This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump Wednesday announced new sanctions against Russian oil companies as retaliation for President Putin's refusal to end the war with Ukraine or agree to a ceasefire.

Posted Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: "Now is the time to stop the killing and for an immediate ceasefire. Given President Putin's refusal to end this senseless war, Treasury is sanctioning Russia's two largest oil companies that fund the Kremlin's war machine. Treasury is prepared to take further action if necessary to support President Trump's effort to end yet another war. We encourage our allies to join us in and adhere to these sanctions."

Trump has been increasingly frustrated with Russia's intransigence as he has tried to broker an end to the bloody war. After announcing last week that a meeting with Putin was being planned for Budapest, Hungary, Tuesday Trump said the meeting was off.

A press release from the Treasury Department noted the U.S. was imposing sanctions "as a result of Russia's lack of serious commitment to a peace process to end the war in Ukraine. …

"Treasury will continue to use its authority in support of a peace process."

In the Oval Office, President Trump made further remarks about the sanctions:

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In a Monday interview with Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., agreed that President Trump is implementing certain policies the senator has advocated for years but that the Democratic Party opposes.

Stewart confronted Sanders, a democratic socialist who caucuses with Senate Democrats, about Trump's policies, saying, "He is the most socialist president of my lifetime."

Continued Stewart: "Taking a percentage of companies to do business in the U.S. That's a Bernie Sanders idea!" He also mentioned the new government-based TrumpRx drug plan.

Sanders seemed to agree but then immediately brought up Trump actions with which he disagrees, like "throwing 15 million people off their health care."

President Trump posted part of the interview on his Truth Social account Tuesday.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A radical group promoting abortion has lost its bid in court to overturn a parental consent law in the state of Missouri.

The American Center for Law and Justice reports it was a "decisive" victory for life, parental rights and the rule of law.

The court ruling, from the Circuit Court of Jackson County in Kansas City, dismissed the lawsuit filed by abortion promoters seeking to destroy "the state's commonsense parental consent law."

"This is a major win for Missouri families," the legal team explained.

The ACLJ, which filed a legal brief in the fight to defend the right of parents to be involved in the most serious life decisions in their children's lives, said, "A group of abortion activists backed by 'The Lawyering Project,' an organization devoted to expanding abortion through the courts, attempted to strike down Missouri's long-standing parental consent law."

The statute, which dated back decades, ensures minors cannot undergo abortions without the knowledge and consent of a parent or guardian.

The fight was taken by abortion promoters to extremes, the report said.

"In a shocking legal stunt, they sued a small handpicked list of prosecutors, asking the court to certify them as a 'defendant class' that could speak for the entire state – effectively silencing Missouri's elected attorney general and the millions of citizens whose voices shaped the state's pro-life protections. The ACLJ answered the Missouri AG's request to file in opposition to this attempt to create a class for a class-action suit," the ACLJ reported.

Now, with the dismissal, the result is "a resounding rejection of the abortion industry's underhanded tactics," the report said, and, "Missouri's parental consent law remains in full effect – protecting young girls from being pressured or manipulated into abortions without their parents' knowledge and preserving the state's rightful authority to uphold pro-life values."

It's also a win for Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway who has been defending the state's broader pro-life protections in a separate case.

"The court affirmed that Missouri has both the right and the responsibility to protect minors, defend parental authority, and stand against the abortion industry's reckless disregard for law and life," the ACLJ said.

The court ruling found that that plaintiffs were operating "as an unincorporated association," so they didn't even have the right to sue.

"In the absence of statutory authority, a voluntary or unincorporated association cannot sue or be sued as such. As a general rule, an unincorporated voluntary association is not a legal entity apart from its members and therefore cannot sue or be sued as a separate entity," the ruling said.

"Consequently, absent incorporation or other formal legal registration of Right By You with the Missouri Secretary of State, it remains purely a voluntary association with 'no entity status beyond the status of those persons who comprise the association.'"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Kamala Harris, the failed Democrat nominee in the 2024 presidential race whose support plunged even as she spent over a billion dollars campaigning for a few weeks, now insists that the vote was the "closest" and "tightest" result in years.

Further, she claims the decision by American voters, described by many as a landslide, did not give President Donald Trump a "mandate" for the country.

Harris recently has been making a series of appearances where she promotes her own book, which could, if successful, generate income for her.

"It was the tightest, closest presidential election in the 21st century. He does not have a mandate, it is not a mandate, it was not a mandate," she claimed.

Online commenters cited the 2000 race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore, which ended up before the Supreme Court and depended on a handful of hanging chads in Florida before a decision.

Further, a report at LifeZette reminded her that her opinion doesn't align with official results.

"President Trump won all major swing states and became the first Republican since 2004 to carry the national popular vote. His winning margins in key battleground states were significantly larger than those of Joe Biden's in 2020. For example, Biden carried Arizona by 10,457 votes in 2020, while Trump won the same state by more than 187,000 votes in November 2024," the report said.

"Trump also secured comfortable victories in states including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin, which had previously been decided by narrow margins."

Additionally, voters gave Trump GOP majorities in the U.S. House and Senate.

Following her catastrophe, she chose not to enter the race for the California's governor's seat and instead released plans to travel the country and promote her book.

The report continued, "The book reportedly contains pointed criticism of several prominent Democrats, including Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who served as her running mate in the 2024 race. Harris wrote that Walz was selected 'as a last resort' after she determined that former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, her preferred choice, would not be viable as a presidential running mate due to concerns over his sexual orientation."

Online commenters described her claims as "rantings," and "Kamala must have read the election results through her wine goggles."

Another posted an image of the 2024 election results, with Trump winning all of the counties colored red:

Trump won 312 Electoral College votes, to 226 for Harrs.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday is scheduled to hear the demands from leftists in the state of Colorado to censor the speech of Christian counselors.

Officials in the leftist state who multiple times have demanded the authority to censor Christians in the state have claimed that the counselors' speech is "behavior," which they say they can regulate.

But their agenda is clear in the details of their fight: They insist that no counselor can  encourage a patient to consider NOT being LGBT. But promotions of the LGBT lifestyle choices are fully encouraged.

Those same officials in Colorado repeatedly have tried to censor other Christians' speech, including that of Masterpiece Cakeshop baker Jack Phillips, who refused to violate his Christian faith by promoting deviant wedding arrangements.

The Supreme Court, in that case, scolded the state for its "hostility" to Christians. Then state officials doubled down, trying the same stunt with a web designer. And they lost again in court.

The case at issue involves licensed counselor Kaley Chiles, who is represented by the ADF.

"Chiles wants to help young people distressed about their gender achieve their chosen goal to grow comfortable with their bodies and avoid harmful drugs and procedures," the legal team said.

"But Colorado law forbids her from doing so."

Already, the U.S. government and 21 states, in addition to counseling groups, detransitioners, mental-health researchers, free speech advocates and others, are supporting Chiles' arguments.

"The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors,:" said lawyer Jim Campbell. "There is a growing consensus around the world that adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria need love and an opportunity to talk through their struggles and feelings. Colorado's law harms these young people by depriving them of caring and compassionate conversations with a counselor who helps them pursue the goals they desire."

The legal team charged, "Chiles argues that Colorado's law violates her freedom of speech by prohibiting licensed counselors like her from engaging in counseling conversations with clients under age 18 who want to change some expression, behavior, identity, or feeling associated with their 'sexual orientation or gender identity.'"

The lawyers pointed out that the Democrat-led state, commanded at this time by Democrat homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, schemed to set up in the law a prohibition on counseling conversations "in one direction."

"For example, it allows counseling conversations that push young people toward a gender identity different than their sex but prohibits conversations that help them grow comfortable with their sex when they desire to do that. The law also threatens severe penalties, including suspension and even revocation of the counselor's license. This one-sided censorship comes amidst a growing national mental-health crisis and prevents many Colorado children from obtaining the counseling that they desire—and that is likely to help them."

The ADF said, "Many of Chiles' clients come to her because they share her Christian worldview and faith-based values. These clients believe their lives will be more fulfilling if they are aligned with the teachings of their faith. Yet Colorado law censors Chiles from speaking words her clients want to hear because the government does not like the view she expresses."

Detractors have called such counseling "conversion therapy" but the misnomer isn't accurate since the counseling actually involves helping patients come to grips with their own reality.

Judges in Colorado, who have moved so far into the leftist agenda the all-Democrat state Supreme Court actually tried to prevent President Donald Trump from being on the ballot in 2024, before being rebuked by the Supreme Court, have advocated for the state's censorship position.

There already is a split among federal appeals courts on the dispute, a key factor that the Supreme Court considers in accepting cases.

The 3rd and 11th circuit courts have found such bans suppress protected speech.

The state censorship plan is based on viewpoint restrictions, which the Supreme Court has opposed in previous cases.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A school district has done a quick 180 – literally within hours – after being confronted about its censorship targeting faith.

The fight erupted at Arkansas Connections Academy, an online public school, and involved student Zion Ramos.

It was handled by First Liberty Institute, which explained, "Every day, students have a 'social time' Zoom meeting where they are free to speak about whatever they want provided their comments are not violent, vulgar, or obscene. On September 23, 2025, inspired by the memorial service for Charlie Kirk, Zion decided to share his faith in a two-minute statement."

Ramos said, "Hello, my name is Zion. I won't be long, but I have something very important to say. You may not want to hear it, but it's the most important thing you will ever hear. We don't know how long we have. One day, it'll all be over. It may not be today, tomorrow, a month, or even years from now, but when our time is up, all we will have is eternity. And we only have two places to go: heaven or hell. And we need to decide where we want to spend it."

Suddenly, the teacher monitoring the call put the student on mute, censoring his speech. Then she quickly removed him from the Zoom meeting completely.

"School officials cannot silence students who are sharing their faith with other students during social gatherings," said Kayla Toney, institute lawyer. "Public schools are not religion-free zones, but by censoring faith on campus, officials unjustly marginalize students like Zion who simply want to share the Gospel with peers."

The legal team dispatched a demand letter, explaining, "As the Supreme Court's holding in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District made clear, the First Amendment protects students' expressions of their faith in public schools. The Court in Kennedy explained that the clauses of the First Amendment 'work in tandem. Where the Free Exercise Clause protects religious exercises, whether communicative or not, the Free Speech Clause provides overlapping protection for expressive religious activities.' 597 U.S. at 524. The result is that the First Amendment 'doubly protects religious speech.' Id."

Within hours, the school responded by inviting Ramos back to the meetings and assuring that he would be allowed three minutes to share his faith.

"We are grateful that school officials acknowledge how concerning this situation was for Zion and his family, and that federal and state law protect students' religious expression during social gatherings," explained Toney.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders had expressed concern about the issue, instructing the state Department of Education to investigate.

ARCA's response, which came literally within hours, said, "ARCA's administration is dedicated to ensuring that every student has the opportunity to express their viewpoint in a respectful environment."

They agreed to all three of First Liberty's requests, allowing Zion to share his faith during a future social time, promising that "[s]chool officials will support the free speech and free exercise rights of students, including Mr. Ramos, in the future," and agreeing to complete religious liberty training through the RESPECT Project, First Liberty confirmed.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has condemned the Bible verses it doesn't like. According to a new video, apparently its members believe God made some mistakes along the way.

They have to do with women, verses a spokeswoman in a video protests have to do with "power, privilege, prejudice" "within a patriarchy." The video was at the 2025 ELCA churchwide assembly.

She condemns the contemporary "Christian church" for being "complicit in the sins of sexism and patriarchy," and she lists Genesis 3:16, Judges 19, 1st Corinthians 11:3-16 as among those that God must not have really meant to be included in the Bible.

She explains that Lutherans "don't have to accept literally" the words of the Bible, which she alleges arose in a society that no longer exists.

Those verses are responsible, she said, for "gender-based violence," "restricted access" to health care and economics, and more.

Listen to the stunner:

One social media commenter was unsurprise, as this was "another reminder that the ELCA is not a Lutheran or a Christian organization."

The new statement isn't the first time ELCA leaders have openly condemned the Bible:

report at Not the Bee turned blunt about the public repudiation of the Scriptures on which the Christian church worldwide has been based for millennia.

"I think if Luther had seen this video, it's entirely possible that he might have kept his 99 problems with the Catholic church to himself," it commented.

It quoted the narrator:

"In the … ELCA, we believe all people are created equally in the image of God. God intends for everyone to flourish. But because of the sin of sexism, women are often deprived of that right … we are called to seek equity and justice for all … The Lutheran commitment to neighbor justice compels us to expose how patriarchy and sexism cause harm to all of creation … This has roots in patterns of power, privilege, and prejudice within a patriarchy …"

The report said, "Blah blah blah, boilerplate feminism and wokeness shoehorned into a Christian worldview. We've seen it all before."

The narrator charges that the Bible says things "about women and girls that we now recognized as harmful."

For example, her Genesis 3:16 citation says: "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.'"

Said Not the Bee, "These are the words of God, describing the curse of the fall on the woman. What Adam and Eve incurred in the curse is apparently 'harmful' to women."

Corinthians says, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ."

Explained Not the Bee, "The Bible says man should submit to Christ in the same way Christ submits to the Father, then says wives should submit to husbands in the same way, as a model of sacrificial love that reflects God's design for the world, His love for us, and the relationship of the Trinity."

"Give yourselves a hand, Lutherans. This may be the most creative use of 'Did God really say?' since the serpent in the garden," advised Not the Bee.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The United States now is in a "new and chilling stage" of what constitutional expert Jonathan Turley has described as the "age of rage."

In fact, his book, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage," specifically addresses the issues that were involved in the assassination this week of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed while holding a rally for students at a Utah university.

The killer remains at large at this point.

Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution but also has represented members in court in constitutional fights, is a popular commentator and analyst on all things legal and constitutional, as well as the forces shaping America now.

He warned that the leftist agenda across the nation that now includes the assassination of Kirk, a popular speaker and speech rights advocate who founded Turning Point USA, could "succeed in forcing the thousands of conservative and libertarian students back into the shadows of our campuses and classrooms."

He said, "We cannot allow that to happen. Charlie Kirk challenged not just the left to debate but the right to be heard in higher education."

He explained the possible benefit for the nation.

"Yes, this is an age of rage. However, amidst the rage and the violence, there are a special few who have defied the threats and the attacks. The writer George Bernard Shaw once said that unreasonable people expect the world to conform to them. He then added that that was why all history is made by unreasonable people. Kirk was one of those wonderfully unreasonable people who refused to yield; refused to be silenced. Despite unrelenting attacks by the media and the establishment, he remained undeterred and unbowed. Students need to remember not how Kirk died, but why he died. His loss is Charlie's final challenge to all those today wringing their hands and muttering the usual expressions of shocked regret. Kirk would likely say, 'prove it.' Speak. Defy those who spend their time silencing others rather than speaking themselves. If you want to honor Charlie Kirk, speak out, speak boldly on both the right and the left. Prove them wrong."

Turley cited the two assassination attempts against President Donald Trump as among the "growing attacks on free speech around the world."

He explained, "Kirk came up with the brilliant idea of challenging liberals to simply debate issues from abortion to immigration. His group would go to campuses and invite debate with signs reading 'prove me wrong' and encourage liberals to engage in dialogue rather than violence."

That provided a reason, he said, for "the left" to hate Kirk.

"Campuses have long been the bastions of the left, reinforced by faculties which now have few, if any, conservatives or Republicans. Higher education has long been an incubator for intolerance; shaping a generation of speech phobics who shout down or attack those with opposing views," he said.

And Kirk hit the very heart of "that power base" by showing students "they could be open and bold about their views. He told them that they did not have to yield to orthodoxy and the groupthink."

The assassination, however bad, was not surprising.

"The response to TPUSA was all too often rage and violence. Liberals and anti-free speech groups like Antifa would trash their tables and threaten the students. Recently, at UC Davis, police simply watched as a TPUSA tent was torn apart and the tent carried off," he cited.

"Violent speech has long been acceptable on campuses so long as it targets conservatives. Teachers have called for others to 'take out' Trump supporters and for the Secret Service to assassinate him. University of Wisconsin Professor José Felipe Alvergue, head of the English Department, turned over the table of College Republicans supporting a conservative for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He reportedly declared, 'The time for this is over!' At universities, professors have called for 'detonating white people,' denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters, and supporting the attempted assassination of President Trump. One professor who declared that there is 'nothing wrong' with such acts of violence as killing conservatives was actually promoted," he wrote.

Some specifics:

_"At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez trashed a pro-life display of students, telling the students that 'This is bulls–t. This is violent. You're triggering my students.' When the students tried to engage the professor and apologized for upsetting her, Rodríguez yelled, 'No you're not — because you can't even have a f–king baby. So you don't even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.' In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table."

This wasn't enough for the school to dismiss her. That only happened after she "chased reporters with a machete."

_"At the University of California Santa Barbara, they did not even bother to fire a professor who pleaded guilty to assaulting pro-life students on campus. Professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young. She was later honored as a model for women advocates at the University of Oregon."

He explained why such violence is pursued by "anarchists, socialists, and other groups."

"What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts; flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths. Like all addictions, there is not only a dependency on rage but an intolerance for opposing views. The difference between rage and reason is often one's own views. If one agrees with the underlying grievance, rage is viewed as passion or justified fury at injustice. If one disagrees with those views, it takes on a more threatening and unhinged quality. We seem to spend much of our time today raging at each other. Despite the amplification of views on both sides, there is also an increasing intolerance for opposing views. Those views are treated as simply harmful and offensive—and, therefore, intolerable. Indeed, to voice free speech principles in a time of rage is to invite the rage of the mob."

He explained, "In recent months, some of us have warned Democratic politicians about their violent rhetoric. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) has called for people to take to the streets to save democracy and posted a picture brandishing a baseball bat. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would 'strike fear in the heart' of Trump. Liberal sites sell Antifa items to celebrate the violent group. California Governor Gavin Newsom declared, 'I'm going to punch these sons of b—— in the mouth.' It follows other violent rhetoric from Democratic leaders."

The result across America has been protesters "burning cars, dealerships, and even lawyers and reporters on the left are throwing Molotov cocktails at police. We have also seen a massive increase in attacks on ICE officers, who are now covering their faces to avoid doxxing or retaliation against themselves or their families."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Six candidates for political office in Germany, all members of a relatively conservative party, the AfD, have dropped dead within a two-week time frame, just as elections are about to be held.

It is the New York Post that has reported the candidates all were part of Alternative for Deutschland, which is considered more right-wing than other parties in the country.

The BBC said officials were claiming no foul play was involved in the deaths of four candidates and two reserves: Ralph Lange, 66, Wolfgang Klinger, 71, Stefan Berendes, 59, and Wolfgang Seitz, 59, and the two reserves.

They all were to appear on ballots in North Rhine-Westphalia in a matter of just days, on September 14.

Authorities have not commented on the causes for the deaths, except to say two appeared to be from natural causes.

The BBC noted an economist pointed out the number of candidate deaths in such a timespan was "statistically impossible."

According to a report by the Daily Caller, officials were reporting that candidates from other parties, Social Democrats and Greens, also died during that same time space.

The AfD party had made huge gains during the 2022 elections, surging from 5.4% to 16.8% in the polls, but it still remained less than an election superpower.

The unexpected deaths have required multiple reprints of election ballots and have led to the cancellation of some mail-in ballots, the BBC noted.

It was only three months ago that Germany's spy agency temporarily classified the AfD as an "extremist" group, before backtracking.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A federal judge who previously tried to foil President Donald Trump's fight for national border security and integrity and against riots promoting illegal aliens in the country, and was reversed by an appeals court, is trying again.

It is Charles Breyer who is the judge who, when Trump ordered National Guard troops to deter anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement rioting in California, ordered Trump to stop giving orders and let leftist Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom do it.

He was overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered that constitutional precedents call for courts to be "highly deferential" to the president on some issues.

Breyer's latest move against Trump, according to a report from Fox News, is to claim that Trump acted unlawfully when he sent thousands of National Guard troops, and a handful of Marines, to address those anti-ICE riots that California authorities and leaders had allowed to develop.

Breyer's claim is that Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which dates to the 1800s and says the military cannot ordinarily be used for domestic law enforcement.

Fox reported, "The judge said his order only applies to California, but he noted the administration's warnings about sending the National Guard to other blue cities across the country amount to 'creating a national police force with the President as its chief.'"

Breyer had made similar comments during a three-day trial last month.

At the time, he insisted, "What limiting factors are there to the use of this force?"

Trump had activated 4,000 National Guard troops in June to address support for federal authorities in California as they pursued arrests of criminal illegal aliens, over the objections of state officials including Newsom.

Most of those operations already have concluded.

Newsom screamed on social media, "LOSES AGAIN. … The courts agree — his militarization of our streets and use of the military against US citizens is ILLEGAL."

An appeal is more than probable which could result in the 9th Circuit reviewing – even overturning – Breyer again. The issue could even end up at the Supreme Court.

According to the Washington Examiner, Breyer's claim now is that the Trump administration cannot send National Guard members to protect law-enforcement officers carrying out federal law.

Breyer claimed, "There were indeed protests in Los Angeles, and some individuals engaged in violence. Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law."

© 2025 - Patriot News Alerts