This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The American Center for Law and Justice has confirmed it has filed a federal lawsuit over a school's orders that students not gather together for prayer.

One coach threatened track team members, "Don't let me see you do that again" after they gathered before a track meet for prayer, the ACLJ said, describing it as a "blatant violation of students' First Amendment rights."

"While you would hope that this would be a clear mistake on the part of the coach – one immediately corrected by school officials – it was not," the legal team said of the actions by the Indiana school district.

"Even after reporting the incident to the school administration, the matter remains unresolved. The students were subsequently instructed that they must not be seen praying together as a group and that they could only engage in a moment of 'reflection' alone or in small groups of two or three," the ACLJ said.

Stunningly, "The girls have been instructed not to give the appearance that they are praying at any time before, during, or after track meets."

The school, the ACLJ said, ignored a demand letter dispatched to the superintendent insisting that the ongoing constitutional violations be stopped.

"The First Amendment undisputedly protects students’ right to pray or engage in other religious speech or activities before, during, or after school and at school events, including sporting events," it explains.

It said, "The Supreme Court explained more than 50 years ago in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969), students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.' Indeed, '[t]he vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.'"

The Supreme Court's decision wasn't vague. It said, "When [a student] is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or the campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions . . . ."

"Students have the right to pray, discuss religious beliefs, and even share religious materials with their peers between classes, at break, at lunch, and before and after school. School interference with these rights is not appropriate unless such actions would cause a material and substantial disruption of school discipline," the legal team said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Maine lawmakers are working on a legislative plan that would interfere in other states' application of their own laws, and that has drawn a rebuke from a coalition of attorneys general.

The scolding comes in a letter from Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who was joined by a long list of other state AGs.

The letter addresses Maine's proposed LD 277, which purportedly would provide protections for the transgender industry, patients, and providers alike.

"LD 227 seeks to contravene the lawful policy choices of our states’ citizens by imposing on the rest of the country Maine’s views on hotly debated issues such as gender transition surgeries for children," the letter explains. "The law’s far-reaching provisions are unprecedented. LD 227 not only purports to shield from liability those offering or aiding the provision of unlawful services to citizens located in our states … The law also creates a private right of action for damages against law enforcement, prosecutors, and other officials in our states who are enforcing our own valid state laws, even laws whose constitutionality has been confirmed by federal appellate courts."

The letter continues, "On top of that, LD227 purports to block valid orders and judgments from our state courts enforcing laws upheld by federal appellate courts. As currently drafted, LD 227 violates the United States Constitution and flouts the federalist structure that allows each of our States to engage in self-government responsive to the will of our citizens.

"The federal Constitution, in short, precludes Maine’s novel effort at state-sanctioned culture war litigation tourism."

report from Fox News said Maine essentially is trying to be "a sanctuary state for procedures like sex-change surgeries for minors."

That, the report described, is "totalitarian."

"In other words, a parent whose child went to Maine for a sex-change surgery would have no legal recourse, even though they live in a state where such operations are illegal."

Fox said, "Skrmetti and the others say that LD 227 would undermine the 'lawful policy choices' of their respective states’ citizens 'by imposing on the rest of the country Maine’s views on hotly debated issues such as gender transition surgeries for children.'"

The failings of the plan include that it would "form a liability shield to anyone aiding or offering unlawful services to out-of-state citizens" and "create a private right of action for damages against law enforcement, prosecutors, and other officials in states who are enforcing their respective state laws, even laws whose constitutionality has been confirmed by federal appellate courts."

The letter warned, too, of what could become a dangerous tit-for-tat war.

"If one State does not like another State’s regulatory regime with respect to cars, or food, or alcohol distribution, or whatever else, it could create a tenuous jurisdictional hook to allow the same sort of extraterritorial bullying attempted by LD 227. State officials would be dragged into legal battles in far-flung jurisdictions, thwarting their ability to focus on protecting their citizens consistent with their duly enacted laws."

Since Joe Biden took office and made promoting transgenderism, especially for children, a key agenda for his administration, states have divided. Some have gone the route of protecting children from life-altering and body-mutilating surgeries; others have promoted those very activities.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

An American university has adopted the far-left, and probably unconstitutional, belief that the nation's freedom of speech includes the freedom to force someone else to not express their beliefs.

It is constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as a constitutional expert but has represented members on constitutional issues in court, who described the issue that erupted.

It involves an Israeli physics professor who was scheduled to deliver a lecture on black holes at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.

But it was shut down by "anti-Israel protesters."

How?

"Campus police insisted that they had a free speech right to prevent him from speaking. It is a common claim made by anti-free speech faculty and students that is perfectly nonsensical. It is a rationalization to yield to the heckler’s veto," he explained.

It was Asaf Peer, a physics expert, who was on campus to lecture on black holes.

"However, he happens to be an Israeli, so his lecture became the target for anti-Israel protesters who stormed the event and began to shout him down. It is a common technique of 'deplatforming' used by radical groups like Antifa," Turley explained.

"The protesters accused him of studying and teaching on 'occupied territory' and 'spreading violent rhetoric' on his Facebook account. There is no question that these students and groups have a right to protest. What they do not have a right to do is to shut down events to prevent others from hearing from a speaker," Turley noted.

"Yet, the police intervened to end the lecture and escort Peer off campus. In other words, the protesters won."

He pointed out that those police weren't following the Constitution, and weren't even following their own campus rules, which provide: "[Free speech] activities must not, however, unreasonably interfere with the right of the University to conduct its affairs in an orderly manner and to maintain its property, nor may they interfere with the University’s obligation to protect rights of all to teach, study, and fully exchange ideas. Physical force, the threat of force, or other coercive actions used to subject anyone to a speech of any kind is expressly forbidden."

He explained it now is routine for protesters to demand silence from those with opposing views.

That also has developed in America on a broader perspective, an issue that now is pending before the Supreme Court, where social media companies, at the behest of Biden bureaucrats, have literally censored entire segments of the population that disagree with the White House ideologies.

Turley continued, "This has been an issue of contention with some academics who believe that free speech includes the right to silence others. Berkeley has been the focus of much concern over the use of a heckler’s veto on our campuses as violent protesters have succeeded in silencing speakers, including a speaker from the ACLU discussing free speech. Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech," he said.

The Jerusalem Post reported that "pro-Palestinian protesters" burst into a room where Peer was lecturing.

"Peer invited the activists to stay and learn about black holes and said that they could talk about unrelated issues after the lecture," the report said.

However, the "protesters" screamed at the speaker, and held signs with false allegations he supports "genocide."

The report said Peer related how police were summoned, and they told him they could not remove the disrupters because it was a public event, and "their expulsion would constitute an infringement of free speech rights," the report said.

Police then informed Peer that the event was "ended" and they took him to his vehicle.

A spokesperson for the school said the actions were a "safety precaution."

"I did not feel unsafe, and I was surprised that the police decided to end the event, instead of removing the protesters from the room," Peer told the publication.

Bar-Ilan University president Arie Zaban explained, "It seems that some of our colleagues have lost their moral compass. It’s disappointing and it’s infuriating, but we won’t be deterred."

Turley added, "A few years ago, I debated NYU Professor Jeremy Waldron who is a leading voice for speech codes. Waldron insisted that shutting down speakers through heckling is a form of free speech. I disagree. It is the antithesis of free speech and the failure of schools to protect the exercise of free speech is the antithesis of higher education. In most schools, people are not allowed to disrupt events. They are escorted out of such events and told that they can protest outside of the events since others have a right to listen to opposing views. These disruptions, however, are often planned to continually interrupt speakers until the school authorities step in to cancel the event."

He said UNLV must decide whether it will protect free discourse or give in "to the mob."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Across most branches of the U.S. military, recruitment numbers continue to plummet. As is widely known, lack of trust in senior military leadership as well as "woke" ideology now plague America’s armed forces. But the ultimate question remains: Can the U.S. still win wars?

To find out what the rank and file of the United States military believe in 2024 about fighting a major war against a near-peer threat, this writer conducted an informal survey, at random, of over 200 current members of the U.S. military.

When asked if the U.S. could win a war against a near-peer threat like China, Iran, North Korea or Russia, 188 of the survey’s 229 participants replied "No."

WND interviewed one participant in the survey, on the condition of anonymity due to concern over reprisals. Emphasizing that his views don’t reflect those of the Department of Defense or Department of the Army, Sgt. First Class (SFC) Robbie Barnes (a pseudonym) admitted he is "not overly confident" the United States could win a war against a foreign adversary.

"There’s a good chance we could win, but it would come at a great cost," he explained, referring to the loss of life in combat.

Ten to 15 years ago," Barnes said, "we could have won any war in the world, but I've lost a great deal of confidence in our superiority in conflict over the last decade." His change of faith can be attributed to well-known issues surrounding recruiting and retention.

"Recruiting numbers are down more than ever, and [service members] are leaving the military because they see the direction we’ve gone since the Obama administration," he said. Progressive policies have repeatedly been blamed for the military’s recruiting shortfall.

Apart from dwindling personnel numbers, Barnes argued, "Many [service members] don't have the same level of ability or aptitude in maintaining our equipment anymore." In that regard, 74% of the survey participants said their units were not well enough equipped to go to war, and 72% also said their units were not sufficiently trained for actual combat deployment.

Dwindling trust in leadership

Although Barnes continues to serve in the Army, his career was negatively affected by the implementation of the now-rescinded 2021 COVID-19 vaccine mandate. For his religious objection to the vaccine, he was punished and the experience caused him to question his trust in senior military leadership.

"They have proven time and again that they aren’t willing to have the best interest of the soldiers at heart," he lamented, adding that the Army is no longer a "people-first organization." Instead, he said, "the Army will do what’s best for the Army and for the government before it will do what's best for its soldiers."

Virtually all the survey’s participants agreed, as 227 out of 229 said they do not trust senior leaders of the Department of Defense to have their best interests in mind.

The Biden administration selected leaders he considers "very weak and spineless," said Barnes, noting that they routinely refuse to push back against policies that are antithetical to the military. Such policies may help advance Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and LGBTQ+ agendas within the military workforce, but do so to the detriment of America's national security, he said.

For example, Barnes pointed out, "they’ve gone full bore on this transgender-gender fluidity craziness." Rather than hiring or promoting based on merit, he said, the military seems more interested in hiring and promoting "people with behavioral health issues."

"Wokeness," he summarized, "has gone too far [in the military]."

Regarding his immediate leadership, SFC Barnes said he is thankful to have a commander and first sergeant who do, in fact, keep his best interests in mind. However, less than half – just 37% – of the survey’s participants agreed, with most participants not trusting their immediate leadership to have their best interests in mind.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A partisan election official in the state of Colorado, which took a massive blow from the Supreme Court again this week in its attempt to cancel the 2024 presidential campaign of Donald Trump, now is facing a recall campaign.

It is Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, who became a major player behind a Democrat agenda to attack Trump and remove him from the ballot, likely prompted by real fears that he'll beat Joe Biden in the race this year.

Four members of the Colorado state Supreme Court, with seven judges appointed by Democrats, had claimed, without trial or conviction, that Trump was an "insurrectionist" and denied him permission to be on the ballot. It was significant that the majority couldn't persuade other three Democrat-appointed judges to join them.

But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that states lack the authority to make such decisions regarding national candidates, especially for president.

The 9-0 decision killed Colorado's attack on Trump and likewise foiled similar plans in Maine and Illinois.

Incidentally, it's the third Colorado case to arrive at the U.S. Supreme Court recently, and the third major loss for the leftist state. The earlier cases involved the state's "hostile" treatment of Christianity in the Jack Phillips Masterpiece Cakeshop case and its discriminatory attack on Christians in the 303 Creative web design case. Both of those fought the state's insistence it could dictate religious statements to private businesses.

Fox News reported Republicans in Colorado wrote to Griswold after her political attack on Trump failed at the high court.

"Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., led state party officials in a letter addressed to Secretary of State Jena Griswold Monday that accused her of attempting to 'disenfranchise millions of Coloradans' and called the effort to bar Trump from the ballot 'a stain on our Republic and an outright embarrassment,'" the report said.

Their letter charged, "With today's unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to keep President Donald J. Trump on the Colorado primary ballot, it is now even more clear Coloradans should have zero faith in you to adequately protect their right to vote and oversee elections in the state of Colorado."

Fox reported the Republicans accused Griswold of a "selfish political decision to rig the primary election" against Trump and said "all" options are being considered, including "a formal recall."

Joining Boebert in the letter were Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dave Wiliams, state party Vice Chair Hope Scheppelman, and Secretary Anna Feguson.

On Monday, Griswold said she was disappointed when the Supreme Court overturned the decision to bar Trump from the ballot in a unanimous ruling.

Griswold had complained that the Supreme Court didn't agree with her.

"I do believe that states should be able under our constitution to bar oath-breaking insurrections (sic)," she said.

The report noted, "Colorado had argued Trump was disqualified from public office under the 14th Amendment for inciting an 'insurrection' at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. However, the nine justices held that Article 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars former officeholders who 'engaged in insurrection' from holding public office again, can only be enforced by Congress."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A report from the American Center for Law and Justice explains that a New York state-mandated "study" of pro-life pregnancy resource centers was a success – because if it ever was done, it never was released.

The legal team of the ACLJ explained that New York lawmakers adopted a law in 2022 that targeted "Pregnancy Resource Centers" for a government "study" that was to document "unmet health and resource needs facing pregnant women in New York."

The ACLJ explained, "While the idea of a study to see if the needs of pregnant mothers are being met in the state seems like a good idea, this was a deceptively named 'study' intended primarily to target pro-life centers and ensure that the only information pregnant mothers in need received was from the abortion industry."

To date, neither the study nor any results have appeared, it explained, "And that’s a good thing!"

The ACLJ explained when the law was adopted, it immediately prepared, and worked to have those pro-life centers ready.

"A coalition was formed to ensure that every pro-life center in New York had legal support if or when the study was conducted. The ACLJ represented four PRC directors, none of whose centers received a request from the Commissioner of Health for any information," the report said.

"The proactive measure of obtaining legal counsel before the implementation of the law was critical to ensuring that the PRCs in New York would not be targeted and harassed by the law."

The report said the "study" was to have been biased by showing how "limited service pregnancy centers" impacted the ability of women to get "accurate, non-coercive" health care information.

What the law did do, the ACLJ reported, "was to further illustrate how desperate radical abortionists are to achieve abortion on demand – with no alternatives."

The organization recently wrote to the attorney general in Pennsylvania on a related issue;

"Pregnancy Resource Centers provide free or nominal cost assistance to millions of women annually, including hundreds of thousands of free ultrasounds each year (over 486,000 in 2019) along with medical services, education, and referrals. In 2019, over 10,000 licensed medical professionals [s] served as paid or volunteer workers in 2,700 Pregnancy Resource Centers across the United States. Thousands more people serve voluntarily at Pregnancy Resource Centers on an annual basis. Pregnancy Resource Centers save taxpayers countless millions of dollars each year, again because many of the services that they provide for free—through the work of volunteers and the support of donors—would otherwise have to be provided by government agencies through publicly funded programs," the letter said.

They give "invaluable information and resources that help ensure that a woman is fully aware of all the facts and options truly available to her – to help inform her decision and truly [give] her choices. Including the fact that abortion is an act that is intended to permanently end the life of a preborn child[,] the act is extremely grave, gruesome, and irreversible."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

An academic, one member of that class of mostly leftist elites in America's universities who are more than happy to tell others what to think and how to live, now claims it is rural white people who are the real threat to the nation.

The details of the rant from Tom Schaller, who works at the University of Maryland, were documented in Trending Politics.

Schaller was joined in the interview by a Washington Post writer, Paul Waldman, with whom he colluded on a new book promoting their ideology condemning an entire segment of America's population.

The report notes Schaller "wasted no time in erupting into a lengthy anti-white tirade where he indiscriminately labeled rural white voters as 'Christian nationalists' who despise democracy and engage in 'election denialism,' among other things."

He cited the book's claims about a "fourfold interconnected threat" to the nation from white rural voters.

"They’re the most racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, geodemographic group in the country. Second, they’re the most conspiracist group. QAnon support and subscribers, election denialism, COVID denialism and scientific skepticism, Obama birtherism," he ranted.

"Third, anti-democratic sentiments. They don’t believe in an independent press or free speech. They’re most likely to say the president should be able to act unilaterally without any checks from Congress or the courts or the bureaucracy."

Perhaps it's ironic, but it is the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, and his political cronies who have been attacking for years already the free speech rights of citizens. The government tried to set up what essentially was a "Ministry of Truth" like that in the novel "1984" which perpetrated nothing but lies, and has conspired with social media companies repeatedly to suppress ideas Biden doesn't like.

Worst of all?

Schaller said there's a large population of "white nationalists and Christian nationalists."

Further, he claimed they are likely to "excuse or justify violence as an acceptable alternative to peaceful public discussion."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The FBI has raided the home of another top aide to New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

The Daily Mail reported the target of the raid was a Bronx home belonging to Winnie Greco, a longtime adviser to Adams.

The report said the 61-year-old Greco already was being probed by the city's Department of Investigation over allegations she used her position in city hall for her personal benefit, and she's currently on leave from her post as director of Asian affairs.

However, it was unclear what the goal of the raid involved.

One earlier accusation alleged she promised a job to a campaign volunteer in exchange for doing work in her kitchen.

A report at Fox News noted that the search comes just as there's an ongoing federal review related to political fundraising during Adams' most recent campaign, in 2021.

An FBI official confirmed the raid at 1447 Gillespie Avenue, owned by Greco,

Fox explained, "The city’s Department of Investigation opened an inquiry into Greco last November, following a report from The City, a local news site, that raised questions about her political fundraising and whether she used her position in the administration to obtain personal benefits, including free housework from a city employee."

It was just months ago that the FBI raided the home of Brianna Suggs, an Adams fundraiser, apparently in connection with a campaign fundraising issue, and then a few days later, law enforcement officers seized the mayor's cell phone and an iPad.

The New York Times suggested the investigation could have to do with claims Adams' campaign conspired with the Turkish government to get illegal donations from foreign sources.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden's verbal and mental blunders have been evident for anyone watching him to see for several years already.

Call on a member of Congress who's dead? No problem. Relate conversations with foreign leaders, who were dead at the time. No problem. Recall train stories that could not have happened. No problem. Relate those stories again, and again. No problem.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Hunter Biden has been a scandal that just keeps on giving for Joe Biden.

There were the millions of dollars he was given by Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company when Joe Biden was handling U.S.-Ukraine police for Barack Obama. And the scandal over how a prosecutor investigating the company was fired on Joe Biden's orders.

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts