This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As President Donald Trump endures ongoing public rage over his demolition of the White House East Wing and plans to erect a huge ballroom in its place, it turns out that a major expansion of the executive mansion has been in the minds of engineers and architects going back to the 19th century.
According to the White House Historical Association, in the mid-1800s concerns arose that the Washington City Canal nearby could affect the president's health.
"In the summer the stench, insects, and miasmic heat and humidity from stagnant marshes in the environs of the White House was intolerable and considered to be a cause of fevers and waterborne illness," notes the WHHA.
The solution was to look for land to build a new presidential residence and use the White House for only ceremonial purposes – a plan that never came to fruition due to a lack of funding from Congress.
In 1889, first lady Caroline Harrison began to develop ideas for an ambitious White House project to mark the anniversary of the building. She thought the White House needed more space, especially for dining and receptions. Again, Congress balked, and the expansion did not take place.
The centennial of the first resident moving into the White House, President John Adams, was held in 1900, and part of the celebration included the presentation of a model for expansion, developed by Army engineer Col. Theodore Bingham.
The White House Historical Association notes: "The model revealed plans to replace the crowded working spaces with new offices, public and entertaining spaces and press rooms by constructing massive, flanking two-story cylindrical wings with domes and lanterns patterned after those at the Library of Congress. Bingham set up his model in the East Room and, after the president viewed the display and greeted the guests, rose to present a history of the White House that evolved into a sales pitch for the expansion. Roundly criticized by the architectural profession, the project stalled, and after President McKinley's assassination awaited a new chief executive's decision."
A newspaper account in 1901 relayed, "The plans provide for two buildings, one to be erected on the east and another on the west, each of these being about the same size as the present mansion and connected with it by curved wings."
The plan was significantly downsized and turned into what was known as the Roosevelt Restoration. It included living-quarter renovations and the addition of space to the east for the president and his staff.
The more ambitious plans of Col. Bingham were not realized, nor were Mrs. Harrison's desire for a larger place for dining – something certainly fulfilled in President Trump's plan for a room large enough to seat 999 guests for dinner, as opposed to a few dozen in the current East Room.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The state of Texas is suing the makers of Tylenol for withholding information the drug maker had about the product's possible links to autism, links that long had been known by the company.
President Donald Trump earlier advised pregnant women not to take Tylenol because of the possible side effect – autism for the new child.
And Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been working on the problem.
Now a report from USA today confirmed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the legal action against Kenvue, which makes the over-the-counter painkiller.
The claim is that the company failed to warn consumers about the risks involved when a pregnant woman takes the drug.
Paxton, in a statement, suggested the makers were "deceptively marketing Tylenol to pregnant mothers despite knowing that early exposure to acetaminophen, Tylenol's only active ingredient, leads to a significantly increased risk of autism and other disorders."
He charged, "These corporations lied for decades, knowingly endangering millions to line their pockets. Additionally, seeing that the day of reckoning was coming, Johnson & Johnson attempted to escape responsibility by illegally offloading their liability onto a different company. By holding Big Pharma accountable for poisoning our people, we will help Make America Healthy Again"
According to a report at Courthousenews, the lawsuit comes just a month after the Trump administration linked autism to mothers taking Tylenol, which uses acetaminophen as its active ingredient.
The Paxton complaint was filed in Panola County district court.
"The state claims scientific evidence shows use of Tylenol during pregnancy and in early childhood can cause conditions like autism and ADHD and that Kenvue and Johnson & Johnson knowingly covered up the risks," the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A sitting Democrat senator has threatened "legal jeopardy" for members of the U.S. Armed Forces being dispatched by President Donald Trump to fight the drug war for Americans.
The comments come from Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, who was interviewed this weekend about the president's efforts to eliminate the flood of illegal and deadly drugs being smuggled into the United States by cartels intent on making money and allowing Americans to die in the process.
That program has included strikes on boats carrying thousands of pounds of deadly drugs to America. The drugs sometimes have been confiscated, other times destroyed. A number of the smugglers have died in the strikes.
"Is Kelly, a veteran who served as a Navy pilot in the Gulf War and as a NASA astronaut, trying to encourage mutiny within the ranks to get service members to refuse orders for fear of prosecution by a future Democrat administration?" wondered the Gateway Pundit.
He was asked, "I want to talk about Venezuela. The Pentagon is now sending a carrier strike group. You know the massive amount of firepower on a carrier strike group. What is your take on what is happening with these suspected drug boats. Is it legal?"
The senator charged, "It's questionable. And the White House and the Department of Defense could not give us a logical explanation on how this is legal. They were tying themselves in knots trying to explain this. We had a lot of questions for them, both Democrats and Republicans. It was not a good meeting. It did not go well. They have a secret list of 20 something — 24 organizations that they have now authorized to use — use kinetic action against without the normal approach that we have for law enforcement. Hey, we don't want drugs in this country, especially fentanyl. But all these drugs, we — we should be working really hard to interdict them and prosecute the individuals that are smuggling drugs, not putting young service members at great, legal jeopardy."
It was the other Democrat senator from Arizona, Ruben Gallego, who went even further, claiming defending Americans from lethal and criminal drug cartels is "murder."
"It's very dangerous what he's doing…to these men and women who have to make these calls for a president who has zero understanding about the responsibility someone has when it comes to having to make life and death decisions," he said.
He charged, "It's murder. It's very simple. If this president feels they are doing something illegally, then he should be using the Coast Guard. If this is an act of war, then you use our military and then you come and talk to us first. But this is murder … it's disgusting."
The Gateway Pundit pointed out that the Democrats were corrected by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who "served as an Air Force JAG officer for over three decades (active duty, Guard and Reserves) including wartime service in Iraq and Afghanistan."
He said, "Our military is doing exactly what they should: Following lawful orders to protect Americans from narco-terrorists who seek to wreak havoc on our communities."
Under Barack Obama's tenure in the White House, he ordered a long list of drone strikes on targets he chose, killing hundreds. That death toll actually included Americans.
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:
A 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.