This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Long have leftists insisted that "thoughts and prayers" have no place in America when there is an eruption of evil, like this week in Minneapolis when a man calling himself a woman shot up a Catholic church, killing two students and injuring many more.

After that shooting at Annunciation Catholic School, multiple Democrats, progressives and others went public with their condemnation of prayer. A Minnesota bishop scolded the Minneapolis mayor for his comments, explaining that's what is needed at such times.

But now an analysis at the Federalist, from executive editor Joy Pullman, notes that those Democrat talking points are a red flag.

"The New York Post published excerpts of the shooter's journal posted on YouTube that include a drawing of him communing with a Satanic figure in a mirror. As I've written before, Satan-worshippers can be startlingly more direct than many Christians about the connections between their spiritual and political beliefs.

"This image is yet another striking testimony — from the dark side! — about the connections between queer ideology and the demonic. So are passages in the shooter's journal that read as if they came straight out of the mouth of a demon: 'I also love when kids get shot, I love to see kids get torn apart.' Pictures of his arsenal show a gun magazine inscribed with the words: 'Where is your God?'" she explained.

She continued, "According to reporter Andy Ngo, transgender ghouls are celebrating the attempted mass murder online. The quotes he provides read like a leftist fantasy about what a 'fundamentalist Christian' movie script would put in the mouths of trans activists: 'MORE DEAD CHRISTIANS LOL.' 'Based. Take the fight to their kids so they can feel what it's like to be attacked for your identity.' 'Future religious extremeists [sic] dying isn't a bad thing.' 'Won't someone please think of the poor innocent Christian transphobes that just want trans people dedd??'"

She cited Maxwell Alejandro Frost, a Democrat member of Congress from Florida, who posted, "These children were probably praying when they were shot to death at catholic school. Don't give us your f—— thoughts and prayers."

Frost later said on television, "We've had it with the thoughts and prayers for years, for decades," prompting Pullman to note, "If you made a list of who hates prayers, Satan would be at the top of that list for sure. Prayer is perhaps the pre-eminent way to fight him. The less prayer, the less Satan is restrained. Now why would Democrats want that?"

Pulllman cited Frey's trashing of "thoughts and prayers," and noted, "The sentiments he's communicating are the straightforwardly demonic, despairing lies that prayer does not work and that God is not listening and He doesn't provide justice."

Others said prayers don't stop bullets and bashed Christians for referencing an "invisible sky-being."

There is an answer to such "demonic screeches," the analysis confirmed, revealing it's: God was there with these children in their suffering, and He is with them now. God is not dead, He is alive, and so are all who have died in the faith, who with Christ will one day be resurrected. All martyrs have overcome Satan forever 'by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.' Death is not a moment of despair for a Christian, it is a moment of triumph and glory."

She cited former Federalist colleague Emily Jashinsky, who wrote, "It's really time to retire this cheap hit on people of faith, especially in cases where they're actually the direct targets of an attack. Those little kids don't believe the prayers they were saying today shield them from earthly tragedy or excuse them from doing good works."

Pullman noted that her primary point was different:: "It's to highlight the directly Satanic words coming out of the mouths of Democrat Party leaders and followers. There's a truly shocking overlap between what Satan would say and what well-known political leftists are completely comfortable saying to hundreds of millions onscreen."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Democrats in one Georgia County are facing charges they are threatening democracy for their persistent refusal to seat properly nominated and appointed Republican members to a county board.

And now they are going to be fined $10,000 per day, payable to the court every day, which of course will be coming from the county's taxpayers.

The fight is in Fulton County where the commissioners have refused to allow two Republican nominees to take part in the county Board of Elections "as required by law," according to a report in the Gateway Pundit.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A Christian-run bakery is under attack by one of the political subdivisions of the state of Colorado, which has established in recent years a long list of acts of "hostility" to members of the faith.

That "hostility" designation actually came from the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected the leftist state's anti-faith agenda in a fight over the messaging on cakes produced by a popular different bakery.

The state has tried to same scheme against a web designer, and now is attacking the speech of counselors in a related fight.

But the newest blaze that has erupted in the state is over a French bakery in Jefferson County, just west of Denver itself.

A report at the Federalist notes that it is a zoning authority that has ordered an end to the bakery that has proven popular in its community.

The report explains the bakery, Et Voila!, opened up in the Lookout Mountain community, overlooking Golden.

It is, the report said, "a must-visit destination for hikers, mountain bikers, and tourists from all over the globe."

The restaurant is run by three French immigrants, husband-and-wife team of Eric and Rachel Defour and Rachel's sister, Ruth.

"The Dufours want to share their love for authentic French cuisine with the Lookout Mountain community, creating a welcoming space for locals and visitors. They also count on the bakery's financial success to support their nonprofit, Serving Alongside Ministry (SAM), which provides counseling services for Christian organizations and leaders globally," the Federalist explained.

They sold their home and spent almost a year changing a storage building into a clean and inviting space.

Their work consumes their time, as the bakery is open six days a week, with chores beginning at 1 a.m., long before the opening at 7 a.m.

They knew they had to live nearby, as Colorado winters can be intimidating, with snowfall measured in feet, so they arranged temporary living facilities adjacent to the restaurant, two trailers that were customized to match the bakery's designs and colors.

Enter the Jefferson County zoning inspectors, who are insisting that the bakery site is not available for any residential use – ever.

And county officials there have refused to accommodate the community's needs for a restaurant with a variance, despite evidence that enforcing their ruling would cause the business to close.

The Dufours now are appealing for help on Change.org, which has gathered thousands of signatures praising the bakery and challenging the zoning.

The report also noted CNBC has rated Colorado at "D+" for the cost of doing business, and a "C-" for business friendliness, and as the county is facing a $30 million budget shortfall, its intention appears to be "destroy a thriving business and a cherished community hub simply to enforce its zoning ordinance."

Colorado, the state, already has lost at the Supreme Court its war against another bakery over the owner's refusal to spout state-approved LGBT messaging in violation of his own faith. Same results, from the same Supreme Court, in the state's war against a web designer. Still pending is the state's demand that counselors say only state-approved words in counseling clients.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Former special counsel Jack Smith, the lawyer appointed by Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, to run several lawfare cases against President Donald Trump, was doing everything exactly right, according to his lawyers.

They have submitted a letter defending Smith, who now is being investigated on allegations he violated the Hatch Act while creating charges to file against Trump.

The Hatch Act prevents federal employees from engaging in partisan political actions while being paid by taxpayers.

Smith came under investigation after Sen. Tom Cottyon delivered a referral to the Office of Special Counsel regarding Smith's politicized cases. The accusations are that Smith ran his cases in ways to harm Trump's 2024 election campaign.

Smith filed charges against Trump based on his handling of classified documents and for his actions on January 6, 2021, which Smith claimed was an attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

Both cases since have been dismissed.

But the New York Post noted an email confirms the Hatch Act Unit, which enforces a law restricting government employees from engaging in political activities, has begun reviewing Smith.

"Jack Smith's actions were clearly driven to hurt President Trump's election, and Smith should be held fully accountable," said Cotton, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a statement to the Post.

Smith indicted Trump on 37 federal counts in Miami in June 2023 for lawfully storing presidential records at his Mar-a-Lago estate which was protected by Secret Service agents. Ironically, this was developing at the same time it was revealed Joe Biden had boxes and boxes of secret government documents stored in an office, his home, even his unsecured garage, but no action was taken against him.

That case against Trump later was dismissed because Smith's appointment as special counsel was improper.

In the second case in Washington D.C., Jack Smith indicted Trump on four counts: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

That's even though evidence about the protest-turned-riot on that day confirmed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted liability for the events, and Trump had urged his fans to protest "peacefully."

Smith's lawyers now have claimed, "We are aware of no court decision, prior Office of Special Counsel finding, or other authority interpreting the Hatch Act to prohibit prosecutors from investigating allegations of criminal conduct committed by former public officials or candidates for public office, or prosecuting those cases when the facts and law so dictate."

A report at the Gateway Pundit described how Smith "lashed out" at the Office of Special Counsel" for its investigation.

Smith's lawyers claim he made his decisions "based solely on the evidence."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump has delivered a verdict on Lisa D. Cook, a governor for the Federal Reserve who now is facing accusations of mortgage fraud.

His conclusion: She'll be fired if she doesn't resign.

WND reported only a day earlier that Cook was the third major Democrat personality in recent weeks to face mortgage fraud claims.

It was the U.S. Federal Housing FHFA that alleged, in a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, that Cook committed mortgage fraud by designating both an out of state condominium as well as a Michigan residence as her primary "home," at the same time.

Shortly later, the condo allegedly was offered for rent.

The government statement said, "When someone commits mortgage fraud, they undermine the faith and integrity of our System. It does not matter who you are – no one is above the law. We have sent a Criminal Referral to the Department of Justice with regard to the allegations against Ms. Cook, and the DOJ should go wherever the facts may lead them."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump on Thursday renewed his call for freedom for "Patriot" Tina Peters, a former Colorado county elections official jailed by the leftists in the state on their charges of election interference.

She was indicted, convicted, and jailed for allegedly releasing one inactive password to an elections system several years ago.

However, the Democrat government there handed a free pass to Jena Griswold, the Democrat secretary of state in the one-party government after she oversaw her office's publication online of hundreds of current passwords.

Griswold earned the backing of the Democrat political machine in her failed attempt to remove President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot, a move that was approved by her own all-Democrat state Supreme Court but reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Continuing the "torture" of Peters will bring bad things to Colorado, Trump promised.

"FREE TINA PETERS, a brave and innocent Patriot who has been tortured by Crooked Colorado politicians, including the big Mail-In Ballot supporting the governor of the State. Let Tina Peters out of jail, RIGHT NOW. She did nothing wrong, except catching the Democrats cheat in the Election. She is an old woman, and very sick. If she is not released, I am going to take harsh measures!!!"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In a statement posted on X Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security criticized the media's use of the term "undocumented immigrant," emphasizing that the appropriate terminology is "illegal alien."

The post, which includes several media headlines using the wokier term, reads, "'Undocumented immigrant' is the immigration equivalent of 'they/them.' DHS has no interest in the left's open borders pronouns. 'Alien' is the technical legal term, and that is what DHS will use. 'Illegal' is the only way to correctly describe lawbreakers. Next thing you know you will be calling burglars 'undocumented houseguests.'"

Fox News reports that federal law includes multiple references to the term "illegal alien" or "alien" in describing persons who incur into the U.S. illegally or without proper documentation.

In 8 U.S.C (U.S. Code) 1182 and 1227 – provisions dealing with admission and removal of foreign nationals – the terms "inadmissible aliens" and "deportable aliens" are used.

In federal statute delineating employment and public benefits, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a) and 8 U.S.C. 1611 describe the "unlawful employment of aliens" and "aliens ineligible for federal public benefits.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A Christian revival has begun surging across the United Kingdom, according to multiple reports, with a new documentation showing that those ages 18-24 are leading the way.

"After decades of Christianity declining in Britain – falling to such an extent that the 2021 census found that Christians had become a minority in England and Wales amid the rise of atheism and Islam — there appears to be an indication of a trend reversal and possible revival of the faith in the United Kingdom," according to a report at Breitbart.

And GB News documented how a YouGov tracker of religious belief found people in that age group who professed belief in God rose from 16% in August of 2021 to 45% in January of this year, a stunning 181% explosion in survey numbers that normally move by single digits.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

CNN's numbers guy Harry Enten says there's been a "complete flip" among Ukrainians in how they want the war with Russia to end, with a vast majority now wanting the war to end as soon as possible, rather than fighting to win.

In July, polling by Gallup indicated 69% of Ukrainians wanted "a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible," while only 24% supported their country "continuing to fight until victory."

"There have been some absolutely major shifts. The idea that Ukraine is going to achieve complete victory – that idea has collapsed within Ukrainian society," Enten explained Monday.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A newly filed friend-of-the-court brief in the legal battle over sending taxpayer cash to abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood, over the objections of taxpayers, Congress and the president, warns just exactly how dangerous is the precedent the abortionists want.

They are, in fact, endorsing a system in which court judges would be able to allocate tax money to their pet causes, thereby violating the "constitutional separation of powers" that allows only Congress that power.

It is the American Center for Law and Justice that has filed the arguments in the legal fight over the law of the land – adopted by Congress and signed by the president, that no tax money should go to Planned Parenthood.

Then there is a single pro-abortion judge, Indira Talwani, who claimed the power of Congress and is insisting that tax money be handed over to the abortionists.

"Our brief makes a fundamental point that Planned Parenthood desperately wants to obscure: There is no constitutional right to government subsidies. The Supreme Court established this principle decades ago and has reaffirmed it consistently, even during the Roe v. Wade era," the ACLU reported.

"When Americans elect representatives who prioritize protecting life over funding abortion providers, those policy choices must be respected. The Constitution does not transform every legal activity into a taxpayer-funded entitlement, and courts cannot conscript unwilling taxpayers to subsidize practices they find morally objectionable."

It explained, "Planned Parenthood's argument ignores a critical reality that the Supreme Court has acknowledged: Money is fungible. When the government provides funding to an organization for one purpose, those funds free up other resources that can be redirected toward activities the government prefers not to support."

The brief to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals defends Congress' constitutional authority to decline to fund abortion providers like the industry giant.

"This case, Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., represents far more than a dispute over government funding – it strikes at the heart of our constitutional separation of powers and America's commitment to protecting life," the organization confirmed.

It was Talwani, in a Massachusetts court, who is insisting that Planned Parenthood get all of the money it requests from taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars.

"This judicial activism represents nothing less than a direct assault on the will of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress, who voted to stop forcing taxpayers to subsidize abortion," the legal team noted.

"When Congress exercises its constitutional authority to direct taxpayer dollars away from organizations that perform abortions, it reflects the deeply held values of millions of Americans who believe their tax dollars should not subsidize the taking of innocent life."

In the case of Planned Parenthood, when it gets Medicaid payments for "family planning services, that money allows the organization to redirect other funds toward performing abortions. Congress has every right – indeed, the responsibility to taxpayers who oppose abortion – to prevent this indirect subsidization of abortion providers."

The congressional action, it explained, "involves no punishment whatsoever."

"Planned Parenthood remains free to operate, employ staff, and provide services. No one is barred from working there or prohibited from seeking their services. Congress has simply decided not to pay for its activities with taxpayer dollars – a decision well within legislative authority. Every time Congress makes funding choices – supporting some activities while declining to fund others – it could face similar challenges if Planned Parenthood's theory prevailed. This would transform every appropriations decision into potential constitutional litigation, undermining the democratic process and separation of powers," the ACLJ argued.

But maybe most troubling is the assault in the case on "constitutional separation of powers."

"The Appropriations Clause could not be clearer: 'No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.' This power belongs exclusively to Congress, not to courts or executive agencies."

But the abortion industry leader is demanding courts order Congress to spend money "it has explicitly declined to appropriate."