This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake, a former television news anchor and Emmy Award winner turned Republican nominee, has responded to former President Bill Clinton's comment about her looks with a zinger.

She's too old for him.

"Doesn't he like interns," Lake, in her 50s, said of Clinton, now rapidly approaching his 80s.

It started with Clinton, campaigning for the left, saying Lake believes "politics is a performance art."

But he conceded she was "physically attractive."

Lake, seeking the Senate seat from Arizona, responded shortly after.

"I found out he paid me a compliment," she explained to a rally audience. "He was here campaigning … he said I was physically attractive. I woke up to this news this morning. First of all, you know what, as a middle-aged woman, I'm flattered. I'm flattered, okay?

"I don't get those kinds of compliments every day…"

But, she said, "I thought I was a little too old for him. Doesn't he like interns?" she said.

She also explained she is happily married to her husband, and also, "Nobody in their right mind wants to cross Hillary Clinton."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Ohio Supreme Court is being urged to tell a school district to stop discriminating against Christian students.

It is the American Center for Law and Justice that reports it has filed a major brief in the lawsuit it recently brought against the Columbus City Board of Education.

The district is attacking the rights of parents to choose their children's education by refusing to transport children to private schools, including many Christian schools.

That appears to be in violation of a state law that expressly requires the district to provide such transportation.

The legal team's report said, "Ohio law requires school districts to provide transportation to all students in their jurisdiction, regardless of what school they attend. When a school district decides that it cannot provide transportation, Ohio law mandates that the school board provide transportation at least as long as a parent is appealing their decision."

The ACLJ said, "The Columbus School Board has violated that obligation on a large scale, canceling transportation for over 1,000 students. The law requires that a decision be made at least a month before school starts and proper notice is given; but many students and their families, including our client, did not find out about the decision to stop providing busing until after the school year began. Imagine the first day of school and your kids are waiting for the bus, and it never comes. Most importantly, the school board has refused to provide any transportation to the families who are appealing its decision despite its mandatory obligation to do so."

The ACLJ said, "This violation of the law has no excuse."

The report said the school wants the case dismissed, because the law "imposes a penalty on school districts" when they refuse to provide the required transportation, and the school claims "this penalty is sufficient to address the harms."

The ACLJ said its newest filing explains the school has an obligation to provide transportation and the law provides no excuse to refuse.

"This plain statutory language is not optional or in any way subject to the discretion of the school board. It contains no exception for if the interim transportation is costly or difficult. It instead reflects a basic policy judgment of the Ohio General Assembly; rather than force students to re-obtain their rights to transportation after a potentially lengthy process of mediation and administrative review, suffering all kinds of harm along the way, the general assembly made clear that if a student challenges a school board's impracticality determination, the student is immediately entitled to transportation for as long as the dispute resolution lasts," the team argued.

It pointed out to the court that the law "is not a suggestion."

The fight, the ACLJ said, is "about the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children without undue government interference."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Kamala Harris has one mantra this election season, and it is "But Trump."

A review of social media videos reveals that she talks about President Donald Trump in every conversation, in just about every answer to every question.

She mostly is unclear on her own positions, many of which have flip-flopped in recent weeks.

"But Trump."

Now that may have gotten her into trouble.

Because of what appears to be a violation of the Hatch Act, a federal law that says federal employees cannot be partisan while taking salary from taxpayers.

It is in a report at Florida Voice News that there's a description of the complaint filed by U.S. Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla.

He wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland seeking an investigation of Harris after she made "vicious" comments about Trump, including likening him to Adolf Hitler.

He wrote, "As you are likely aware, earlier today Vice President Kamala Harris gave what was billed as a 'press conference' at the White House. In the under three-minute speech VP Harris only made vicious political attacks on Republican Presidential Candidate and Former President, Donald J. Trump. After making multiple defamatory references to Hitler and claiming he would use the American military to go after American citizens, she concluded by saying, 'We know what Donald Trump wants. He wants unchecked power. The question, in thirteen days, will be what do the American people want?"

The letter continues, "While the Hatch Act, which prohibits using official resources to support partisan political campaigns, does not apply to the president and vice president in civil provisions, it does not exempt them from criminal provisions. In federal law it is a crime for any federal officer or employee to 'use his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office president, vice president, presidential elector, member of the Senate, member of the House of Representatives."

He pointed out Merrick's obligation is to the Constitution and the "laws of the United States."

An investigation is needed as the "press conference" appears to "be a direct use of the official authority to effect the upcoming election," he said.

Among Harris' wild claims was, "When Donald Trump was president, he said he wanted generals like Adolf Hitler had. Donald Trump said that because he does not want a military that is loyal to the United States Constitution, he wants a military that is loyal to him."

She also claimed Trump, now favored in more and more polling of voters, especially in swing states, "is increasingly unhinged and unstable."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A federal judge has stunned officials in the state of Virginia with an order that they put a list of 1,600 people, removed from voter rolls under a state program that cracks down on election fraud, back on the voter rolls.

Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin promised an immediate appeal of the scheme that could undermine election integrity.

It is WRIC that reported on the ruling from a Joe Biden-appointed judge, District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles, who claimed that Virginia's state program to work on keeping its voter rolls clean was "systemic," not "individual."

Her claim is that because of her determination, the rolls were cleaned within 90 days of an election, and that's in violation of the National Voter Registration Act.

It was the Biden administration, which has run a program of open borders for the nation for nearly four years now, removing obstacles that would prevent illegal aliens from simply walking onto U.S. land and taking advantage of the multitude of social and financial benefits programs, that sued the state for trying to remove those who are not eligible to vote.

Also participating in the lawsuit were leftist advocacy groups like the Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights, and the League of Women Voters of Virginia. They claimed that state data showed those voter registrations were canceled by the state, as part of a "systemic" campaign.

The broadcast outlet explained a Protect Democracy email confirmed the judge "ordered that purged voters be added back to the rolls and that the state must send corrective mailings to those voters."

Youngkin's order requiring the updates of voter lists was based on a 2006 state law signed by Tim Kaine, a Democrat who then was the state's governor.

He said that is not in violation of the federal statute.

"Let's be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals–who self-identified themselves as noncitizens–back onto the voter rolls," he said in a statement. "Almost all these individuals had previously presented immigration documents confirming their noncitizen status, a fact recently verified by federal authorities."

He said lawyers are working to petition the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals immediately.

The report noted Ryan Snow, counsel with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which also promoted the noncitizens being on the voter rolls, oddly said, "All of the eligible voters who were wrongfully purged from the voter rolls will now be able to cast their ballots."

Those suing claimed that eligible voters also were removed from the rolls.

Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares said it was a "shameful, politically motivated stunt" by the Biden-Harris administration.

"It should never be illegal to remove an illegal voter," he charged. "Yet, today a Court – urged by the Biden-Harris Department of Justice – ordered Virginia to put the names of non-citizens back on the voter rolls, mere days before a presidential election."

The state program, in fact, has a guardrail that if people believe they are eligible, they can contest the evidence the state uses to determine they are not.

Just the News noted Miyares pointed out, "The Department of Justice pulled this shameful, politically motivated stunt 25 days before Election Day, challenging a Virginia process signed into law 18 years ago by a Democrat governor and approved by the Department of Justice in 2006.

"More concerning is the open practice by the Biden-Harris administration to weaponize the legal system against the enemies of so-called progress. That is the definition of lawfare. To openly choose weaponization over good process and lawfare over integrity isn't democracy: it's bullying, pure and simple, and I always stand up to bullies. In the meantime, I encourage every Virginian to exercise their right to vote. Rest assured, I will never stop fighting to preserve the integrity of our election process. The Commonwealth of Virginia will appeal this decision – to the Supreme Court, if necessary."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Former President Trump is lamenting how millions of Christians in America are not planning to vote in the November election and is perplexed by their absence, since he says the last four years under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris has been "an absolute horror show."

"Christians are not tremendous voters in terms of percentage," Trump said Wednesday at a Believers and Ballots Faith Town Hall in Zebulon, Georgia. "If they were, we would never lose an election."

The president was responding to a question about a recent survey by George Barna at Arizona Christian University which found that "as many as 104 million people of faith are unlikely to vote in this upcoming election – and among those, 32 million self-identified Christians who regularly attend church won't cast their ballots."

"I think we've really energized a lot of people this time because they've seen how bad it is. This last four years has been, it's been a horror show, an absolute horror show."

He continued: "I think we're gonna see those numbers goes way up. I'm almost sure of it, and I'm even hearing that from, statistically, because you see what's coming in. And by the way, record numbers of votes are coming in. That's supposed to be a good thing for us. … We want to make it too big to rig."

He indicated the current administration has been targeting Christians for persecution, with some groups especially hard hit.

"I don't know what's going on with Catholics. Why are they after Catholics? The Catholics are being persecuted. Schools boards are being persecuted, parents."

Trump said Democrats in power are "not a nice group of people."

"They're vicious people," he said. "People are being persecuted, people of religion. And you saw little bit of it during COVID, where you'd have a service outside, everybody's five yards away and they're coming and arresting people. It's very bad. But I think you're gonna see a big change. I think you're gonna see it now."

He indicated religion is "like the glue that holds it all together."

In addition to Christians, Trump noted gun owners tend to avoid voting.

"People that own guns, they vote in a very small proportion. If they ever voted, you could never lose. And in fact, the Democrats, the radical left, used to fear them and now they don't fear them any longer because they don't vote to the extent that they should."

Trump was thankful for the presence of God in his personal and family life, saying: "When you believe in God, it's a big advantage over people that don't have that."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Lawyers for President Donald Trump's campaign for a second term in the White House have bluntly informed the Federal Election Commission that the last time Brits arrived on America's shores to interfere in internal governance, it didn't go well.

For the Brits.

The new complaint concerns the Kamala Harris campaign plans to bring in members of the United Kingdom's socialist community to help the Harris campaign.

"When representatives of the British government previously sought to go door-to-door in America, it did not end well for them. This past week marked the 243(rd) anniversary of the surrender of British forces at the Battle of Yorktown, a military victory that ensured that the United States would be politically independent of Great Britian," the campaign letter to the FEC explained.

"It appears that the Labour Party and the Harris for President campaign have forgotten the message. I write on behalf of Donald J. Trump for President 2024, Inc. to request an immediate investigation into blatant foreign interference in the 2024 Presidential Election in the form of apparent illegal foreign national contributions made by the Labour Party of the United Kingdom and accepted by Harris for President, the principal campaign committee of Vice President Kamala Harris."

The letter cites reports that strategists "linked to Britain's Labour Party have been offering advice to Kamala Harris about how to earn back disaffected voters and run a winning campaign from the center left.

Further, the letter explains reports confirm, "Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, and Matthew Doyle, director of communications, attended the convention in Chicago and met with Ms. Harris' campaign team."

A report now at the Gateway Pundit said the complaint charges both the Harris campaign and the British political regime with illegal activities.

"Labour Party operatives, under the direction of Sofia Patel, have reportedly been deployed to help sway these key states in favor of Harris, a move that Trump's legal team is calling a blatant violation of U.S. election laws," the report said.

On a social media post, now deleted, Patel had "boasted about mobilizing staff for Harris' campaign, stating: 'I have nearly 100 Labour Party staff (current and former) going to the US in the next few weeks heading to North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Virginia,'" the report said.

Trump-Vance Campaign Co-Manager Susie Wiles said, in a statement, "In two weeks, Americans will once again reject the oppression of big government that we rejected in 1776. The flailing Harris-Walz campaign is seeking foreign influence to boost its radical message – because they know they can't win the American people. President Trump will return strength to the White House and put America, and our people, first.

"The Harris campaign's acceptance and use of this illegal foreign assistance is just another feeble attempt in a long line of anti-American election interference."

The letter pointed out a similar situation, when Australians arrived in the U.S. to help then-candidate Bernie Sanders, fines of $14,500 were impose on the players.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration now is under fire for demanding that a law it previously endorsed not be enforced now – just as it needs all of the leftist votes possible to push Harris toward her term in the White House.

The fight is between the state of Virginia and the Biden-Harris Department of Justice.

The state is trying to remove 6,303 wannabe criminals from voter rolls, specifically those who identified themselves as noncitizens, but then joined the ranks of those on the voter rolls.

It's a crime for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election.

The Biden-Harris regime, however, insists that the National Voter Registration Act prevents actions that include "systemic" removal of criminal voters from voting rolls within 90 days of an election.

Virginia has explained it is undertaking individual actions triggered "automatically by citizens identifying themselves as noncitizens but then joining the voting rolls," according to a new report from constitutional expert Jonathan Turley.

The Biden-Harris administration has sued the state to keep all those, who by law cannot vote anyway, on the voter rolls.

Turley explained, "Virginia is not targeting any group and does not know how these voters might vote. It is responding to a notice coming from the Department of Motor Vehicle of a possible ineligibility and potential criminal act if the person votes, which is admittedly rare for noncitizens."

He commented, "I understand concerns over changes close to the election, but there seemed to be a host of options for the Justice Department short of this lawsuit, including working with the state to be sure that this relatively small number of voters are given ample opportunity to correct their records."

He also noted that the law was signed by then-Virginia Gov Tim Kaine, who had asked the DOJ to review the plan, drawing a response that there were no objections.

The DOJ did say it might objection at some future point.

Glenn Youngkin, now Virginia's governor, has pointed out that past governors have used the law within 90 days of an election with no opposition from the DOJ.

"Now, Kaine is on the ballot and there is a close election for the presidency. The Biden administration is suddenly claiming to be 'shocked, shocked' that alleged noncitizens are being removed from the ballot," Turley pointed out.

"Youngkin agrees that the state must 'block noncitizens from voting' and is using the very law Kaine signed (and the Justice Department approved) for that purpose," Turley wrote.

He suggested it's part of a larger fight, in which, "States have complained that the Biden administration has harassed and sued them at every turn as they sought to require voter identification or other laws."

He noted there are more than 165 election-related lawsuits already in the courts.

He wrote, "There is now a virtual army of lawyers deployed by both parties to secure or to protect the expected small margin of victory in the election. Indeed, lawsuits like the Virginia action constitute a type of 'harassing fire' to push back on states on identification and eligibility efforts. The Biden administration's move against Virginia shows how one person's voter integrity is another's voter suppression. Indeed, the man who signed this state law is now supporting the administration seeking to limit its use."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Supreme Court is considering a case now that could force cops to be deadly less often.

That would mean, probably, shooting and killing fewer people.

It's all about holding officers who inflict unnecessary and excessive deadly force accountable.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to reverse the firing of a fire chief who lost his job in Stockton, California, because he attended an assigned leadership conference.

City officials apparently were enraged because the conference was in a church building.

First Liberty Institute has announced it, and others, have joined to ask the Supreme Court for a review of the case involving fire chief Ron Hittle.

"It is a tragic day for religious liberty in America when someone can be fired because they attend an event that includes religious perspectives," said Stephanie Taub, a lawyer for First Liberty Institute.

"The city showed extreme anti-religious bias and broke the law when it fired Chief Hittle. We are asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's decision and uphold the clear meaning of Title VII to protect all Americans in the workplace."

Aaron Streett, a lawyer with Baker Botts, which also is working on the case, said, "City of Stockton officials were completely intolerant of Chief Hittle's religious beliefs. Federal law protects the freedom of every American to live without fear of being fired simply because of their beliefs."

The institute explained that Stockton officials fired Hittle after 24 years of service "because he attended a leadership conference hosted at a church. Although the city requested Chief Hittle attend a leadership training course of his choice, it later opened an investigation after he attended Willow Creek Church's Global Leadership Summit, a world-class conference with speakers from a variety of religious and non-religious backgrounds."

Speakers at that conference historically have included Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg and Bill Clinton.

"The city listed Chief Hittle's attendance at a 'religious event' while on duty as the primary reason for his termination," the legal team explained.

He sued but a district court took the city's side.

Alan Reinach is with Church State Council, which also is helping with the case.

He said, "Chief Ron Hittle was an exemplary leader of the Stockton Fire Department who was fired because of his Christian faith. But to make matters worse, the courts reversed the evidentiary assumptions and chose to believe Stockton's denial that it did not discriminate, instead of focusing on the abundant evidence Chief Hittle supplied."

The petition notes, "When plaintiffs have presented evidence that creates a fact issue regarding whether they were discriminated against, they should be permitted to try their case to a jury, period. That is how it works in virtually every other context. There is no reason that plaintiffs in Title VII cases should face the added burden of disproving the employer's proffered reason for the adverse employment decision.

"Yet that errant and nontextual view holds sway in nearly half the country and is causing demonstrable injustices for worthy plaintiffs," the petition states.

The city, faced with the dispute, assembled a long list of allegations against the fire chief in order to fire him, claiming he wasn't able to implement city goals, used city resources to attend a "religious" event, the conference that the city gave him the option of choosing, didn't talk about his knowing a contractor to the department, and how he owned part of a cabin and didn't announce that.

The appeal points out that the lower court judge made decisions about disputes that only a jury should have resolved.

One lower court judge, on the fight, said, "The City of Stockton's management frequently parroted derogatory and insulting terms coined by others to criticize Chief Hittle's Christian faith. Although they now say they did so under the guise of 'show[ing] concerns about other persons' perceptions.' The Supreme Court has already rejected "a 'modified heckler's veto, in which … religious activity can be proscribed' based on 'perceptions' or 'discomfort.'"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Michael Cohen, a New York lawyer who once worked for Donald Trump and later established his character by pleading guilty to charges including tax fraud, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress, now is being held out as an expert by MSNBC.

There, he is given a platform to express his dislike of Trump, and stunningly claims that Trump, in the office of president, will destroy America's court system and Congress.

Cohen earlier was sentenced to three years in prison, and most recently, was a star witness in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's suspect business violation claims against Trump.

But MSNBC wanted Cohen's opinion and he delivered:

He said, "If, in fact, Trump wins and he does exactly what he says he's going to do rewrite the Constitution and he's going to destroy our tripartite system, get rid of the judiciary, and get rid of the Congress."

The MSNBC interviewer suggested such scandals already have taken place, but didn't explain that if it was Trump's agenda to rid the nation of the courts and Congress, why didn't he do it during the four years he was president.

Trending Politics reported that earlier, Cohen had promised that "he will be changing his name and leaving the country if Trump returns to the White House in January."

An editorial at Twitchy pointed out: "Bro, Trump has said nothing even remotely like this. But Kamala and Democrats have. Maybe he's not smart enough to know Trump from Kamala? Or maybe he thinks people watching him on MSNBC are stupid enough to believe him. We hate to break it to Michael, but the mouth-breathers watching him on that network are already voting for Kamala."