This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
During a two-hour Cabinet meeting broadcast live Tuesday, President Trump once again talked about his plan to establish a program for illegal-alien farm and hospitality workers to remain in the U.S., despite his ongoing efforts at mass deportation, while many supporters of the president express dismay about this apparent loophole in his otherwise robust immigration ideology.
Trump was asked about critics saying the new plan amounts to amnesty for lawbreakers.
"There's no amnesty," said Trump during the meeting. "What we're doing is we're getting rid of criminals, but we are doing a work program."
Then Agriculture Secretary Brook Robbins explained, "This morning [at a briefing] we talked about protecting the farmers and the farmland, but obviously this president's vision of no amnesty, mass deportation continues – but in a strategic way, and then ensuring that our farmers have the labor that they need."
"[Labor] Secretary Chavez-DeRemer has been a leader on this," Rollins continued. "Obviously, this comes out of the Labor Department, but moving toward automation, ensuring that our farmers have that workforce, and moving toward an American workforce. So all of the above."
Several days ago, Trump first broached the subject of allowing some illegal aliens to stay to work in certain industries, saying he favors legislation to solidify the details.
Then on July 3 in Iowa, during a "Salute to America" event, the president said: "Farmers, look, they know better. They work with them for years. You had cases where, not year, but just even over the years where people have worked for a farm, on a farm for 14, 15 years, and they get thrown out pretty viciously, and we can't do it. We gotta work with the farmers, and people that have hotels and leisure properties, too."
In the speech, Trump acknowledge that some on the right would not appreciate the move, saying, ""Serious radical-right people, who I also happen to like a lot, they may not be quite as happy. But they'll understand."
Trump said on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo: "What we're going to do is, we're going to do something for farmers where we can let the farmer sort of be in charge. The farmer knows he's not going to hire a murderer."
Backlash from his supporters has come from several sources.
According to Blaze Media, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis remarked, "No amnesty. No debate. No compromise."
"There is no other issue the conservative base feels more passionately about than immigration," responded Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA. "In just a few decades, everyday Americans have watched their country transform into a nation of strangers. We must deliver mass deportations, not amnesty."
"Any sort of mass amnesty plan would result in a devastating midterm defeat for Republicans in Congress," commentator Todd Starnes said.
Responses on X included:
"If you are letting them stay, it's called amnesty."
"It's not amnesty, they're just not going to deport them. What a sick joke."
"This amnesty bill will be a complete BETRAYAL to the MAGA base, especially now that ICE has the budget to commence these promised mass deportations."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Many experts assessed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, common drugs already documented for their effectiveness against certain ailments, as both a defense against getting infected with COVID-19, the China virus that circled the globe and killed millions, as well as a possibly beneficial treatment.
Not Big Pharma, which was taking in billions of dollars for the various mRNA shots which now have been documented to trigger a multitude of problems, including heart ailments in young men. Part of the problem was the availability of the likely COVID-fighters, as they required prescriptions, and physicians were under intense pressure to reach out for the shots that included a corporate profit for drug manufacturers.
But that could be changing. Dr. Simone Gold and America's Frontline Doctors have filed citizens petitions with the Food and Drug Administration asking that they be available to consumers over the counter.
They were joined by doctors Dana Granberg-Nill, Bryan Atkinson, Pierre Kory, Brian Tyson, Peterson Pierre, Robin Armstrong, Geoff Mitchell, and Lynn Fynn as co-petitioners, according to a report from the Gateway Pundit.
The report said, "Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been FDA-approved for decades and is available OTC in many parts of the world, such as in Africa and South America, for the prevention and treatment of malaria. In the United States and other Western Nations, HCQ is a widely prescribed medication primarily used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. According to the government's own database, FAERS (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System), HCQ is one of the safest drugs on the planet."
And, "Ivermectin is a wide-ranging antiparasitic agent that has been used in humans for over three decades and won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015, reflecting the drug's enormous impact on human health."
The report said ivermectin also has "gained much attention for its potential use in cancer treatment.
The Gateway Pundit explained, "The COVID pandemic sparked a tremendous public health demand to repurpose well-known drugs like HCQ and ivermectin for new uses, specifically for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Tragically, patients who were prescribed these medications by their doctors were denied access by pharmacies that refused to fill these prescriptions due to pressure from government health agencies and their C-suite executives.
"To make matters worse, both drugs were attacked relentlessly in order to push experimental mRNA injections onto the public."
The report said with the goal of cutting through COVID propaganda and removing a barrier to patient access, the petitions were delivered to the FDA, originally during the pandemic. Now the petitions have been refiled.
Gold said, "The fight to make hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin over-the-counter continues. The mainstream narrative has collapsed under the weight of its own deception, and the truth can no longer be suppressed. It is way past time for our government to truly follow the science."
Mitchell said, "We suggest that one of the predominant reasons for the poor clinical outcomes and excess COVID deaths in the U.S. was the prohibition of early, oral, outpatient treatment with safe, effective, repurposed drugs like the Nobel-prize-winning IVM and also HCQ. The FDA led the charge against these treatment alternatives, enlisting pharmacists, corporate pharmacies, and physicians in their effort as well."
The medical industry had to suppress availability of the existing drugs because in order to release the new, potentially injurious mRNA shots, because under the emergency authorization process, it was required that there be "no viable existing alternatives."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Officials at a school district in New York have retreated in their campaign to tear down the posters put up by a Christian student club letting others know about meetings and events.
The confirmation comes from the American Center for Law and Justice, which sent a demand letter to officials at Carmel Central School District in New York when the fight erupted.
The letter was sent on behalf of Jenna, a "brave ninth-grade student," when school officials "tore down her Christian club's Bible verse posters and banned the use of 'Good News' from the Bible club's name," the legal team has reported.
The response to the letter now is a "major win," the team said.
"The district has now walked back its actions. In a written response, the school district has confirmed that Jenna's club can change the club's name to whatever it wants, the school has no objection to posters citing Bible verses or containing a cross, and Jenna has the same rights as any other student to share her faith on campus," the ACLJ reported.
The demand letter explained to the school how it was in "direct violation of the Equal Access Act and the First Amendment."
"Schools may not censor religious viewpoints while allowing secular student groups full freedom. In fact, federal law is clear that once a school opens a limited public forum for student expression – such as clubs – it must treat all clubs equally, regardless of their religious content. In fact, the ACLJ argued and won a similar case before the U.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Mergens 35 years ago," the team explained.
The district, on getting the notification, "reversed course and has agreed to comply with the law."
School officials wrote, "The school district simply has no objection to Alpha Omega Club notices that cite to the Bible or contain a cross, or to [Jenna's] religious speech on school grounds."
The student was trying to relaunch a Christian student organization at Carmel High School, after being previously denied permission.
"She followed every procedure required. Her group was initially called the 'Good News Club' and sought to meet after school for faith-based discussion, encouragement, and learning. But when she posted campus-wide flyers listing encouraging Bible verses and inviting students to join, the school took them down and told her the club's name had to be changed. They said the posters had 'too many Bible verses.' Jenna was told to rename the group 'Alpha Omega Club' and to submit all religious content for administrative review."
The ACLJ said that the school also confirms that the club is officially recognized and has every right to post flyers and hold meetings like any other student organization."
WND reported when the dispute flared that the school had even banned an entire video series planned by the club, torn posters down a second time, demanded to review and approve – or not – promotions, based on "whether they were too religious."
"School officials took over and started running the club, insisting on what religious materials were and were not acceptable," the ACLJ reported. "This is viewpoint discrimination in its purest form – and it's unlawful."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision has affirmed a requirement in the state of Texas that pornography sites online verify the age of their users.
The fight was brought by organizations that objected to the new law, adopted in 2023.
That, in Texas, requires that "certain commercial websites publishing sexually explicit content that is obscene to minors to verify that visitors are 18 or older."
"The court viewed H. B. 1181 as a 'regulatio[n] of the distribution to minors of materials obscene for minors.' It therefore determined that the law is not subject to any heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment."
The ruling, delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, who was joined by Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, affirmed.
Justice Elena Kagan disagreed, contending that porn should be readily accessed by children.
Violations can include injunctions and civil penalties.
"Petitioners—representatives of the pornography industry—sued the Texas attorney general to enjoin enforcement as facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. They alleged that adults have a right to access the covered speech, and that the statute impermissibly hinders them."
The 5th U.S. Court of Appeals said the plaintiffs weren't likely to succeed on that claim, so they did not deserve an injunction.
She was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, who earned a spot in America's history books during her Senate confirmation by being unable, or refusing, to define "woman."
The majority opinion said the required standard for the case is "intermediate scrutiny" and under that the law survives.
"To determine whether a law that regulates speech violates the First Amendment, the court considers both the nature of the burden imposed by the law and the nature of the speech at issue. Laws that target protected speech 'based on its communicative content' are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if 'they satisfy strict scrutiny.' Laws that only incidentally burden protected speech are subject to intermediate scrutiny."
"History, tradition, and precedent establish that sexual content that is obscene to minors but not to adults is protected in part and unprotected in part. States may prevent minors from accessing such content, but may not prevent adults from doing the same. H.B. 1181 has only an incidental effect on protected speech, and is therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny. The First Amendment leaves undisturbed states' traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective. That power includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech."
"It follows that no person—adult or child—has a First Amendment right to access such speech without first submitting proof of age. The power to verify age is part of the power to prevent children from accessing speech that is obscene to them. Where the Constitution reserves a power to the states, that power includes 'the ordinary and appropriate means' of exercising it," the ruling said.
Annie Chestnut Tutor, policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Technology and the Human Person, said, "The Supreme Court's decision is a historic victory for the fight to protect children from obscenity. Texas's age verification requirement is constitutional, and states nationwide have a clear pathway forward to implement similar safeguards.
"Exposure to pornography does irrefutable harm to children, and this ruling holds online platforms accountable for willfully providing access to children. Age verification is the only technical solution to consistently and reliably keep children off adult websites. The state not only has a compelling interest to protect children from obscenity—it has a duty."
"Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and a senior legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, said, "This ruling rightly places the power in the hands of the people and their elected lawmakers to protect children from sexually explicit content online. The decision is a step toward grounding free speech law in the Constitution, not in decades of judicial invention, and allowing parents and lawmakers to act in the best interests of the next generation."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A city official in California is under FBI investigation, according to multiple reports, for calling on gangs in her city to "protect" their "turf" from "the biggest gang there is," the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The video later was deleted, but the investigation now focuses on the threats from Cynthia Gonzalez, vice mayor of Cudahy,.
She had delivered her instructions to members of the 18th Street and Florencia 13 gangs.
There have been repeated riots in Los Angeles that were triggered by ICE officers delivering warrants and making arrests in an investigation into cartel crimes, apparently including money laundering.
Activists claimed the enforcement involved "immigration raids" and launched riots that have cost millions of dollars in damages and cleanup.
According to the New York Post, "Gonzalez later posted that the FBI came to her house and that she needs a lawyer," a Fox reporter confirmed.
"A spokesperson for the FBI's LA field office neither confirmed nor denied the investigation to The Post, but emphasized that the Bureau condemns all gang violence," the report said.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, whose resume includes not only testifying to Congress as an expert on constitutional issues but representing members in court in those disputes, said, "The call for gang action is disgraceful, particularly as ICE reports a 500 percent increase in attacks on its officers. However, I do not believe that the comments can be the basis for a criminal charge and would be considered protected speech."
"Gonzalez has now taken down the video below, but she earlier called for these gangs to move against ICE: 'It's everyone else who's not about the gang life that's out there protesting and speaking up. We're out there… protecting our turf and protecting our people. And, like, where you at?'" he explained.
He noted, "This is not the first time that Democratic politicians have enlisted violent groups as political allies. Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would 'strike fear in the heart' of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence, and its website was banned in Germany."
Further, he explained, "Ellison's son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence."
He said, "The video may not be criminal, but it is still an indictment of how some Democratic politicians continue to pander to violent groups for political purposes. It is a dangerous game. History has shown that those who fuel extreme groups often find themselves later targets as mob rule takes hold. Gonzalez may find that she is also unwelcome on their 'turf.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'In a region plagued by historical animosity and political volatility, such a breakthrough demands both courage and clarity. President Trump demonstrated both, offering the world a rare glimpse of hope'
President Donald Trump was nominated Tuesday for the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary and historic role in brokering an end to the armed conflict between Israel and Iran and preventing the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet."
The nomination came from U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., who submitted a letter to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in Oslo, Norway.
Carter stated in his letter: "In recent weeks, the world stood on the precipice of a dangerous and potentially region-destabilizing war. Yet in the face of this crisis, President Trump took bold action to ultimately champion peace through strength and facilitate a ceasefire framework that brought hostilities to a halt.
"In a statement that has since reverberated around the globe, President Trump announced the terms of a complete and total ceasefire agreement, commending both Israel and Iran for their courage to end the war.
"His message of mutual respect and peace will now result in a full cessation of military activity, no further escalation, and the preservation of thousands, if not millions, of lives throughout the Middle East and around the globe.
"President Trump's influence was instrumental in forging a swift agreement that many believed to be impossible. President Trump also took bold, decisive actions to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions and ensure that the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism remains incapable of acquiring a nuclear weapon.
"His leadership at this moment exemplifies the very ideals that the Nobel Peace Prize seeks to recognize: the pursuit of peace, the prevention of war, and the advancement of international harmony.
"In a region plagued by historical animosity and political volatility, such a breakthrough demands both courage and clarity. President Trump demonstrated both, offering the world a rare glimpse of hope."
Carter's nomination comes just hours after Israel accused Iran of breaking Monday night's Trump-brokered ceasefire agreement, which Tehran has denied.
"You know, when I say OK, now you have 12 hours, you don't go out in the first hour just drop everything you have on them," Trump said. "So I'm not happy with them. I'm not happy with Iran either. But I'm really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning because the one rocket that didn't land, that was shot, perhaps by mistake, that didn't land, I'm not happy about that."
"We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard, that they don't know what the f*** they are doing. Do you understand that?" Trump added.
This is not the first time Trump has been nominated, as Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., pushed the president's name for the award this year, noting his 2024 electoral victory had an "astonishingly effective impact" on world peace.
According to the Nobel Peace Prize website: "The Nobel Committee does not confirm the names of nominees, neither to the media nor to the candidates themselves. There are cases where names of candidates appear in the media, either as a result of sheer speculation or because individuals themselves report to have nominated specific candidates."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats who long have been against things, just because "Donald Trump," have been busy in the last day or two insisting that he should not have ordered the bombing of several sites in Iran where nuclear programs reportedly were working on the rogue Islamic regime's goal of nuclear weapons.
But there was little such comment when Barack Obama, their own party's president for two terms, unleashed tens of thousands of bombs, without getting those pertinent votes in Congress.
Adam Schiff, one of California's members of Congress, prominently took to friendly airwaves to condemn the actions, because Trump took them.
Schiff, a Democrat, of course is probably best known for insisting repeatedly that he saw evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia back in 2016. That was despite a special counsel confirming to the public that there was no such evidence. He also fabricated "quotes" from Trump in his testimony to Congress.
The double standard for comments from Democrats was spotlighted by a social media posting from Townhall.
A commentary at Twitchy cited the Townhall posting, and commented, "Check out how many bombs Obama DROPPED without 'permission' in his last few months."
Twitchy withheld no snark available in its commentary: "As Democrats like Eric Swalwell and the boil on the butt of humanity himself Adam Schiff continue whining that Trump didn't get their permission to strike Iran, we'd like to remind them just how many bombs Obama dropped WITHOUT PERMISSION in just the last few months of his presidency. … TENS of thousands of bombs dropped, and they're throwing a fit because Trump dropped a few dozen on Iranian nuclear locations to keep them from building a nuke.
Make it make sense."
Polling showed the issue was divided by politics, with Republicans hugely supporting Trump's effort to make sure the rogue Islamics do not obtain nuclear weapons, while Democrats opposed Trump's pro-security measures.
Experts assessed that there was "very significant" damage to Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment plant. Also hit were plants in Natanz and Isfahan.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Gain-of-function research is a dangerous game where scientists deliberately make viruses, or something else, more dangerous so that measures to counter it can be researched.
Many believe COVID-19 came out of exactly that type of work in Wuhan, China.
But now The National institutes of Health has announced it is terminating all funding for grants involving that risky procedure.
And researchers have until the end of June to say whether their grants comply with President Donald Trump's executive order regulating the experimentation.
A report from the Washington Examiner noted scientists got notice this week about the end of such funding.
"Gain-of-function research has been hotly debated since the mid-2010s, when the scientific community became increasingly concerned about the potential for genetically manipulated viruses to start an epidemic or pandemic via a lab accident," the Examiner reported. "In layman's terms, gain-of-function refers to the manipulation of a pathogen to make it more transmissible or give it the capacity to infect its host in new ways."
It was revealed after the COVID-19 pandemic circled the globe and killed millions that the NIH had funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, where COVID-19 erupted.
"Trump's May executive order provides a technical definition for 'dangerous gain-of-function research' as any research activity altering a pathogen or toxin that 'could result in significant societal consequences,'" the report noted.
His order permanently prohibits such research in nations designated by the director of National Intelligence as "countries of concern," such as China.
The plan revealed this week is that NIH funding for such projects, in appropriate locations, will resume when an oversight procedure proposed by Trump takes effect.
The report explained, "Stopping federal funding of gain-of-function research has been a priority of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Paul has introduced legislation multiple times to codify an independent oversight agency to review potentially risky research projects before they receive federal funding from any department funding biomedical projects, not just the NIH."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Just a day after America's largest Protestant group, the Southern Baptists, called for the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage "right"-creating Obergefell decision, the legal team already working on that project issued a statement that the ruling, biased because at the time two justices had publicly advocated for the creation, is "vulnerable."
The decision, unleashed on Americans in 2015, had no connection to, or foundation in, the U.S. Constitution, the dissent from the bare 5-4 majority said. In fact, although it cites the 14th Amendment, that doesn't mention marriage. The Constitution doesn't mention marriage, meaning that the issue legally needs to be left to the states, under the 10th Amendment.
It is lawyers with Liberty Counsel who have fought for years already against the imposition of the leftist, radical, and anti-Christian ideology.
"As the 10th anniversary of the 2015 Obergefell opinion approaches on June 26, 2025, where 'five lawyers' on the U.S. Supreme Court abused their duty to interpret the Constitution and invented a so-called 'right' to 'same-sex marriage,' there is one legal case that could challenge it," the team explained.
The case involves former Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, the first victim of this disastrous opinion, who was sent to prison for six days for refusing to issue marriage licenses while waiting for a religious accommodation.
The organization said besides the Southern Baptists' actions, there already is a growing consensus to overturn the opinion, even support from the high court.
"In his concurring opinion in Dobbs that overturned Roe, Justice Thomas stated that the rationale the High Court used to reverse abortion rights should be the same in overturning other court-established rights, such as 'same-sex marriage,'" Liberty Counsel said.
And lawmakers in at least four states have introduced resolutions calling for Obergefell to be overturned.
Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver said, "The U.S. Constitution provides no foundation for 'same-sex marriage.' Obergefell was wrongly decided whereby the Court created a right that is nowhere to be found in the text. We will petition the U.S. Supreme Court because Kim Davis' case underscores why the High Court should overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Obergefell threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman."
Liberty Counsel's case is Davis v. Ermold, in which Davis, a former Rowan County Kentucky clerk has been held personally liable for not issuing a "marriage" license to David Ermold and David Moore.
On release of the radical Supreme Court ruling, Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses, instead referring same-sex duos to other locations, and never blocked any person from getting such a document.
Since the ruling violated her personal religious beliefs, she was awaiting a procedure that would protect her constitutional rights with an accommodation.
"However, she became Obergefell's first victim serving six days in jail, and now has a $100,000 jury verdict levied against her personally. Adding to that amount, the judge tacked on $260,000 in attorney's fees and costs, for a total of $360,000," Liberty Counsel said.
The ruling from the 6th Circuit denied her request to throw out the verdict, but it cited the dispute as a case of "first impression," "meaning that Davis presents a novel or unique question of law which the courts have not settled," a question Liberty Counsel now is presenting to the Supreme Court.
In fact, does the First Amendment protect Davis from liability for damages for "hurt feelings" that erupted as state laws abruptly were trashed without any guidance on procedural changes.
"By taking the case, SCOTUS can do two things – affirm religious freedom for all people and also correct the Obergefell mistake by overruling the 2015 opinion. SCOTUS can return the religious and governmental institution of marriage back to the states in similar fashion as it did when it found no right to an abortion in the Constitution in the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade," Liberty Counsel said.
It was Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote, at the time: "Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent."
And Justice Samuel Alito said, "To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has [previously] held that 'liberty' under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.' And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights."
Justice Clarence Thomas said, "In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several Members of the Court noted that the Court's decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. The Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"
Liberty Counsel pointed out that a majority of those leftists who fabricated same-sex marriage, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no longer are on the court.
The SBC resolution is, On Restoring Moral Clarity through God's Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family," calls for the overturning of "laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family."
It seeks "laws that affirm marriage between one man and one woman, recognize the biological reality of male and female, protect children's innocence against sexual predation, affirm and strengthen parental rights in education and healthcare, incentivize family formation in life-affirming ways, and ensure safety and fairness in athletic competition."
The dissent to Obergefell had warned it would be used to attack the religious rights of Americans, and it has.
For example, officials in just one state, Colorado, have gone to the Supreme Court twice already trying to impose a state-adopted religious belief, which is anti-Christian, on its residents.
Officials there, led by homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, first tried to punish a Christian baker for declining to promote anti-Christian beliefs with his work. The state lost at the Supreme Court, and got scolded for its "hostility" to Christianity. The same thing happened when Colorado officials tried to force a Christian web designer to promote anti-Christian religious beliefs with her work.
Incredibly, officials in that state, after costing taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees for their ideological warfare, have gone to the Supreme Court yet a third time, this time trying to impose their religious beliefs on every counselor in the state.
At the time of the Obergefell ruling, same-sex marriage was illegal in many states.
The pro-marriage Mass Resistance organization said, "The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was passed by a slim 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices. It has caused immense societal havoc across the country. States have been forced to ignore their legitimate laws and constitutional amendments regarding marriage. Governments, businesses, and even schoolchildren have been forced to accept same-sex 'marriage' – and by extension homosexual behavior – as normal, under pain of punishments, fines, and even imprisonment."
The problem with that ruling?
"The First Amendment guarantees free speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and the right to petition government for redress of grievance. By forcing same-sex 'marriage' on the country in this way, Obergefell challenged all those rights," the group reported.
"In order to invent a previously unknown constitutional 'right' to same-sex marriage, the 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices used a strategy concocted by the LGBT lawyers. They redefined the Fourteenth Amendment to allow them to effectively change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to 'two people who love each other,'" the group reported.
But the 14th Amendment actually states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and does not mention marriage.
The Obergefell promoters at the time also cited "substantive due process," which is not in the Constitution.
The decision was biased because two justices, Ruth Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, who joined in creating the new right, already had officiated at same-sex weddings, indicating they had a clear bias in favor.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Dozens of federal judges, since President Donald Trump took office for his second term, have insisted that they can make decisions for the executive branch, on issues ranging from deporting illegal alien criminals to firing executive branch employees to altering programs that were, in fact, set up on nothing more than a president's executive order.
Now it appears the move to grab power is spreading, to local judges.
That's according to a commentary at the Federalist which explains that in just recent weeks, three judges in Wisconsin have been caught "abusing the powers of the third branch."
"It's the latest exhibit of power-grabbing local judges perhaps learning some dangerous lessons from rogue members of the federal judiciary," the analysis from Matt Kittle, an award-winning investigative reporter and former chief of Empower Wisconsin, said.
The latest case involves the "punishment" from the liberal-led state Supreme Court of a one-week suspension for Ellen Berz, a Dane County judge who "threatened to arrest a defendant in a drunk driving case after she learned the accused had failed to show up to court because he was in the hospital."
Records show that the judge, stunningly demanded her bailiff go and "apprehend" the absent defendant and since he was required to remain in the courtroom for security, Berz "told those in the courtroom that she would retrieve the missing defendant herself."
She actually was en route to the hospital when she "decided against going through with her plan."
Even the leftists on the state's highest court had to conclude she treated the defendant disrespectfully and failed to act in a way that "promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."
Of course just weeks ago Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested, jailed, and then indicted on charges of obstructing a U.S. agency and concealing an individual from arrest.
Evidence shows she misdirected federal agents who were trying to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruis, who was appearing in Dugan's court.
Then when the Customs Enforcement agents and others went away from her courtroom, a "visibly angry" Dugan led the fugitive out of her courtroom through a "jury door" and he was only caught again after a chase by federal agents.
That escapade, the analysis revealed, then triggered another leftist, Judge Monica Isham in Sawyer County, threatened to stop holding court.
She emailed other judges that she has "no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by [ICE agents] and sent to a concentration camp."
She demanded, "Should I start raising bail money?" and threatened, "I will not put myself or my staff who may feel compelled to help me or my community in harms [sic] way."
All three cases arguably detail actions that violate the state's code of conduct for judges, which provides that "a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."
The Federalist commentary points out: "Children of the 1980s likely recall an anti-drug public service announcement in which a father confronts his teenage son after finding a box of joints in the boy's closet. 'Who taught you how to do this stuff?' the concerned dad demands. 'You, alright! I learned it by watching you?' the kid fires back. Ouch. The truth hits stoner dad like a $50 Pink Floyd concert ticket."
It continues, "Local judges in Wisconsin and elsewhere certainly have been watching rogue federal jurists who have routinely overstepped their authority in a judicial resistance against Trump's policies. Leftist judges have issued suspect national injunctions on everything from President Donald Trump's efforts to deport illegal immigrants with violent criminal records to cutting funding for civil rights-abusing universities and DEI-pushing NGOs."
Kittle pointed out the observations that came recently from U.S. Fifth Circuit Appellate Court Judge James C. Ho regarding the "power grab" by the district judges, who occupy the entry level into the federal court system.
"Our founders didn't fight a Revolutionary War to replace one king in royal garb with hundreds of kings in judicial robes," Ho charged, "If a district judge abuses the legal process in a hurried effort to thwart the lawful political choices of the electorate, appellate courts are well within their right to intervene and grant emergency relief."