This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed in a number of cases that the First Amendment protects even material that people find offensive.
Now a lower court judge in Colorado has expanded that ruling, further ordering that that requires a school district to provide offensive material to children.
Demanding that the Elizabeth School District use her judgment regarding materials board members and others determined should not be placed within ready access of children, Charlotte Sweeney, appointed by Joe Biden, "has sided with far-left activists over concerned parents, forcing the Elizabeth School District to return 19 books – including those pushing graphic sexual content and radical ideologies – to school library shelves," according to the Gateway Pundit.
The report described Sweeney as trampling on parental rights by forcing "explicit books" back into the library for any child to access.
Some of the publications include "The Hate U Give," "The Bluest Eye," "The Kite Runner," "#Pride: Championing LGBTQ Rights," "Melissa," "Thirteen Reasons Why" and more.
The board had removed the books from libraries because of concerns over "graphic violence, racism, and discrimination, depictions of self-harm or mental illness, and sexual content," the report said.
The NAACP joined the Authors Guild and some activist students and parents who claimed censorship and sued.
Sweeney found withholding offensive, possibly even dangerous or harmful, ideas from children violated the First Amendment.
She claimed, "Plaintiffs have shown that the district removed the 19 books based on the authors' and books' content and viewpoints on issues such as race, sexual orientation, gender identity, LGBTQ content, and to promote the board's self-proclaimed 'conservative values.'"
Sweeney claimed that the district's defense of a desire to protect children from inappropriate material was "pretextual."
Her decision was to deliver to those promoting the offending material, including the authors who stand to profit financially from her decision, a preliminary injunction ordering the school to provide the offending materials once again to children.
Sweeney claimed, "There simply is no reason to believe that the books were removed because of vulgarity, age-inappropriateness, or for legitimate pedagogical concerns."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'The Constitution simply does not allow the military to punish those with sincerely held religious beliefs'
A legal team representing an Idaho Army National Guard officer who is suing over his removal over his Christian beliefs is seeking a default judgment against Gov. Brad Little and two Guard generals for failing to respond to the lawsuit.
Maj. David Worley's lawsuit, in which he is represented by Liberty Counsel, charges he was removed from his command for expressing his personal views on biblical sexuality in a forum that was outside the military.
Little has filed a motion to dismiss, but he and the two generals, Adjutant General of the Idaho National Guard Major General Timothy J. Donnellan and the Assistant Adjutant General Brigadier General James C. Packwood, have declined to respond to or oppose Worley's specific discrimination complaint under the federal court's timeline rules, according to the legal team.
Liberty Counsel is requesting the court find the three defendants in default and grant the injunction to cease all ongoing efforts to discipline and remove Worley from the military.
"By suspending and removing Major David Worley from command over his Christian beliefs, the Idaho Army National Guard informally adopted an unconstitutional 'No Christians in Command' policy. Major Worley was unquestionably the target of an unconstitutional investigation and removal. The Constitution simply does not allow the military to punish those with sincerely held religious beliefs or to specifically target religion for disparate and discriminatory treatment. This discrimination against Major Worley must stop and his record must be cleared and his career restored," explained Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.
The background is that there was complaint from an LGBT-linked individual when Worley, outside of his military duties, ran for mayor of his town years ago.
Liberty Counsel explained, "While a 2023 investigation into Worley revealed no wrongdoing, officials nevertheless recommended a policy to screen potential candidates for command for any 'concerning ideologies' as a way of 'rooting out' any 'extremism' in the ranks. Accordingly, General Packwood concluded Worley's religious beliefs were 'toxic' and removed him from command solely due to those protected religious views. With Gov. Little as the commander-in-chief of the Idaho Army National Guard, as well as General Donnellan failing to rectify these actions, the decision to remove Worley from command on this basis essentially shows that these officials put an unconstitutional 'No Christians in Command' policy into effect.
"Worley's lawsuit states that these discriminatory actions are penalizing the 'mere exercise and expression' of religious views and violate the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Idaho Free Exercise of Religious Protection Act."
Given the absence of a response, Liberty Counsel moved in the court seeking a default judgment.
For failing to respond to these allegations, Liberty Counsel noted in its motion that "silence is a concession" and that Worley is entitled to a preliminary injunction.
In Little's motion to dismiss, he has claimed immunity under the 11th Amendment, which protects states from certain lawsuits.
"However, the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that lawsuits can move forward against government officials for violations of federal law," Liberty Counsel said.
It was during Worley's run for mayor of Pocatello when he expressed his religious convictions and moral objections to certain political movements, such as "Drag Queen Story Hours," pornographic material for minors in public libraries, and the medical mutilation of gender-confused children.
The comments were off-duty and in his private capacity, and before he was given command of the Idaho Army National Guard's Recruiting and Retention unit. The complaint came from an enlisted man, "who claims to be homosexual and is ideologically opposed to Worley's religious beliefs," Liberty Counsel said.
The complaint included that the enlisted man felt "threatened" because of Worley's biblical beliefs.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A state lawmaker in Maine who expressed her opinion regarding a male student portraying himself as a girl and winning a girls' pole vault state championship, and was censured by leftists in the legislature for doing that, already has sued for that infringement of her constitutional rights.
It is state Rep. Laurel Libby, R-Auburn, who posted on Facebook about the issue of transgenderism in public schools and, as a result, was censured by the state House, on a 75-70 vote that deprived her of her right to speak in the legislature, even vote.
Her posting simply included photos of the male athlete from both a boys competition a couple years ago and the girls competition this year.
Her legal action is against Maine Speaker of the House Ryan Fecteau, a Democrat, for the First Amendment speech violations as well as equal protection violations and the guarantee clause of Article IV of the Constitution, which protects the basic rights of political participation within state governments.
"I have the constitutional right to speak out, and my constituents have the right to full representation in the Maine House," Libby said in a statement shared with The Daily Signal. "Biological males have no place in girls sports. Our girls have every right, under federal law, to fair competition in sports. We will not let them be erased by the Democrat majority advancing a woke progressive agenda."
Now a report in the Federalist has revealed the judge likely to hear the case is a radical leftist activist.
All of the judges in Maine excused themselves from the case as apparently one of the male athlete's parents is a court employee, leaving Judge Melissa R. DuBose of Rhode Island the next in line to hear the case.
She is described in the report as "a far-left activist on LGBT and race issues and has spoken publicly about her ardent support — something well outside the norm for federal judges."
Libby, a Republican, has refused Democrat demands that she apologize for her opinions, even as the state policy that lets males say they are female and compete against girls is under federal investigation for apparent violations of civil rights law.
Libby said when the case was filed, "Instead of having an open and honest debate about the devastating impacts of Maine girls being forced to compete against biological males, Speaker Fecteau , and his Democratic colleagues resorted to canceling and silencing me, Speaker Fecteau and the Democrat majority are risking hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for our schools by stubbornly refusing to address this injustice. I have the constitutional right to speak out and my constituents have the right to full representation in the Maine House. Biological males have no place in girls' sports. Our girls have every right, under federal law, to fair competition in sports. We will not let them be erased by the Democrat majority advancing a woke progressive agenda."
Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino told The Federalist that DuBose "is a true radical."
"There's questions asked about whether she is capable of being impartial, and then, even if she ends up continuing to hear the case — I think it's important context as we're watching this case go through the court to realize this is — this is likely a judge that's going to already have a thumb on the scale on one side of this issue."
Democrats boasted when DuBose was nominated by Joe Biden that DuBose apparently was the "first openly LGBT judge" in the Rhode Island district.
It is her activism that is raising questions.
She signed a 2021 letter that appeared aimed at bringing a wholesale discrimination narrative into the judiciary, the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump announced when he took office that the official policy of the U.S. government would be to recognize two sexes, male and female, a move that disrupted the pro-transgender ideology in many venues, including in American government programs and offices.
And he may even have had an influence overseas.
A report from the Christian Institute cites a Yougov polling that shows advocacy for "trans" rights across Great Britain has decreased "across the board."
The survey interviewed some 2,000 adults on issues ranging from medical "treatments" to men demanding to participate in women's sports, and the presence of males in intimate areas for women, such as locker rooms.
It revealed a majority say that certain "trans" rights actually are "a genuine risk of harm" to women.
And across the board, in all age groups, opposition to allowing people to legally "change" their sex has increased.
Actually, following the science, no one can "change" their sex since being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level, but activists in the campaign dress, act and portray themselves as the sex they are not.
The report added, "Opposition among the young has actively grown," and is up 16 points to 36%.
"The survey found that almost two in five Britons personally know someone who identifies as transgender, with noticeable differences across generations: 'While 53% of 18-24 year olds say they know someone transgender, this falls with each successive age group, reaching 26% of those aged 65 and above,'" the report said.
While activists have demanded, over and over, making it easier to obtain a "gender recognition certificate," actually few members of the surveyed public support that concept.
Not even one in five said that should be easier, while 63% said it should not.
"Similarly, 70% of Britons agree that the approval of doctors should be a compulsory part of gaining a GRC, and 66% say the requirement to live as the affirmed gender for a minimum of two years before being approved should be kept," the report said.
One of the more contentious issues, "transitioning" children, found the public's view one-sided.
"When it comes to treatments for under-16s, 75% say puberty blockers should not be allowed, with 78% saying the same of hormone treatments," the report said.
Doing a "gender reassignment surgery" on a child, which actually is a body mutilation, was opposed by 87%.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The room includes a teleprompter positioned directly in front of Joe and a smaller desk for when he would play his role as president
A top adviser to President Donald Trump, Alina Habba, has made a video using the "fake" Oval Office where Joe Biden allegedly filmed some of his speeches.
The room includes a teleprompter positioned directly in front of where Biden would sit, and a smaller desk for him to use.
"The whole setup looks like a Hollywood studio," social media charged.
"You guys, I just finished a show. Look at the room that they put me in," she said. "We're in Biden's fake Oval Office, everybody."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'When will there be ARRESTS?'
Stacey Abrams, famous for running for governor of Georgia as a Democrat, losing and then turning into an election denier by rejecting the voters' results, has been involved in a long list of controversial programs.
Including one where, as she described it, taxpayers bought new appliances for residents of a Georgia town so their energy bills would go down.
Pretty neat deal if you can line it up: Taxpayers buys new appliances and gives them to you and they then save you money.
It was one of the egregious spending schemes that is being revealed that happened during the Joe Biden administration.
In an MSNBC interview, she said, the "program" was to lower costs for residents of De Soto, Georgia.
It was in 2023 and 2024, she said, "We worked in a tiny town in south Georgia to demonstrate that by replacing energy inefficient appliances with efficient appliances you can lower your costs," she said.
That's what happened when EPA-controlled tax funding went to that enterprise, she said. One woman's electricity bill was halved to $98 because she was given new appliances, by taxpayers.
The EPA then said such a program should be expanded.
That apparently was the $1.9 billion that President Donald Trump has criticized as being wasted.
"Stacey Abrams admits the $2 billion Joe Biden's EPA gave her was used to buy votes of people in Georgia by purchasing them new appliances. MSNBC does their best to whitewash this but can't hide the huge pile of fraudulent spending Abrams facilitated," social media commenters explained.
"When will there be ARRESTS?" said another.
Added another, "This is a ridiculous theft! Of course new appliances are more energy efficient! My household saved money for new washer, dryer, refrigerator, and our energy bills WERE less. BUT…the EPA has no business 'giving' my tax $ to others for this purchase. She needs be prosecuted."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A proposal in Colorado's leftist legislature is moving "deadnaming" to an extreme.
That's the offense, to LGBT promoters, of calling someone by their name when they have chosen another name as part of their agenda for transgenderism.
Actually, according to the science, being male or female is embedded into the human body down to the DNA level and doesn't change, no matter the chemical or surgical "treatments" that may be employed.
However, a transgender person's decision to adopt a different name is recognized by many jurisdictions and using the old name, "deadnaming," actually is an offense in some of those locations.
Now a report in Westword explains how Colorado is planning to take the fight against "deadnaming" to an extreme.
It would demand "accurate" references to a person on a death certificate.
The report explained, "Before Laura MacWaters transitioned, she spent years worrying about what would happen after she died. Would anyone ever know her for the woman she was? How would she be remembered? Would her identity and existence remain invisible forever? Today, MacWaters is proudly out as a transgender woman, but a concern remains: Will her identity be accurately reflected on her death certificate?"
The report noted that Coloradans already can change their birth certificate, driver's license and state ID to match what they claim to be. That is a male like MacWaters can change "male" references to "female."
The new plan would also allow a death certificate to identify a person by their gender ideology.
"When a person's gender identity is stripped from them in their vital records, it is more than a clerical error. It is an act of erasure, a denial of who they are and of their legacy," MacWaters claimed.
"This bill ensures that the respect we fight for in life will not disappear the moment we pass. I have seen how easy it is for trans people, especially older trans people, to have their identity questioned, dismissed, erased. …I've seen the pain of those who feared they would be misgendered, even in death."
The plan already has been adopted by the state House Health & Human Services Committee.
The move comes in a national discourse for which President Donald Trump has explained the federal government recognizes only male and female.
Agenda promoters claim that they are being targeted because their documents are reflecting now their "sex they were assigned at birth."
A Democrat in the House, Kyle Brown, said, it's important to "promote dignity and accuracy in our vital records," in sponsoring the bill that would mislabel men as women and women as men on their demand.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Listening to establishment media, one might think President Trump's new administration has done a poor job of keeping air travelers safe in America.
Within the last month, media outlets have reported extensively on four aviation crashes and mishaps, most prominently the midair collision in Washington, D.C., that killed 67 on Jan. 29.
Last week, a plane landing in Toronto ignited and flipped over on landing. The 80 people onboard survived the crash.
But despite these incidents, the numbers show that air travel continues to be one of the safest modes of transportation.
"The data doesn't indicate a rise in serious accidents," aviation expert and professor Chad Kendall told 9news.com. "When we have two high profile accidents like this back-to-back, certainly it could show that it is, but statistically it is not."
Kendall continued: "When we have accidents like this, we go through a process and we determine what happened and then we make changes. Whether that's changes to training, technology, procedures, or communication. There's nothing off the table when it comes to safety and making travel safer."
Recent statistics from the National Transportation Safety Board, or NTSB, show there may have been a record low number of airplane accidents nationwide in January. If the currently reported numbers stay the same, there were 63 fatal or non-fatal crashes last month, compared to 80 in January 2024 and 89 in 2023.
That's the lowest number of crashes in a single month since 1982, according to data on the NTSB website. Overall, their data shows a trend of crashes declining over the years.
Last week, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy reiterated the overall safety of aviation, telling CBS News: "If you get in a plane, if you look at how many people fly, how many flights we have, of course it's a safe space."
Duffy remarked that there isn't a pattern behind the recent incidents, calling them each "very unique."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal district judge has failed to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a fired worker who obtained a job at a religious school by promising to adhere to its biblical standards, even as he was already started on a campaign to embrace transgenderism.
The judge, Norman Moon, allowed the lawsuit by Jonathan Zinski against Liberty University to move forward by claiming that the school cannot "erect a shield against antidiscrimination laws by asserting that mere acceptance of a member from a particular group would impair its image."
Further, he said having the Christian school employ Zinski does not significantly burden its ability to maintain its views and does not affect its freedom of expressive association.
Liberty Counsel, representing Liberty, said there would be an immediate appeal.
"Liberty University has the right under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to uphold its sincere Christian religious beliefs and require its employees to do the same. Jonathan Zinski intentionally and deceptively set up Liberty University in an attempt to undermine its religious beliefs and mission. Title VII makes it abundantly clear that Liberty University does not violate the law when it discharges an employee who has publicly engaged in conduct inconsistent with its religious principles. Title VII exempts Liberty University from having to employ individuals who violate its religious beliefs and doctrinal positions," explained Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel chief.
The next step in the case will be the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Moon's refusal to recognize the "meritless" status of claims by Zinski will be considered.
The legal team explained the issues: "In July 2023, Liberty University terminated Jonathan Zinski after he flagrantly and intentionally violated Liberty University's doctrinal statement and policies. When Zinski was hired, he acknowledged and affirmed the doctrinal statement, but then as soon as his 90-day probation period expired he revealed he had begun taking female hormones four months before he was hired, and that he planned to 'identify' as female."
Liberty Counsel said what happened was "Zinski set up this case when he applied to be hired."
The Supreme Court, in its Bostock v. Clayton County decision, "explicitly stated that the protection afforded to religious institutions in such scenarios were for future cases, and Liberty Counsel will press both the Fourth Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court to recognize what the First Amendment and Title VII both require—that Liberty University is permitted to maintain its religious beliefs and practices and to require its employees to comport their lives with Liberty University's Doctrinal Statement and religious beliefs," the legal team explained.
The lawyers pointed out, "Zinski attempted to set up Liberty University for this lawsuit, in which Zinski was represented by the ACLU. Four months before applying to Liberty University, he began taking female hormones. Yet, when hired in February 2023, Zinski agreed to adhere to the university's doctrinal position regarding the biblical understanding of gender. Liberty University's doctrinal statement clearly states that human beings were directly created in the very image of God as either biologically male or female from the womb, and it is a sinful act prohibited by God to deny one's birth sex by self-identification with a different gender."
"Zinski acknowledged all of this despite knowing that he was four months into executing his plan to act in opposition to Liberty University's doctrinal statement and employment requirements by denying his biological sex. As his 90-day probation ended, Zinski revealed his effort to identify as a different gender and then demanded Liberty University depart from its doctrine, sincerely held religious beliefs, and Christian mission," Liberty Counsel noted.
The legal arguments include that Liberty University's decision to terminate Zinski was based on its religious values, and Title VII's text exempts that religious decision from employment discrimination suits.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg handled one of the Democrats' many lawfare cases against President Donald Trump before he took office the second time.
He took some questions about business reporting activities that would have been misdemeanors had not the statute of limitations expired already. But he claimed they were felonies because they were in pursuit of some other, unidentified crime.
Hearing the case was Juan Merchan, who had donated to leftist causes, and whose daughter was a Democrat activist making money off her father's courtroom decisions against Trump, including his decision to allow salacious testimony from an ex-porn star and a convicted perjurer. Merchan also ruled the jury's decision didn't have to be unanimous, unheard of in American justice.
Bragg and Merchan, with the help of a leftist Manhattan jury, convicted Trump on 34 counts.
And while that verdict now is on appeal, the lower court isn't entirely out of the picture, as FBI Director Kash Patel wants to know the details of that money flow, and much more.
He has announced he is working with members of Congress for subpoenas to be issued to Merchan's daughter's company, "who made $15 million plus from the illicit information pouring out of her father's courtroom."
He said, "I want to know the bank records, because money doesn't lie. I want to know how deep it is and how much of it went to the family," for the "false conviction" of Trump.
Earlier, the Daily Caller News Foundation pointed out how Merchan "spent seven minutes" "bemoaning that then President-elect Donald Trump's election victory prevented him from imposing a sentence normally given to an 'ordinary citizen.'"
Merchan ultimately handed down a sentence of "unconditional discharge." That includes no fines, jail or probation.
He claimed that the trial, in which Trump essentially was convicted of describing legal expenses as legal expenses, with its salacious testimony, was ordinary, but the sentencing was different.
Merchan said, "It is clear from legal precedent … that Donald Trump, the ordinary citizen [and] Donald Trump, the criminal defendant, would not be entitled to such considerable protections. I'm referring to protections that extended well beyond those afforded the average defendant who winds their way through the criminal justice system each day. No, ordinary citizens do not receive those legal protections. It is the office of the president that bestows those far-reaching protections to the office holder."
Merchan's jury had claimed Trump falsified business records to cover a $130,000 payment for a non-disclosure agreement with porn actress Stormy Daniels.
Trump explained he is "totally innocent" and said he was treated "very unfairly" throughout Merchan's court proceedings.
Bragg claimed the payment to Daniels was labeled legal expenses by accountants, and experts have confirmed the case never should have been opened. Some of those called for Merchan to be disbarred for his activities.