This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Option during registration for 'male,' 'female' or 'self-described': 'It is inappropriate to ask this question of young children and I have instructed that it is removed as swiftly as possible'
Parents are scolding schools across the United Kingdom for demanding they provide the "gender identity" of their 3-year-olds who are enrolling in primary classes.
And some government officials are admitting the process wasn't well thought out.
It is the Christian Institute that confirmed the primary school applications used by more than 100 local authorities over recent years demands parents select "man/boy/male" or "woman/girl/female" or a third option to "self-describe."
This agenda "has no place on the form with regard to 3-year-olds on any level," charged one concerned mother.
The report explained the form in use was "supplied by an external provider, but has been used for more than 550,000 students."
"I immediately investigated as the council does not want or need a question about gender identity on our school admissions form," admitted Martin Tell, the chief of the Buckinghamshire Council, explaining his actions when he found out.
"It is inappropriate to ask this question of young children and I have instructed that it is removed as swiftly as possible," he said.
Some immediately warned of the harm that could befall children.
"We must call out the public authorities who enable this, highlighting that they are actively promoting an ideology that results in irreversible harm for vulnerable children and adults," charged Caroline Ffiske, of Conservatives for Women.
The ideology of transgenderism also has run rampant in the United States under the White House leadership of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, who made it, along with abortion, a top goal for their administration.
The institute noted Maya Forstater, of woman's rights charity Sex Matters, explained, "Projecting the adult beliefs and concepts of transactive onto children is not only ludicrous but also harmful."
She continued, "Many parents will have been shocked by this question and will be concerned about the nonsense that may be taught to their child at school based on the admissions form alone."
The report noted another mother also voiced her objections to school officials, "We are telling small children something false – you get to choose your gender – and we are forcing a very dangerous ideology onto very young children, with no discussion with parents."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Few would argue that no one should face discrimination for being, or not being, white or black or Hispanic, or young or old, or male or female, or for having ancestors from England or Japan, or for being born in Texas or North Dakota.
But amid the new leftist schemes to provide special protections based on gender ideology and such, there's one state lawmaker going even further.
Washington State Rep. Mia Gregerson, a Democrat, has a plan pending that would make being homeless a protected status.
That would be so they are protected from "discrimination based on housing status."
It is the Post Millennial that is reporting that Gregerson's plan proposes, "[M]any communities within Washington are enacting and enforcing laws that disproportionately impact homelessness or make living in public a crime. These laws are potentially unconstitutional, make it harder for people to exit homelessness, do not solve the underlying problem of homelessness, and waste precious public funds."
Her agenda apparently is in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said the Constitution allows a city to enforce public camping ordinances, such as bans on camping on public property in some locations and at some times.
One Washington town, Burien, that started enforcing its ban on camping in public places, a move that the county had tried to halt.
"Other municipalities, including, Everett, Washington, began enacting similar policies such as its new Service Facility Buffer Zone, also known as a No Sit, No Lie Zone in its downtown near a local children's museum," the report said.
The bill would grant homeless "the right to survive in a nonobstructive manner" on public property, to include parking lots, sidewalks, parks, courtyards, even public transportation and highway medians and shoulders.
People living in RVs could stay wherever the vehicle is parked.
The camping limits got their impetus from a case in 2021, when a homeless meth addict was arrested after attempting to rape a county employee inside a women's bathroom at the King County courthouse, the report said.
Staying on public lands would be allowed when "that person has no reasonable alternative but to survive in public space and existing shelter facilities within the local government's jurisdiction are inadequate in number or are functionally inaccessible," the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker, the far-left billionaire governor of Illinois, is being taken to court over his schemes that force state residents to choose between paying for abortions or going without health insurance entirely.
The case has been brought by the Thomas More Society on behalf of Students for Life of America, Midwest Bible Church, Pro-Life Action League, Right to Life, Clapham School, DuPage Precision Products, and a list of individuals.
"For Christians and many other pro-life advocates, Illinois' abortion-coverage mandate is fundamentally opposed to their religious beliefs and runs roughshod over their constitutionally protected conscience rights," explained Peter Breen, of the Thomas More Society.
"Gov. J.B. Pritzker and his administration are on an uncompromising campaign to transform the Land of Lincoln into the nation's abortion capital. In doing so, they have shown little regard for the rights of those who believe that all human life is worth protecting. We are proud to represent this coalition of clients in challenging this unconscionable mandate. There's no reason for pro-life individuals and organizations to be denied the option to choose an insurance policy that exempts them from covering others' elective abortions."
The problem facing the governor is that the case alleges he is violating the U.S. Constitution in his abortion promotion.
The filing in U.S. district court in Illinois explains Pritzker's plan "requires health-insurance policies to cover elective abortions on the same terms as they cover pregnancy-related benefits. It also requires health insurance policies to cover abortion-inducing drugs, and it forbids insurers to impose any cost-sharing arrangements such as co-pays or deductibles on this coverage."
"These abortion-inducing drugs must be provided free of charge to any beneficiary who demands them, and they are paid for entirely by premiums charged to other beneficiaries. These compulsory abortion-coverage laws provide no exceptions or accommodations for employers or individuals who object to abortion on religious or moral grounds, not even for churches," the filing states.
"As a result, Illinois residents who oppose abortion have no way of obtaining state-regulated health insurance that excludes abortion coverage, forcing many of them to choose between paying for other people's elective abortions with their premiums or forgoing health insurance entirely."
The Thomas More Society filing states, "Illinois's compulsory abortion-coverage laws abridge the free exercise of religion and other constitutional rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They also violate numerous federal statutes…"
In an announcement about the launch of the case, the Thomas More Society explained, "The complaint asks the court to block state officials from enforcing these abortion-coverage mandates, which violate the free exercise and expressive association rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, as well as numerous federal statutes."
Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, noted, "If billionaire Gov. J.B. Pritzker wants to pay for abortions in his state out of the generosity of his heart, that can be his choice. Instead, Pritzker and state officials have manipulated and supported a law to force all Illinois residents to cover his choice of abortion for them.
"When spending his money in the election, it was to get more radical abortion policies in place, to demand others to pay for abortion. Students for Life of America's team members and supporters in Illinois should not be forced to violate our consciences just because the abortion lobby and its cheerleaders like the governor have moved from 'choice' to coercion."
The case seeks to have enforcement of the abortion payments through insurance be voided and a declaration that such a scheme violates the U.S. Constitution.
The filing charges, "The defendants' enforcement of Illinois's compulsory abortion-law cover age laws violates each of the plaintiffs' constitutional right to freely exercise their religion."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Members of Congress are demanding the Department of Justice inspector general review a case in which the U.S. Marshals Service pulled guns on an innocent woman, berated and screamed at her, arrested her, and jailed her overnight.
They had been looking for a different woman, but attacked Penny McCarthy in an incident that is on video reports now:
The letter demanding a review was sent to Inspector General Michael Horowitz by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the head of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance.
"We are very concerned at both the USMS's carelessness and the excessive force during this encounter. The USMS's lack of regard for Ms. McCarthy's due process rights is very troubling and oversight is necessary to ensure similar abuses do not happen in the future. Part of the stated mission of the Department of Justice (DOJ) OIG is to 'review the programs and personnel' of the USMS," the letter said.
The members of Congress outlined the stunningly troubling facts at hand:
"On March 5, 2024, six United States Marshals Service (USMS) agents pulled into the driveway of 66-year-old Phoenix, Arizona resident Penny McCarthy with their guns drawn demanding that she 'get her hands up.' The USMS agents insisted that McCarthy was a fugitive who had violated probation in 1999 after committing several non-violent crimes. The agents threatened Ms. McCarthy and denied her an opportunity to prove her identity. While the USMS has initiated a review of this apparent misconduct, we write to request that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conduct a thorough and independent investigation of this incident," they wrote.
From publicly available information, it appears that the USMS violated Ms. McCarthy's constitutional rights during the arrest. After six agents surprised Ms. McCarthy at her home screaming at her to 'get her hands up,' she understandably asked if they had the right individual. At that point, the USMS agents screamed at her to 'tum around,' threatening her 'you're going to get hit.' Video footage shows that Ms. McCarthy cooperated during the encounter, despite threats of being tased. Ms. McCarthy asked to see proof that the agents were law enforcement but the agents denied her request. The agents insisted Ms. McCarthy was a nonviolent fugitive from Oklahoma named Carole Anne Rozak. Ms. McCarthy offered to provide proof she was not Ms. Rozak, but federal agents refused. The USMS booked Ms. McCarthy in federal prison overnight and she was released the next day. A federal judge subsequently dismissed the case shortly thereafter. The USMS only admitted its misidentification after a local news channel conducted a thorough investigation. The body camera footage was not released until six months after the incident through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Although the USMS claims it is conducting a review of the actions taken by their agents, an internal review is not enough.
The members of Congress cited the officers' "carelessness and the excessive force during this encounter."
The letter instructs, "Please confirm that you will examine this encounter as soon as possible but no later than December 2, 2024."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A priority for the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump is to tackle the Deep State, the bureaucracy in Washington that is a self-perpetuating industry, to find what American taxpayers don't need or want.
And get rid of it.
One of the targets he's already identified is the Department of Education, which for the last 50 years or so has been expanding until it's now spending some $240 billion a year of taxpayer money.
And Trump's plan is getting a thumbs-up from an influential conservative leader, Franklin Graham of Samaritan's Purse.
"President-elect Donald J. Trump has said the Department of Education should be shut down – and I agree," Graham posted on social media. "Even President Ronald Reagan championed abolishing it and leaving decisions at the state and local level.
"The Department of Education has only existed since 1979, and we were better off without it. We have been spending billions of dollars for what? To dumb our children down? To teach them to disrespect the flag and our nation? To introduce them to sexual content at earlier ages including gay and transgender agendas? For them to be taught the lies of Critical Race Theory and DEI? To accomplish the woke agendas of teachers' unions? To have reading scores at near historic lows? To have students score lower in math than they did 20 years ago? To have 1/3 of U.S. school children score below their actual grade level? For the U.S. to rank a low 28th out of 37 countries of the world in math?
"I think we can do better. Put the parents back in the driver's seat and let schools come under state and local leadership," he explained.
The BBC noted that ridding the nation of the agency is one of the promises Trump has made.
The federal bureaucrats run student loan programs and those to help low-income students. They run the Pell grant program, support students with disabilities and enforce civil rights law.
But Republicans, for decades already, at least as far back as Ronald Reagan's campaign, have suggested getting rid of it, ending its campaign to impose "woke" politics on children such as gender ideology and Critical Race Theory.
They suggest the authority be returned to states, which run schools and other education industry components.
The report said, "Conservatives also argue that other education department functions, such as administering loans, should be handled instead by the U.S. Department of Treasury, and that civil rights infractions are the Department of Justice's domain."
The report noted Trump cannot shut down the agency by himself, and he would need congressional help.
"While Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they do not have 60 members in the upper chamber, so they would need to convince a few Democrats to vote to abolish the agency. There's zero chance of that," the report speculated.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrat pundits stoking fear among legal migrants, but president-elect wants to remove undocumented Chinese nationals who crossed the southern border illegally at the height of Biden's border crisis
As the threat to national security from China continues, undocumented Chinese migrants could be the first on President-elect Donald Trump's deportation list once he takes office in January.
According to NBC News, a source close to the Trump campaign said the president wants to remove undocumented Chinese nationals who crossed the southern border illegally at the height of President Joe Biden's border crisis.
The source cited the potential risk to national security, which is not unfounded as the FBI recently admitted China is using remote hackers to steal American intellectual property and other sensitive information through U.S. telecommunications companies.
Executive director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund Bethany Li told NBC News targeting "military age" undocumented Chinese migrants is another way to demonize China.
"We know that both the state and federal government have deemed China as a national security threat… We saw this in World War II with Japanese Americans incarcerated. We saw this post-9/11 with Muslim and South Asian men being detained and some deported."
Li further stated that Chinese migrants flee to the U.S. because of poverty and dissatisfaction with China's government.
"It's another way of casting our community as an enemy. It might not even make any logical sense from a national security perspective, but our communities on the ground here in the U.S. will feel the impact," Li said.
Since Trump's victory, Democrat pundits like MSNBC's Joy Reid have been fueling fear and reporting the Trump administration could deport green card holders and naturalized citizens, as well as undocumented migrants across the board.
Other outlets have also been stoking that fear.
However, past comments during his presidential campaign show Trump was not referring to migrants who enter the U.S. legally through a port-of-entry, and have a legal right to stay in the U.S. Trump called the rumor "fake news."
Trump has reiterated many times that the U.S. needs more people to immigrate legally, and this does not include those who would cause harm to the American people through crimes like murder and drug dealing.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Flights from the United States to Haiti have been suspended for a month, on the orders of the Federal Aviation Administration, after at east three jetliners trying to land there were hit by gunfire.
Just the News reports first attacked was a Spirit airliner out of Florida, and it took four hits while approaching Touissant Louverture Airport in Port-an-Prince, before diverting to the Dominican Republican.
One flight attendant reported minor injuries.
The second was a JetBlue flight that took a single bullet when trying to land.
That flight was from New York City, and triggered the immediate announcement form JetBlue that it was halting flights to Haiti until Dec. 2.
The report explained Haiti, long a location considered to be largely lawless, now is under the thumb of "gangs" that are attempting to control traffic.
"The security situation in Haiti is unpredictable and dangerous," the U.S. Embassy in Haiti said, according to the report. "Travel within Haiti is conducted at your own risk."
CNN reported that gang violence was escalating in Haiti, where the political landscape also is unstable.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal appeals court has ruled against CNN in its attempt to have dismissed a defamation complaint from James O'Keefe and Project Veritas.
O'Keefe launched Project Veritas and worked for years with the organization, doing undercover interviews to uncover political scandals.
He later left and now works with O'Keefe Media Group.
However, the dispute arose during his time with the former organization.
A report from the Post Millennial said it was the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that said CNN's statements about O'Keefe "were not substantially true" and found that, "Veritas plausibly alleged that Cabrera's statements were published with actual malice under the First Amendment."
The report explained, "Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch wrote in an opinion for the court that on February 11, 2021, the Project Veritas account on then-Twitter was suspended. CNN's Ana Cabrera claimed on February 15 that the account had been banned for 'promoting misinformation,' while Project Veritas said that it was because it had violated Twitter's 'publication of private information,' or 'doxxing' policy."
The judge wrote, "When CNN refused to issue a retraction, Veritas sued for defamation. The district court granted CNN's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that Cabrera's statements were substantially true and thus not actionable under applicable New York defamation law. Veritas appealed."
The fight was over a post that showed a video of a Project Veritas journalist at the home of a Facebook official. The accusation was that there were details in the video indicating the location of the residence.
O'Keefe had argued that other networks "often" don't blur the number of an address. A lower court had dismissed the case but it was restored at the appellate level.
Circuit Judge Ed Carnes noted, "If you stay on the bench long enough, you see a lot of things. Still, I never thought I'd see a major news organization downplaying the importance of telling the truth in its broadcasts. But that is what CNN has done in this case."
The CNN dispute was sent back to the lower courts for further action.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jack Smith was plucked by the Biden-Harris administration out of the field of private legal work and made, suddenly and without congressional confirmation, a "special counsel" to run part of the Democrats' lawfare campaign against President Trump.
He ended up bringing multiple legal claims against Trump and others, including a stunt that included the FBI's SWAT raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago home in which officers reportedly rifled through the personal possessions of Melania Trump.
But he now has a problem, in that Trump is the president-elect.
Those cases are expected to vanish at some point when the pathway to that result is determined.
But there's a signal lack of trust in the ranks of Congress that the organization Smith has set up to attack Trump will be forthcoming with all of the information it has used, so he's being told by Congress to save and protect everything.
It is House Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., who leads the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, who have written to Smith demanding his office preserve all records surrounding the Biden-Harris administration's politicized prosecutions of Trump.
They previously had submitted to-date unfulfilled requests for information from Smith.
They now have repeated those requests for documents and communications "relating to meetings between FBI and Justice Department officials sent to or received by Jack Smith prior to the execution of the search warrant on President Trump's private residence."
They also want documents and communications referring or relating to the hiring and selection of current and former Office of Special Counsel staff members and the same regarding the "Office of Special Counsel, the Office of the Attorney General, or the Office of the Deputy Attorney General referring or relating to the investigation and prosecution of President Donald Trump."
"The Committee on the Judiciary is continuing its oversight of the Department of Justice and the Office of Special Counsel. According to recent public reports, prosecutors in your office have been 'gaming out legal options' if President Donald Trump won the election. With President Trump's decisive victory, this Counsel may attempt to purge relevant records, communications, and documents responsive to our numerous requests for information. The Office of Special Counsel is not immune from transparency or above accountability for its actions," the letter warned.
"This letter serves as a formal request to preserve all existing and future records and materials related to the Office of Special Counsel's investigations and prosecutions of President Trump. You should construe this preservation notice as an instruction to take all reasonable steps to prevent the destruction or alteration, whether intentionally or negligently, of all documents, communications, and other information, including electronic information and metadata, that are or may be responsive to this congressional inquiry. This instruction includes all electronic messages sent using official and personal accounts or devices, including records created using text messages, phone-based message applications, or encryption software."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Kamala Harris may be on her way out of the White House, but not necessarily the headlines, as a scandal is brewing among Democrats over a $20 million campaign debt.
This after she raked in a cool BILLION dollars to spend.
The numbers show President Donald Trump won the race by collecting $392 million and spending $345 million.
A Politico voice confirmed the $20 million debt.
And then Breitbart'sMatthew Boyle explained what has developed:
He reported the situation now is "explosive."
"A Kamala campaign staffer who saw these posts called me just now and said there is a massive scandal here worthy of an audit. The $20 million debt thing is real. Rob Flaherty, this staffer said, is currently shopping around the Kamala fundraising email list to anyone who wants it to try to raise the money back. This includes other campaigns and outside groups."
Boyle continued, "Flaherty is the deputy campaign manager and reports to Jen O'Malley Dillon. 'Jen blew through a billion dollars in a few months and it was all Jen's idea to do all the concerts.' — Kamala's campaign adviser told me This source added that O'Malley Dillon did these 'concerts,' like Katy Perry, Lizzo, Eminem, Bruce Springsteen et cetera at the expense of 'prioritizing and spending money on social media and other campaign priorities.'"
Boyle noted, "Apparently a group in Georgia had to lay off 100 people because they couldn't pay them. It's unclear at this time if the campaign PAID the talent to perform but the cost of production for the events was 'immense.' What's more, this Kamala campaign staffer said several people who were working for the Kamala Harris for President campaign are still awaiting several overdue payments they were promised for their work. IE, they didn't pay the staff."
A report at Zerohedge explained that ex-Obama adviser David Plouffe had commented about a "hole" that the campaign had, and then he deleted his account.
It was Newsweek that explained, "According to The New York Times, the Harris campaign spent 'six figures' to fly banners over four NFL games in October in an attempt to reach male voters in swing states. The Guardian reported in November that it also spent a reported $450,000 a day to have ads displayed on the Las Vegas Sphere in the swing state of Nevada. Ultimately, the messaging did not appear to hit its mark(s). Speaking to Newsweek, Mark Shanahan, an American politics expert who teaches at the University of Surrey in the U.K., said Harris 'never landed' her economic message during the presidential election campaign."