This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Leftists who have migrated to a social media platform called Bluesky, a competitor – even though it's only a fraction of the size – of X, formerly Twitter, have responded to an invitation from Vice President JD Vance to discuss the issues … by blocking him.
A Fox News report explained that Vance "is leveraging" the social media platform "commonly used by liberals," to troll Democrats.
He joined the platform a week ago, and was able, eventually, to post after the corporation originally blocked him entirely.
He instantly became the social media platform's "most blocked user," the report said.
"'It's great to see all of those Dem (party of tolerance) users sticking their heads in the sand by blocking JDV and refusing to even listen to a differing viewpoint," one commenter said.
"Hello Bluesky, I've been told this app has become the place to go for common sense political discussion and analysis. So I'm thrilled to be here to engage with all of you," Vance wrote. Then he shared a comment about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion in a decision that affirmed a Tennessee law banning transgender surgeries for minors.
"To that end, I found Justice Thomas's concurrence on medical care for transgender youth quite illuminating. He argues that many of our so-called 'experts' have used bad arguments and substandard science to push experimental therapies on our youth, I might add that many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids. What do you think?"
The report said data from ClearSky, which monitors censorship agendas on social media platforms, confirmed that Vance's account on Bluesky "has been blocked by nearly 150,000 other accounts."
Bluesky became a little more popular following President Donald Trump's 2024 election, and offers services as an "alternative" to X, owned by tech billionaire Elon Musk, who supported Trump in the election.
Vance had "quipped" that he heard Bluesky was the platform for "common sense political discussion and analysis."
The corporation immediately banned his account, then reinstated it, claiming it had been flagged as an imposter account.
Fox reported, "In the week since Vance joined the platform, he has repeatedly trolled Democrats, including following New York City's mayoral primaries, when democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani trounced top competitor and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo at the polls. Mamdani's victory is viewed as the Democrat Party moving farther to the left in New York City after national voters sounded off in the 2024 election that the party's embrace of some left-wing policies alienated Americans."
Vance had offered "congratulations to the new leader of the Democratic Party."
Another response on social media, about the blocking, was, "Of course the left will block him. The truth blows up the brainwashing."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A state lawmaker in Connecticut who voted to ban one-time use shopping bags from stores has been arrested for shoplifting, and he blames the lack of shopping bags in the store.
It is state Rep. Raghib Allie-Brennan, chief majority whip of the Connecticut House and co-chair of the state's LGBTQ+ caucus, who is in trouble.
He explained in a statement that he was in Target, and "two items in my armload of others were not scanned."
He explains he was "in a rush to bring items to my grandmother in the hospital, the store didn't have bags, and I was juggling multiple purchases."
He said it was an "error" and he's "working through the legal processes."
A report from a local NBC affiliate said it happened in Bethel, and "police say it isn't the first time it has happened."
Police charged he tried to leave the store without paying for $26.69 in merchandise, and "he was also recognized by loss prevention for prior unreported larcenies."
Store security video showed him attempting to leave the store without paying for the items.
Comments on social media were not sympathetic:
"I like the way he threw the hospitalized grandma in there. Nice touch."
"'Guys I accidentally stole for the 30th time I'm just so clumsy.'"
"'I was on my way to feed unicorns. I was helping a 3 legged dog cross the street. My dog ate the receipt.'"
Libs of TikTok on social media confirmed the Democrat voted in 2019 to ban stores from giving single-use shopping bags.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a stunning decision that assists the pro-life cause across America, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood's demand that a state be ordered to consider it a "qualified provider" and thus eligible for Medicaid program cash.
The justices ruled 6-3 in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that South Carolina is allowed to legally block the leading player in America's abortion industry from demanding payment through the Medicaid program.
Seven years ago, Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed an executive action telling the state's Department of Health and Human Services to take the abortion provider off of the state's Medicaid provider list.
His explanation was that funding to abortionists, even if not used directly for abortions, indirectly funded abortions and such public funding was banned by state law.
He said in a recent statement, "This case is about protecting the sanctity of life and preserving South Carolina's right to govern itself in a way that reflects the values of its people."
Justice Neal Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion of the court, and was joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
Ketanji Jackson, one of the three pro-abortion activists on the court, wrote a dissent that would have insisted taxpayers in the state revert to paying their cash to the abortionists, and was joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
McMaster had said, "South Carolina has made it clear that we value the right to life. Therefore, taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion providers who are in direct opposition to their beliefs. Just as I was in 2018, I am confident in our authority to terminate funding for Planned Parenthood, and I trust that the U.S. Supreme Court will agree."
A spokesperson for the abortion company's South Carolina's two sites claimed, "In just under two years, we've already heard countless stories of distress, bodily harm, persecution, and even death, from patients whose care was delayed or denied due to these bans. If anti-abortion lawmakers are allowed to act unchecked, they will revoke our access to this care altogether—with no exceptions. We must continue to take them to task—in the legislature, in the courts, and in our communities."
Priests for Life National Director Frank Pavone said, "This is one of the unfolding victories of the 2022 Dobbs decision and rightly shows deference to the states. People should not have the right to bar states from disqualifying abortion providers from receiving taxpayer money."
The court ruling concluded that Medicaid laws do not give individuals the right to bring federal lawsuits against states over this issue.
A statement from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life research arm, said, "South Carolina's victory marks a meaningful step forward in the fight to stop forced taxpayer funding of the abortion industry. It offers a glimpse of what can be achieved nationwide with congressional passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, which would defund big abortion businesses in Medicaid through the budget reconciliation process. Although the Hyde Amendment and similar policies in the majority of states prevent taxpayer dollars from being spent on most abortions, abortion businesses – like Planned Parenthood – still receive hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers each year, freeing them to spend donations on abortion on demand, partisan politics and litigation instead of health care."
The ruling found the state's decision to exclude the abortionists from Medicaid's list of "any qualified provider," was allowed in this case as the plaintiff's lacked any legal grounds for challenging it.
Mat Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said, "The U.S. Supreme Court has rightfully ruled that states can defund abortion. It makes no sense to require states to fund an organization that kills children. Congress did not create a right for individuals to have states pay for their abortions. Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund abortion or subsidize practices that kill children and harm women."
Liberty Counsel's briefs noted, "the law's language allows for states to disqualify providers that engage in unethical and illegal practices, in which Planned Parenthood has been credibly implicated."
The corporation boasts of doing more than 400,000 abortions a year, collecting nearly $800 million from U.S. taxpayers.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Director of Legal Affairs Katie Daniel said, "By rejecting Planned Parenthood's lawfare, the Court not only saves countless unborn babies from a violent death and their mothers from dangerously shoddy 'care,' it also protects Medicaid from exposure to thousands of lawsuits from unqualified providers that would jeopardize the entire program. Pro-life Republican leaders are eliminating government waste and prioritizing Medicaid for those who need it most – women, children, the poor, people with disabilities. Planned Parenthood was rightly disqualified. Multi-billion-dollar abortion businesses are not entitled to an unending money grab that forces taxpayers to fund America's #1 cause of death: abortion."
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, said, "Planned Parenthood's taxpayer-funded gravy train is swiftly coming to an end. Its days of posing as a 'trusted health care provider' are over as the truth is exposed – most recently, by revelations of botched procedures, open sewage and other horrifying conditions at their facilities across America and the tragic death of yet another young woman following a late-term abortion. The profit-driven abortion industry isn't merely uninterested in fixing these systemic issues, the Planned Parenthood organization actually forbids donor funds from being spent on quality health care, funneling millions into political activism and litigation instead. Women, children and families deserve so much better – and with community health centers that offer comprehensive care outnumbering Planned Parenthoods 15 to one, women have real choices."
The ruling found the state's decision to exclude the abortionists from Medicaid's list of "any qualified provider," was allowed in this case as the plaintiff's lacked any legal grounds for challenging it.
Mat Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said, "The U.S. Supreme Court has rightfully ruled that states can defund abortion. It makes no sense to require states to fund an organization that kills children. Congress did not create a right for individuals to have states pay for their abortions. Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund abortion or subsidize practices that kill children and harm women."
Liberty Counsel's briefs noted, "the law's language allows for states to disqualify providers that engage in unethical and illegal practices, in which Planned Parenthood has been credibly implicated."
The corporation was "implicated in unethical and illegal profiteering of aborted baby body parts revealed through undercover videos by undercover journalists Sandra Merritt and David Daleiden. This 'shadowy proliferation' of fetal tissue trafficking gives states like South Carolina a compelling interest to deem the abortion giant unqualified and keep Medicaid funds from subsidizing these 'abhorrent' practices," the statement said.
The court said federal law "does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights" in such cases.
"Congress sometimes allows private enforcement through §1983, which authorizes suits against state actors who deprive individuals of federal 'rights, privileges, or immunities.' But statutes create individual rights only in 'atypical case[s].' … To prove an enforceable right, plaintiffs must show the statute 'clear[ly] and unambiguous[ly]' uses 'rights-creating terms' with 'an unmistakable focus' on individuals."
It continued, "Congress may not wish to authorize private suits."
And, "Private enforcement requires showing States 'voluntarily and knowingly' consented to private suits, meaning Congress must 'clearly' and 'unambiguously' alert States that private enforcement was a funding condition."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A man has been convicted of a "religiously aggravated public order offense," and he's been fined more than $300, because a violent radical was so upset with the speech that he attacked him.
"That's right, a man's violent attack on another was cited as evidence of the victim's guilt," explained a report from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
The case developed in London, where Kurdish-Armenian asylum seeker Hamit Coskun was accused of burning a Quran.
"Coskun ignited a new round of debate over blasphemy in the UK after burning a Quran outside London's Turkish consulate and yelling," among other themes, "Islam is a religion of terrorism."
He has said that was a protest against the "Islamist government of Erdogan," the strong-arm leader of Turkey.
As a result of Coskun's statements, London resident Moussa Kadri attacked Coskun.
The result was that Westminster Magistrates' Court found Coskun guilty because he was attacked.
That's despite the evidence showing Kadri attacked Coskun with a knife, knocked him to the ground, and kicked him while he was on the ground.
The judge justified the conviction by claiming the disorderly nature of Coskun's protest "is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by two different people."
A report by Reuters said the verdict effectively reinstated an abolished blasphemy statute, which fell in 2008.
Judge John McGarva claimed, "Burning a religious book, although offensive, to some is not necessarily disorderly. What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language. There was no need for him to use the 'F word' and direct it towards Islam."
The nation's Conservative Party said, "Britain has no blasphemy laws. Yet this verdict creates one de facto. Parliament never voted for it. The British people do not want it. This decision is wrong."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The American media missed, "or intentionally ignored," something that came out of the White House, something that probably never before has happened in the modern era.
It occurred during the aftermath of the American strike on facilities in Iran that were intended to help the rogue Islamic regime create and use nuclear weapons against Israel.
It was documented in a commentary from the James Dobson Family Institute that was authored by Gary Bauer, president of the Family Research Council and longtime associate of Dobson.
He explained, "We join the American people in thanking God that the U.S. military was able to strike Iranian nuclear sites on June 21. One of the world's most dangerous regimes must not be allowed to have the world's most deadly weapons. The operation was carried out flawlessly and with precision."
Bauer continued, "No one can predict what the days and weeks ahead will bring. There are Iranian 'sleeper cells' in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI are stepping up efforts to keep American families and communities safe. Notable are concerns about possible attacks on churches and synagogues."
But those were not the only significant revelations, and another "has not received the attention it deserves."
"The president said something that I believe brought joy to the heavens and our Creator. The media missed it, of course, or intentionally ignored it. Here is the quote that grabbed my attention: 'I want to just thank everybody and, in particular, God. I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military. Protect them. God bless the Middle East. God bless Israel, and God bless America.'"
The comments come at about 3:40 of the following lengthy video:
"'We love you, God.' I am virtually certain that no modern president has ever uttered those powerful words. Many presidents will ask God to bless America, especially in times of trouble and fear. 'God bless America' has almost been mechanical or merely a habit. Some have pondered in recent years whether we can ask for God to bless our nation if His innocent children continue to be destroyed in the womb. Corruption has grown in our country, and our culture is more decadent. Should we expect God to bless us?" Bauer said.
Bauer, an undersecretary of Education for President Reagan, and later head of the White House Office of Policy Development, said, "President Trump's voice 'caught' almost imperceptibly when he spoke the four words. This was not an act; this was not 'bravado' or bragging. I have no doubt this was heartfelt from a man who I know believes God spared his life from an assassin's bullet."
He also warned, "We should remember the theological worldview of the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They are calling out to Allah to bring them victory. Their scholars think the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, is coming soon. They believe that when he arrives, he will immediately start slaughtering Christians and Jews. They want to hasten that day of slaughter."
"Hearing our president say those words, 'We love you, God,' is powerful and theologically significant. The God we love, and he loves, is the God who said, ' . . . I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live . . .' (Deuteronomy 30:19, ESV).
This is an important moment to turn our hearts back to the God of the Bible."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats often work for huge election turnouts in the belief that will help their candidates and their party.
It's why so many Democrat jurisdictions also are home to massive populations of illegal aliens, who at this point still are counted in the national census. And sometimes, too often, actually vote.
It's likely why when Mark Zuckerberg was handing out those hundreds of millions of dollars in free cash to local elections officials in the 2020 race, they often used it to recruit voters in Democrat districts.
But now a report reveals that an increasing number of the voters who stayed home during the 2024 race would have picked President Donald Trump had they voted.
In fact, Trump won landslide proportion victories in the popular vote and in the Electoral College.
The report that undermines apparently Democrat "get-out-the-vote" schemes comes from Politico.
The report cited the work of Pew Research Center, which found that Trump, "benefited from high voter turnout in the 2024 presidential election more than former Vice President Kamala Harris did."
The report explained, "Trump won a larger percentage of voters who cast ballots last November after skipping the 2020 election, and the poll found roughly equal support between Trump and Harris among eligible voters who stayed home in 2024. That finding bucks a trend in the presidential electorate dating back decades. Historical analysis of presidential elections has indicated Democrats generally have been more popular among nonvoters."
Politico said during the 2020 race, "nonvoters preferred former President Joe Biden over Trump by 11 points."
Now, however, comes a new precedent, with Pew results suggesting if "all Americans eligible to vote in 2024 had cast ballots, the overall margin in the popular vote likely would not have been much different."
Among those who stayed home or weren't eligible to vote, Trump captured 52% of the support. Kamala Harris got 45%.
Sixty-four percent of the electorate voted in 2024, which was the second-highest figure since 1960, the report said.
Trump's campaign specifically reached out to young men, and ended up taking 55% of the voters who skipped both the 2020 presidential vote and the 2022 midterms.
Only 41% of that population chose Harris.
"The survey found that 44 percent of nonvoters said they would have voted for Trump had they voted, while 40 percent said they would have supported Harris," Politico reported.
Trump's supporters during 2024 also were more racially diverse that those who backed him in 2016 and 2020. He took 48% of the support of Hispanic voters and 15% of black voters, and that was up 7% from the election before.
The survey contacted nearly 9,000 people and ran from Nov. 12-17, 2024. There is a margin of error of 1.4 percentage points.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A previously classified letter written by Hamas leaders on the morning of Oct. 7, 2023, has revealed the terror organization's detailed plans and motivations for the devastating attack on Israel, including their belief that the assault would lead to Israel's complete destruction.
This explosive intelligence document was recently reported in Hebrew-language Maariv news, following its discovery in a bunker used by Hamas military leadership after the elimination of Yahya Sinwar.
The lengthy personal letter was written by three top Hamas officials – Mohammed Deif, Yahya Sinwar and Marwan Issa – and addressed to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Said Izadi, commander of the "Palestine Corps" within Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force.
Intelligence assessments indicate the letter was sent on the morning of Oct. 7, either as the Nukhba fighters began their assault on Israeli communities or shortly thereafter.
The document provides rare insight into the religious ideology driving Hamas, a Sunni Islamist organization founded in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Unlike secular Palestinian nationalist groups, Hamas views the conflict with Israel through an explicitly Islamic lens, seeing the destruction of the Jewish state as a religious obligation. The organization's charter calls for establishing an Islamic state in all of historic Palestine and rejects any permanent peace with Israel on theological grounds.
Apologies for not coordinating
The document opens with prayers and Quranic verses before delivering a stunning revelation: Hamas leadership apologizes profusely to Nasrallah for not informing him in advance of the attack timing.
"We are sorry we did not update you," the letter states, explaining that the "intelligence capabilities of the enemy" forced them to maintain radio silence and avoid sharing the attack timeline with external partners.
"When you read these words, thousands of jihad fighters from the Al-Qassam Brigades will be attacking targets of the criminal Zionist occupation," the letter declares, detailing plans to breach the security fence, engage Israeli forces and capture both military and civilian positions while taking hostages.
Religious justification and Al-Aqsa
The Hamas leaders justify their attack primarily through religious claims about Al-Aqsa Mosque, dedicating hundreds of words to alleged Israeli "crimes" at the holy site. They cite Jewish prayers at the Temple Mount, the presence of religious Jews in "priestly garments" and references to red heifers as evidence of Israeli intentions to "destroy Al-Aqsa and build the Temple."
"They no longer hide their intentions to destroy Al-Aqsa and build the Temple, and there is no greater proof of this than bringing red heifers," the letter states, referring to Jewish religious requirements for Temple service.
The document meticulously lists grievances including restrictions on Muslim worshippers, Israeli security operations in the West Bank cities of Jenin, Nablus and Hebron, and Israeli military actions in Syria and Iraq.
Strategic analysis of Israeli intentions
The letter reveals sophisticated strategic thinking, analyzing an Israeli Cabinet decision from Aug. 22, 2023, which Hamas interpreted as a shift toward confronting each member of the "resistance axis" separately rather than simultaneously. This analysis may explain Israeli intelligence concerns about "miscalculation" on the night of Oct. 7, as Israel sought to avoid appearing threatening to prevent Hamas from launching a preemptive attack.
"Instead of causing us to enter battle against him united to defend Al-Aqsa – an issue that would cause the entire region to explode in his face – he should retreat tactically to enter separate battles with each one individually," the Hamas leaders wrote.
Apocalyptic vision and call for unity
The letter's most chilling sections reveal Hamas' messianic beliefs about destroying Israel and transforming the Middle East.
Predicting their attack will eliminate the Oslo Accords and topple Arab regimes normalizing relations with Israel, they write: "This battle, by God's grace, will change the equations and the rules that have become conventions. We will wash away and erase the stage of struggles and conflicts that have struck the region and realize, with God's permission, the greatest historical turning point in Islamic history."
The Hamas leaders urgently plead with Nasrallah to join the assault: "Today Al-Aqsa, its women and Murabitun activists are crying out to you, and Jenin, Hebron, and the blood of martyrs are calling you to mobilize."
Military strategy and expectations
The letter outlines specific military tactics Hamas hoped Hezbollah would employ: concentrated rocket bombardments to overwhelm Iron Dome systems, targeting airfields and military headquarters to paralyze Israeli air power, followed by large-scale ground attacks to seize territory and population centers.
"Concentrated bombing with rockets on the occupation's basic arteries in large barrages … will disperse and destroy the Iron Dome," the letter details, predicting this would create "a state of shock and fear" leading to "rapid collapse."
The authors suggest a coordinated assault lasting two to three days would achieve their goals of completely destroying Israel.
International messaging strategy
Remarkably, the letter also reveals Hamas' propaganda strategy, instructing that public discourse should not speak of "eliminating or destroying Israel," but rather focus on international resolutions and political rhetoric to prevent other nations from fighting alongside Israel.
The aftermath
Twenty months after Oct. 7, the Middle East landscape has indeed been transformed, though not as Hamas envisioned. While the Oct. 7 massacre inflicted unprecedented casualties and trauma on Israel, the subsequent Israeli response has decimated Hamas leadership and capabilities.
Mohammed Deif, Yahya Sinwar, Marwan Issa, Hassan Nasrallah, and Said Izadi – all recipients or authors of this letter – have been eliminated, along with hundreds of senior operatives across the "resistance axis."
The letter stands as a chilling testament to the religious fanaticism and strategic miscalculation that led Hamas to launch its devastating attack, ultimately achieving the opposite of its apocalyptic vision, while causing immense suffering on all sides.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of Jill Biden's top aides while Joe Biden and his entourage occupied the White House, Anthony Bernall, had agreed to testify to Congress about its investigation into the mental decline of Joe Biden while he was in office.
One of the key questions still unanswered is did Joe Biden actually know what was going out as law over his signature, which was applied to various documents with an autopen process.
While Bernall had agreed to testify, on Wednesday he abruptly refused, so now members of Congress have issued a subpoena that will require his testimony.
Key is that any claim of White House immunity has been waived by the administration of President Donald Trump, which has the authority to make such decisions for the Biden White House.
Bernall was to be the second witness coming out of the Biden administration on the topic of Joe Biden's failings.
The Washington Examiner confirms that the House Oversight Committee has issued that subpoena, explaining he had "refused" to appear and answer questions.
Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the chairman of the committee, said, addressing Bernall, "To advance the Committee's oversight and legislative responsibilities and interests, your testimony is critical."
The letter accompanied the subpoena.
The process to get Bernall's testimony has been littered with problems. His counsel had demanded a weeks-long delay, and that prompted the committee to suggest a subpoena.
"Within ten minutes of the Committee's email, your counsel responded that 'no subpoena is necessary,'" Comer wrote. "Yesterday, on June 26, your counsel informed the Committee that you were no longer willing to appear voluntarily for the transcribed interview. … To avoid any further delays, your appearance before the Committee is now compelled."
The investigation is looking at, among other things, "who was calling the shots" during Biden's final two years in office, and why his signature was increasingly replaced by an autopen to sign certain executive orders.
Comer said, "Now that the White House has waived executive privilege, it's abundantly clear that Anthony Bernal — Jill Biden's so-called 'work husband' — never intended to be transparent about Joe Biden's cognitive decline and the ensuing cover-up. With no privilege left to hide behind, Mr. Bernal is now running scared, desperate to bury the truth."
Former White House aide Neera Tanden, in fact, was the first witness in the investigation. She admitted handling the autopen signature process on documents but claimed she didn't know who ultimately authorized the actions.
"Tanden testified to the House Oversight Committee that she was authorized to direct autopen use from October 2021 to May 2023 while working as Biden's staff secretary and senior adviser," the Washington Examiner reported, citing her opening remarks.
She also told the committee she had limited contact with Biden and that she did not know exactly who provided final approval for use of the autopen, Republican House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said in a statement.
Tanden also turned partisan in her comments, claiming the committee was overlooking Trump administration oversight to focus on Biden's behavior and the behavior of the Democrat's administration.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The federal government is suing Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz because his state has set up programs to subsidize, financially, the lives of illegal aliens.
Walz, a far-leftist who was Kamala Harris' VP pick in the 2024 presidential campaign, contributing to her landslide loss, is known for his extremist positions on transgenderism, on abortion, on guns and on illegals.
A report at Courthousenews explains he and his state are now being sued because of "several" Minnesota laws "allowing immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition rates and financial aid."
The complaint was filed in federal court in Minneapolis, and charges that Minnesota laws "explicitly classify aliens who are not lawfully present in the United States as residents under certain conditions, and thus eligible for reduced tuition and free tuition, respectively, for public state colleges while U.S. citizens from other states must pay higher out-of-state tuition rates and are ineligible for the free tuition."
The charge continues, "This discriminatory treatment in favor of aliens not lawfully present in the United States over U.S. citizens is squarely prohibited and preempted by federal law, which provides that 'an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State … for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.'"
Minnesota, the complaint charges, is violating the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution with its agenda, so the court should declare Minnesota's laws "preempted and permanently enjoin their enforcement."
Federal law "prohibits States from providing aliens not lawfully present in the United States with any postsecondary education benefit that is denied to U.S. citizens. That prohibition is categorical, yet Minnesota is flagrantly violating it. This Court should put an end to this unequal treatment of Americans that is an unequivocal and ongoing violation of federal law by entering a permanent injunction against the enforcement of Minnesota State laws that mandate the grant of unlawful state benefits to aliens not lawfully present in the United States," the filing states.
The state's financial aid program, to which it gives illegal aliens access, is called the North Star Promise.
The report noted President Donald Trump has signed two executive orders on the subject, "Ending taxpayer subsidization of open borders" and "Ending taxpayer subsidization of open borders," and each of those instructs departments and agencies to see to it that no taxpayer-funded benefits go to "unqualified aliens."
Leftist Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison also is being sued.
Minnesota simply provides recognition and privileges to illegal aliens if they meet several baseline qualifications, such as showing they've filed for lawful immigration status.
Attorney General Pam Bondi explained, "No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens. The Department of Justice just won on this exact issue in Texas, and we look forward to taking this fight to Minnesota in order to protect the rights of American citizens first."
The report noted that instate fees and tuition for one University of Minnesota branch total about $17,000 a year, a scheduled applied to those illegal aliens. Out-of-state U.S. residents are charged more than $38,000.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Leftists in Colorado apparently can learn, as they have agreed to settle quickly the latest lawsuit challenging their agenda to impose their LGBT faith on all groups in the state, including Christian camps for children.
The ADF has announced that a settlement has been reached with the state in which the extremists in power have agreed not to enforce their transgender demands on a Christian camp for children, IdRaHaJe, named after the traditional hymn "I'd Rather Have Jesus."
Earlier court fights over the anti-Christian policies and practices adopted by state officials already have cost taxpayers millions, and those continue to mount.
The newest case was filed just a month ago, and challenged a decision by the Colorado Department of Early Childhood to impose its transgender ideologies on all camps for children.
The settlement "allows the camp to operate without compromising its religious and commonsense beliefs about biological sex," the legal team explained.
The state agency had tried to force licensed resident camps to allow campers to use the private facilities of the opposite sex. That would mean letting boys into girls bedrooms and showers at the Christian camp, and vice versa.
"As part of the settlement, Colorado agreed not to take any enforcement action against Camp IdRaHaJe for violation of the gender identity requirements. The state is also clarifying in a memo on its website and in administrative guides that 'churches, synagogues, mosques, or any other place that is principally used for religious purposes' are exempt from the requirements," the ADF said.
"Government officials should never put a dangerous ideology ahead of kids," explained lawyer Andrea Dill. "State officials must respect religious ministries and their beliefs about human sexuality; they can't force a Christian summer camp to violate its convictions. We're pleased that Camp IdRaHaJe is again free to operate as it has for more than 75 years: as a Christian summer camp that accepts all campers without fear of being punished for its beliefs."
The camp has operated on acreage near Bailey, Colorado, since 1948, and has maintained a resident camp license in the state since 1995.
Leftists in Colorado's government recently pushed their radical transgender beliefs through the agency that issues camp licenses, demanding that campers be allowed "access bathing, dressing, and sleeping facilities designated for the opposite sex."
State officials then refused the camp's request for permission to operate consistent with its faith.
WND reported when the case was filed that it was just the latest in a long list of court disputes over the beliefs state officials insist on imposing on residents.
The state, run by leftist Democrat Gov. Jared Polis, Democrat-majority House and Senate bodies, and an all-Democrat state Supreme Court that in pursuit of its partisan agenda tried to bar President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential election ballot, has taken actions dating back years already in its pro-LGBT, pro-abortion ideologies.
The problem is they conflict with the Constitution, as the Supreme Court already has ruled multiple times.
One of the latest fights is in court in a case brought by Defending Education, which sued Colorado over its new law that also punishes parents who don't support transgender beliefs adopted by their children.
That legislative plan created a standard that makes it "a discriminatory act to refuse to call trans-identifying individuals by their chosen name."
The state already has lost twice at the Supreme Court in its agenda to force Christian business operators in Colorado to spout the pro-LGBT agenda in their dealings, once with a cake baker and once with a web designer. A third similar case is pending before the Supreme Court now regarding the state's attempts to control the beliefs and speech of counselors. In the first case, the Supreme Court scolded the state for its "hostility" to Christianity.
Colorado taxpayers already have been stung for millions of dollars in legal expenses in the failed ideology imposed on them by leftist leaders.
The transgender ideologies promoted by state officials now exploded under the promotions adopted by Joe Biden when he was in the White House. For those who follow the science, such ideology in fact is a myth, as being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level.