This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'To engage in conduct that advises anyone to defy court orders and kidnap their child would be contrary to our biblical, Christian, and professional ethics'

A legal fight has involved nine years in the courts. And 25 depositions. And 186,000 documents. And 6,800 pages of transcripts.

And the conclusion from a federal judge is that Liberty Counsel, a prominent legal team that routinely works on a multitude of civil and religious rights issues, had no involvement in a lesbian's fight over custody of a child.

Judge William K. Sessions III ruled that Liberty Counsel did not "engage in, aid, or abet any conspiracy" over a situation that developed when one woman, Lisa Miller, left the lesbian lifestyle choice, and took with her her child.

The other half of the duo, Janet Jenkins, sued over custody of the child and Miller was represented for a time by Liberty Counsel.

Then, however, things took a strange turn, resulting in Jenkins' lawsuit, to which she, years later, added Liberty Counsel, demanding the stunning sum of $200 billion in damages.

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver explained, "Liberty Counsel never did anything wrong and this ruling is a complete and total exoneration. To engage in conduct that advises anyone to defy court orders and kidnap their child would be contrary to our biblical, Christian, and professional ethics. This frivolous lawsuit by the Southern Poverty Law Center was pure lawfare designed to destroy Liberty Counsel. The truth has prevailed."

The unusual circumstances developed during a time when leftists still were assembling their program for same-sex marriage, a status later granted in a questionable ruling, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

At the time, before the Supreme Court ruled, Miller and Jenkins entered into a "civil union" in Vermont. Then Miller dissolved that civil union, but the courts awarded Jenkins rights to a then 2-year-old girl as a "legal parent" and gave her visitation.

Miller complied for a time, but then the child reported abuse.

The Liberty Counsel involvement happened when Miller dissolved her union to Jenkins and moved to Virginia, where the fight put the laws of Virginia, which did not recognize civil unions, against the laws of Vermont, which did.

"The Vermont court eventually ordered visitation rights to Jenkins. Miller complied until Isabella complained of abuse," Liberty Counsel explained.

However, while legal cases were under way in two states, Miller "suddenly fled with Isabella to Nicaragua. When Liberty Counsel became aware, it informed the court and sought to withdraw from the case," the report said.

The legal team explained it was a "complete and total victory" in the civil case that "falsely alleged Liberty Counsel advised a former client to flee … ."

Lawyer Rena Lindevaldsen had been added to the lawsuit by Jenkins at the same time Liberty Counsel was added, and the ruling from the judge exonerated her, too.

Further, Sessions noted the lawsuit also was barred by the statute of limitations.
Other people eventually were identified as having helped Miller flee with her daughter, and they were indicted.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Maine residents are more aligned with President Donald Trump than their own governor over the concept of men, even those who say they are women, participating in womens 'athletics.

Trump has declared that the U.S. government recognizes two genders, male and female, and has worked to halt the promotion of the vast range of alternative sexual lifestyle choices. He issued an executive order to bar males from girls' and women's competitions.

Maine's governor, Janet Mills, has insisted on defying Trump, and the federal Office of Civil Rights in the Health and Human Services Department, and pushing for those making those lifestyle choices to participate where they choose.

Fox News has pointed out Maine's refusal to follow the rules has left the state in "noncompliance with Title IX" and the state has been referred to the Justice Department for possible prosecution.

Now the results of a polling by the University of New Hampshire reveal that Mills is off base, when it comes to her voters.

The poll confirms that some two-thirds of the state's residents, 64%, believe transgender athletes "definitely should not" or "probably should not" participate in girls' and women's sports.

"Only 29% of Maine residents believed that transgender athletes 'probably should' or 'definitely should' compete against girls and women in sports," the report said.

Even among Democrats whose party has promoted the transgender ideology extensively during the tenure in Washington of Joe Biden, only 56% endorsed men who call themselves women in women's sprots.

Half of the poll's respondents said the enforcement of those standards should be at the federal level, another 41% said it should be up to the states.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Concerns over Communist China's navy and the threat it poses to U.S. interests have increased at alarming rates through the years, with multiple reports revealing that China is outpacing the United States in both naval and commercial ship production.

For the U.S., the shipbuilding industry is unquestionably vital to its economy and its national security. For this reason, on March 4 President Donald Trump announced in a joint address to Congress that he would "create a new office of shipbuilding in the White House and offer special tax incentives [for the sector]."

WorldNetDaily interviewed Col. Grant Newsham, USMC-Ret., who once served as the first Marine liaison officer to the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force. According to Newsham, "The Chinese shipbuilding industry and its dominance didn't come about by coincidence," adding, "The Chinese Communist Party placing priority on shipbuilding is just one segment of the strategy of [becoming] the world leader in manufacturing."

"Shipbuilding," Newsham noted, "is a 'big ticket' industry. It's immensely profitable when you dominate a market – especially one that provides products – ships in this case – that all other nations depend on, either directly or indirectly." It is that dependency, he stressed, that "gives China leverage over countries it regards as rivals and even enemies."

What's more, in a warfighting capacity, the retired Marine Corps officer said, "You have simply got to have enough ships to deploy as needed far-and-wide and [the ability] to concentrate them in force as needed."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Bible records the life, teachings, crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, empowering Him as the Son of God and Savior of mankind.

Now a contemporaneous document written by a Roman historian has been revealed to be confirming a part of those beliefs.

A report in the Daily Mail explains the writings, called the Annals, were written by Roman historian Tacitus, also known as Publius Cornelius Tacitus, who lived from around 56 AD to 120 AD and was widely regarded to have been among the most important Roman historians.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The U.S. Constitution specifically sets up the Supreme Court.

It does not do the same with lower courts: It leaves that up the Congress, a fact that House Speaker Mike Johnson has pointed out to a list of activist judges who have delivered partisan injunctions against President Donald Trump's agenda, injunctions that follow a leftist partisan line and encroach on the authorities of the executive branch.

"We do have authority over the federal courts," he explained. "We can eliminate an entire district court."

A report in the Daily Mail called the comment a "pointed warning to judges nationwide as local courts have slowed the rollout of Donald Trump's political agenda."

Johnson explained, "We do have power over funding over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act."

The publication called the comment a "veiled reminder, if not threat, that Congress has their eyes on district judges that have issued injunctions and rulings against Trump's policies."

District judges, in fact, have taken over executive branch decision-making regarding DOGE, spending, hiring of executive branch employees, immigration, deportation of criminal illegal aliens, international policy, and much more.

There already have been moves to begin impeachment cases against some of the judges involved with the more egregious rulings, such as a Washington judge who ordered the administration to turn airplanes deporting criminal illegals around in midair and return the terror suspects to the U.S. He even demanded from the White House national security details to which he was not authorized to access.

Even Trump has called for the impeachment of that judge, James Boasberg, who had established a reputation as a leftist activist for demanding harsher penalties than the law allowed for J6 protesters in Washington.

Johnson said he's not planning to destroy any court, but was reminding people of the authorities of Congress.

Article III of the Constitution assigns to Congress the authority to "ordain and establish" courts beneath the Supreme Court.

The House Judiciary Committee has a hearing next week to review the leftist rulings that encroach on the executive branch authorities.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

An analysis of a ruling from Ana Reyes, a judge in Washington, that President Donald Trump's military must accept those with gender dysphoria, is taking her to task for singling out one political ideology – that could undermine America's national defense.

It is Charles "Cully" Stimson, of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, who wrote at the Daily Signal that there is a long list of physical and mental conditions that disqualify individuals from being in the military.

Gender dysphoria is just one.

The analysis notes Reyes has barred Trump from expelling "certain transgender servicemembers" from the military, in a legal case that already is on appeal.

"The U.S. military exists to defend the nation. As an all-volunteer force, the military relies on qualified men and women volunteering to serve in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Space Force. Enlisted men and women are typically high school graduates, young, meet or exceed certain physical and mental aptitude tests, and pass security background checks. Officers are college graduates and must pass the same or similar tests as enlisted personnel," he explained.

"Not everyone is cut out to serve in the military. Far from it. Some don't want to serve. Others want to serve but are not eligible because they are overweight, have asthma, musculoskeletal issues, vision or hearing impairments, dental issues, allergies, skin conditions, psychiatric disorders, eating disorders, learning disabilities, or one or more of hundreds of other disqualifying physical or mental conditions. Others are eligible to serve but don't pass the minimum physical or mental tests," he said.

Significantly, the military cannot afford to hire those who have disqualifying medical, emotional or psychological conditions.

"That lawful discrimination is rationally related to a legitimate, indeed compelling, government interest. Our military must only hire men and women who are ready, willing and able, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, to deploy anywhere in the world at a moment's notice and who have the physical, mental, emotional, and psychological stability and toughness to fight and win," he explained.

In fact, such deployability requirements have a list of "30 broad categories" that can disqualify personnel.

Among those listed under "Learning, Psychiatric, and Behavioral Disorders," disqualified are those with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, a history of learning disorders such as dyslexia, autism, schizophrenic disorders, delusional disorders, a history of being bipolar, depression, conduct "disorders," eating disorders, self-harm disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, dissociative disorders and many more.

"The military lawfully discriminates against myriad people with mental health conditions. We do so not because we are callous, unfeeling, or don't wish the best for people (including family members and friends) with these conditions," he explained.

"The profession of arms is different from all other professions. The demands, operational tempo, physical and mental stressors, and lifestyle are distinct from all (except for a small handful of) civilian jobs. That requires the military to make sensible, reasoned choices about who can and who cannot be allowed to serve in the armed forces of the United States."

Trump's order specifically noted that longstanding policy is that military members are "free of medical conditions or physical defects that may reasonably be expected to require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization."

He called for those with "gender dysphoria" to be moved out of the armed forces.

The analysis pointed that out Reyes "tips her hand" by using loaded language in her decision, calling people "marginalized persons.'

It explains Reyes falsely conflates "skin color, sex, and sexual orientation with people who suffer from a cognizable mental disorder, gender dysphoria," that that "infects" her opinion.

And her citation of the Constitution's reference to all being "equal" is a reach too far.

"When it comes to whether someone is physically, emotionally, or psychologically qualified to serve in the armed forces, everyone is not equal. True, everyone has equal value and dignity as a human being. But that's not the point. Equal value and dignity as a human being does not translate to equality of suitability to serve in the armed forces, a fact that Judge Reyes blatantly ignores."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Indian media is celebrating Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent visit to the U.S. as a landmark moment in international relations, trade, and technological collaboration. Yet, behind the diplomatic pleasantries and ambitious promises, there are profound implications that should concern every American worker. While the official narrative describes a mutually beneficial partnership, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), a powerful lobbying group with deep ties to India's government, is revealing a different reality, one where the biggest winner is India, while the American workforce is left to bear the consequences.

CII is not merely applauding this agreement; they are declaring victory. They have openly stated that this partnership will boost India's manufacturing, attract foreign direct investment, and create jobs, in India. Missing from their extensive coverage of this visit is any substantial mention of job creation for American workers or a commitment to strengthening U.S. industry or really any benefits for America. This omission is not accidental. It is a clear indication of what this deal is truly about, cementing India's rise as a global technology and economic powerhouse, financed in part by the American taxpayer.

As I have learned through CII's many articles and reports, this was not a sudden shift in U.S.-India relations, but rather a well-coordinated and orchestrated effort spanning over two decades, and now, it appears to be paying off exactly as intended.

For years, CII has meticulously positioned India as the ideal destination for U.S. investment, offshoring, and technology partnerships, using a strategic combination of corporate influence, policy lobbying, and diaspora leverage to embed itself deep within American economic and political systems. Every report, every initiative, and every policy recommendation they have put forward has been part of a long-term playbook designed to transform India into the dominant global leader in technology, manufacturing, and trade, with U.S. wealth, jobs, and innovation fueling that rise.

This latest agreement is not just another trade deal, it is the culmination of years of calculated maneuvering that has led to India's growing dominance in critical sectors like AI, semiconductors, cybersecurity, and defense technology. While American workers have endured waves of job losses, mass layoffs, and declining wages, India has steadily positioned itself as the primary beneficiary of U.S. corporate outsourcing, workforce displacement, and technology transfers.

This is not a coincidence. This is the result of a carefully executed strategy, one that CII and its network of industry insiders have worked toward for decades. And now, with this latest agreement, they are reaping the rewards of their efforts while Americans pay the price.

For years, Americans have been told that China is the greatest threat to our jobs, industries, and technological leadership. While Washington remains fixated on Beijing, India has methodically positioned itself as the next major global competitor, using strategic partnerships, outsourcing, and workforce displacement to advance its own economic agenda. The difference is that while China's rise has been met with bipartisan scrutiny, India's expansion has been largely facilitated by U.S. policy, American investment, and corporate influence.

A Closer Look at the U.S.-India Tech Agreement, Who Really Benefits?

This deal is being framed as a step toward strengthening America's technological and economic security, but the details suggest otherwise. The U.S.-India COMPACT framework and TRUST initiative focus on key industries, AI, semiconductors, cybersecurity, quantum computing, and defense technology, that are not just critical to economic growth, but to national security. The question that must be asked is why the U.S. is actively helping India expand its capabilities in these fields, rather than prioritizing investment in the American workforce.

The CHIPS Act passed to revitalize semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S., was designed to secure supply chains and reduce dependence on foreign production. Yet, this agreement simultaneously provides India with the means to expand its own semiconductor industry, positioning it as a direct competitor to American manufacturing. If the goal is to strengthen America's independence in semiconductor production, why are we simultaneously bolstering another country's ability to dominate the same industry?

The agreement also paves the way for increased AI and cybersecurity collaboration, with initiatives such as the Autonomous Systems Industry Alliance (ASIA) and INDUS-X defense collaboration. These programs will train and develop India's tech workforce with U.S. expertise, resources, and funding, ensuring that India's position in the global AI and defense technology sector continues to grow. This is not a theoretical concern, India has openly stated its ambition to lead in AI, semiconductors, quantum computing, and telecommunications. With American investments and training, that ambition is quickly becoming a reality.

The Impact on American Workers, More Offshoring, More Displacement

One of the most glaring concerns is what this agreement means for American jobs. The U.S. has already experienced the devastating effects of offshoring and workforce displacement through trade deals that prioritized foreign labor markets over domestic employment. This deal sets the stage for even greater job losses, particularly in technology, engineering, manufacturing, and cybersecurity.

The H-1B visa program has already led to the widespread replacement of American tech workers with lower-wage foreign labor, primarily from India, the same country where our jobs, technology, and intellectual property are being aggressively offshored.

Major corporations like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have been at the forefront of lobbying for more visas, enabling them to flood their U.S. workforce with Indian nationals while simultaneously cutting American jobs. At the same time, these companies are rapidly expanding their operations in India, investing billions into new tech hubs, engineering centers, and AI research labs, all while scaling back hiring in the United States.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

First it was conservative giants Donald Trump Jr. and Charlie Kirk who visited Greenland, and now Second Lady Usha Vance is headed to the region President Donald Trump wishes to acquire for the United States.

Usha Vance, the wife of Vice President JD Vance, will travel on Thursday to Greenland with her son and an American delegation for a three-day visit.

The White House said on Sunday: "On Thursday, March 27, 2025, Second Lady Usha Vance will travel to Greenland with her son and a United States delegation to visit historical sites, learn about Greenlandic heritage, and attend the Avannaata Qimussersu, Greenland's national dogsled race.

"The race brings together approximately 37 mushers and 444 dogs in a remarkable display of speed, skill, and teamwork. Ms. Vance and the delegation are excited to witness this monumental race and celebrate Greenlandic culture and unity."

The delegation is set to return to America on Saturday.

Before President Trump was sworn in for his second term on Jan. 20, his son Don Jr. and Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA landed in Greenland on Jan. 7 to express America's interest in the Danish territory.

"Don Jr. and my Reps landing in Greenland," the president-elect posted on Truth Social.

"The reception has been great. They, and the Free World, need safety, security, strength, and PEACE!

"This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!"

Elon Musk noted: "If the people of Greenland want to be part of America, which I hope they do, they would be most welcome!"

President Donald Trump also posted a video of a man from Greenland urging the U.S. to purchase the massive territory from Denmark.

"Buy us! Buy Greenland!" the man says as he puts on a red, Make America Great Again cap.

Trump attached his own message to the video clip, indicating: "I am hearing that the people of Greenland are 'MAGA.'

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Government schools, teachers' unions, and others with financial interests in high taxes for public schools long have opposed homeschooling.

When parents school their children at home, schools, and therefore teachers, have fewer students and get less tax money.

When homeschooling surges, as it has since the catastrophic public school response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the move of students out of public institutions actually could threaten their future.

So in Illinois, state lawmakers are reviewing a scheme from Democrats that would threaten homeschooling parents with jail sentences if they don't perform exactly as the public schools demand.

A report in the Federalist outlines the scheme.

The Democrats are demanding homeschool parents report themselves to local public school "officials," or face fines, charges, and jail.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A campaign by Democrats that involved putting up billboards in various districts where they believe GOP congressional incumbents could be vulnerable, making false accusations about "cuts" to Medicaid, have been taken down.

The House Majority Forward organization had launched the billboards in districts involving Reps. Gabe Evans, Colo., Don Bacon, Neb., Ryan Mackenzie, Penn., Monica De La Cruz, Texas, Jen Kiggans, Va., and Rob Wittman, Va., all Republicans.

But a report from the Washington Examiner explains they now are gone.

The vendor providing the billboards, Lamar Advertising, confirmed they were gone after it was warned by the National Republican Congressional Committee in a demand letter that it would be "liable for the defamatory messages spread to voters in each district."

The billboards accused the elected Republicans of "voting to cut Medicaid and give tax breaks to Elon Musk."

The GOP letter, obtained by the Examiner, warned, "Medicaid has not been cut by the federal government. No member of Congress has voted for cuts to Medicaid. House Majority Forward can only point to wishful speculation that cuts could occur sometime somewhere in the future— they cannot point to any cuts that have already taken place."

The letter warned the Democrats' agenda "willfully ignores the fact that their Republican targets have publicly voiced their support for Medicaid and perpetuates false claims to the contrary."

Lamar lawyer Wendi Loup responded, in a letter reviewed by the Examiner, that her staff confirmed the billboards are "no longer running."

The report cited a controversy about whether every billboard had been taken down, as some had been run by another vendor, but the Republicans said they would be taken down "in seconds."

Mike Marinella, a spokesman for the NRCC, explained to the Examiner, "This proves what we've been saying all along: Democrats have no winning message so they resort to lies and fear-mongering in a disgusting effort to distract voters. The American people aren't buying it, and House Democrats should be ashamed of themselves."

Such accusations against Republicans, false claims they want to cut Medicaid and Social Security, have "been the rallying call for Democratic lawmakers and progressive opposition groups since President Donald Trump took office," the report said.

The report said the billboards were up only some 24 hours in some districts.

Democrat spokesperson CJ Warnke said the claims were "verified," and the dispute involved Republicans trying to "silence free speech…"