This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the city of Castle Rock, Colorado, from interfering with a church's program to help the homeless by providing temporary shelter in an RV and a trailer camper unit on its own property.
The Rock Church had sued the town after officials there ordered church members to no longer help the homeless on their own church land, and the judge said that campaign created a substantial burden because it "prevents participation in a conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief."
A CBS report noted the Rock Church has sheltered homeless people in RVs on its land since 2019 but town officials blocked that ministry multiple times in 2021, 2022 and 2023 claiming it was a violation of zoning laws.
The church's legal action charged that city officials were violating the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act with their campaign.
The church's goals were clear, in its filing: "The Holy Bible specifically and repeatedly directs faithful Christians like the church's members to care for the poor and needy out of compassion and mercy for those who are experiencing significant misfortune and hardship."
U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico on Friday ruled that the town did violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a law passed by Congress in 2000, which grants religious institutions protections from zoning laws that prohibit free exercise of religion.
The judge said in his order, "The church stresses that by preventing it from allowing the homeless to live on its property, the town is precluding the church from exercising its religious beliefs regardless of whether it might be possible to provide for the needy in some other way. There is no reason to second-guess the church at this point, regardless of how idiosyncratic or mistaken the town may find its beliefs to be."
He continued, "The town does not explicitly argue that it has a compelling interest in enforcing the (Planning Division) regulations as interpreted by the board of adjustment, and the church contends that the town could have no such interest because the church takes a number of precautions to ensure that its temporary shelter is safe. These include having a third party conduct background checks and requiring any RV tenants to sign contracts indicating that they will abide by certain rules."
Further, he said the town failed to identify any safety issues from the church's actions.
The report noted the church had has to turn away people who needed help because of Castle Rock's actions.
The judge noted the precedent he was following: "As the 10th Circuit has noted, a substantial burden exists for the purposes of RLUIPA where the government 'prevents participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.'"
Those beliefs are "supported by sworn affidavits," the judge said, which the town "does not ultimately dispute."
The judge said, "To hold otherwise would invite the sort of 'trolling through a person's … religious beliefs' and 'governmental monitoring or second-guessing' of 'religious beliefs and practices' that the 10th Circuit recently reiterated is forbidden by the First Amendment."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A settlement of $140,000 has been obtained for a Jewish professor whose work at the University of Maryland, College Park, was destroyed by school officials just when she had started becoming vocal about her Jewish faith.
It is the American Center for Law and Justice that explained the positive outcome for Melissa Landa, who eventually was dismissed by the school.
The case was over the destruction of her career at the school, where she had taught with honors for 10 years.
She got her start there as a graduate assistant in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. She was promoted to a full-time faculty position after just two years, in 2007, the report said.
"During her career at UMD, Dr. Landa received several awards, including the College of Education's Excellence in Teaching Award and the College of Education's Exceptional Scholarship Award. She also received a letter of commendation for her contributions to the Education Abroad Program from UMD's Associate Vice President for International Affairs. Dr. Landa was an excellent, competent, and beloved teacher who always got high reviews," the ACLJ said.
And she became an affiliate professor at the University of Haifa, a representation of solidarity with Israeli scholars who were being shunned by academics in their boycotts of Israel.
And, the report said, she was then involved in the Academic Engagement Network, an organization of American college and university faculty who oppose the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement – an international campaign that denies the Jewish people their right to national self-determination in their ancestral homeland, Israel."
She then was told not to display at Israeli flag in her office, her job responsibilities were reduced and she was taken off a course she had helped develop.
Her complaints about religious discrimination brought no response, until the ACLJ took the fight into the courts, the report said.
The lawsuit actually followed a determination by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that there was strong evidence she was fired in retaliation.
But the school refused to settle her claims, and a lawsuit was filed.
Eventually, a settlement for damages and costs was reached, of $140,000.
She later obtained employment elsewhere.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The European Commission is described as an "executive" part of the European Union, and as such it often has operated as an entity unto itself, imposing regulations as it wishes.
And now, we know, imposing censorship.
In fact, a Substack report from JD Rucker explains that it was Margarethe Vestager, executive vice-president of the commission, who announced Musk’s platform Twitter-turned-X, “doesn’t comply with the DSA in key transparency areas. It misleads users, fails to provide adequate ad repository and blocks access to data for researchers.”
She was referring to the Digital Services Act, and she noted it was the first time the commission had acted on a case involving the law.
Musk didn't take long to respond.
"The European Commission offered an illegal secret deal: if we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us," he charged.
"The other platforms accepted that deal. X did not."
Rucker commented, "Wow. … If Musk's accusation is legitimate, then it would seem his platform is truly doing what they claim" of protecting speech.
He pointed out the commission is just one of multiple groups demanding to control speech and thought.
"Unfortunately, the vast majority of Big Tech and legacy media companies will comply with censorship demands all too willingly. In fact, they agree with the globalist stance on 'misinformation' and want nothing more than to have a free pass to censor people," he explained.
He explained what Musk won't allow is for those bureaucrats to better understand not only how to control the narrative on X, but to use it "in a way that herds the masses toward the prescribed worldview."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A presentation offered on a U.S. Army base for soldiers being prepared to guard the perimeter of the operation openly bashed pro-life organizations, including National Right to Life and Operation Rescue, as "terrorist groups."
The base, in a statement, bluntly said such comments were not authorized by the base and no longer would be allowed. But it was not clear exactly who, if anyone, was being blamed.
The false claims appeared in a social media posting that featured the image of the "Terrorist Groups" list with the Operation Rescue and National Right to Life Logos embedded.
It said, "The slide you see here followed right after a slide about ISIS, a terror group in the Middle East. The organizations labeled by the army as terror organizations include National Right to Life and Operation Rescue. They also included a screenshot of a license plate with 'IM4IT,' which is a plate many pro-life citizens put on their car which implies normal citizens are terrorists if they display this plate. The slide goes on to mention activities which these organizations participate in which include being pro-life, opposing Row (sic) v Wade, demonstrating and protesting (a 1st Amendment protected right), 'Truth Displays,' and picketing."
A report in the Washington Examiner said the presentation appeared at Fort Liberty in North Carolina to personnel being trained to operate access control points at the base.
The images were confirmed by base public affairs.
The report said, "The presentation slide, photographed by an anonymous person in the briefing room on Wednesday and published on social media by a pseudonymous account, highlights common tactics used by anti-abortion activists as possibly dangerous, including 'demonstrations and protest,' 'truth display,' 'picketing,' and sidewalk counseling."
The presentation slide included the insignias of the Directorate of Emergency Services at Fort Liberty and the XVIII Airborne Corps.
Fort Liberty officials told the publication the slides were not approved and do not reflect the views of the base, the Army or others.
"The slides were developed by a local garrison employee to train soldiers manning access control points at Fort Liberty. These slides will no longer be used, and all future training products will be reviewed to ensure they align with the current DoD anti-terrorism guidance."
National Right to Life was founded in 1968, Operation Rescue in 1986. Both advocate for protections for the unborn, in opposition to America's large, and lucrative, abortion industry, which is one of Joe Biden's key agenda points.
"In a presentation that is deeply offensive to pro-life Americans across the nation, Fort Liberty promoted outright lies about National Right to Life in a demonstration of lazy scholarship," Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, told the publication. "In our over 50-year history, National Right to Life has always, consistently, and unequivocally, condemned violence against anyone."
Under the Biden administration, it's more or less been routine for pro-life people and groups to be described as terrorists.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The assaults on President Trump by Democrats, especially those attacks led by ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, were legend.
She orchestrated an impeachment vote, which failed to remove him from office, over a telephone call. When he left office she still orchestrated another, failed, campaign to impeach and "remove."
Then there was her followup, a special partisan committee run by Democrats and two Trump-hating members of the GOP that essential orchestrated testimony, witnesses and evidence to make it appear Trump urged protesters to violence on Jan. 6, 2021, when he in fact told them to protest peacefully.
Now the final report from that committee has been condemned for its "flat out lies."
U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk, chief of the House Admission Subcommittee on Oversight, explained his investigation of the committee, and its politically skewed results, continues.
"But at the same time, we have uncovered enough to where it really invalidates the select committee's report," he said during an interview with John Solomon Reports.
"We do need to take some type of action because this report should never be used as a historical fact, much less used in any legal proceeding. The evidence that they have is so tainted. It is cherry picked. And in some cases, it's flat out lies."
A report at Just the News explained the investigation so far shows the final report from the Democrat-run Select Committee on the January 6 Capitol Attack is so mistake-filled it could be invalidated.
That committee, commanded by Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., spent millions of dollars summoning witnesses who would bring blame against Trump, claiming in its final report that Trump repeated "invalid" claims of vote fraud and did nothing to stop his supporters from rioting.
In fact, that election was tainted by interference by the CIA and FBI, which knew of a false statement assembled by leftists formerly in the intelligence agencies that claimed the Biden family scandal sheet uncovered in Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop was Russian disinformation, when in fact it was the truth.
A followup survey showed that interference likely handed the White House to Biden. Further, voters were influenced by $400 million plus Mark Zuckerberg handed out to election officials who largely used it to recruit voters in Democrat districts.
House members already have begun moving to nullify Pelosi's entire committee work, declaring its results void and canceling subpoenas it issued.
The committee was partisan because Pelosi allowed only committee members she wanted to be a part. The nominees from the then-GOP minority were refused. And the committee essentially edited and orchestrated witnesses and testimony to try to pin blame on President Donald Trump for that day.
Democrats claimed the events were an actual "insurrection" against the United States, where by definition protesters would have been intending to take over the government's economy, military, foreign policy and much, much more. They've even tried to keep Trump off the 2024 ballot on the basis of their claims. The events actually were a protest that got out of hand.
Pelosi refused to follow the resolution creating the committee, and never appointed the five members required "after consulting the minority leader." Further, the committee had no "ranking member" from the GOP, another violation of House rules. And the committee also ignored House rules requiring committees provide equal time for majority and minority members asking questions.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new report from the Wall Street Journal has shown how insurance companies in the U.S. are taking advantage of loopholes and cashing in on Medicare for treatments that were never actually diagnosed or treated by a doctor.
According to the report, one patient was diagnosed with diabetic cataracts by a registered nurse, despite the fact she didn’t have diabetes, nor cloudy vision after she consulted with her own physician following the RN’s diagnosis.
After the WSJ analyzed billions of Medicare records, it was found that private insurers involved in the federal government’s Medicare Advantage program made thousands of suspicious diagnoses between 2018 and 2021 – that were all eligible for extra payments to insurance companies.
These included diseases such as AIDS, for which the report notes patients did not receive any type of follow-up care, as well as conditions the person could not possibly have. Oftentimes, the patient and their physician had no idea this was occurring.
Private insurers oversee Medicare benefits for Medicare Advantage – a $450 billion per year system – that was born from the notion that a more economical healthcare system could be delivered by private insurers.
The report points out that the program has ballooned by tens of billions of dollars per year in costs, namely because insurers can add a diagnosis to one submitted by the policy holder’s own physician to “catch conditions.”
The WSJ further notes their analysis found many of these added diagnoses included no treatment for patients, or they directly contradicted their physicians’ views. It was also found these new diagnoses were often made after an insurer had viewed medical charts, had used artificial intelligence, or sent registered nurses to visit a patient in his or her home.
In total, it was found that over $50 billion in diagnoses had been added solely by insurers between 2018 and 2021. Around 18,000 Medicare Advantage recipients had insurer-diagnoses of HIV – the precursor to AIDS – which adds $3,000 per year in additional payments to insurers, and less than 17% of these patients were on antiretroviral drugs.
UnitedHealth Group and another insurer, Humana, dispute these claims.
However, a recent report from the U.S. Office of the Inspector General found that insurance company Cigna intentionally made enrollees appear more sick to get additional funds from the federal government. As a result, Cigna was ordered to pay the government $172 million for overcharging Medicare and penalties for fraud.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Government censorship of people's ideas, statements and thoughts is flourishing not only in the United States, according to a new report from the Foundation for Freedom Online.
In America, the Supreme Court essentially gave such First Amendment-trashing operations a pass, in the recent Murthy lawsuit, by claiming that states and individuals weren't being injured by the instructions from the Joe Biden administration to social media companies on what ideas to suppress.
But that's minor next to what's going on in Europe, the report explained.
There, there's a new censorship "superweapon" in place.
Ready to use.
Each country now has a "digital services coordinator" with the power to penalize online platforms if they fail to adequately address "systemic risks," the report pointed out.
Included is "hate speech" and "misinformation," which is known to include speech that is correct and reasonable, but just conflicts with the politically correct talking points. Comments, for example, about there existing in science two sexes, male and female, has been condemned as both hate speech and misinformation.
"These official speech commissars can deputize third party entities to act as 'trusted flaggers,' empowering the global network of NGOs, research institutes, and private companies that make up the censorship industry," the report said.
The act actually went into effect at the beginning of the year, and is "the European Union’s flagship online censorship law," the foundation said.
"Other than China’s Great Firewall, it is arguably the most elaborate and wide-reaching instrument of government control of online content in the world."
It categorizes its targeted communities as Very Large Online Platforms and Very Large Online Search Engines, and can be used to impose fines "for non-compliance" of up to 6% of a providers' global annual turnover.
Those corporations, under the law, are required to "identify, analyze, and assess systemic risks" and then install procedures to oppose those "risks."
"In other words, the EU wants platforms to identify and suppress content proactively — something that, realistically, can only be accomplished at scale using AI censorship tools," the foundation reported.
Included in its vast overreach is information dealing with "public security and electoral processes," "gender-based violence," "discrimination" or "illegal content."
Also "hate speech," which, the foundation confirms, "has been used as a pretext to criminally penalize political candidates and members of the public for political expression in a number of European countries."
Also, the law boosts the censorship industry by requiring for "vetted researchers" to have access to the data from platforms, opening the door for more censorship.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A state court has ruled that government entities must pay "just compensation" to citizens when it is due.
The fight has come up in a number of cases across the nation in recent years, several times because homes have been destroyed by police actions and the owners want compensation.
Another was when authorities built a dam that caused repeated floods on – and damage to – several agricultural businesses.
The newest is a series of problems created by the actions of the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans.
The state Supreme Court has ruled that such judgments must be paid.
According to the Institute for Justice, "From 2013 to 2016, several landowners in New Orleans had their property either damaged or their ability to use their home and church interfered with while the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans worked on a flood control project called the Southeast Louisiana Urban Drainage Project."
The legal team said, "Following the damage to their properties, the neighbors sued the SWB for the damage. The property owners won an inverse condemnation claim, and the court awarded them $998,872 in cumulative damages and $517,231 in attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana upheld that ruling."
The board, however, refused to pay.
"The Constitution’s requirements are just that – requirements, not suggestions," said IJ Deputy Litigation Director Robert McNamara. "The government’s argument that it could withhold payment when it damages someone’s property was always absurd, and property owners across Louisiana should sleep a little better now that the Louisiana Supreme Court has said so."
The court ruling said governments that take private property must actually pay for what they take, rejecting a local sewerage board’s argument that it had fulfilled its constitutional duty to pay "just compensation" by giving property owners what amounted to an unenforceable IOU.
"Until Friday, Louisiana government agencies took the position that the Constitution required them to pay just compensation when they took property but also didn’t require them to actually pay anything on the judgments courts entered ordering them to pay for the property they took," said IJ lawyer Brian Morris. "This ruling closes one of the biggest loopholes in American property rights, and it ensures that 'compensation' means actual payment, not meaningless IOUs."