This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Several influential and powerful industry organizations have come to the Supreme Court arguing in support of a family fighting a town's eminent domain decision to take property they intended to use for a hardware store.

According to the Institute for Justice, which is fighting on behalf of the Brinkmann family, the fight is over the Brinkmann family's purchase of property in Southold for a hardware store, and the city's confiscation of that property for a "park" that is supposed to be left entirely undeveloped.

The case argues the town had no legitimate reason for its confiscation of the property.

The IJ explained, "When every legal effort to stop someone from using their property has failed, can the government simply take the land using eminent domain? That is the question at the heart of a new U.S. Supreme Court petition filed by a family-owned hardware store business whose property was taken by a small Long Island town."

The legal team explains now the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Southern California, the National Association of Realtors and the New York State Association of Realtors have filed arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case.

The Realtors organizations charge that if "eminent domain could be employed at any time … to shut down a law-abiding development because the government disfavors it," it would leave the real estate industry in tatters.

The IJ explained "The government's power to take people's property using eminent domain is limited by the Constitution to only those situations where the taking is for a 'public use.' But what if the government lies and invents a public use to shield an illegitimate taking aimed at stopping a homeowner or business from doing something perfectly legal with their property?"

The report notes Southold officials tried a number of ways to prevent the hardware store being added to their business district, and all failed. So they simply claimed that specific property was required for an undeveloped park and took it.

"The town of Southold says that, so long as the government lies about why it's taking your property, it can take it for any reason at all—even because town officials just don't like you," said IJ Senior Attorney Jeffrey Redfern. "That's wrong, and a diverse coalition of amici explain why."

The SCLC brief, in fact, cites the injury to Bruce's Beach, a black resort in California that was shut down by Los Angeles County officials in 1924.

There, too, the city of Manhattan Beach claimed it was needed for a park, "but that was mere pretext—the property instead stayed vacant for over three decades. The real purpose of the taking was to drive out Bruce's Beach and the surrounding community," the report said.

The legal team explained unless the case outcome is reversed, "The predictable result of giving local governments this much power over private property would be that only political insiders would be able to develop property."

WND reported when the dispute developed the Brinkmann family members already have five Long Island stores and bought the Southold property for another.

But town officials tried to interfere in the land purchase, imposed an exorbitant "impact" fee for a study never done, and pushed a "moratorium" on building permits.

At the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges said, "the government can take your property for almost any reason at all—including because it just doesn't like you—so long as the government lies about why it is using eminent domain," explained IJ lawyer Jeff Redfern.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Over the objections of a Democrat in the governor's office, North Carolina has a new state law that now protects religious organizations from "abusive government overreach."

A report from the American Center for Law and Justice explains that happened when the China virus, COVID-19, hit American shores and various state officials applied strict quarantining rules to church organizations, while giving secular organizations much more freedom.

The new law now, the report said, "provides a constitutionally sound way to protect religious liberty from abusive government overreach."

"As you know, our sister organization, ACLJ Action, has been working with state legislators around the country to protect religious liberty. In order to protect the right to worship from unelected bureaucrats abusing their authority, ACLJ Action drafted model legislation titled the Protecting Religious Liberty in States of Emergency (PRAISE) Act," the report explained.

That would ensure that religious institutions cannot be shut down while similar secular institutions remain open.

The campaign so far has started addressing the needs in 28 states, and in North Carolina, it has been adopted by the legislature over the objections – and veto – of a leftist governor.

That plan reads: "(b) No religious institution shall be subject to an executive order, secretarial declaration, municipal or local government prohibition or restriction, or a rule or regulation by a political subdivision of this State that distinguishes between religious institutions and other public or private for-profit or nonprofit entities that are subject to or affected by the same or similar emergency in a way that imposes additional limitations on the religious institution. For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'religious institution' has the same meaning as in 33 G.S. 131F-2."

The bill was temporarily delayed during arguments over the mandates for masking, but those eventually were resolved.

It was Gov. Roy Cooper who vetoed the plan because, he said, he didn't like one campaign finance reform included in the overall bill.

But both chambers of the North Carolina general assembly overrode his decision.

"The House overrode the veto by a 70-46 vote, and the Senate overrode the veto last Thursday by a vote of 30-14. HB 237 is now officially law in North Carolina, ensuring that citizens' right to worship is protected from bureaucratic overreach during any future declared state of emergency."

The fight was repeated multiple times across America during COVID, when governors or other officials demanded that churches limit attendance or even close, while they allowed malls, strip joints, marijuana shops and others to remain open.

Several lawsuits that already have been resolved have included damages paid to some of those churches, although there still remain many unbalanced processes that governments can choose to use.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

"A lot of senior military leaders today clearly have resolved themselves to be order-following automatons, denying and/or impinging upon constitutionally guaranteed rights of the individual service member simply because that is what gets them promoted."

This shocking assessment of the degree to which groupthink has taken hold of many current leaders in the U.S. military comes from retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Ryan Sweazey, founder of Walk the Talk Foundation, an organization that advocates for and protects whistleblowers. The former F-16 fighter pilot, who once served as inspector general in the Air Force, spoke to WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview.

At the extreme, Sweazey said, the thought process of too many of today's U.S. military leaders forces one to recall what happened in Nazi Germany. "I'm not making parallels between today's military leadership and Nazis outside of the incredible amount of groupthink psychology that's going on," he told WND.

Groupthink, according to Psychology Today, can be defined as "a phenomenon that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people makes irrational or non-optimal decisions spurred by the urge to conform or the belief that dissent is impossible."

From Sweazey's perspective, as well as from his foundation's clients' perspectives, the continued abuses, denial of due process and lack of real justice systems in the military are highlights of this epidemic and are coming at a significant detriment to the force.

"A carrot was dangled in front of many, [providing] a path to become a senior officer and continue to progress their careers," Sweazey said. "It came in the form of something like implementing the controversial shot mandate or carrying out questionable implementations of divisive Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies that many might not have wanted to accept, but they did it anyway to advance their careers."

"Others already assimilated into the groupthink circles of military leadership now infer or explicitly convey that the one thing that will result in you being culled from that leadership 'herd' is to go against the grain, to speak out of line, to not toe the party line," Sweazey told WND. "For these leaders, there's incredible pressure to maintain the groupthink mentality even if it goes against what you once believed in, or still believe in."

"The infiltration of questionable and/or illegal acts and policies into the ranks has become a more permanent fixture because no one is willing to speak out against it," Sweazey explained. "To speak out of turn, or speak out against a general officer or flag officer, is career suicide," he said. "As a result, nearly everyone is forced to toe the line, whether they believe what's happening around them is moral and just or not."

Unfortunately, adds Sweazey, there's a steep price to pay for this kind of unprincipled conformity to avoid trouble or for the sake of personal advancement.

"When no one resists, it tells me that the general officers and flag officers of today lack the moral courage to do anything else but remain in lockstep with everyone else," he argues. "This kind of groupthink is incredibly dangerous to the future of the military, and that's the parallel between our military and that of the German military of the 1930s and 1940s that cannot be ignored."

To save the nation's military and return it to a powerful fighting force, Sweazey argued, "Service members will need to be bold and be willing, at times, to accept uncomfortable risks to do what is right over what is clearly wrong."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Long have there been attacks on reliable and cost-effective gas-powered vehicles. Back during the historic oil embargoes, critics insisted on tiny cars and high miles per gallon figures. And those pushing the multiple points of the campaign have never backed down.

But now a new ideology has surfaced in the leftist city of Denver.

It's that there apparently are too many gas stations at which consumers can refuel, so two city council members are working on a plan to correct that.

They want to ban any station from being developed within a quarter mile of another.

It is Complete Colorado that explained the ideology created by council members Paul Kashmann and Amanda Sawyer.

They "have decided that gas stations – apparently uniquely among Denver's many retail businesses – are taking too much space away from other priorities such as housing. In response to this deadly threat to housing density, they are close to proposing a zoning change precluding new gas stations from being built inside a quarter-mile buffer zone around existing stations."

The report noted it isn't the first such attack on the city's drivers, as the tax-funded Regional Transportation District complained during the COVID pandemic that parking lots should be replaced with housing.

It seems that there have been 10 new stations in the city in recent years, bringing that total to 180, not even a 6% increase.

The plan "doesn't say if this is an actual trend, a recent spurt, or how many of those (if any) are replacing stations that have closed. The report claims 318 permanently closed retail gas stations in Denver, or 77% more than the total now operating."

The report pointed out Sawyers' complaints are "somewhat ironic, " given that her own Council District 5 serves as gasoline desert, with only two stations not bordering other districts, "meaning that those low on gas already have longer drives to fill up."

Councilman Kashmann says that the city is allowing gas stations that 'people don't want and we don't need.' Except that nobody appointed Paul Kashmann the arbiter of what businesses the city needs, and that apparently people do both want and need them, given that there are enough gas purchases – even before the desired increased density – to keep them all in business," the report said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

An appeals court has ruled that a $300,000 punishment for two school employees who complained about being ordered into "equity training" is unjustified.

"Americans should know that they have the freedom to file civil rights' litigation to vindicate their constitutional rights without fear of reprisal. No American should face crushing attorney's fees awards for merely attempting to hold government officials accountable. The risk of bearing those fees will discourage victims from seeking justice—justice they would not have had to seek had the government not violated their rights. The 8th Circuit's decision protects every American's right to pursue legal action to vindicate their fundamental freedoms."

That's a comment from Mathew Hoffman, of the ADF, which was among a long list of legal teams working to oppose the punishment imposed by a district court against two employees of the Springfield Public Schools in Missouri.

They had sued over being ordered into diversity and inclusion training they said violated their constitutional rights.

A lower court dismissed their case, and then demanded that they pay $300,000 in legal fees.

A decision from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said, "The plaintiffs alleged during the training, the defendants compelled them to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, and engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment for the school district on the ground that the plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact and thus lacked standing to sue. The court also found that the lawsuit was frivolous and awarded attorney's fees to the school district. The plaintiffs appeal. Because we agree that the plaintiffs did not establish an injury in fact, we affirm the dismissal. We conclude, however, that the fee award was unwarranted and reverse that portion of the judgment."

The court ruling noted: "The school district provided in-person and virtual training. At the in-person training, school officials instructed the attendees on how to become 'Anti-Racist educators, leaders and staff members.' The district defined 'anti-racism' as 'the work of actively opposing racism by advocating for changes in political, economic, and social life.' The presenters cautioned that actions like practicing color-blindness and remaining silent about racism perpetuated white supremacy."

In fact, the indoctrination included statements including: "We want to stress that we are not calling you as an individual a white supremacist. That being said, certain actions or statements . . . can support that structural system of white supremacy."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In his latest damning report, Professor Javaid Rehman, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran, identified two major waves of massacres in the country as acts of genocide, in addition to the ongoing crimes against humanity. These genocides include the 1982 and 1988 massacres, orchestrated by Iran's religious dictatorship, which executed its enemies solely for their religious and ideological beliefs.

The Iranian regime viewed members of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), its sworn enemies, as "enemies of God," apostates and hypocrites, while also labeling Marxists as apostates. Consequently, all members and sympathizers of these groups who remained steadfast in their beliefs – even if they had not participated in the war against the regime – were sentenced to death.

While the details of the 1982 genocide remain largely unknown to the public, the 1988 genocide, which involved the brutal massacre of 30,000 political prisoners – 90% of whom were members of the MEK resistance – has become a dark chapter in modern world history. This massacre, conducted in a few weeks during a scorching summer and in total silence, is now recognized as a crime against humanity. Even those directly involved, such as former President Ebrahim Raisi, who died in a helicopter crash on May 19, 2024, have acknowledged and defended their roles in the atrocity.

Maryam Rajavi, leader of the Iranian opposition, stands in stark defiance of the religious doctrines of Khomeini and Khamenei. As a Muslim woman, she has taken on a leadership role and is the president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. She challenges not only the misogynistic tenets of the regime, but also its entire oppressive structure. Rajavi champions gender equality, the separation of religion from the state, and fights for an Iran free from executions and nuclear weapons, becoming a symbol of freedom for that nation. The courage and sacrifice of women during the 2022 uprising was inspired by her leadership and vision of Iranian women's emancipation.

One of the key issues Maryam Rajavi has confronted head-on is the regime's use of the death penalty. She launched a widespread campaign called "No to the Death Penalty" in Iran, aiming to galvanize international support. Iran holds the grim world record for both political executions and executions per capita. According to Amnesty International, 74% of the recorded executions worldwide in 2023 took place in Iran.

Rajavi asserts, "The God I worship is a God of kindness, mercy and forgiveness." For her, the death penalty defies the immense mercy and compassion that God extends to all his creations. She firmly believes that, in light of human progress, the death penalty is inexcusable in modern times.

In her book "The Roadmap to Democracy," Rajavi writes: "Our motivation to resist until victory is not hatred or revenge. Our motivation is love for freedom and humanity. This is the philosophy behind our perseverance."

The religious dictatorship's use of executions "in the name of God" began with the execution of Kurds immediately after the 1979 revolution. These acts continued with the 1982 genocide, during which hundreds of children and young people were executed daily, culminating in the massacre of 30,000 political prisoners in the summer of 1988. These medieval-style executions, such as the recent execution of 29 individuals on the day now called Bloody Wednesday, August 7, 2024, persist to this day.

Although hatred and resentment dominate Iran's current Shiite religious dictatorship, for Maryam Rajavi, who rejects fundamentalist, radical and jihadist Islam, the Moslem faith she embraces is "a religion of hope and mercy, emancipation, freedom, love, friendship, peace, progress and tolerance. It is a religion that embodies all the beauties of the earth and the true depths of human values."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a stern warning to the U.S. and its European allies that if Ukraine uses long-range missiles to reach the interior of Russia he will consider it an act of war by NATO countries.

During an interview, Putin stated Ukraine does not possess the capability to launch any high-precision weapons on its own and would need to rely on the U.S. or EU to provide the intelligence to execute any such strikes.

"The fact is that I have already mentioned this, and any expert will confirm that both in our country and in the West, the Ukrainian army is not able to strike with modern long-range precision systems of Western manufacture. It cannot do this. It can only do so using intelligence from satellites, which Ukraine does not have. This is data only from EU satellites or from the United States, in general, from NATO satellites," Putin said.

Putin noted only NATO servicemen are able to enter flight assignments into these high-precision, long-range missile systems, and added if this decision to help Ukraine use these weapons is made, NATO would be declaring war with Russia.

"So, this is not about allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It's about deciding whether NATO countries are directly involved in a military conflict or not. If this decision is made, it will mean nothing other than the direct participation of NATO countries… This would mean that NATO countries, the United States, European countries, are at war with Russia. And if that is the case, then bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will take appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be posed to us," Putin said.

The comments came on the heels of U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's visit to Poland this week, where he heard appeals from Ukraine officials to use long-range, Western missiles against Russia.

According to the Associated Press, Blinken, along with British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, pledged to deliver these requests to their respective leaders.

"As what Russia's doing has changed, as the battlefield has changed, we've adapted," Blinken said.

Blinken's visit drew the ire of Polish politician Grzegorz Braun, who said during a news conference that Blinken should "get lost."

"Blinken go home. Go home as soon as possible. Get lost. Get lost. We don't want you here… We don't want Polish people paying and dying for your wars," Braun said.

The de-escalation of the war between Ukraine and Russia seems to be moving further out of reach, however, after Ukrainian MP Alexei Goncharenko demanded Ukraine be allowed to launch long-range missiles. Goncharenko further demanded a strike be made against Iran for its support of Russia.

In February, Goncharenko demanded the U.S. make Ukraine a NATO member, or allow Ukraine to once again have nuclear weapons "to protect itself."

Goncharenko was allegedly a participant in the Odessa protests of 2014 which resulted in the burning alive of dozens of people.

Meanwhile, one of the few Western leaders who seem interested in ending the war between Russia and Ukraine is former President Donald Trump. Trump has stated for years he would end the war between the two nations within 24 hours of taking back the Oval Office.

Putin himself said in July, that he would take Trump seriously if he wins the 2024 presidential election, after Trump stated he wanted to end the war.

"Mr. Trump as a presidential candidate says that he's ready and wants to stop the war in Ukraine, we take that very seriously. Well, I haven't seen his ideas on how exactly he's going to do that, and that is the key question. But I have no doubt that he says that sincerely, and we support that," Putin said.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban told Tucker Carlson in 2023 the only way out of this war is to call back President Trump.

"Call back Trump…Because you know, you can criticize him for many reasons, I understand all the discussions. But, you know, the best foreign policy of the recent several decades belonged to him. He did not initiate any new war. He treated nicely the North Koreans and Russia, and even the Chinese…Facts count, and his foreign policy was the best form for the world…So Trump is the man who can save the Western world," Orban said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

It's time, given the horrific evil that is appearing across America, especially in leftist political circles, for Christians to pursue what should be their strategy of first resort: "Prayer and fasting."

To save the nation that has, for generations, provided religious freedom, representative government, and more, around the globe.

It is commentator Eric Metaxas, a prominent best-selling author, commentator on faith issues and key to a popular and successful radio program, who has issued the call.

Addressing his comments to America's "pastors and leaders," he explains, "As we approach a pivotal moment in our nation's history, it is imperative that we, as the shepherds of God's flock, rise to the occasion with the urgency and gravity this moment demands. The challenges facing our country are immense, and the direction we take in the coming months will have profound implications for generations to come."

He explains, "I am calling on you, my fellow pastors and leaders, to commit to a season of prayer and fasting for our nation as we lead up to this critical election. This is not just about politics; it's about the soul of our nation, the future of our children, and the preservation of the freedoms that allow us to live out our faith boldly and without compromise."

His program is being promoted online at https://ericmetaxas.com/pray.

He explained prayer and fasting, described in the Bible, "are powerful tools that God has given us to humble ourselves before Him, to seek His face, and to intercede on behalf of our land. Scripture is clear: when God's people humble themselves, pray, and turn from their wicked ways, He hears from heaven and heals their land (2 Chronicles 7:14). We cannot afford to stand idly by, hoping that someone else will step into the gap. This is our responsibility, our calling."

He specifically is urging pastors to rally their congregations to the effort.

He's the No. 1 New York Times bestselling author of "Bonhoeffer," "Is Atheism Dead?" "Martin Luther," "Amazing Grace" and "Letter to the American Church."

His most recent is "Religionless Christianity: God's Answer to Evil."

He's also published more than 30 children's books, and heads the nationally syndicated "Eric Metaxas Radio Show,"

He's interviewed personalities ranging from Ron Howard and Mel Gibson to Morgan Freeman and Peter Thiel. And Dick Cavett, Kathie Lee Gifford, Sen. Rand Paul, Darryl Strawberry and Ross Douthat.

In a message to supporters, he explains just why this action is desired.

"What we saw in the 'debate' a few nights ago was nothing less than an open display of demonic activity. Is it too much to phrase it that way? I'm so sorry to say it is not. The brazenness of lying was simply unprecedented – and it showed a deeply wicked contempt for truth and for the American people that we simply have never seen."

He cited an article in the Federalist, which stated bluntly, "The debate was so biased it was divorced from reality. Trump should refuse to do another."

In it, John Daniel Davidson delivered a devastating verdict: "Tuesday night during the presidential debate between former President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the fact-checks were flying, but only in one direction. As expected, ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis were criminally biased, making the debate effectively three-on-one against Trump and practically amounting to an in-kind donation to the Harris campaign. The lying and gaslighting were so brazen from Harris, and the 'fact-checking' from Muir and Davis so lop-sided (they failed even once to push back or correct any of Harris' obvious falsehoods), that the entire spectacle eventually took on an air of unreality. It was bizarre to see it happening live on the air. By the end, my main takeaway was that the purpose of these debates, besides the media's obvious goal of boosting Harris and hurting Trump, is to confuse and demoralize the American people by distorting reality and flooding the internet with lies, making it impossible to know what's true and what's not."

Metaxas said his belief is that "God is allowing these things to wake us up! What the enemy intends for evil, God intends for good. To that end, I am officially calling on every church in the nation to join together in fasting and praying for the upcoming election."

"EVERYTHING hangs in the balance."

So, he said, "Please go here https://ericmetaxas.com/pray. and sign your church up to JOIN US."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

JERUSALEM – In a stunning decision, the International Court of Justice in the Hague, which is to hear a case South Africa brought against Israel on the "crime of committing genocide in Palestine," has told Pretoria it will not be granted an extension to submit evidence.

The deadline is Oct. 28, with the country announcing on its Department of International Relations and Cooperation website it will be filing its memorial next month.

According to Israeli outlet Kan News, South Africa sought a lengthy several month extension to the process in the hope information would be forthcoming from another source, and would spare Pretoria its blushes, amid such rank humiliation.

It was a charge Israel and its political and military leaders vociferously denied, pointing out the exterminatory nature of the initial attack on Oct. 7 – now known to have been carried out by some 6,000 people – both Hamas and other Islamist terrorists, along with regular Gazans – which sought to kill as many Jews as they could get their hands on.

Kan's reporting noted the somewhat unusual nature of South Africa's request, namely it is usually the defense which more frequently seeks to stall for time to allow as much corroboratory evidence to appear as possible. It might reasonably be assumed if such serious charges were to be brought, the complainant would have more than enough evidence to back up their prosecution.

Ugandan justice Judge Julia Sebutinde was the one voice of dissent (excluding Israel's Aharon Barak) during South Africa's original filing – a position that caused her country of origin to quickly distance itself from her position. In a lengthy and incisive dissent, Judge Sebutinde raised "serious concerns" about procedural issues, including Israel not having sufficient time to file written observations.

Did Israel pressure members of Congress?

According to Axios, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a classified cable to the Israeli embassy in Washington D.C., and to all the other consulates in the U.S. about South Africa's ICJ case, and the diplomatic campaign surrounding it.

"We are asking you to immediately work with lawmakers on the federal and state level, with governors and Jewish organizations to put pressure on South Africa to change its policy toward Israel and to make clear that continuing their current actions like supporting Hamas and pushing anti-Israeli moves in international courts will come with a heavy price," the cable read.

Since South Africa brought the case against Israel to the ICJ, the ruling ANC has been forced into a new and unprecedented multiparty coalition, after it lost outright control following decades of mismanagement and corruption.

Polio vaccinations

One of the many potential sticking points for South Africa's claim of "genocide" is the fact the IDF has helped facilitate a successful polio vaccination drive – under the auspices of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, or UNRWA – in which more than half a million Gazan children have received at the least the first dose of preventative treatment for the disease.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

One of the biggest political election influence operations ever, determined by a survey to probably have handed Joe Biden the White House in 2020, was schemed by the Department of Justice's FBI. The CIA helped, as did a long list of ex-intel operatives for America. And the media.

That was when the Biden family scandals were revealed during the 2020 election race in a computer Hunter Biden abandoned at a repair shop.

The FBI – falsely – told media corporations it was Russian disinformation and they should suppress it. Those intel bureaucrats said the same. And the CIA assisted.