself in His explanation to the Hebrew people justifying His policy of extermination of the Canaanites in Leviticus 18. The ancient common law on "sodomy" was based on this verse (18:22) and the following one: "You must not lie carnally with any animal, thus defiling yourself with it; a woman must not stand before an animal to mate with it; that is a perversion (18:23)." As our third president, Thomas Jefferson noted in his restatement of the law:

"Buggery is twofold. 1. With mankind, 2. With beasts. Buggery is the Genus, of which Sodomy and Bestiality, are the species. … Sodomiary is a carnal copulation against nature, to wit, of man or woman in the same sex, or of either of them with beasts. …" Of the two, Jefferson implied, homosexuality was worse, because "bestiality can never make any progress; it cannot therefore be injurious to society in any great degree, which is the true measure of criminality in foro civili, and will ever be properly and severely punished, by universal derision."

God's law against sodomy was enshrined in America's national law until Lawrence, which was the second of the four landmark rulings written by the satanically inspired Justice Anthony Kennedy establishing LGBT cultural supremacy over Christianity in America. My law partner and I were the only law firm in the country that filed a request for SCOTUS not to accept Lawrence for review, but they did. Kennedy then not only struck down the Texas sodomy laws, but reversed the most important sexual morality ruling in our national history, Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which recognized the right of states to regulate sexual deviance in the public interest.

Kennedy's Lawrence ruling was the second and most sweeping of the four major dominos to fall (Romer v. Evans was first, Obergefell was the fourth) that eventually made DEI legally possible, and reversing it (hopefully by restoring Bowers) is the only way to truly kill DEI permanently and to push the LGBT agenda back into the closet where it belongs. I've been fighting for this my entire career and predicted in 2013 exactly what we've reaped since.

Please pray with me that Trump's vision for restoration expands to a long-enough timeline to recognize the true destructiveness of these two must-reverse SCOTUS rulings.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A home builder in Seattle has won a fight against the city's "extortion," demands for $350,000 payment for a water line the project didn't need and wouldn't use.

In fact, the water line the city demanded Oom Living fund wasn't even in his neighborhood.

The results of the fight were announced by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

"The ruling is a great win for a small company that is trying to build new houses in a city where there is an obvious, and desperate, need for them," explained PLF lawyer Brian Hodges.

"The city's demands were nothing more than an exorbitant ransom to receive permission to connect to a public water line, which is necessary to live in a home. Such demands violate the owner's civil rights."

He said with the ruling, "Seattle cannot abuse its power to withhold water connection approvals to force individual property owners to pay for infrastructure that's unrelated to their building project. This victory for home builders and homebuyers will stop the city from shifting unnecessary costs onto the purchase price of new homes."

The ruling in the court fight said the Seattle Public Utilities "arbitrarily and unconstitutionally attempted to force the company to pay for an unnecessary water main in order to build the new house."

The city utility said the building could hook up the new home to the water utility, but only after paying for the new line.

The new line was to address a historic problem with the city's infrastructure, to which the new home had no connection.

"Under SPU's policy, it didn't matter that Oom Living's home fronted an existing water main with ample supply, nor did it matter that the new water main would dead-end in a fully built-out neighborhood that has no need for new pipes. Nor did it even matter that the city's demands would have cost the company over $350,000—a cost that would massively increase the home's ultimate purchase price."

The ruling came from Superior Court of Washington for King County, which told the city it was not allowed to hold the development of a new home hostage to demands for payment for unrelated infrastructure.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A number of lawmakers in the United Kingdom have launched a campaign to destroy the centuries-old tradition of opening sessions of Parliament with a Christian prayer.

That practice reportedly dates to 1558, but the Christian Institute reports "modernisers" in the body are insisting on being appeased with the change.

And a veteran of the body has warned against the move.

"Sir John Hayes said it was important to begin each sitting of the House of Commons with prayer to afford MPs time for quiet reflection, and in recognition of the UK's Christian heritage," the report said.

"Whether you believe in the divine or not, it's important to recognize our country is rooted in the Christian traditions. Prayers are a reminder of that," he said.

New members, he charged, "either because of ignorance or hostility, don't understand the point about the need for a period of contemplative time or the Christian tradition on which our country's system of ethics and laws are founded."