This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Elite reporters who have the privilege of attending White House news briefings actually considered an old-fashioned "sit-in" to try to keep their privileged seats amid a revolution in reporting.

For decades, writers for networks, legacy wire services, newspapers, and the like have had privileged seats in the White House briefing room, specifically the front couple of rows have been reserved for them.

However, there's now a revolution in reporting. Many people read X for their updates, and fewer and fewer are turning on the television for a news broadcast or opening up a newspaper.

The latest confirmation of the changes is that the White House announced it would take over making the seat assignments for White House briefings, a privilege that for years had been gifted to the leftist White House Correspondents Association, a private organization of writers that essentially managed that briefing room for themselves.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'This case illustrates a disturbing pattern we're seeing with increasing frequency'

Los Angeles County has reversed a beach use policy it adopted that discriminated, unlawfully, against churches.

The American Center for Law and Justice announced the "crucial victory" in its battle to protect religious liberties.

"The ACLJ continues to fight for religious liberty across the nation, from small towns to major cities. This victory reminds us that when we stand firm and take decisive legal action, we can successfully defend the constitutional rights of believers everywhere," the legal team said in an announcement about the dispute.

"This case illustrates a disturbing pattern we're seeing with increasing frequency. Government officials at all levels – federal, state, and local – continue to test the boundaries of their authority by implementing policies that marginalize people of faith and religious organizations.

"Whether it's limiting beach permits in California, denying funding to faith-based schools in the Midwest, or censoring religious speech in public forums across the country, the assaults on religious liberty have become more frequent and brazen."

It was earlier this year, the Church of the Beach contacted the ACLJ. The legal team explained for 18 years, this ministry has conducted peaceful worship services on Redondo Beach, providing a spiritual community for beachgoers and local residents alike.

Some 120 people gather on Sunday mornings to worship, many specifically choosing the setting because they've had difficult or negative experiences in traditional church settings.

The beach, therefore, is a "crucial component of their ministry's outreach to those who might never step foot in a conventional church."

Its members ensure gatherings don't obstruct pathways or block traffic, and even have relocated when events are on the beach.

Then last year the county adopted its "troubling" policy that targeted religious activities, limiting faith organizations to only six permits per year while imposing no such limits on other groups.

Last month, the ACLJ sent a demand letter to the county, outlining the policy's violations of the First Amendment.

A response from the county Department of Beaches, just days ago, conceded, "DBH acknowledges that its Beach and Harbor Use Licensing Policy and other policies pertaining to access to beach use, on its face and in application, must be content neutral and applied in the same manner regardless of the religious or non-religious nature of the activity."

The result is that the county promised to "immediately withdraw the temporary policy to limit permits for religious activities."

All permits now will be handled the same way, it said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A radiologist who voiced, to state lawmakers, his personal objections to the damage inflicted on children, including bodily mutilations, by transgender "treatments," and was dismissed from a state board over his beliefs, is taking his fight over free speech to an appeals court.

"The record in this case is clear: [Wyoming] Governor Gordon fired Dr. [Eric] Cubin from the Wyoming Board of Medicine because he spoke out on legislation," explained Jacob Huebert, of the Liberty Justice Center. "There was no valid justification for the governor's retaliation. It violated Dr. Cubin's First Amendment rights, so we're asking the court to order the Governor to restore Dr. Cubin to his position."

The fight now is pending before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in the leftist enclave of Denver.

The legal team explained the case is about Cubin's 2024 email to members of the Wyoming House of Representatives, written in his personal capacity.

He endorsed Senate File 99, "Chloe's Law," which prohibits gender reassignment surgeries and hormone therapy for minors. It was easily adopted by the legislature and even signed by Gordon.

"However, just one month later after signing the bill, Gov. Gordon terminated Dr. Cubin from the Wyoming Board of Medicine, explicitly citing his email to the legislature as the reason," the lawyers explained.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Two federal appeals courts handed down decisions Tuesday on Trump-related lawsuits, and they both were favorable decisions for the president who faces more than 120 lawsuits challenging various executive decisions in his administration's first 60 days.

The first is from the typically liberal-leaning 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel ruled there is no problem with Trump's executive order that put a stop to the federal government approving new refugees for entry into the U.S.

The suspension of new approvals had been challenged earlier, and Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead in Seattle had found that Trump could not nullify the law passed by Congress establishing the program, and it must be restarted, the AP reported.

The 9th Circuit panel reversed Whitehead's ruling, though it said refugee applications in the pipeline must continue.

The refugee program is meant to help people in other countries who claim their lives are endangered in their homeland migrate to America.

The other decision comes from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which temporarily paused a previous ruling claiming Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, acted unconstitutionally in attempting to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID.

As reported, by the Washington Examiner, the court's administrative stay counters U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang's order, which required USAID to restore access to email and systems for employees placed on leave by DOGE. USAID has been one of the primary targets of Elon Musk's work to cut federal spending, waste and abuse.

Chuang is an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A federal judge says he won't allow President Donald Trump to protect Americans by removing illegal alien criminals from America's shores by using existing federal law, the Alien Enemies Act, in a move that solidifies the perception that he wants to control America's international policies.

Reports confirmed that James Boasberg, a judge in Washington, Monday denied the Trump administration's move to lift a temporary block on deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members.

Boasberg insists that illegal aliens have the American right to challenge whether they qualify.

Boasberg, who has his position thanks to Barack Obama, said the Constitution's due process requirements apply to foreign criminals.

The Trump administration had confirmed that it had reviewed the records and history of the Venezuelans deported and confirmed that were members of the transnational gang Tren de Aragua, which has been identified by U.S. authorities as a terrorist group.

The White House announced earlier this month it was using the existing federal law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to remove gang members.

Ultimately, several hundred were flown to El Salvador even though Boasberg had ordered the planes, already in flight in international space, to return the gang members to America.

That case is on appeal, and White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt promised the fight will continue.

As WorldNetDaily reported Sunday, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said this is the case of "an out-of-control judge, a federal judge trying to control our entire foreign policy and he cannot do it. You know, he dragged us into court on a Saturday without any notice and he's continuing these hearings … He's trying to ask us about national security information which he absolutely is not entitled to."

She said the Trump administration is appealing and will win.

She said, "They're not immigrants," but are "Illegal aliens committing the most violent crimes on Americans."

Fox News reported it also appears like Trump will be getting backing from Congress.

"The House Judiciary Committee is expected to hold a hearing early next week looking into the issue of 'activist judges,' three people familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital. It comes as the Trump administration has faced more than a dozen injunctions from various district court judges across the country on a range of policy decisions," the report said.

The issues include illegal aliens crossing into the United States, the wild and anti-science agenda of transgenderism and such in federal programs, the Trump administration's effort to eliminate fraud, waste, and corruption from the government and many more.

Local judges have taken over the presidential decision-making by issuing a wild array of injunctions for the entire nation, something that Congress is reviewing.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I want to apologize to you.

I have been writing columns and have suggested to you in these videos that the Democrats didn't have an agenda. In other words, they were just nihilists. But I went back and looked at everything they've said, everything they've written, what their surrogates and the media have done, and I discovered they do have a counter-agenda. They really do. And it's organized.

And I want to give it a fair hearing right now. So, I wrote down 10 things that I think are thematic of the Democratic agenda that offers an alternative to President Donald Trump.

The first is that Donald Trump must be considered, as Chris Matthews just said, a Mussolini-like figure. He must be opposed in every aspect. He must be demonized. Everything he does is evil.

And by extension, the same is true of Elon Musk. You must consider him an alien who should go back home to South Africa. That he's not a true American. He's only been here 23 years.

You cannot talk about his Tesla revolution that pretty much saved the idea of an electric vehicle. You cannot talk about the successes of SpaceX. You cannot talk about saving social media by opening it up and getting the government out, i.e., the FBI colluding with the old Twitter. You cannot talk about giving free internet service to Ukraine.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

An irate subway rider in New York City failed quite miserably in her attempt to steal a man's red MAGA hat – this after berating him for supporting President Trump.

"He's a racist! If you voted for Trump, you are a racist!" she can be heard complaining, as reported by the Gateway Pundit.

"How can I be racist?" the Trump fan fires back while pointing out he is a person of color.

Watch the video, including the lady's comeuppance at the end:

This woke hate peddler attacked a stranger on the NYC subway.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

 

Following phone conversation with Russian President Putin

After a nearly two-hour phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin Tuesday, President Trump reported via TruthSocial that the two had agreed to an immediate ceasefire on all energy infrastructure in Ukraine and Russia.

"My phone conversation today with President Putin of Russia was a very good and productive one," posted Trump. "We agreed to an immediate Ceasefire on all Energy and Infrastructure, with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a Complete Ceasefire and, ultimately, an END to this very horrible War between Russia and Ukraine.

"This War would have never started if I were President! Many elements of a Contract for Peace were discussed, including the fact that thousands of soldiers are being killed, and both President Putin and President Zelenskyy would like to see it end. That process is now in full force and effect, and we will, hopefully, for the sake of Humanity, get the job done!"

In reaction to the news, the GOP-led House Foreign Affairs Committee stated, "President Trump got Vladimir Putin to agree that a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine is necessary," and that "Iran cannot be in a position to destroy Israel."

"This is called THE ART OF THE DEAL!" noted the committee statement.

National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes said in a statement, "Just two weeks ago, both Ukraine and Russia were miles apart on a ceasefire agreement, and we are now closer to a deal thanks to the leadership of President Trump. The goal remains the same: stop the killing and find a peaceful resolution to this conflict."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Trump is suspending all Secret Service protection for Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden.

Hunter Biden has had Secret Service protection for an extended period of time, all paid for by the United States Taxpayer," Trump said Monday evening on Truth Social.

"There are as many as 18 people on this Detail, which is ridiculous! He is currently vacationing in, of all places, South Africa, where the Human Rights of people has been strenuously questioned.

"Because of this, South Africa has been taken off our list of Countries receiving Economic and Financial Assistance.

"Please be advised that, effective immediately, Hunter Biden will no longer receive Secret Service protection. Likewise, Ashley Biden who has 13 agents will be taken off the list."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Lawsuit targets officials for allowing a male to be on the women's volleyball team at San Jose State

A federal judge based in the leftist enclave of Colorado has refused to remove himself from a case concerning transgenderism despite his own court rules that call for all participants in cases to use the "proper" pronouns in his courtroom. And his decision should be appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs say.

The issue of "proper" pronouns is one of the strategic points used by advocates for transgenderism, in which various authorities require others to call a man who says he is a woman "she."

The report comes from the Cowboy State Daily about the advocacy for transgenderism adopted by S. Kato Crews, a judge based in Colorado, who has imposed those pronoun requirements in his court.

At the same time, he is refusing to remove himself from a lawsuit by members of the University of Wyoming volleyball team who are among multiple plaintiffs suing the Mountain West Conference and its officials for allowing a male to be on the women's volleyball team at San Jose State.

The report explained, "The women are now trying to appeal that decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, according to an argument they filed Wednesday."

They had charged, based on his expression of his ideology, that Crews was harboring bias and infringing on their speech.

The report notes: "Crews' rule required parties in his court to refer to people by their preferred pronouns. But Crews told the plaintiffs early in the case, at a Nov. 20 status conference, that he wouldn't require them to call Fleming 'she' in accordance with the rule. He only asked them to be professional and respectful when speaking about Fleming, according to the judge's order."

The order concerned Blaire Fleming, a man who presents himself as a woman, who was on the San Jose State team.

Crews imposed his requirements, with, "I do want to make clear, though, that the parties should not construe my use of she/her pronouns (for Fleming) as any indication that the Court has prejudged any issues in this case."

He claimed that courts all over use "preferred pronouns" "out of courtesy."

But Crews' ruling has a "chilling effect' on speech in the courtroom, the plaintiffs argue.

Their lawyer told the court that the ruling is unconstitutional, whether it's enforced or not, the report explained.

He said, "The court's statements do not eliminate or address the constitutional questions raised by plaintiffs."

There are issues, the plaintiffs explained, of viewpoint discrimination, prior restraint and more.