The Washington State Supreme Court in Olympia, Washington.
After losing in its attempt to force a Christian family to worship at the transgender altar, Washington’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families has surrendered.
The state agreed to a permanent injunction that means families are not required to enforce the state’s embrace of gender ideology when they take in foster care children, according to Just the News.
“DCYF is prohibited from denying foster family home license applicants, or licensed foster parents seeking renewal of their license, a full license consistent with the requests of the applicant/licensee or attaching any conditions or restrictions to the license solely because of their religious beliefs, including speech and actions pertaining to marriage, gender, or sexual relationships,” the injunction from District Court Judge David Estudillo said.
Shane and Jennifer DeGross had been battling the state since 2022 and went to court in 2024 after being told their license to serve as foster parents would only be renewed if they agreed to affirm gender transition language.The court ruled that was likely to be a First Amendment violation.
Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said the family wanted to be able to care for children without being forced to compromise their beliefs.
State officials “don’t have to agree with the DeGross’s religious beliefs to see the benefit of including them in the foster care system and inviting them in to help care for children in need,” Widmalm-Delphonse said.
“We’re going to have disagreements about gender ideology and the truth about how God created us male and female. That wasn’t the purpose of this lawsuit,” he added.
“The purpose was, despite these differences, can DCYF pursue a big tent strategy that’s both in line with the First Amendment of the Constitution and that will promote children’s best interest to make sure every child has a loving home?” he continued.
Republican state Rep. Travis Couture said that forcing foster parents to mimic liberal ideology was “insane and unconstitutional.”
“They’re not even asking them, but actually they are by the force of government, like a gun to your head, telling you that you will affirm the pronouns, or you can’t be a foster parent,” Couture said. “I’m glad they lost, but sad that it ever occurred.”
Widmalm-Delphonse said the state will also pay $250,000 in legal fees.
“By requiring prospective foster families to parrot the government’s preferred views on issues of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, Washington was unlawfully restricting people like Shane and Jenn DeGross from serving,” the ADF wrote on its website.
The ADF noted that the couple had cared for foster children for nine years before the state attempted to force them into a language straitjacket.
“As Christians, Shane and Jenn believe that God created each person either male or female and that sex cannot be changed. Their Christian beliefs inform their view that people should live consistent with God’s design, so the DeGrosses cannot promote an ideology that claims that a person can choose his or her sex or gender,” the ADF release said.
“Praise God, after the district court ruling, the state of Washington settled, agreeing to a permanent injunction that will now allow religious families to serve as foster parents without promoting gender ideology,” the ADF wrote.
Today is the day we remember those, who in great service to our nation, gave up their precious lives for the liberty of the American people, so that we would be a free people – free to live, free to prosper, and most importantly, free to love God with all our hearts.
From the early days of our nation to now, men and women have defended this nation and her Judeo-Christian ideals, both in the homeland and abroad.
I asked Grok to list all the American wars and the number of fallen servicemembers in each:
American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) — ~4,435 battle deaths (total deaths estimated higher, around 25,000 including disease). Quasi-War (1798–1800) — ~514 total deaths. War of 1812 (1812–1815) — ~2,260 battle deaths (total ~15,000 including disease). Indian Wars (approx. 1817–1898) — ~1,000 battle deaths (VA estimate; series of conflicts). Mexican-American War (1846–1848) — 1,733 battle deaths + 11,550 other (total ~13,283). American Civil War (1861–1865) — ~655,000 total (Union + Confederate; ~214,938 battle deaths; deadliest U.S. conflict). Spanish-American War (1898) — ~2,446 total deaths (385 battle). Philippine-American War (1899–1902) — ~4,196 total deaths. World War I (U.S. involvement 1917–1918) — 116,516 total (53,402 battle). World War II (U.S. involvement 1941–1945) — 405,399 total (291,557 battle). Korean War (1950–1953) — 36,574 total (33,686 battle). Vietnam War (U.S. major involvement ~1965–1973; 1955–1975) — 58,220 total (47,434 battle). Gulf War (1990–1991) — 294 total (149 battle). War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) — ~2,325–2,432 total. Iraq War (2003–2011) — ~4,492–4,576 total. Iran War (now) – 13 total.
The last one I added after getting the current figures. So much blood has been spilt for this nation, which we have been so blessed to inherit from our forefathers. Not all of these are deaths from battle, but it doesn’t matter. They were all deaths in service to our nation and we recognize them all and pray for them all, should any of them still need our prayers.
President Trump will at noon participate in a Wreath Laying Ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery and he will deliver remarks in honor of these great patriots. You can watch it below:
Over the Memorial Day weekend, President Donald Trump took to social media to reveal a key component of the proposed Iranian peace deal currently under negotiations: that all nations in the Middle East involved in the conflict with Iran become signatories of the Abraham Accords.
“I am mandatorily requesting that all Countries immediately sign the Abraham Accords,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social. “If Iran signs its Agreement with me, as President of the United States of America, it would be an Honor to have them also be part of this unparalleled World Coalition.”
The Abraham Accords are a set of economic, diplomatic, and security agreements between Israel and Arab-state signatories that sought to normalize relations between the regional neighbors. The deal was first negotiated in 2020 as Trump neared the end of his first term. Two regional partners, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, have signed onto the agreement prior to Trump’s request.
Trump has specifically named Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan as those whom he believes should be mandatory to sign a deal before a larger agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran is reached.
While details of what the deal is shaping up to be are murky, Fox News’ Trey Yingst has reported that all components of a deal are incumbent upon Iran surrendering their entire stockpile of nuclear materials.
"If you have a final deal where the Iranian[s] are enriching, then you don't have a final deal,” a senior Trump official told Yingst.
Should Iran accept significant American demands regarding Iran’s nuclear development, the deal would work to stabilize global oil markets and begin the process of normalization between the two countries.
The Republican National Committee has scored a major victory in the state of North Carolina that requires election officials to purge voter rolls of any individual who does not have U.S. citizenship status, according to Fox News.
The judgement requires the North Carolina State Board of Elections to cross-reference jury duty records to identify registered voters who indicated that they do not have U.S. citizenship. Should authorities discover that individuals cast ballots while not having citizenship, they will be required to submit that information to the pertinent district attorney.
Democrats mounted a defense to oppose the move, with attorneys working with the Democrat-election giant Marc Elias pleaded with Superior Court Judge Jennifer Bedford against it. The decision was granted after a hearing that lasted just 19 minutes.
"This agreement is a major win for election integrity in North Carolina," RNC Chairman Joe Gruters told Fox News. "It’s straightforward: if someone admits they’re not a U.S. citizen during jury duty, that information should be used to check the voter rolls and remove anyone who doesn’t belong."
The problems with North Carolinian voter rolls have become apparent over the past month, as over 34,000 deceased individuals were discovered to still be eligible to cast ballots.
The news comes as the election security SAVE Act has been sidelined in the Senate by Republicans who refuse to implement the talking filibuster to pass the wildly popular bill that Trump has considered a top priority.
Governor Kathy Hochul is reportedly preparing to sign a bill that would officially make New York a so-called sanctuary state, effectively protecting illegal alien criminals from deportation.
Critics are warning that this reckless move could turn the Empire State into a magnet for lawbreakers who are fleeing accountability in other parts of the country.
The Department of Homeland Security has already slammed the message coming from Albany.
“The message from Gov Kathy Hochul and her fellow sanctuary politicians is clear: criminal illegal aliens are WELCOME in New York,” a DHS spokesperson said, capturing the outrage shared by many law enforcement leaders who see their hands being tied by progressive lawmakers.
This plan from Hochul follows a long line of liberal sanctuary policies that have eroded cooperation between state and federal law enforcement.
Under the proposed law, local police and sheriffs would be banned from turning over illegal aliens to federal immigration authorities, including violent offenders, sex predators, and gang members already flagged for deportation.
The move is being celebrated by far-left activists who have long pushed New York to defy federal immigration law.
The same progressive groups who lobbied for drivers’ licenses for illegals and taxpayer-funded housing now see the sanctuary bill as their biggest victory yet.
Dallasites need to focus on good schools, low crime, cheaper housing, and low taxes before culture and lifestyle.
ccording to a recent viral essay in The Dallas Morning News by economics professor J.H. Cullum Clark, the great city of Dallas has joined the ranks of other declining American cities and become a donut hole. As the city itself has contracted and lost population, its suburbs and exurbs have grown and multiplied. Even though domestic and foreign migrants from outside of Dallas have arrived in large numbers, residents in the city have left the city in even greater numbers. Thus, for the first time since the Civil War, “Dallas County is likely to lose population” in the current decade.
Those in the suburbs may not think much of this is change — it mirrors the same demographic changes of most large American cities — yet Clark warns that “economic weakness in core cities tends to spread to nearby suburbs.” This can already be observed in the moribund growth of neighboring suburbs Irving and Carrollton in the last few years. Meanwhile, there is endless new residential sprawl creeping northward in exurbs like Prosper, Melissa, and Argyle, all showing that growth is happening somewhere.
Clark calls for filling in the donut hole and bringing people back to Dallas. Unfortunately, this is where his analysis falls apart. Unable, or unwilling, to criticize the main culprits of Dallas’ decline in the first place, his solutions are unrealistic and unserious. He suggests “creating an ever richer restaurant and cultural scene,” “building walkable urban neighborhoods appealing to city lovers,” “investing relentlessly in quality-of-life assets like parks and trails,” and “get better at adaptively reusing great old buildings.” He also recommends “making it easier to build housing of all kinds,” even though Dallas already does this.
In other words, Clark offers the same advice as any other progressive urbanist, even citing New York City, Washington D.C., and Boston as positive examples on how to grow. Ironically, it was this kind of thinking that has now made Dallas a less desirable place to live. Instead of properly dealing with the challenges of its rapidly growing population, Dallas’ leaders ignore these issues as they pursue new gimmicks to make the city a culture and lifestyle hub.
Leftists Ruining Neighborhoods
For the first half of my life, I lived in Dallas, but eventually migrated northward and made my home in what used to be a small suburb consisting of residential subdivisions and a strip mall, surrounded by vast empty fields. Since then, there has been endless development and construction all around me, transforming a primarily white, conservative, middle-class town of modest single-family homes into an increasingly diverse, progressive city filled with McMansions, large apartment complexes, and boutique retail stores along with a cornucopia of dining options.
The reasons I moved away from Dallas were the same reasons I would consider moving away from my home now: leftists have come in and ruined the place. As a kid, I mainly experienced this in the public schools: academic standards were generally low in most classes and grades meant little. Most campuses, including mine, were majority-minority schools with large contingents of ESL (English as a Second Language) students from Mexico and Central America. Fights, drug abuse, and criminal activity were common, and many of the school’s alumni went on to form a permanent underclass living in various barrios around the city.
Curiously, down the street from my school were elite private schools where the students played lacrosse and lived in the city’s most affluent neighborhoods. These kids would usually go on to attend an Ivy League and then come back to form the social upper crust of the city. Insulated from the rougher elements of the city, these Dallasites were generally progressive in their thinking, though they would insist on identifying as moderates.
As for those of us in the shrinking middle class, we either stayed on the narrow advanced track at our schools or our parents moved to one of the suburbs that had better public schools and less delinquency.
When I began teaching almost 20 years ago in South Dallas, I encountered the same issues I did as a student, only more so: more poverty, more dysfunction, and more leftist policies designed to accommodate unmotivated youths. School leaders and their cronies would continually complain about funding, yet spent most of the budget on more technology and educational specialists.
Nothing much has changed about Dallas since then, except one thing: the price of living there. Unlike most other big cities, Dallas cannot bring people in with its cultural scene, natural beauty, good weather, or storied history. For the longest time, Dallas only grew because it was affordable and there were jobs. Economists like Clark might blithely declare that “America’s most successful core cities are growing by outcompeting suburbs as fun places to live more than they are by sustaining traditional job centers,” but if Dallas doesn’t have jobs and affordable housing, it has nothing.
Get the Basics Right
Rather than pin their hopes on building more museums, parks, and craft breweries, Dallasites need to focus on the basics: good schools, low crime, cheaper housing, and low taxes. This could happen through systemic efforts to raise academic and behavioral requirements at school, arrest and punish criminals, deport illegal migrants and empty out the barrios where they live, crack down on homeless vagrants, and cut the bureaucratic bloat in public services that drains tax revenue. In all decisions, the welfare of the middle-class family must be prioritized. Put another way, if Dallas’ leaders simply implemented conservative reforms — and this goes for leaders of other American cities — they could revitalize growth.
Only then would it be a good idea for city officials to engage in cultural projects, celebrate the Dallas’ cosmopolitan atmosphere, and invest in leisurely pastimes. Relative to its suburbs, Dallas still has a major advantage in this regard, making it ideal for visits. It needs to become an ideal for place for living and working once again. This means ditching the complacent leftist attitude that growth is guaranteed no matter what the local governments does, and returning to common sense and safeguarding order and prosperity.
Chinese paramilitary police officers who serve on the border between Hong Kong and Guangdong province prepare to take part in anti-riot training exercises in Shenzhen of southern China's Guangdong province on June 5, 2017
Human rights advocacy groups are expressing concern about the implications of a potential sister city agreement between Prince George, B.C., and Jiangmen, China, after the Canadian municipality welcomed representatives from the Chinese city last week.
The City of Prince George says representatives from the city of Jiangmen in Guangdong province, southern China, visited last week to “tour the community and consider establishing a sister city agreement.”
Sister city agreements are formal partnerships between municipalities in different countries that support economic development, trade, cultural and educational exchange, tourism, and international collaboration, Prince George noted in a May 11 news release.
The city also noted that a sister city agreement “does not create an automatic financial obligation.”
Critics of the agreements say Chinese authorities have increasingly used sister-city relationships not simply for cultural exchange, but to cultivate political influence, economic access, and relationships with local governments abroad as part of Beijing’s push to expand covert foreign influence operations.
Cheuk Kwan, co-chair of the Toronto Association for Democracy in China, told The Epoch Times that while sister city agreements are framed as cultural civic exchanges, China uses these agreements as “an inroad into foreign influence” in exchange for offering municipalities financial benefits.
While Jiangmen has a population of more than 4 million, Prince George only has roughly 77,000 residents, he noted. Kwan said he could not see any explanation for the Chinese making an agreement with a small city like Prince George aside from political reasons, adding that it would “certainly not” be for cultural reasons.
“You have to ask yourself, what’s the motivation? What [does China] gain from twinning up with Prince George?” Kwan said, adding that municipalities like Prince George should ask themselves why they are considering such an engagement which would only “accommodate hostile forces that are using these innocuous schemes to infiltrate and influence our governments.”
Sister city relationships date back to 1956, when U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower proposed forming this type of “citizen diplomacy” between individual U.S. communities and foreign cities to encourage cultural, educational, and business cooperation.
More than 100 Canadian cities have sister-city agreements with foreign municipalities, and in many cases these partnerships—such as those involving Victoria, Calgary, Montreal, Ottawa, Regina, Richmond, Saskatoon, Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg—are with Chinese cities.
China has sought sister city agreements with foreign countries since the 1970s, and roughly 2,600 Chinese municipalities had foreign sister city agreements by 2019. The agreements increasingly expanded from friendly exchanges to the economic, cultural, and educational arenas, to also opening doors to ongoing influence by the Chinese regime by mobilizing overseas Chinese communities to advance its interests.
U.S. lawmakers have previously voiced concern that the Chinese communist regime could use sister city agreements as a means to carry out influence and espionage activities, and infiltrate Western culture to achieve Beijing’s economic ends.
‘Fallen Prey’
The City of Prince George said it has “historical ties” to the Chinese community and discussions with the Jiangmen representatives focused on Prince George’s “regional strength, economic development opportunities, education, industry, and future areas of cooperation.”
The Jiangmen delegation visited Prince George city hall, the University of Northern British Columbia, Northern Lights Estate Winery, and B.C. forestry giant Canfor, which has industrial facilities in Prince George.
Kwan noted that B.C. cities have “fallen prey to so-called Chinese investment” in recent years, in which China has sought land to build factories, to mine, or carry out other activities in exchange for financial commitments to the municipality.
While some provinces impose strict restrictions on foreign ownership of farmland, British Columbia has no such restrictions.
In reality, Kwan said, the Chinese regime uses sister city agreements with municipalities to gain resources and to conduct political influence operations. He noted this type of foreign influence happens “in front of our own eyes.”
Authorities in Prince Edward Island are currently investigating two organizations allegedly linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in relation to their land holdings in the province. The organizations have denied keeping ties to China and say their land holdings are below the province’s limit for foreign ownership, while critics argue the organizations could be tied to a single legal owner and would therefore exceed the limit.
A British man signs the petition calling on the British city government to server ties with their sister cities in China, at a rally against the CCP in Newcastle on Oct. 1. 2022.
‘Real Implications’
Landson Chan, advocacy officer of UK-based NGO Hong Kong Watch, told The Epoch Times that a sister city agreement with Jiangmen is “not a neutral cultural exchange,” but an “institutional relationship with real implications.”
“The idea that formal ties with Chinese government-linked entities are purely symbolic does not reflect the reality many of us face,” he said in an interview, noting that as a Hong Konger in exile himself, transnational repression is something his community lives with.
Chan also noted the timing of the potential sister city agreement is “hard to ignore,” given recent evidence of the Chinese regime interfering in Canadian affairs, such as the Chinese embassy in Canada publicly criticizing Canadian MPs for visiting Taiwan, and court documents revealing Chinese police operations targeting people living in Canada.
China’s ambassador to Canada, Wang Di, drew criticism from MPs for remarks he made in an interview with The Globe and Mail in late April, saying that it would be “hurtful” to Canada-China ties if Canadian parliamentarians conduct “any official engagement” with Taiwan. China views self-ruled Taiwan as a breakaway province, despite never having governed the island nation, and seeks to bring the island under its control.
Conservative MP Michael Chong arrived in Taiwan this week to meet with Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, Taiwanese ministers, and officials at the Canadian Trade Office in Taipei in defiance of China’s warning. Chong said in a statement ahead of his trip that Canada is a “sovereign and independent country” that does not “take direction from a foreign government” about where parliamentarians can travel internationally.
After Chong’s arrival in Taiwan, a spokesperson for China’s embassy in Ottawa said Chong’s visit sent “a wrong message of support for Taiwan independence” and repeated that China opposes any countries maintaining formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
Chan also referred to court documents filed in April during the trial of former RCMP officer William Majcher that revealed at least 25 Canadian residents were targeted by Chinese police under an “anti-corruption” program used to repatriate Chinese nationals abroad. They may have been forced to return to China against their will to face punishment for CCP-alleged financial crimes, with some potentially facing life imprisonment or a death sentence, according to the documents.
A 2022 report by Spain-based NGO Safeguard Defenders found at least 102 secret Chinese police stations in 53 countries, including at least five in Canada. A House of Commons report in 2023 also confirmed “at least five” illicit police stations were operating secretly in Canada.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has said the Chinese police stations serve in part to collect intelligence and monitor Chinese dissidents living in Canada as part of a “broader transnational anti-corruption, repression and repatriation campaign.”
The Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Ottawa in a file photo.
‘Totalitarian Nature’
The Epoch Times contacted the City of Prince George for comment on the rights groups’ concerns, but didn’t hear back by publication time.
The city said in the news release last week that if a sister city agreement is proposed, it would be presented to city council for consideration. Chan said that before Prince George city council moves forward, there needs to be a national security review and consultation with affected diaspora communities.
“This should not stop at Prince George,“ Chan said. ”Municipalities across Canada should be taking a hard look at existing sister city relationships, scrutinizing the role of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Toronto, and closing the gaps in foreign interference protections that have left communities vulnerable.”
In recent years, an increasing number of cities have terminated their sister city agreements with Chinese counterparts amid growing public awareness of the CCP’s interference and influence activities, such as municipalities in the Czech Republic, Sweden, and the Netherlands.
Hongkonger groups have previously spoken out against sister city agreements with the Chinese regime, urging 163 cities in seven countries, including Canada, to sever such relationships in a “Global Joint Campaign” in 2022.
The groups said the CCP uses sister city agreements to directly interfere in the sovereign affairs of other countries and to influence and promote CCP propaganda. One group also said China’s “notorious record” of human rights violations and non-compliance with international treaties highlights its “totalitarian nature,” but many countries “choose to turn a blind eye for economic benefits.”
A U.S. lawmaker introduced legislation last week to ensure sister city agreements serve the interests of the United States, not the “strategic ambitions” of foreign adversaries like the CCP, noting such agreements can expose communities to “foreign espionage, economic coercion, and ideological influence operations.”
In 2020, U.S. lawmakers sounded the alarm about the threats posed by sister city programs with the CCP, warning local U.S. governments to be vigilant against CCP influence and espionage activities. Then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the Chinese People’s Association of Friendship with Foreign Countries, which manages China’s sister city relationships, is part of China’s United Front Work Department, the CCP’s official overseas propaganda and foreign interference tool.
