This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Take a confirmed superstar in the entertainment world, Carrie Underwood, who has won multiple Grammys and sold millions of tunes, and add a song from the 1800s, and you get this:

It is what RedState confirmed as "unforgettable."

Her performance was of "How Great Thou Art," a Christian church hymn that started out as a poem, "O Store Gud," by Swedish poet Carl Boberg in 1885 whose words were wedded to a traditional Swedish folk song tune and first sung in a church in 1888.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has chosen to fight President Donald Trump's national security and closed border campaign by advocating for a state resident who has been in the United States illegally for a number of years, and was subject to deportation.

The illegal, Kilmar Garcia, was actually removed to El Salvador's famed anti-gang prison, and Trump critics have claimed he was not supposed to be sent to that country.

So Van Hollen went to El Salvador and hung around until officials let him have margaritas with the inmate, and came home to make a weekend-long round of talk shows on television.

So now four additional Democrats have made the trip, demanding to meet with Garcia, who El Salvador's president says is not being returned to the U.S.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Though the COVID-19 pandemic brought widespread resistance to the Biden-era military's vaccine mandate, COVID isn't the only mandated shot being resisted by some service members for religious reasons.

Army Sergeant Dan McGriff (a pseudonym) spoke to WorldNetDaily on the condition of anonymity, anticipating reprisals. He emphasized that his views do not reflect those of the Department of Defense or the Department of the Army.

In the summer of 2021, during the thick of the pandemic, the non-commissioned officer "saw the writing on the wall," suspecting a COVID-19 shot mandate was on the way for military service members. So, in August 2021, he was not surprised to see the rollout of former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's now-rescinded mandate.

After conferring with his wife, he made the decision to seek exemption, not only from the COVID-19 shot, but for all future vaccines as well.

"Some people were getting responses back within 30 to 90 days at most, but mine took about six months, going all the way up to the Army surgeon general to be denied or accepted," McGriff told WND. "And in March 2022, I received my initial denial."

While the decision could be appealed, the Army sergeant said there was no guidance available. "I sent my appeal within seven days, and from that moment on, I was a ghost." He explained that even though he had approved orders for a new duty station, he was not allowed to move because he was "unvaccinated."

During this period, he was also barred from attending schools or training that could have advanced his career.

\With a large family to care for, McGriff grew increasingly worried about his future, knowing he could be separated from military service for refusing the shot. In September 2021, his fears were compounded as his appeal was denied. Subsequently, he received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, or GOMOR, a permanent stain on his record for so-called misconduct.

McGriff spent the next several months fighting for his career, to no avail. And on the brink of administrative separation near the end of 2022, he said the former Defense secretary suddenly rescinded the mandate on Jan. 10, 2023. "After turning in all but one uniform, my career was saved about 30 days prior to facing an administrative separation board," he recalled.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

'The choices before Khamenei are no longer between good and bad – or even bad and worse. They are between disaster and catastrophe'

The second round of negotiations between Iran and Western powers is unfolding amid escalating internal tensions within the Islamic Republic. At the heart of this internal strife is a clan known as the "hard core of the regime," which is no longer merely at odds with rival political factions, but seems at times openly defying Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself. This comes after Khamenei expressed tacit support for the talks and the Iranian negotiating team in a recent speech.

This "hard core" comprises elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, plainclothes security forces and key branches of the intelligence apparatus. Though numerically in the minority, they represent the foundation of the Islamic Republic's power structure. These forces are responsible for widespread repression in the streets and for orchestrating acts of violence and executions within the country's prison system.

From its inception, the Iranian regime has based its identity on rigid religious dogma with roots in medieval theology. It has projected this identity outward through slogans like "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," while simultaneously enforcing brutal repression at home. The IRGC was created to serve this dual mission: exporting terrorism abroad and quelling dissent domestically.

Leveraging this ideological hostility, the regime succeeded in consolidating a loyal base of repressive forces internally, while building a network of proxy militias across the region. Yet now, the very regime that once dubbed the United States "the Great Satan" and "enemy of the revolution" finds itself seated across from its former nemesis – negotiating and shaking hands.

Two diverging paths before the regime

Today, the Iranian regime faces a stark binary choice:

Engage in negotiations with the United States and Western allies, which would require abandoning its nuclear program, halting support for proxy forces and stepping back from military interference in the region.

Or, refuse to yield, risking airstrikes on nuclear sites, the full reimposition of maximum sanctions and a scenario comparable to the dismantling of Hezbollah's military infrastructure.

Reports from political circles in Tehran suggest that senior IRGC commanders, along with high-ranking officials – including newly elected president Masoud Pezeshkian – have warned Khamenei that the second path, which entails escalating international pressure and military confrontation, could lead to the inevitable collapse of the Islamic Republic.

It is worth recalling that on March 2, at the onset of Ramadan, Khamenei addressed a gathering of current and former IRGC and government officials, declaring that negotiations with the United States were "neither wise" "nor honorable," and "not rational."

The ideological origins of the regime's hard core

According to an investigative report by the semi-official Etemaad website, the "hard core" of the regime – also called the "ideological-security circle" – consists of factions that define their legitimacy through unwavering allegiance to the revolution's founding ideology: implementing sharia law, rejecting Western engagement and sustaining permanent hostility toward the United States.

This faction emerged in the 1990s and has since remained ideologically rigid. For its members, any compromise – whether on hijab enforcement, foreign policy or diplomatic relations with the West – is viewed as a direct existential threat to the regime.

Historically, their relationship with Khamenei has been one of mutual reinforcement. He saw them as the regime's shield against internal dissent – "the force that paralyzes opposition from within" – and in return, they defined their mission as the "unconditional defense of the Supreme Leader."

Reformists vs. the hard core?

If negotiations proceed, it is expected that so-called moderate and reformist factions will gain momentum, while the hard core will lose influence. "Reformists" oppose measures such as strict hijab enforcement in public that could ignite new waves of civil unrest. They view such policies as accelerants to regime collapse. Still, despite their reformist rhetoric, these groups have largely remained silent amid the rising tide of executions, failing to issue clear condemnations or take meaningful action.

The crumbling pillar of power

Should the regime proceed with an agreement that includes halting its nuclear and missile programs, it will likely weaken the foundational power base that has supported it for decades.

This would empower the so-called reformists or moderates, who believe that negotiating with the United States is not just permissible but essential for the regime's survival. However, these factions appear blind to a critical truth: Any serious engagement with the West will, inevitably, lead to demands for political openness and reform.

And this would come at a perilous moment. In the most recent presidential election, only about 8% of eligible voters participated, many under pressure and amid an atmosphere of intimidation. Such a lack of public legitimacy could become the final accelerant in the regime's collapse.

Can Khamenei really be unaware?

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Ruling represents apocalyptic loss for LGBT activists

The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom, which has been at the heart of a lot of left-leaning precedents for citizens there, stunningly has decided that men who say they are female are not "women."

The Telegraph called it a "landmark" ruling and quoted "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling, who has been badgered and bludgeoned by those in the transgender agenda for her criticism of the movement, saying it would protect "the rights of women and girls across the U.K."

It's an apocalyptic loss for the LGBT activists, especially those pushing the transgender agenda, as Joe Biden did for four years while he was president in the United States.

The court ruling, a unanimous decision, said "woman" and "sex" in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not a belief expressed by a male that he is suddenly female. In fact, following the science, changing gender does not happen, as being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level.

The ruling comes in a years-long legal war between campaign group For Women Scotland and the Scottish government over the definition of a woman.
The ruling said, "The unanimous decision of this court is that the definition of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex."

Further, that ruling adopted what President Donald Trump recently, by executive order, concluded about sex in America: It is binary.

He, in fact, said the American government recognizes two genders, male and female.

The UK court's 88-page decision said the "concept of sex is binary" under the Equality Act 2010.

The report noted "Labour Women's Declaration, a gender-critical group, called on Sir Keir Starmer to take concrete action to ensure the judgment is fully reflected in all public sector guidance."

The group said, "The government now needs to instruct all government departments to bring their policies, training and guidance into line with the judgment. The 'clarity and confidence' the ruling brings must also be applied to all positive action initiatives and associations for women within the Labour Party, such as women's branches and committees."

Mermaids, promoters of the transgender lifestyle, claimed the ruling could have "harmful implications."

"We are deeply concerned at the widespread, harmful implications of today's Supreme Court ruling. As LGBT+ organizations across the country, we stand in solidarity with trans, intersex and non-binary folk as we navigate from here…"

Amnesty International claimed, "The ruling does not change the protection trans people are afforded under the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment,' as well as other provisions under the Equality Act."

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins pointed out, "Supreme Court rules that a woman is legally defined as … a woman. … Yes, the science was settled in the Precambrian [era]. Nice that the law has finally caught up."

The Scottish Parliament created the disaster in 2018 by adopting quotas for transgenders on public sector boards.

Rowling said, "It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the U.K.. For Women Scotland, I'm so proud to know you."

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said, "Women are women. We didn't need a court to tell us that. But here we are. It took a Supreme Court decision to confirm what we all know: that a piece of paper cannot make a man a woman. For too long the price has been paid by individual women taking action to uphold the law, at great personal cost."

John Swinney, first minister for the Scottish government, said, "The Scottish Government accepts today's Supreme Court judgement. The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster. We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions."

The decision even was applauded by organizations for lesbians, who long have sought to exclude males who say they are female.

A statement from Reem Alsalem, the United Nations "special rapporteur" on violence against women and girls, praised the decision.
"It represents the triumph of reason and facts based deliberations and the return of common sense. Congratulations to For Women Scotland and all their allies that have supported them in their quest to uphold the rights of women to equality and non-discrimination. The ruling is a recognition that the erasure of the ordinary meaning of sex in law and in policies has rendered it impossible to upholding the protection [of] women, including lesbians on the basis of the characteristic of sex. Beyond the U.K., I hope other jurisdictions are paying attention to this groundbreaking ruling."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump has been at odds with many players in America's profitable higher education industry for some time already.

Those campuses frequently were the scenes of anti-Israel protests, even protests in support of the Hamas terrorists in Gaza, who slaughtered 1,200 Israeli citizens in their war-launching attack on Oct. 7, 2023.

That's resulted in accusations of anti-Semitism and a demand from Trump that officials running those lucrative institutions balance the equation and protect Jewish students.

Harvard is among those where officials have simply refused to cooperate.

And Trump now has responded.

"Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist-inspired/supporting "Sickness?" Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!" he wrote.

Trump already has frozen some $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts with Harvard, which has been unrepentant.

Harvard President Alan Garber, in fact, said, "No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue."

The Washington Examiner pointed out that Harvard's endowment now is in the range of $50 billion, working as a nonprofit.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Political rhetoric over the past few years has been littered with warnings about a "constitutional crisis."

That's been one of the Democrats' go-to talking points to attack President Donald Trump.

After all, they accused him of planning to set himself up as a dictator, to order the jailing of his political opponents, and even to use the military for his own political purposes.

To a much lesser degree, there have been reports of a "constitutional crisis" that has come about since he took office because of a long list of federal district judges, those in black robes at the entry level for the federal court system, taking over various responsibilities of the executive branch, including foreign policy, the border security and such.

But now an analysis at the Federalist pinpoints the actual trigger behind a "constitutional crisis": The Supreme Court.

For its refusal to rein in those judges, deliver a mandate that they are not to interfere with the president's constitutional rights, duties, and responsibilities.

The analysis is by Margot Cleveland, a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school's highest honor. She also has served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She also is of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

She explains, "The Supreme Court has interceded six times in less than three months to rein in federal judges who improperly exceeded their Article III authority and infringed on the Article II authority of President Donald Trump. Yet the high court continues to issue mealy-mouthed opinions which serve only to exacerbate the ongoing battle between the Executive and Judicial branches of government."

The problem is about to get worse, she explained, as, "Now there is a constitutional crisis primed to explode this week in a federal court in Maryland over the removal of an El Salvadoran — courtesy of the justices' latest baby-splitting foray on Thursday."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump is serious about protecting sporting events that are intended for women or girls against men or boys who simply say they are female.

As officials in USA Fencing are finding out.

A report from Fox explains that the Trump administration now is investigating USA Fencing for punishing a woman who refused to compete against a man who said he was a woman.

Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon said, on Friday, "We have a special Title IX investigations team that is going to be investigating anyone who was associated with this to make sure that this doesn't continue to happen. The president has made crystal clear that he is not going to tolerate men being able to compete in women's sports, he signed an executive order, and we're upholding Title IX."

She said the special investigators will be probing the USA Fencing event where officials punished women's fencer Stephanie Turner for not competing against a man.

She was disqualified from the event and "escorted out of the venue," the report said.

The scenario prompted ridicule of the man in the women's competition, online:

According to Fox, an official with the Department of Education confirmed that the University of Maryland, where the event was held, also has a "responsibility" for the attack on Turner.

That official told Fox, "The nation watched as a female competitor bravely took a knee and forfeited an inherently unfair fencing match after discovering that her opponent was a male. No woman should have to recuse herself from a match that she trained diligently for because she fears for her safety. As a tournament host, the University of Maryland has a responsibility to follow Title IX by not allowing males to compete in female competitions and occupy female-only intimate facilities."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The United States, with its First Amendment protections for religion and speech, probably protects prayer by citizens more than anywhere else in the world, even though there are some organizations in America that regularly complain prayers should not be protected speech, and it should be regulated or even banned.

Those demands for censorship often claim that counseling, including prayers, regarding a person's issues with the LGBT agenda, including their unwanted same-sex attractions, should be banned, and they have worked toward that censorship goal. Actually, some jurisdictions have adopted such limits through laws that now are under challenge.

Actually, according to the American Center for Law and Justice, American leaders from the White House down periodically have called for voluntary prayer in times of tragedy, disaster and more.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A mother whose constitutional rights were violated by a Maine judge hearing a custody dispute has taken the fight to the state Supreme Court.

The case involves a radical ruling from Jennifer Nofsinger, a judge who heard a custody case, who ordered that the mother was not allowed to take her 11-year-old daughter to an evangelical Christian church.

That was based on "objections" from the child's father, who like the mother and daughter was not identified in the report from Liberty Counsel, which is working on the case.

Chairman Mat Staver said, "Calvary Chapel is not a cult. This custody order banning a mother from taking her child to a Christian church because of its biblical teachings regarding marriage and human sexuality violates the First Amendment. The custody order cannot prohibit the mother from taking her daughter to church. The implications of this order pose a serious threat to religious freedom."

The judge granted the father, who objects to the Christian teachings of the church, "the sole right to govern the girl's religious activities."

The high court is being asked to reverse the "unlawful custody order" and to restore the mother's First Amendment right to pass on her religious beliefs.

The judge adopted the ideology of a leftist teacher from California who was hired by the father. That teacher, Janja Lalich, told the judge "that cults usually have a charismatic, authoritarian leader who teaches about a 'transcendent belief system' that offers answers, and 'promises some sort of salvation.' She further testified that she had 'studied' Calvary Chapel Church and found that the church's pastor was a 'charismatic' speaker, spoke 'authoritatively' in his messages, and that he asserted his messages were objective truth.," Liberty Counsel reported.

That meant, Lalich claimed, the church was "cultic."

"Despite not being a psychologist, Dr. Lalich testified it was 'evident' that the church posed a potential for psychological harm to the girl," the report said.

However, the legal team noted that "Under the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and numerous Supreme Court precedents, unmarried parents both have the right to instill their religious beliefs into their children during their respective custodial time."

The Liberty Counsel report continued, "In addition, Judge Nofsinger interpreted the pastor's public prayer over the custody situation, which referenced spiritual warfare, as putting the father on the side of 'evil' and the mother on the side of 'good' in the daughter's eyes. Relying on both this interpretation and the 'expert' testimony, the court order states that this church is 'psychologically detrimental' to the girl."

The judge radically gave the father control of the daughter's exposure to any churches even during the mother's custodial time.

On appeal is Nofsinger's claim "without any proof" that Christianity is "psychologically harmful."

"Contending that [the mother's] religious beliefs, which include prayer, reading the Bible, attending a mainstream Christian church that teaches from the Bible, that teaches there is a path to salvation, and that believes in objective truth is psychologically harmful to a minor is, quite simply, outside the realm of judicial authority," wrote Liberty Counsel. "The order explicitly…forces the mother to remain away from church against her will, punishes the mother for professing certain religious beliefs, and punishes the mother for church attendance solely on the basis of the religious beliefs that are professed at that church."

Those unconstitutional ideological choices by the judge, simply, are not allowed by the First Amendment, the report said.