This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Officials from Louisiana are asking a federal appeals court to protect their ability to have public school classrooms display the Ten Commandments, a key component among the ideas and beliefs on which the nation was founded.
The state already has adopted such plans for its schools, although there is flexibility in the requirement that schools display posters including the Ten Commandments that acknowledge their influence on American law and history.
However, the ACLU sued and a federal judge put a hold on the law.
Now, represented by Becket, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga are asking on behalf of the state for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to protect its rights.
"If the ACLU had its way, every trace of religion would be scrubbed from Louisiana's public square," explained Becket senior counsel Joseph Davis. "Thankfully our Constitution says otherwise: Louisiana is allowed to acknowledge every aspect of our history and culture—including the Ten Commandments."
The Becket report on the dispute explained religious symbols have been a fixture of American public life since before the Founding.
"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," Becket 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 even featured prominently on the walls of the U.S. Supreme Court."
Louisiana's law has schools display the Ten Commandments with a context statement explaining the history of their presence in public education.
Schools may choose to incorporate the Commandments alongside other historical documents, like the Declaration of Independence and the Mayflower Compact.
The ACLU's contention is that knowledge of such facts will harm children.
"Yesterday we filed our opening brief in the Fifth Circuit defending Louisiana's Ten Commandments law," said Murrill. "As we have illustrated in our briefs, there are numerous ways for our schools to constitutionally implement the law. And this should not be controversial: As the Supreme Court has said, the Commandments have historical significance as one of the foundations of our law. We look forward to the Fifth Circuit's decision in this case."
The case is to be heard by the appeals court on Jan. 23.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The behavior of a researcher funded by the National of Institutes of Health, in hiding the results of a long-running study on the effects of puberty blockers on children, already has been called out by U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
In his recent letter to NIH Director Dr. Monica Bertagnolli, Rubio drew specific attention to an NIH-funded study by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children's Hospital Los Angeles.
Despite the Obama administration's decision to support Olson-Kennedy's study more than nine years ago, the findings have yet to be released, allegedly out of fear of the political repercussions.
Rubio has charged that Olson-Kennedy was part of a group of researchers who received nearly $6 million from NIH to study physical and mental health outcomes for children who receive puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatments as part of "transitioning" to the opposite sex.
Olson-Kennedy outlined a few of her findings in a 2020 report that said approximately a quarter of the children in the study who received these transgender medical treatments were experiencing depression or suicidal ideation.
"According to [Olson-Kennedy], she fears the findings will be used to show that puberty blockers do not improve the mental health of youth," Rubio warned.
Now the fact that those findings have been concealed may bring more trouble to Olson-Kennedy.
A report in Just the News explains that "the walls are closing in on perhaps the most influential youth gender-transition physician in America after she admitted hiding the results of her federally funded study that failed to find mental health improvements from so-called gender affirming care, contradicting her prior characterization of the study's population to explain the results."
A lawsuit with Olson-Kennedy as a defendant has been brought by UCLA student Kaya Clementine Breen, who detransitioned and reportedly can back her claims by using Olson-Kennedy's own case notes about her.
Breen lawyer Jordan Campbell told Just the News that those notes cannot be shared yet.
But multiple Republican senators just last week joined House Oversight Committee Republicans to demand the NIH turn over information on Olson-Kennedy's study and the results.
The report explained that decision on the study "helped create a false medical consensus on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgical interventions for gender-confused youth."
"This case is about a team of purported health care providers who collectively decided that a vulnerable girl struggling with complex mental health struggles and suffering from multiple instances of sexual abuse should be prescribed a series of life-altering" drugs at age 12 and breast removal at 14, the lawsuit by Breen charges.
The court filing charges the sexual abuse started at age six or seven and may be related to her "anxiety, depression, presumed autism, and undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder."
The case charges, "This so-called 'treatment' of Clementine by her providers represents a despicable, failed medical experiment and a knowing, deliberate, and gross breach of the standard of care that was substantially certain to cause serious harm."
Other defendants are CHLA, UC San Francisco's St. Francis Memorial Hospital, surgeon Scott Mosser and his Gender Confirmation Center of San Francisco, and therapist Susan Landon.
Among those claims made by the medical industry representatives, the lawsuit says, is that "Breen would kill herself if subsequently denied testosterone."
The claims by Breen charge that Olson-Kennedy, in "minutes," diagnosed her with "gender dysphoria and recommended surgical implantation of puberty blockers" based on a "handful of platitudinal statements" – such as "I mostly have boy friends."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Introduction
For decades, the Iranian regime has been one of the principal sources of instability in the Middle East. Whether through its support for militias in Syria and Iraq, its arming of the Houthis in Yemen, its financing of Hamas, or its full support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, Tehran's foreign policy is built on expanding its regional influence through coercive and violent means.
At the same time, within its own borders, the regime continues to systematically violate human rights, repress democracy, and impose extreme repressive measures on its population.
In the face of this situation, the Iranian Resistance movement presents itself as a democratic alternative and a beacon of hope for a better future, not only for Iran but also for the entire region. This movement does not merely fight for freedom and equality in Iran; it also offers a model to end dictatorship, religious extremism and violence across the Middle East. Today, the international community has both the opportunity and the responsibility to better understand and actively support this movement.
The destabilizing role of the Iranian regime in the Middle East
Despite ceasefire agreements and diplomatic initiatives in the region, the Iranian regime's proxy forces continue to act aggressively. For instance, militias backed by Iran regularly attack Israel and American targets, even following the truce agreement in Lebanon.
Iran also persists in its meddling in Syria. Recently, Abbas Araqchi, Iran's foreign minister, stated that Tehran would be willing to send reinforcements to Syria if requested by Damascus.
If we assume that, however improbable – considering the various forces inalterably opposed to such a solution – the path to lasting peace in the Middle East lies in the creation of two independent states, Israel and Palestine, coexisting peacefully, then the Iranian regime has been one of the most prominent opponents of this vision. Since the early days of the Oslo Accords, Iran has supported acts of terrorism that undermine this goal. For instance, the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and Iran's involvement in Lebanon through Hezbollah have significantly contributed to the country's destabilization.
Historically, the Iranian regime's strategy resembles 19th century imperialist expansionism, aiming to maintain its grip on power by exporting violence beyond its borders. Based on archaic religious dogmas, this regime is entirely at odds with the values of the 21st century. To sustain itself, it relies on a dual strategy: brutal repression within its borders and the creation of crises abroad.
Since its establishment, the regime has carried out acts such as the 1979 hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy and continues today to use terrorism and hostage-taking as tools of political pressure. Domestically, extreme practices such as amputation, forced blinding and the systematic execution of prisoners are shocking examples of its reliance on medieval methods.
As long as this regime remains in power, peace and coexistence in the Middle East will remain an illusion. Similarly, the concepts of democracy and freedom in Iran have no chance of emerging under its rule.
A practical roadmap to peace
Faced with such an oppressive regime, the natural response of the Iranian people has been to organize a widespread resistance. As the regime's first victims, members of the Iranian Resistance embody a credible alternative rooted in the ideals of freedom, equality and democracy.
The Iranian Resistance is not limited to fighting for freedom in Iran; it also provides a model to end decades of dictatorship, war and violence in a region marked by authoritarianism and appeasement policies.
Here are the key elements of the roadmap proposed by the Iranian Resistance:
1. Expansion of resistance units
Resistance units, consisting of small groups of three or more members, were established in 2015 to coordinate actions against the regime. Today, thousands of these units operate across Iran, deeply rooted in their local communities. This social connection allows them to operate securely while increasing their capacity for expansion.
Their primary mission is to counter the regime's repression by maintaining a climate of defiance and preventing society from succumbing to fear. These units currently carry out an average of 20 anti-repression actions per day, demonstrating their effectiveness.
These groups also play a crucial role in transforming social protests into genuine nationwide uprisings. For example, during the 2019 uprising, these units formed the backbone of the demonstrations, forcing the regime to resort to a bloody crackdown that left over 1,500 people dead.
Contrary to the regime's propaganda, which claims that its fall would lead to civil war or the fragmentation of Iran, the presence and organization of these resistance units ensure the country's territorial integrity while neutralizing repressive forces like the Revolutionary Guards.
2. The central role of women in the Resistance
Maryam Akbari Monfared, imprisoned for more than 15 years, is a symbol of Iranian women's resilience in the face of religious fundamentalism. Women occupy a central role in the Iranian Resistance, particularly by leading many resistance units. Their struggle not only exemplifies their quest for gender equality but also highlights their pivotal role in mobilizing and transforming Iranian society. The 2022 national uprising, marked by strong participation and leadership from women, showcased their power and determination to build a just and equitable society.
3. The historical and organizational experience of the People's Mojahedines Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK)
The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), with nearly 60 years of resistance against successive dictatorships of the Shah and the mullahs, forms the backbone of the Iranian Resistance.
Many of its members, who have often survived years of torture and imprisonment, are now based at Ashraf 3 camp in Albania. Their organizational expertise and unique experience make them essential to leading this movement.
4. The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI): A democratic alternative
The National Council of Resistance, serving as the political core of the Iranian Resistance, is a unique coalition that brings together diverse factions under a clear guiding principle: neither the Shah nor the mullahs.
With 457 members, over 50% of whom are women, the NCRI demonstrates a commitment to equality and diversity. Its policy of positive discrimination ensures significant representation of women in the political leadership of Iran's future.
The NCRI's 10-point program includes the separation of religion and state, equality among ethnicities and religions, the abolition of the death penalty and a non-nuclear Iran. These universal democratic values form the core of its political vision.
Conclusion
The Iranian Resistance represents a viable and humane alternative to the mullahs' dictatorship. With increased support from the international community, it can not only liberate Iran but also establish peace and stability in a region plagued by decades of violence. Now is the time to stand alongside this movement of hope.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – The hits from international organizations keep on coming at Israel; the latest iteration in the form of a nearly 300-page report from the supposed human rights organization Amnesty International, which accused the Jewish state of committing genocide in Gaza.
Amnesty International pulled no punches, titling its report, "'You Feel Like You Are Subhuman': Israel's Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza" on the organization's website under the headline: "Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza." Amnesty said Israel sought to deliberately destroy Palestinians by mounting deadly attacks, demolishing vital infrastructure and preventing the delivery of food, medicine and other aid.
The report grudgingly admitted Hamas committed atrocities, the brutal murders of some 1,200 civilians of Oct. 7, 2023, which ignited the war, although it was quick to denounce Israel, and claimed the response to the onslaught could not be justified.
However, this fails to take into consideration a number of factors. There was a ceasefire at 6:28 on Oct. 7, which Hamas, and the thousands of Gazans who poured through the gaps in the border fence, obliterated in their videoed campaign of murder, pillage, rape, and destruction, as the terrorist group orchestrated the largest single most deadly massacre of Jews in some 80 years. It also ignores Hamas leaders' own words, when they exclaimed repeatedly that given half a chance they would gladly and willingly carry out further atrocities. Israel has pointed out it was Hamas' actions and intentions which should be described as genocide, not the war it has fought to dismantle Gaza's terrorist infrastructure.
Amnesty said the United States and other allies of Israel could be complicit in genocide, and called on them to halt arms shipments.
"Our damning findings must serve as a wake-up call to the international community: this is genocide. It must stop now," Amnesty International chief Agnès Callamard said in the report. Callamard was previously the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the former director of the Columbia University Global Freedom of Expression project. Given both of these two institutions' animus toward the Jewish state, it should come as no surprise she has given her name to a report such as this.
The report makes multiple suggestions for how the international community should heap pressure on Israel, yet it makes no mention of the 100 hostages still held in Hamas captivity. It is thought only about 50 of them are still alive; and the fate of the youngest of them – Kfir Bibas – who was only nine-months old when abducted is still unknown.
Amnesty International said it reviewed over 100 statements by Israeli government and military officials and others since the start of the war that "dehumanized Palestinians, called for or justified genocidal acts or other crimes against them," as part of its self-appointed remit to investigate the genocide claims. It clearly solicited information and data from workers – likely Hamas-aligned on the ground in Gaza – yet it did not interview or seek comment from those on Israel's side.
Predictably, the backlash has been swift against the organization, with even the Israel branch of the group, a locally registered non-profit which is legally independent from the parent organization, distancing itself from the findings. It did concede the IDF's actions in Gaza "establish suspicions of widespread violations of international law and may amount to crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing," but it quite explicitly stopped short of described the conduct of the war as tantamount to genocide.
It echoed what many commenters on the X platform noted, namely that Amnesty International needed to alter the accepted definition of the term genocide to be able to make the claims of genocide. "Our careful analysis does not accept the findings meet the definition of genocide, as carefully formulated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide," it added. Furthermore, it doesn't appear Amnesty International even consulted with Amnesty Israel over any of its so-called findings.
Israel's Foreign Ministry excoriated the report labeling the group "deplorable and fanatical." It accused the organization of producing a "fabricated report that is entirely false and based on lies."
NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based institute that works to hold organizations such as Amnesty International to account, called the report "a sham," and labeled it an "immoral attack" and "blatant genocide inversion." It alleged even some of Amnesty's own employees admitted the research was highly questionable and that it was effectively attempting to shoehorn an "investigation" into a conclusion it had already drawn.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A liberal media pundit, called an "extremist" in some reports this week, was responding to comments, some critical and some sarcastic, about Joe Biden's flip-flop regarding son Hunter, and his announcement of a presidential pardon for the tax- and gun-charge convicted Hunter.
Many Republicans and even some Democrats directed a harsh word or two at Joe Biden for promising many times he wouldn't pardon Hunter, and then turning around and doing exactly that.
It was Charles P. Pierce, in Esquire, who wrote, "Anybody Remember Neil Bush? Nobody defines Poppy Bush's presidency by his son's struggles or the pardons he issued on his way out of the White House. The moral: Shut the f— up about Hunter Biden, please. … [The] lucky American businessman['s]… father exercised his unlimited constitutional power of clemency to pardon the Lucky American Businessman for all that S&L business way back when. The president's name was George H.W. Bush. The Lucky American Businessman was his son, Neil."
Only, a report in RedState pointed out that, "Evidently, there were no editors around to check his claim because he doubled down."
The problem was that Neil Bush never was given a pardon by his president father, George H.W. Bush.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley joined the conversation:
RedState pointed out, "It's hard not to laugh when one of these extremist liberal outlets faceplants."
The publication tried to fix the story, then deleted it.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Two Democrat-appointed judges have decided to "unretire" following President-elect Donald Trump's landslide victories, in both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote.
And their actions have prompted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican whose party soon will be the Senate majority, to warn about the active politicization of the judiciary.
He called the announcements by the two judges, one appointed by Bill Clinton and the other by Barack Obama, an indication of "a political finger on the scale." He said the incoming Trump administration, backed by GOP majorities in the Senate and House should "explore all available recusal options with these judges."
Under the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris regime over the last four years, the administrative state in Washington has been weaponized in multiple ways against Trump, Republicans and conservatives. One report showed 70% of education enforcement actions against colleges targeted the 10% of institutions that are Christian. Further, the FBI and DOJ openly assembled wild claims against Trump, such as that he improperly had government documents after his first presidency. In contrast, Biden was given a pass for having literally boxes of such documents in his garage after his vice presidency.
The judges who abruptly changed their retirement plans following Trump's victory, which would mean a Republican president would nominate their replacements, were Judge Algenon Marbley of Ohio and Judge Max Cogburn of North Carolins.
Marbley was appointed by Clinton and Cogburn by Obama.
They both has announced plans to take senior status before the election, then flip-flopped when Trump won.
A report from Fox News explained McConnell, R-Ky., called the pair "partisan Democrat district judges."
In fact, he said, American voters "voted to fire Democrats last month."
"Looking to history, only two judges have ever unretired after a presidential election. One Democrat in 2004 and one Republican in 2009. But now, in just a matter of weeks, Democrats have already met that all-time record. It's hard to conclude that this is anything other than open partisanship," McConnell said.
McConnell said the judges are putting "a political finger on the scale."
He also, according to the report, "warned two sitting circuit court judges, who have announced retirements and have vacancies currently pending before the senate, against making similar decisions to 'unretire.'"
"Never before has a circuit judge unretired after a presidential election. It's literally unprecedented. And to create such a precedent would fly in the face of a rare bipartisan compromise on the disposition of these vacancies," McConnell said.
His reference was to a deal worked out in the Senate to allow a certain number of Biden nominees to be given Senate votes before the end of Biden's term, while other vacancies would remain unaddressed until after Trump starts making nominations.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As January 2025 approaches, with Donald Trump poised to return to the White House, speculation is growing about how the U.S. will handle Iran's nuclear program. Some analysts believe that a "maximum pressure" policy, similar to that of Trump's first term, alongside efforts to curtail Iran's oil sales, could compel the regime to scale back its nuclear ambitions.
However, substantial evidence suggests that the Iranian regime has no intention of abandoning its nuclear program.
The weakening of Iran's regional proxies
Iran's proxies, including Hezbollah, have either been significantly weakened or cut off altogether, leaving the regime without the tools it once employed to exert pressure on the international community. Previously, these proxies, combined with the threat of nuclear escalation, allowed Iran to push Europe and the U.S. toward appeasement – overlooking its regional terrorism, widespread executions, and human rights abuses within Iran.
At most, this approach elicited mild verbal condemnations. Today, with these leverage points diminished, the regime relies almost exclusively on its nuclear program as a bargaining chip. Ahmad Naderi, a member of the Iranian Parliament's presidium, acknowledged this when he stated, "Without moving toward a nuclear bomb, balance in the region cannot be achieved."
International and domestic reactions
On Nov. 21, the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors issued a resolution against Iran, with Russia and China voting against it. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The rebuke, presented by Britain, France, and Germany with U.S. support, marks the first significant step in a months-long process that could end with the re-imposition of international sanctions on Iran." The resolution calls on Tehran to immediately cooperate with the IAEA and address its unanswered questions.
Over the past three decades, the Iranian regime has not only pursued its nuclear bomb program clandestinely but also advanced it significantly through deceit. It has now reportedly produced 32 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium – enough for several nuclear weapons, in clear violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, "the Iran nuclear deal."
Tehran continues to evade the IAEA's questions, refusing to provide the transparency required under international agreements.
Meanwhile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, or NCRI, an opposition group that first exposed Iran's nuclear program in 2002, argues that the regime's nuclear ambitions are fundamentally at odds with the interests of the Iranian people. They note that the nuclear program has cost the country over $2 trillion, pushing more than two-thirds of the population into extreme poverty.
NCRI president-elect Maryam Rajavi, who presents her organization as an alternative to the radical theocratic regime, has stated that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is essential for regional peace. Rajavi considers invoking the so-called "snapback" mechanism under U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 – which would automatically reactivate six prior Security Council resolutions against Iran's nuclear activities – as essential and long overdue.
The Iranian regime's tactics
Ali Larijani, adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and former speaker of Iran's parliament, remarked, "If the new U.S. administration claims to oppose nuclear weapons, it must accept Iran's conditions… to reach a new agreement, rather than issuing one-sided decrees like their decision at the IAEA!"
The regime appears determined to draw Trump's upcoming administration into negotiations to buy time and avoid the snapback mechanism, reinstating U.N. sanctions. This mechanism could be activated as soon as October 2025, when key JCPOA restrictions are set to expire. To this end, in a speech on Nov. 25, Khamenei announced a reduction in uranium enrichment levels from 60% to 20%, signaling a tactical retreat to pacify international pressure. Meanwhile, Kamalvandi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, has confirmed that the regime is quietly working to increase enrichment to 90%, leveraging advanced technologies in an effort to surprise the international community – much as North Korea did when it suddenly revealed its nuclear capability.
Europe, the U.S., and closing the international divide
For years, the Iranian regime exploited divisions between Europe and the U.S. to sustain its nuclear program. However, according to Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, former chairman of Iran's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, "The IAEA resolution is the first sign of a harsh winter for Iran. Europe has moved toward Trump's maximum pressure policy. They demand a rollback of nuclear activities and increased inspections without offering any concessions."
The once-notable gap between Europe and the U.S. appears to be narrowing.
Europe – heavily impacted by the wars not only in Ukraine, where Iran has supported Russia both diplomatically and militarily, but in the Middle East, where Iran has played an outsized role in funding proxy armies and destabilizing the region – is rethinking its approach. The Iranian regime's involvement in these conflicts, coupled with the 2022 protests that exposed its internal vulnerabilities, has pushed Europe away from its previous appeasement policies.
Increasingly, Europe seems to be aligning with Trump's hardline stance on Iran. Resolving the Ukraine war is particularly critical for Europe, and achieving this goal will require close cooperation with the U.S., which is likely to also strengthen their joint position on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
At the same time, Trump's strategy for maximizing pressure on Iran depends on European cooperation. Since the U.S. is no longer a JCPOA participant, Europe must take the lead in activating Article 11 of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 to restore sanctions on Iran. This move would bypass the need for approval from the International Atomic Energy Agency and sidestep vetoes from Russia or China.
Conclusion
With growing alignment between the U.S. and Europe, combined with the Iranian regime's internal and external vulnerabilities, the likelihood of activating the "snapback" mechanism is high. This action represents the most feasible path to ensuring peace in the Middle East and averting a nuclear arms race in the region. Under these circumstances, the Iranian regime will likely continue employing diplomatic maneuvers to buy time. However, given the global toll of ongoing conflicts, Tehran's ability to delay the inevitable appears increasingly limited.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., has established a reputation for turning a phrase or two about Washington's politics, the Deep State, Democrats, and much more.
For example, when Joe Biden fared poorly in a presidential race debate with now President-elect Donald Trump, before Biden was forced out of that race to be replaced by Democrat elites with Kamala Harris, Kennedy concluded Biden "politically is as dead as fried chicken."
Now he's issued holiday wishes, a Thanksgiving message to Americans.
He was responding to a question from Sean Hannity of Fox News about leftists' ongoing attacks on Americans over the results of the 2024 election:
"Here's what I think. I think these people are goofy. They have the right to their opinion, but they're just goofy. They hate George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head," he said.
"They think our kids ought to be able to change genders at recess. They carry around Ziploc bags of kale to give themselves energy. To me—to each his own. To me, kale tastes like I'd rather be fat. Now, these people are entitled to their opinions, but they have an unwarranted sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
"They think they're smarter and more virtuous than the American people. And they think we're not real people. But we were, and we are real people. And in this last election, we got really mad, and we sent a message, clearly, unequivocally. And my message to all my friends and my enemies in America is: Happy Thanksgiving, and stay deplorable, my friend."
His "deplorable" reference is to a statement from failed 2016 Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton who dismissed some half of the nation, the conservative half, for their political and religious beliefs. She called them all "deplorables."
Joe Biden, during the 2024 race, called that same, now-majority, of Americans, "garbage."
Commenters on social media described Kennedy as a "national treasure."
One added, "Happy Thanksgiving! You can't help but feel good about being 'deplorable' after hearing this message from Sen. Kennedy."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – Israel is reportedly on the verge of signing a U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement with Hezbollah, which could bring about a two-month pause in hostilities along the volatile Israeli-Lebanese border.
The proposed deal, still under negotiation, would involve the withdrawal of military forces from both sides and provide Israel with "significant relief" from the U.S. arms embargo currently limiting its access to critical weaponry.
Key elements of the ceasefire proposal
The ceasefire plan is a focal point for Israel's cabinet, which is set to convene to deliberate on its terms. According to White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, the agreement is "close" to being finalized, though significant points of contention remain unresolved.
One major sticking point is Israel's insistence on retaining the right to strike Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon, a provision that Lebanese officials have openly opposed. It's important to note the proposed ceasefire will be between Israel and Lebanon – it doesn't even mention Hezbollah.
Many people are concerned about the lack of specificity when it comes to referencing Hezbollah, which is often designated in the Orwellian language of "international speak" as a non-state actor; although it forms part of the Lebanese government, but does not constitute any part of Lebanon's army, and obviously takes no orders from it.
The Biden administration has positioned the agreement as a pathway to de-escalation while addressing Israel's concerns over Hezbollah's continued presence near the border. Reports indicate that U.S. President Joe Biden has personally assured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that approving the ceasefire would ease the restrictions imposed by the ongoing arms embargo.
Specifically, the embargo has delayed shipments of critical munitions, including approximately 20,000 MK-84 bombs, which are instrumental in Israel's operations against terrorist targets. Given the Congress already approved these shipments, it seems surprising that despite some Executive discretion, their being held up has not garnered a more robust response..
Israeli public figures, including prominent right-wing commentator Yinon Magal, have expressed frustration over the embargo, describing it as a significant impediment to national defense. Magal noted that the deal promises to provide Israel with "armaments, missiles, shells, and weapons" necessary for its security.
Israel Defense Forces officials assess the ceasefire could serve as an opportunity to regroup, rearm, and fortify the nation's defense capabilities.It will presumably offer Hezbollah a similar opportunity to restock some of its supplies from its main benefactor Iran, as well as other state and non-state actors.
The current state of hostilities
While diplomatic efforts continue, the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah remains intense. On Monday alone, Hezbollah launched 340 missiles and drones at Israel, causing injuries to 11 people and severe damage, particularly in the northern town of Nahariya, which took at least one direct hit. In retaliation, Israel has conducted significant airstrikes in Beirut and its environs, targeting identified Hezbollah strongholds in an effort to weaken the group's infrastructure before the ceasefire potentially takes effect.
As is almost always the case when there seems to be progress on a ceasefire, both sides appear to be attempting to maximize their strategic positions ahead of a potential truce. Hezbollah's actions reflect its determination to maintain pressure on Israel, while Israeli forces aim to diminish the group's capabilities to ensure a more secure environment if and when hostilities pause.
Disputed terms and remaining challenges
One of the most contentious issues in the negotiations is Israel's demand for the right to conduct future strikes in southern Lebanon if Hezbollah violates the ceasefire. Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon has emphasized Israel must retain this ability under any agreement. Lebanon has rejected this stance, raising concerns that such provisions could undermine the ceasefire's stability and lead to its collapse.
Western diplomats involved in brokering the deal have revealed Israel seeks guarantees regarding the removal of Hezbollah's weapons from the border area. This would not only reduce the immediate threat to northern Israeli communities but also enable the return of approximately 100,000 Israelis displaced by the conflict. Without such assurances, Israeli leaders fear that Hezbollah could quickly re-establish its military infrastructure, potentially launching devastating attacks reminiscent of the Oct. 7 assault. Indeed, northern municipal and civic leaders have voiced opposition to the ceasefire due to this very fear.
Lebanon, however, is resistant to certain Israeli demands, arguing they infringe upon Lebanese sovereignty. (They did not make the same distinction when Iran's powerful proxy Hezbollah overran much of their political and civic scene). The deputy speaker of Lebanon's Parliament, Elias Bou Saab, has suggested the deal could still falter if Netanyahu alters his position or if Hezbollah seeks to pin the blame for any breakdown on Israel.
Broader implications and geopolitical factors
The ceasefire negotiations are not occurring in isolation. They are deeply intertwined with broader regional dynamics involving Syria, Russia, and the United States. Reports from Israeli media suggest Israel is pressuring the U.S. to lift some sanctions on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in exchange for his cooperation in curbing arms smuggling to Hezbollah. Such a concession could also serve to appease Russia, a key Assad ally, which has been quietly supplying weapons to Hezbollah.
Israeli forces recently uncovered a cache of advanced Russian weaponry within Lebanon, underscoring the extent of Moscow's support for Hezbollah. This trove included modern anti-tank missiles and sophisticated rockets, raising alarms about the group's growing military capabilities.
Hezbollah, now led by Naim Qassem following the elimination of its former leader Hassan Nasrallah in an Israeli airstrike in late September, has publicly demanded a "complete and comprehensive end to aggression." However, its continued attacks on Israeli territory suggest a reluctance to disengage fully without significant concessions.
The path forward
As Israel's cabinet prepares to vote on the ceasefire proposal, the outcome remains uncertain. While the deal offers the potential for short-term relief from violence and an opportunity for Israel to bolster its defenses, unresolved issues could derail the agreement. Both sides remain wary, with Israel seeking assurances that its northern border will be secure and Lebanon striving to prevent further encroachments on its sovereignty.
The Biden administration, in its final weeks, is eager to finalize the agreement as a diplomatic achievement. A State Department spokesperson has confirmed "significant progress" has been made but acknowledged "we're not there yet." The administration's efforts to mediate a resolution reflect its broader goal of stabilizing the region, even as challenges persist.
Ultimately, the ceasefire's success will hinge on the willingness of both parties to compromise and adhere to its terms. Without mutual trust and concrete enforcement mechanisms, the risk of renewed violence remains high. As fighting continues, the window for diplomacy narrows, leaving both Israel and Hezbollah with critical decisions that will shape the future of the conflict.
Putting pressure on Hamas
Some commentators and analysts have wondered whether a ceasefire – even a relatively short one of 60 days – might increase the pressure on Hamas to come to the negotiating table for a similar deal.
Israel is still embroiled in a two-front war, although more of the attention is now focused on southern Lebanon and its fight with Hezbollah. However, there is still plenty of action around Jabaliya, for example, with Hamas terrorists either being eliminated or surrendering. The IDF is also still taking casualties in this arena.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Experts are sounding the alarm on China's increasingly aggressive trade deals in Latin America and South America as its ambition to become the world's largest economy has put the U.S. in a position where it must choose between the safety of Americans, and continued trade with China.
During an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, American journalist, lawyer, political commentator, and writer Gordan Chang said China has used its influence to make deals with trading partners who used to be considered "America's backyard."
"A lot of Americans consider Latin America, South America, to be America's backyard. Well, it's really China's backyard. You know, China is South America's largest trading partner. If it weren't for Mexican trade with the U.S., China would be Latin America's biggest partner," Chang said.
Chang noted trade between the U.S. and South America could be improved if the U.S. is willing to enter into more free trade agreements with the region, and further stated this would help the U.S. decouple from China.
"We can win back this region with trade. We only have one free trade agreement with Central America and three with South America. If we tie trade to the United States, what we can do is we can free ourselves from China. We can end the migrant crisis. We can shorten our supply chains and clean the air. So what's not to like?" Chang asked.
The deadly fentanyl coming across the southern border, which has increased exponentially during President Joe Biden's time in office, is something Chang says was intentional and fully supported by the Chinese Communist Party.
"Killing tens of thousands of Americans every year… this a Communist Party project. This is not just some Chinese criminals because the Communist Party knows and it approves it and they support it… and all across the board [they] help."
Chang pointed out it is important to acknowledge that the drugs coming across the border are China's project, because it is backing the intentional murder of Americans. He then noted the U.S. needs to start imposing some severe costs to China.
"At least 60% tariffs on Chinese goods. You do that, you cripple China. You do not give them the opportunity and the resources to go after and kill Americans (with) fentanyl, with COVID, with everything else," Chang noted.
The U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission recommends the U.S. toughen its trade relationship with China in its annual report to Congress. The Commission also wants the U.S. to end its permanent normal trade relationship with Beijing for the first time.
China currently gets accommodations through trade deals, because they continue to claim they are only an emerging economy, despite the fact China is the second largest economy in the entire world.
Bartiromo also questioned whether China is still "an emerging economy," and Chang noted China is obviously not an emerging economy, and further stated China should absolutely lose its normal trading relationship with the U.S. because it is using those deals to finance its military to one day fight against the U.S.
"That gives them basically everything that we give to everybody else. So it's reciprocity on steroids. The thing is, China uses all of this trade to develop its military, which is configured to kill Americans. They use it to support their fentanyl gangs. The list goes on and on."
While outwardly China has been talking about wanting "peace and prosperity" around the world, the reality is China is providing the means for other countries to wage war.
"They could not afford to assault us, would not be for our money, and by the way, you know Russia… couldn't continue the war in Ukraine without China's support. Iran could not have assaulted Israel without China's support. This is China behind all of these proxy wars, setting the world on fire, and we're financing it," Chang stressed.
China's economy is also on a "knife's edge," and while its economy continues to slump, China continues to build infrastructure like a massive high-speed rail system for future populations, when in fact, China's population has now dropped below recovery rates.
"They've got too much of everything. You know, the high speed rail line system, it is not economically viable on its own, and they're adding… more… They've got enough vacant apartments for 1.3 billion people. Basically they've got infrastructure for a country that is much larger than it actually is… [and] population is going to decline," Chang said.
China's population decline has been so dramatic over the past few decades due to the CCP's one-child policy, that it will likely never recover.
"By the end of this century, China probably will have only one-third the number of people that it has today. And I don't know how they're going to deal with this, because there's no solutions for them," Chang said.