This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A 3-year-old boy taken from his parents by Child Protective Services in Alabama has died after being left in a hot car for hours … by a contractor for CPS.
The CPS worker allegedly took the child for a visit with his father, then ran "personal errands" on the way back, eventually forgetting the boy was in the car.
A report at People.com said the death, a week ago, happened in Birmingham.
The boy was identified as Ke'Torrius Starkes Jr.
He was in the custody of the Department of Human Services at the time, and Courtney French, a lawyer for the family, told the publication, "The very system that is in place for his protection was the system that led to his death."
The report explained the child was found unresponsive in the vehicle outside a location on Pine Tree Drive.
State officials revealed he was "accidentally left inside … while in the care of a third-party contracted worker through the Department of Human Resources."
The report said he was in temporary custody of the state over claims of drug use in his home.
He apparently was abandoned in the vehicle about 12:30 p.m., and found about five hours later. He was pronounced dead at 6:03 p.m. Temperatures during the period reached 96 degrees, the report said.
According to the lawyer, the worker was employed to transport children, and took the child to a supervised visit with his father, but then decided to "run numerous personal errands with KJ still in the car seat in the back."
State officials declined to identify the child or describe the circumstances because of "confidentiality."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The barbaric conflict that started Oct. 7, 2023, marked by widespread casualties, terror, torture and hostage-taking, delivered a harsh lesson to the West: Appeasing the Iranian mullahs' regime inevitably leads to war.
Under the 2015 nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, in an effort to contain Tehran $150 billion in frozen Iranian assets were released to the Middle East's major sponsor of terrorism. The regime used these funds not for the welfare of its own people, but to expand its network of proxy militias across the region, enrich uranium to 60%, and move dangerously close to building a nuclear bomb.
Even targeted airstrikes on its nuclear facilities can no longer ensure that the world is safe from a weapon that would undoubtedly be used as an instrument of war and destruction.
The nuclear threat posed by Iran must be taken seriously. The Islamic Republic currently possesses over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% and is just a few technical steps away from producing a nuclear weapon. In 2020, Iran operated only 512 centrifuges. By 2025, that number has soared to over 11,000 advanced centrifuges.
Simultaneously, the regime continues to test ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. This is no longer a theoretical danger – it is an imminent one.
Despite international scrutiny, the Iranian regime has never abandoned its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It has merely continued its efforts in secrecy, with increasing sophistication.
According to revelations from the theocratic regime's main opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, or NCRI, Tehran's nuclear weapons program was never halted – it was simply concealed behind a new political façade. Since 2009, under direct orders from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, a secret initiative known as "Project Kavir" has been underway, managed by the SPND organization, a research and development agency within the Iranian Ministry of Defense tasked with developing new military technologies. It's aim: the development of long-range nuclear weapons with a reach of over 3,000 kilometers.
Concurrently, research on tritium and nuclear fusion is being pursued to amplify the destructive power of these weapons.
To support this program, Iran's Semnan province has been transformed into a military zone, where four secret military facilities have been constructed. Additionally, the regime is producing "Ghaem 100" solid-fuel and "Simorgh" liquid-fuel missiles – both with ranges exceeding 3,000 kilometers – under the guise of civilian space exploration.
Feeding the crocodile didn't tame it, but made it more dangerous
European policymakers had hoped economic engagement would lead to a more moderate Iranian regime. Instead, the opposite occurred: More money led to more centrifuges, more missiles and increased domestic repression. The regime failed to honor its commitments and exploited the diplomatic vacuum to accelerate its militarization.
Rooted in medieval ideology and incapable of meeting the demands of a young, modern and forward-looking population, the mullahs' regime depends on war and regional terrorism for survival. Nuclear weapons and long-range missiles are tools of survival – not deterrence – for this regime. Its survival is so deeply entwined with its nuclear program that expecting a voluntary halt to enrichment, or the abandonment of a project that has consumed over $2 trillion, is dangerously naïve.
In the face of this mounting threat, the only effective legal mechanism left is the JCPOA's "snapback" provision. This allows any of the remaining signatories – especially the European troika of Germany, France and the United Kingdom – to unilaterally restore all U.N. sanctions against the Iranian regime, without the need for a vote or consensus. Crucially, neither Russia nor China can block this process.
With support from its lobbyists in the West, Tehran promotes the narrative that sanctions harm the Iranian population and lead to shortages of food and medicine. Yet the 2017 uprising, which occurred after billions of dollars were released under the JCPOA, revealed the truth: Those funds were funneled into repression, armament and the export of terrorism – not into improving the lives of ordinary Iranians.
Today, the Islamic Republic is closer than ever to building a nuclear bomb. The snapback mechanism, enshrined in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, is the last viable legal and practical tool to prevent a nuclear catastrophe. Silence or delay in triggering it will carry a heavy cost – for regional stability and for global peace. Europe must not hesitate to act.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump confirmed on Friday that it's possible that federal rebates – cash returned to the American public – are possible.
And it's because of the probable revenue to America of some $200 billion by the end of the year from his new tariffs on other countries.
Trump has been using tariffs, high and low, as a method of bringing those nations to the bargaining table and reaching fair trade agreements for American businesses and consumers.
Some deals already have been made final, but many have not been concluded.
The tariff income is from those other nations, and likely will continue even after deals are reached, as Trump has promised not to allow other countries to take advantage as they have in the past.
Trump said, "We're thinking about that [a rebate], actually. We have so much money coming in we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt. We're thinking about a rebate. That's a very good question. You just made a lot of news."
Sen. Josh Hawley responded immediately.
His plan is to introduce legislation in the Senate to do exactly what Trump discussed.
Others said Trump's first plan, paying down the national debt, is the higher priority.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a huge blow to one state's attempt to impose its own transgender ideologies on its residents, specifically adoptive parents, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that single mother Jessica Bate's First Amendment rights likely were violated in Oregon's orchestrated attempt to force her to embrace its gender campaign.
"No one thinks, for example, that a state could exclude parents from adopting foster children based on those parents' political views, race, or religious affiliations," the 9th Circuit wrote in its ruling in Bates v. Pakseresht. "Adoption is not a constitutional law dead zone. And a state's general conception of the child's best interest does not create a force field against the valid operation of other constitutional rights."
Bates had applied to become certified to adopt children from foster care two years ago. But the state agency overseeing child welfare programs denied her application based only on the fact Bates would not agree to lie about a child's gender by using inaccurate pronouns, or to take children to "Pride" parades.
The court decisions leaves Bates free to begin the process of adopting siblings from foster care without violating her religious beliefs while the legal fight continues.
Bates was represented by the ADF in her 2023 lawsuit challenging an Oregon Department of Human Services rule that categorically excluded her from adopting any child—no matter their age or beliefs—"because she would not lie to children and tell them that girls can be boys and vice versa," the ADF reported.
The ruling said Bates likely will succeed in showing that Oregon is violating the First Amendment.
"Every child deserves a loving home, and children suffer when the government excludes people of faith from the adoption and foster system. Jessica is a caring mom of five who is now free to adopt after Oregon officials excluded her because of her common-sense belief that a girl cannot become a boy or vice versa," said ADF lawyer Jonathan Scruggs.
"Because caregivers like Jessica cannot promote Oregon's dangerous gender ideology to young kids and take them to events like pride parades, the state considers them to be unfit parents. That is false and incredibly dangerous, needlessly depriving kids of opportunities to find a loving home. The 9th Circuit was right to remind Oregon that the foster and adoption system is supposed to serve the best interests of children, not the state's ideological crusade."
Bates had confirmed to the state she would love and accept any child placed with her, but she still was rejected.
The ADF also noted that earlier this year, a coalition of foster and adoptive parents, religious liberty organizations, free speech advocates and those who promote families, 20 states and others argued in support of Bates in documents with the 9th Circuit.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
According to a buried House Intelligence Committee report just declassified by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, President Barack Obama and others reportedly had serious concerns about the health of 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton – some of the information Russia had but did not reveal at the time.
Commentator Charlie Kirk points out on X that in the final days of the 2016 campaign Russia "had huge amounts of potential anti-Clinton dirt that it sat on." This included:
Notes Kirk: "If Russia was really all-in on supporting Trump and hurting Clinton, it would have leaked this information in October 2016 when her lead in the RCP average slipped to just +1.3. Instead, Russia didn't – completely debunking the core assumptions of the Russia hoax.
"Rather than admit they were wrong, Brennan's CIA buried the info and manufactured a completely alternative reality to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump."
The declassified report adds to documents made public Friday that suggest that the Obama team intentionally hid information proving Russia was not involved in swaying the 2016 election and instead posited the opposite in hopes of sabotaging the incoming Trump administration.
Wednesday Gabbard talked at the White House about the new revelations regarding Clinton:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Department of Justice now has evidence from Tulsi Gabbard, President Donald Trump's director of national intelligence, that outlines how Barack Obama and his appointees "manufactured and politicized intelligence" to orchestrate the years-long Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory.
According to a report from Fox News, the DOJ has confirmed receipt of Gabbard's evidence.
Gabbard released documents on Friday that outline how Obama and his national security team "laid the groundwork" for years of attacks on Trump.
"Their goal was to usurp President Trump and subvert the will of the American people," Gabbard had posted to X on Friday regarding the criminal referral. "No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The integrity of our democratic republic depends on it. We are turning over all documents to the DOJ for criminal referral."
Gabbard told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo Sunday how she found the evidence in the case, and determined, "The implications of this are frankly nothing short of historic."
"Over 100 documents that we released on Friday really detail and provide evidence of how this treasonous conspiracy was directed by President Obama just weeks before he was due to leave office after President Trump had already gotten elected. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an issue that is so serious it should concern every single American because it has to do with the integrity of our democratic republic," she said.
WND reported Sunday that Gabbard said, "there must be indictments" for the "treasonous conspiracy."
"They all must be held accountable."
While noting she was not a lawyer, Gabbard expressed confidence in criminal prosecutions of the perpetrators.
"In my view, we have the evidence to move forward and indict and prosecute those responsible," she said.
"The implications of this are frankly nothing short of historic. Over 100 documents that we released on Friday really detail and provide evidence of how this treasonous conspiracy was directed by President Obama just weeks after he was due to leave office after President Trump had already gotten elected."
She explained, "The effect of what President Obama and his senior national security team did was subvert the will of the American people, undermining our democratic republic, and enacting what would be essentially a years-long coup against President Trump who was duly elected by the American people."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump's agenda to secure America's borders and deport illegal aliens, especially criminal illegal aliens, is off to a roaring start during his first few months in office.
Officials report about 47,000 illegals have been deported each month, so far.
And the numbers of those breaking into the nation, especially across the southern border, have plunged to only a fraction of what they were when Joe Biden essentially declared the borders open, inviting millions to come illegally.
But few law enforcement campaigns are perfect, and one dealing with hundreds of thousands of people will have mistakes.
In fact, there have been occasions where U.S. citizens have been caught up in immigration raids. Federal authorities work to sort those situations out.
But one senator has offered a very succinct solution for those concerned about being rounded up.
"Don't hang around illegals."
The Gateway Pundit explained Sen. Tommy Tuberville was "confronted" with the question.
It was Migrant Insider editor Pablo Manriquez who asked, "Do you care if U.S. citizens accidentally get detained in ICE raids?"
Tuberville confirmed "mistakes" will happen.
"But, again, as long as we take care of it the right way, understand that they are citizens, let them go, but again, if you're going to be hanging around people that are not citizens of this country, some things like that are going to probably happen," he said.
Pushed by Manriquez for more, Tuberville said, "Don't hang around illegals. Bottom line because President Trump has said, 'We're going to go after you,' and at the end of the day, if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, something bad could happen."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Across America, there have been schools that banish the Pledge of Allegiance, bar common-sense statements like "There are two genders," and fly "diversity" flags instead of Old Glory in classrooms.
It seems that same infection has crossed the Atlantic, as a student wearing a patriotic Union Jack design on her dress for Diversity Day in the United Kingdom was stunningly sent home!
The result of the political agenda included a public condemnation from the prime minister for Bilton School, which punished straight-A student Courtney Wright, 12.
The Daily Mail said she wore a Union Jack dress on diversity day, a "Spice Girls-esque garment, and wrote a speech about history and traditions.
She was told her costume was unacceptable by school officials and hauled into a reception room where she had to sit under her father collected her.
Meanwhile, students wearing burkas, niqabs and traditional Nigerian clothing were reportedly allowed to attend lessons as normal, but children with St George's and Welsh flags were turned away at the school gates.
A spokesman for the prime minister said, "The PM has always been clear that being British is something to be celebrated. You can see that from everything this government has done. We are a tolerant, diverse, open country, proud of being British."
Stuart Field is Courtney's father and in inimical British style described being "gobsmacked" to find out what the school did.
"She should not be made to feel embarrassed about being British. And she shouldn't be punished for celebrating British culture and history; nobody else I've spoken to can quite get their heads around it," he told the Daily Mail.
The school had claimed the Culture Celebration Day was to "promote inclusion, understanding, and appreciation of different backgrounds, traditions and heritages."
Courtney explained the British heritage to include kings and queens and castles and Shakespeare, humor, fairness and politeness, but "sometimes at school, we only hear about other cultures."
Her father noted, "They didn't even read or listen to her speech which actually celebrates inclusivity and other cultures. It was just like British culture could not be celebrated. She was punished for being proud of being British."
School officials, later, admitted they goofed, with a statement, "An incident occurred during our Culture Celebration Day that caused considerable upset to one of our pupils, her family, and members of the wider community. We deeply regret the distress this has caused and offer our sincere and unreserved apologies."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It's already been 10 years since state officials in Florida decided they would censor a Christian school's prayer – they essentially banned it – before a high-school football game.
And now multitudes are asking the Supreme Court to step in and offer guidance on the issues of free speech, religious rights, state censorship and more.
WorldNetDaily has reported on the fight over the decision by the Florida High School Athletic Association to prevent Cambridge Christian School from offering a brief prayer before the state championship game.
A federal judge twice has ruled that the state can, indeed, censor the prayer.
It was Charlene Honeywell, a judge, who ruled against the private Christian school in Tampa. Honeywell claimed in her opinion that because the game was hosted by the association at a government-owned stadium, listeners would have heard the prayer as "government speech."
She said that means the FHSAA had the right to censor the message.
However, Hiram Sasser, of First Liberty Institute, explained that the real issue is whether the school was banned from prayer over the PA system because the words were "religious." That would be considered viewpoint discrimination and is illegal.
"The athletic association, like so many people, uses that PA system for … messages of their own choosing, or they read off messages, advertising messages, and everything else," Sasser said. "So there is so much private use of that PA system. To not allow the schools to use it for their opening prayer they always had just doesn't make any sense."
Honeywell also criticized the request for prayer itself, claiming that while it is a "preference" for the Christian school, it somehow is not a deeply rooted tradition that qualifies as a "sincerely held belief," even though Christian prayers have been going for roughly 2,000 years.
Honeywell earlier tried to dismiss the case entirely, but quickly was corrected by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Now, with the case pending before the Supreme Court, First Liberty Institute has revealed that more than 10 friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed.
They represent nearly 100 individuals and organizations, and, highlight the danger of the appellate decision and support First Liberty's call for Santa Fe v. Doe to be overturned.
Jesse Panuccio, of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, said: "The influx friend-of-the-court briefs in this case demonstrate the dangers of the Eleventh Circuit's decision, which permits the state to censor religious speech by calling it 'government speech.' That so many organizations, individuals, and law firms are urging the Supreme Court to hear this case shows how important it is for the Supreme Court to continue to make clear that the Constitution forbids religious discrimination in all its guises."
Jeremy Dys, of First Liberty Institute, said, "We grateful to so many who gave of their time to write and file these briefs for the simple proposition that government cannot treat religious speech—like prayer—as second class. Our hope is that the Supreme Court will take this important case and remind its lower courts of the First Amendment's double protection for religious expression."
The briefs come from across the world of arts, sports, faith, and politics, including:
A long list of prominent legal teams also have joined, including lawyers representing Hogen Lovells US LLP, Sidley Austin, LLP, Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Vinson & Elkins LLP, McDermot Will and Emery, and others.
The state censored plans for a prayer before the 2015 championship between Cambridge and another Christian school at the Citrus Bowl.
The state previously had allowed innumerable private messages over the game's PA system, but decided it would not allow a Christian message.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The European Commission is threatening the Irish government with punishment if it does not agree to criminalize people for their "words, ideas and opinions," but officials in Ireland are fighting back, with promises to defend their own rules of conduct.
It is the Christian Institute that is reporting the commission has given Ireland two months to comply with its own leftist "hate speech" agenda, or else be referred to the EU's court of justice.
But Ken O'Flynn, a deputy in the government, openly challenged the agenda, wondering whether under the leftist ideologies quoting the Bible will "become a punishable act."
"Will this government stand over a law that criminalizes people for what they think, criminalizes people for what they say rather than what they do?" he wondered. "We are not talking about the incitement of violence, we are not talking about threats or harassment, we are talking about words, ideas and opinions; often and sometimes unpopular and uncomfortable, but still lawful expressions, which are supposedly free."
O'Flynn cited the disaster that developed for speech in Finland, when leftists there demanded the prosecution of Parliamentarian Paivi Rasanen, who quoted the Bible online and has been under threat ever since.
Or the case of a Swedish pastor who was sentenced to a month in prison for publishing a sermon.
Both the online statements Bible and sermon contained thoughts and ideas taken from the Bible, with which leftist and radicals disagree.
Minister for Finance Paschal Donohue explained that whatever limits are adopted they must be proportionate to offenses, and "recognize the deep value of free speech, and the right for freedom of expression."
A report from the Times quoted a government official confirming he does not expect any further speech restrictions, and that his nation as a solid defense to the claims from the commission.
The institute reported, "Following widespread criticism, Minister for Justice Helen McEntee removed incitement to hatred from the initial proposals of the Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024. But the law still allows tougher sentences in instances where crimes are deemed to be motivated by hostility towards a protected group."
That compromise came about because of concern a previously scheme could have left churches facing criminal charges for preaching Bible-based sexual ethics, which are hated by the LGBT community at large.