This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Ruling represents apocalyptic loss for LGBT activists
The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom, which has been at the heart of a lot of left-leaning precedents for citizens there, stunningly has decided that men who say they are female are not "women."
The Telegraph called it a "landmark" ruling and quoted "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling, who has been badgered and bludgeoned by those in the transgender agenda for her criticism of the movement, saying it would protect "the rights of women and girls across the U.K."
It's an apocalyptic loss for the LGBT activists, especially those pushing the transgender agenda, as Joe Biden did for four years while he was president in the United States.
The court ruling, a unanimous decision, said "woman" and "sex" in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not a belief expressed by a male that he is suddenly female. In fact, following the science, changing gender does not happen, as being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level.
The ruling comes in a years-long legal war between campaign group For Women Scotland and the Scottish government over the definition of a woman.
The ruling said, "The unanimous decision of this court is that the definition of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex."
Further, that ruling adopted what President Donald Trump recently, by executive order, concluded about sex in America: It is binary.
He, in fact, said the American government recognizes two genders, male and female.
The UK court's 88-page decision said the "concept of sex is binary" under the Equality Act 2010.
The report noted "Labour Women's Declaration, a gender-critical group, called on Sir Keir Starmer to take concrete action to ensure the judgment is fully reflected in all public sector guidance."
The group said, "The government now needs to instruct all government departments to bring their policies, training and guidance into line with the judgment. The 'clarity and confidence' the ruling brings must also be applied to all positive action initiatives and associations for women within the Labour Party, such as women's branches and committees."
Mermaids, promoters of the transgender lifestyle, claimed the ruling could have "harmful implications."
"We are deeply concerned at the widespread, harmful implications of today's Supreme Court ruling. As LGBT+ organizations across the country, we stand in solidarity with trans, intersex and non-binary folk as we navigate from here…"
Amnesty International claimed, "The ruling does not change the protection trans people are afforded under the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment,' as well as other provisions under the Equality Act."
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins pointed out, "Supreme Court rules that a woman is legally defined as … a woman. … Yes, the science was settled in the Precambrian [era]. Nice that the law has finally caught up."
The Scottish Parliament created the disaster in 2018 by adopting quotas for transgenders on public sector boards.
Rowling said, "It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the U.K.. For Women Scotland, I'm so proud to know you."
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said, "Women are women. We didn't need a court to tell us that. But here we are. It took a Supreme Court decision to confirm what we all know: that a piece of paper cannot make a man a woman. For too long the price has been paid by individual women taking action to uphold the law, at great personal cost."
John Swinney, first minister for the Scottish government, said, "The Scottish Government accepts today's Supreme Court judgement. The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster. We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions."
The decision even was applauded by organizations for lesbians, who long have sought to exclude males who say they are female.
A statement from Reem Alsalem, the United Nations "special rapporteur" on violence against women and girls, praised the decision.
"It represents the triumph of reason and facts based deliberations and the return of common sense. Congratulations to For Women Scotland and all their allies that have supported them in their quest to uphold the rights of women to equality and non-discrimination. The ruling is a recognition that the erasure of the ordinary meaning of sex in law and in policies has rendered it impossible to upholding the protection [of] women, including lesbians on the basis of the characteristic of sex. Beyond the U.K., I hope other jurisdictions are paying attention to this groundbreaking ruling."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has been at odds with many players in America's profitable higher education industry for some time already.
Those campuses frequently were the scenes of anti-Israel protests, even protests in support of the Hamas terrorists in Gaza, who slaughtered 1,200 Israeli citizens in their war-launching attack on Oct. 7, 2023.
That's resulted in accusations of anti-Semitism and a demand from Trump that officials running those lucrative institutions balance the equation and protect Jewish students.
Harvard is among those where officials have simply refused to cooperate.
And Trump now has responded.
"Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist-inspired/supporting "Sickness?" Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!" he wrote.
Trump already has frozen some $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts with Harvard, which has been unrepentant.
Harvard President Alan Garber, in fact, said, "No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue."
The Washington Examiner pointed out that Harvard's endowment now is in the range of $50 billion, working as a nonprofit.
"Losing tax-exempt status would be another financial blow to Harvard, which receives tax-exempt donations from rich alumni. However, it's unclear if Trump has the power to make that determination on his own," the report said. "Almost all colleges and universities in the United States accept federal funding, making them dependent on the government for operations. Trump has sought to use that fact to gain leverage over how they address protest activity and other functions."
"The showdown will likely continue for at least the next several weeks, if not longer. Two organizations representing the Harvard faculty sued the Trump administration last week over its threats to cut federal funding."
On social media, thousands already had commented, with:
"Then stop taking federal money."
"Harvard can teach what it wants. It just can't do it on the taxpayer\'s dime while discriminating against Jews."
"Be private"
"Then, you can feel free to turn down the $9 billion in funds from the taxpayer."
"DEAL — no federal funding for Harvard, use your own endowment. Let's get it done."
"Adios federal funding. Enjoy your independence."
"No one is telling you what you can and can't teach. Donald Trump is just saying we will not fund it. Why would we fund something that does not align with government policy? Teach what you want. You're not getting our money."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Political rhetoric over the past few years has been littered with warnings about a "constitutional crisis."
That's been one of the Democrats' go-to talking points to attack President Donald Trump.
After all, they accused him of planning to set himself up as a dictator, to order the jailing of his political opponents, and even to use the military for his own political purposes.
To a much lesser degree, there have been reports of a "constitutional crisis" that has come about since he took office because of a long list of federal district judges, those in black robes at the entry level for the federal court system, taking over various responsibilities of the executive branch, including foreign policy, the border security and such.
But now an analysis at the Federalist pinpoints the actual trigger behind a "constitutional crisis": The Supreme Court.
For its refusal to rein in those judges, deliver a mandate that they are not to interfere with the president's constitutional rights, duties, and responsibilities.
The analysis is by Margot Cleveland, a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school's highest honor. She also has served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She also is of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
She explains, "The Supreme Court has interceded six times in less than three months to rein in federal judges who improperly exceeded their Article III authority and infringed on the Article II authority of President Donald Trump. Yet the high court continues to issue mealy-mouthed opinions which serve only to exacerbate the ongoing battle between the Executive and Judicial branches of government."
The problem is about to get worse, she explained, as, "Now there is a constitutional crisis primed to explode this week in a federal court in Maryland over the removal of an El Salvadoran — courtesy of the justices' latest baby-splitting foray on Thursday."
The fight is over an order from Paula Xinis, who told the Trump administration to "facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025."
Garcia was deported to his native El Salvador after a court ruled he could not be deported to that country. Mitigating that mistake was the fact that the court order also concluded Garcia, as an alien illegally present in the United States, was subject to removal under federal law — just not to El Salvador.
Garcia's demands for asylum and other relief were rejected.
So followed the order from Xinis.
While the process found Garcia was "wrongly" sent to El Salvador, the Trump administration explained simply that Xinis didn't have the authority to intervene in international relations and order Trump to "facilitate and effectuate" the return of Garcia.
Garcia is a member of MS-13, a designated terrorist organization.
The Supreme Court granted a brief stay, then ordered the judge to clarify the order, specifically the demand to "effectuate" Garcia's return because that might "exceed the district court's authority."
Xinis then changed the order to have the administration "facilitate" Barcia's return, and further to file daily reports on where he is, and the administration responded with, "Foreign affairs cannot operate on judicial timelines, in part because it involves sensitive country-specific considerations wholly inappropriate for judicial review."
Garcia's lawyers then demanded the U.S. send someone to accompany him back to the United States on a special flight the government would arrange, and provide all documentation for him to enter the U.S.
The Supreme Court, the analysis confirmed, is facing the facts presented by the Trump administration that, "The federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner."
That is, the administration said, "the 'exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.'"
"The justices should have foreseen this standoff and defused the situation last week by clearly defining the limits of the lower court's authority. The Supreme Court's continuing failure to do so is wreaking havoc on the reputation of the courts — and our constitutional order," said the analysis.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump is serious about protecting sporting events that are intended for women or girls against men or boys who simply say they are female.
As officials in USA Fencing are finding out.
A report from Fox explains that the Trump administration now is investigating USA Fencing for punishing a woman who refused to compete against a man who said he was a woman.
Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon said, on Friday, "We have a special Title IX investigations team that is going to be investigating anyone who was associated with this to make sure that this doesn't continue to happen. The president has made crystal clear that he is not going to tolerate men being able to compete in women's sports, he signed an executive order, and we're upholding Title IX."
She said the special investigators will be probing the USA Fencing event where officials punished women's fencer Stephanie Turner for not competing against a man.
She was disqualified from the event and "escorted out of the venue," the report said.
The scenario prompted ridicule of the man in the women's competition, online:
According to Fox, an official with the Department of Education confirmed that the University of Maryland, where the event was held, also has a "responsibility" for the attack on Turner.
That official told Fox, "The nation watched as a female competitor bravely took a knee and forfeited an inherently unfair fencing match after discovering that her opponent was a male. No woman should have to recuse herself from a match that she trained diligently for because she fears for her safety. As a tournament host, the University of Maryland has a responsibility to follow Title IX by not allowing males to compete in female competitions and occupy female-only intimate facilities."
Officials said Wagner College also could be in trouble because it failed its responsibility to not allow men on women's rosters.
The Title IX investigations team, newly formed, is a work of the Departments of Education and Justice.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has explained, "Protecting women and women's sports is a key priority for this Department of Justice. This collaborative effort with the Department of Education will enable our attorneys to take comprehensive action when women's sports or spaces are threatened and use the full power of the law to remedy any violation of women's civil rights."
From the Department of Justice came blame for Joe Biden for the problem.
"Women across America have spent the last four years disenfranchised by the Biden administration that allowed men to compete in girls' sports – jeopardizing their safety, stealing their scholarships, and stripping them of hard-earned awards. The Title IX Special Investigations Team will continue to go after bad actors who continue to endanger young women with woke gender ideology and will leverage every legal resource available to ensure states and organizations follow Title IX to protect women's civil rights and competitive sports," the DOJ statement said.
USA Fencing officials have doubled down, insisting they want to have men compete against women.
They call their agenda "an inclusive, respectful community."
The organization, however, repeatedly has gone political with its sports events, even insisting that it will prefer locations without abortion restrictions for events.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The United States, with its First Amendment protections for religion and speech, probably protects prayer by citizens more than anywhere else in the world, even though there are some organizations in America that regularly complain prayers should not be protected speech, and it should be regulated or even banned.
Those demands for censorship often claim that counseling, including prayers, regarding a person's issues with the LGBT agenda, including their unwanted same-sex attractions, should be banned, and they have worked toward that censorship goal. Actually, some jurisdictions have adopted such limits through laws that now are under challenge.
Actually, according to the American Center for Law and Justice, American leaders from the White House down periodically have called for voluntary prayer in times of tragedy, disaster and more.
"Those who signed the Declaration of Independence believed that God hears and answers prayer, as they 'appeal[ed] to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of [their] intentions,'" the organization confirmed. "The First Amendment protects the right to pray in public."
Court cases have affirmed a public school coach's right to pray privately on the football field after a game, the right to pray before legislative meetings, and much more.
However, one of America's allies, Australia, has turned the other direction, threatening citizens with five years in jail if they pray at the wrong time and about the wrong subject.
A report at the Washington Stand explains, "The government of the Australian state of New South Wales explains the newly enacted Conversion Practices Ban Act 2024 allows 'prayer' or expression of any 'religious belief' only if it is not 'directed to changing or suppressing an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity.'"
The government presumes the ability to determine when speech is "attempting to change someone's LGBTQIA2S+ status."
The law actually revolves around mind control, as it warns that "praying with or over a person with the intent to change or suppress their sexuality or gender identity is unlawful. It is unlawful even if that person has asked you to pray for them to be able to change or suppress their sexuality or gender identity," according to a state report in Australia.
There, even Christian pastors must mind their words, as they have permission to make "statements of belief or principle about gender, sexuality, marriage, celibacy or homosexuality in documentation or on a website."
But those are allowed only if "the statement is not targeted at an individual to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity."
Arielle Del Turco, of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council, told the Stand, "This is a terrible new law in this Australian state, and they aren't even trying to hide it. According to the state government's own admission from their website, this law will prevent a pastor or any believer from praying with someone who is asking for prayer for freedom from gender identity issues."
Promoters of the law claimed it is to help children, since they should not be told "something is wrong with them and that they need to be fixed."
But it actually is a "radical apostasy law – criminalizing conversion one way while promoting it the other," Christian website writer Kurt Mahlburg, said.
The ideological agenda is being pursued in Australia just as U.S. Vice President JD Vance has warned of the West's decision to back away from conscience rights.
He cited threats by the Scottish government to residents whose prayers, in private places, "can be seen or heard" near abortion business outlets.
Del Turco also documented how eight British Christians were arrested for praying outside abortion businesses.
In the U.K., the Christian Institute multiple times has battled such censorship agendas.
The Stand reported, "A total of 22 U.S. states make it illegal to practice reparative therapy: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington. So does the District of Columbia. But thanks to the First Amendment, none do — or can — presume to regulate the content of people's prayers."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A mother whose constitutional rights were violated by a Maine judge hearing a custody dispute has taken the fight to the state Supreme Court.
The case involves a radical ruling from Jennifer Nofsinger, a judge who heard a custody case, who ordered that the mother was not allowed to take her 11-year-old daughter to an evangelical Christian church.
That was based on "objections" from the child's father, who like the mother and daughter was not identified in the report from Liberty Counsel, which is working on the case.
Chairman Mat Staver said, "Calvary Chapel is not a cult. This custody order banning a mother from taking her child to a Christian church because of its biblical teachings regarding marriage and human sexuality violates the First Amendment. The custody order cannot prohibit the mother from taking her daughter to church. The implications of this order pose a serious threat to religious freedom."
The judge granted the father, who objects to the Christian teachings of the church, "the sole right to govern the girl's religious activities."
The high court is being asked to reverse the "unlawful custody order" and to restore the mother's First Amendment right to pass on her religious beliefs.
The judge adopted the ideology of a leftist teacher from California who was hired by the father. That teacher, Janja Lalich, told the judge "that cults usually have a charismatic, authoritarian leader who teaches about a 'transcendent belief system' that offers answers, and 'promises some sort of salvation.' She further testified that she had 'studied' Calvary Chapel Church and found that the church's pastor was a 'charismatic' speaker, spoke 'authoritatively' in his messages, and that he asserted his messages were objective truth.," Liberty Counsel reported.
That meant, Lalich claimed, the church was "cultic."
"Despite not being a psychologist, Dr. Lalich testified it was 'evident' that the church posed a potential for psychological harm to the girl," the report said.
However, the legal team noted that "Under the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and numerous Supreme Court precedents, unmarried parents both have the right to instill their religious beliefs into their children during their respective custodial time."
The Liberty Counsel report continued, "In addition, Judge Nofsinger interpreted the pastor's public prayer over the custody situation, which referenced spiritual warfare, as putting the father on the side of 'evil' and the mother on the side of 'good' in the daughter's eyes. Relying on both this interpretation and the 'expert' testimony, the court order states that this church is 'psychologically detrimental' to the girl."
The judge radically gave the father control of the daughter's exposure to any churches even during the mother's custodial time.
On appeal is Nofsinger's claim "without any proof" that Christianity is "psychologically harmful."
"Contending that [the mother's] religious beliefs, which include prayer, reading the Bible, attending a mainstream Christian church that teaches from the Bible, that teaches there is a path to salvation, and that believes in objective truth is psychologically harmful to a minor is, quite simply, outside the realm of judicial authority," wrote Liberty Counsel. "The order explicitly…forces the mother to remain away from church against her will, punishes the mother for professing certain religious beliefs, and punishes the mother for church attendance solely on the basis of the religious beliefs that are professed at that church."
Those unconstitutional ideological choices by the judge, simply, are not allowed by the First Amendment, the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There's no lack of evidence for the extreme brutality of Islamic jihadists.
On that Oct. 7, 2023, day that members of Hamas invaded Israel, they burned whole families together, abused victims, then murdered them, and more.
Evidence already was abundant that similar events were occurring in Africa.
Charles Jacobs, the chief of the African Jewish Alliance, and Uzay Bulut, a distinguished senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, have documented how jihadists, those extreme advocates for Islam, are "murdering, raping, torturing, kidnapping, enslaving, and, in some instances, burning people alive," across Africa.
And now reports of the mayhem of the worst kind are coming in from Syria.
The death toll there is at 7,000 following jihad attacks on Christians and Alawites, who have suffered and died in "cruel, sadistic" ways, according to a new report.
"Christians, Druze, and Yazidis in Syria, like their non-Muslim or non-Arabized counterparts in Africa, fear they may be next," the report explains.
The violence is because of the takeover of Syria by the al-Qaida-affiliated Hayat Tahrir al-Sham terrorists, led by Ahmed Hussein al Sharaa, who conquered Damascus in December 2024.
The report explains they are going "from door to door in western Syria and massacring religious minorities in cruel, sadistic ways. Social media posts show Alawite men, women, and children shot at close range. According to Greek Member of the European Parliament Nikolas Farantouris, who recently visited Syria, 'Reliable data indicate 7,000 massacres of Christians and Alawites and unprecedented atrocities against civilians.' The death toll is still rising."
It's just the latest location for homicidal maniacs, the report said.
"For years now, in at least 12 countries in Africa, jihad has been spreading. Local jihadist organizations go by different names, but the ideology that drives them is the same: Every one of them deeply believes that Allah wants him to wipe the world clean of the kuffar (infidels). In Nigeria, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Niger, Somalia, Mozambique and Libya, among others, Islamic militants massacre civilians, the vast majority of whom are Christians, leading to widespread terror, insecurity and displacement," the report said.
So far, "More than 16.2 million Christians in Sub-Saharan Africa have been driven from their homes by jihadi violence and conflict, reports the human rights organization Open Doors. Such violence includes murder, physical injury, rape, abduction, theft of property, and destruction of homes and farmland."
Women and girls, especially, are a target, with attackers forcing them into "marriage," conversion to Islam, then raping and forced labor.
Just in February, the report said, 70 Christians were beheaded by jihadists in the Congo.
Anything Christian, churches, homes, schools, businesses, are targets.
From January to June of 2024, Islamic militants murdered 639 Christians in various incidents, including beheadings and shootings, according to a report released by the Middle East Media Research Institute.
In Sudan, attackers are known for committing sexual violence on a large scale, including sexual slavery and reports reveal more than 150,000 civilians are estimated to have perished in the years-long war.
In Libya, video evidence confirms the "auction" of Africans in areas where Islamic law is upheld and the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity.
Boko Haram and the Islamic State West African Province attacked innocents in Cameroon's Far North region, with churches burned and church leaders kidnapped.
The report describes that in Somalia, "no area is safe for Christians," and in Burkina Faso, Christians are fleeing from the rise of Islam.
Nigeria sees raids by Muslim Fulani militants in "shockingly brutal attacks."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Investigative journalist Laura Loomer meets with president before action taken
President Trump has dismissed several "disloyal" staff members of his National Security Council team, shortly after he met with investigative journalist Laura Loomer who reportedly raised doubts about them.
The Washington Examiner pointed out that Loomer previously has charged that there were members of the staff who were disloyal to Trump, and further there have been "vetting failures" at the NSC.
The report said the firings came a week after there was a leak of a Signal app group chat, but NSC spokesman Brian Hughes said the organization doesn't comment on personnel matters.
In that Signal chat case, someone added the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, a virulently anti-Trump publication, to an administration discussion about terrorists in Yemen.
Loomer posted a statement saying, "I woke up this morning to learn that there are still people in and around the West Wing who are LEAKING to the hostile, left-wing media about President Trump's 'confidential' and 'private' meetings in the Oval Office. I want to reiterate how important it is that people who gain access to the White House or the administration respect the privacy of their conversations with President Trump and his senior staff.
"Out of respect for President @realDonaldTrump and the privacy of the Oval Office, I'm going to decline on divulging any details about my Oval Office meeting with President Trump. It was an honor to meet with President Trump and present him with my research findings. I will continue working hard to support his agenda, and I will continue reiterating the importance of, and the necessity of STRONG VETTING, for the sake of protecting the President of the United States of America, and our national security."
The Gateway Pundit, in its report, called it a "'neocon' bloodbath."
The report continued, "Per CNN, here are the names of the three known terminated officials and their titles:
Brian Walsh, a director for intelligence and a former lead staffer for now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Thomas Boodry, a senior director for legislative affairs who formerly served as NSA Director Mike Waltz's legislative director in Congress. David Feith, a senior director overseeing technology and national security. He previously served in the State Department during Trump's first administration."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Elite reporters who have the privilege of attending White House news briefings actually considered an old-fashioned "sit-in" to try to keep their privileged seats amid a revolution in reporting.
For decades, writers for networks, legacy wire services, newspapers, and the like have had privileged seats in the White House briefing room, specifically the front couple of rows have been reserved for them.
However, there's now a revolution in reporting. Many people read X for their updates, and fewer and fewer are turning on the television for a news broadcast or opening up a newspaper.
The latest confirmation of the changes is that the White House announced it would take over making the seat assignments for White House briefings, a privilege that for years had been gifted to the leftist White House Correspondents Association, a private organization of writers that essentially managed that briefing room for themselves.
Elite reporters who have the privilege of attending White House news briefings actually considered an old-fashioned "sit-in" to try to keep their privileged seats amid a revolution in reporting.
For decades, writers for networks, legacy wire services, newspapers and the like have had privileged seats in the White House briefing room, specifically the front couple of rows have been reserved for them.
However, there's now a revolution in reporting. Many people read X for their updates, and fewer and fewer are turning on television for a news broadcast or opening up a newspaper.
The latest confirmation of the changes is that the White House announced it would take over making the seat assignments for White House briefings, a privilege that for years had been gifted to the leftist White House Correspondents Association, a private organization of writers that essentially managed that briefing room for themselves.
Now the Gateway Pundit reports the legacy writers were so upset at losing control that they considered staging an old-fashioned "sit-in" to try to maintain their privilege.
The report took the WCHA members to task, describing them as "apparently a bunch of toddlers throwing a tantrum" over the change.
The report noted Semafor described how the White House plan to set its own seating chart "has rattled the journalists who cover the president and left them mulling how exactly to push back."
The report said, "The WHCA's current system reflects the 20th century media power structure: wire services and broadcast and cable television networks occupy the front row, major newspapers and radio get the second and third rows, and a more fluid collection of news organizations sits further back."
The White House plan simply is to restructure the format to reflect today's media trends, which are more and more web-, podcast-, and social media-based.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'This case illustrates a disturbing pattern we're seeing with increasing frequency'
Los Angeles County has reversed a beach use policy it adopted that discriminated, unlawfully, against churches.
The American Center for Law and Justice announced the "crucial victory" in its battle to protect religious liberties.
"The ACLJ continues to fight for religious liberty across the nation, from small towns to major cities. This victory reminds us that when we stand firm and take decisive legal action, we can successfully defend the constitutional rights of believers everywhere," the legal team said in an announcement about the dispute.
"This case illustrates a disturbing pattern we're seeing with increasing frequency. Government officials at all levels – federal, state, and local – continue to test the boundaries of their authority by implementing policies that marginalize people of faith and religious organizations.
"Whether it's limiting beach permits in California, denying funding to faith-based schools in the Midwest, or censoring religious speech in public forums across the country, the assaults on religious liberty have become more frequent and brazen."
It was earlier this year, the Church of the Beach contacted the ACLJ. The legal team explained for 18 years, this ministry has conducted peaceful worship services on Redondo Beach, providing a spiritual community for beachgoers and local residents alike.
Some 120 people gather on Sunday mornings to worship, many specifically choosing the setting because they've had difficult or negative experiences in traditional church settings.
The beach, therefore, is a "crucial component of their ministry's outreach to those who might never step foot in a conventional church."
Its members ensure gatherings don't obstruct pathways or block traffic, and even have relocated when events are on the beach.
Then last year the county adopted its "troubling" policy that targeted religious activities, limiting faith organizations to only six permits per year while imposing no such limits on other groups.
Last month, the ACLJ sent a demand letter to the county, outlining the policy's violations of the First Amendment.
A response from the county Department of Beaches, just days ago, conceded, "DBH acknowledges that its Beach and Harbor Use Licensing Policy and other policies pertaining to access to beach use, on its face and in application, must be content neutral and applied in the same manner regardless of the religious or non-religious nature of the activity."
The result is that the county promised to "immediately withdraw the temporary policy to limit permits for religious activities."
All permits now will be handled the same way, it said.