This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In his May 5 memorandum intended for senior Pentagon leadership, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unveiled his plan to scale back the number of general and flag officers serving in the military.
Maintaining his focus on the lethality of the U.S. military, Hegseth called it "a critical step" necessary to "optimize and streamline leadership."
WorldNetDaily spoke to Air Force Col. (Ret.) Rob Maness, who didn't mince words: "Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth just dropped a bombshell on the Pentagon's bloated bureaucracy." He added, "Hegseth's move to cut the brass and redirect funds to the rank-and-file is a 'less generals, more GIs' strategy I've been screaming about for years."
The former bomber squadron commander who served the U.S. military for more than 30 years told WND, "His plan to slash 20% of four-star generals and 10% of general officers is the kind of gut punch the military needs to get back to its warfighting roots."
For example, Maness points out, "We've got 44 four-star flag officers today, compared to just 17 when we had 12 million troops in World War II." He adds starkly, "That's not leadership, [but] a top-heavy mess sucking up resources that should be arming our grunts and flyboys."
Calling out the Air Force specifically, the former bomber squadron commander suggested, "If the Air Force's generals won't ditch their rainbow agendas, fire them all and start fresh." That is the position he has maintained for months, pointing to a January 2025 X post.
According to Maness, "Too many of these careerist stars have been playing political games, protecting their institution instead of the Constitution." Many went along with "the unlawful COVID 'vaccine' order and hurting their troops, pushing woke nonsense like DEI quotas or climate change programs." Rather, he said, these senior officers should have been focused on what really matters: "killing the enemy and winning wars."
Maness praised Trump's Defense chief for "finally swinging the axe, [saying] it's about damn time." But he warned, "Let's not get carried away popping champagne just yet." The coming reductions, he said, need to be "surgical" and "not a blind hack job."
Hegseth, he said, must "target the dead weight – those Biden-era officers who've turned the Pentagon into a social experiment lab and following unlawful orders – while keeping the battle-hardened leaders who live for the mission."
On May 6, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. took to X to post his objection to Hegseth's new directive, claiming it could "cripple the military."
For Maness, "Senator Reed's whining about 'crippling' the military isn't entirely baseless, [as] arbitrary cuts without a clear plan could kneecap our readiness." That's why, he said, "Hegseth needs to root out the disloyal, the incompetent and the agenda-driven, replacing them with merit-based warriors who'll put America first."
"If he pulls this off," Maness argued, "we'll have a military that's not just smaller but stronger – focused on crushing threats, not chasing diversity metrics." He trusts that Hegseth is "serious about a leaner, meaner force, but it has to be done right."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'You came here today to defeat women in their own sport'
U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Wednesday chaired a hearing of the House DOGE subcommittee lambasted the chairman of USA Fencing, Damien Lehfeldt, one of the witnesses who testified.
Lehfeldt was there to justify his organization's inclusion of biological males in female categories of fencing competition. Quoting from a blog post of Lehfeldt's, Greene noted his feelings on his daughter hypothetically competing against a man.
"You came here today to defeat women in their own sport," Greene told Lehfeldt. "You are a man who would tell his daughter to lose to a biological man and enjoy it!"
Greene's hearing was in response to a female fencer who recently refused to compete against a male fencer who "identifies" as a woman.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge whose biased courtroom policy – he routinely orders case participants to use "preferred" pronouns demanded by the leftist transgender agenda – has refused to let women athletes involved in a dispute over a promotion of transgenderism appeal.
The fight involves S. Kato Crews, who is paid as a federal judge in Colorado. He's hearing a case involving women athletes against the Mountain West Conference over its decision to allow a man, Blaire Fleming, to compete on the women's team in the conference.
The update comes from Cowboy State Daily, which noted that multiple women from the University of Wyoming are involved.
Crews routinely orders those in his court to use "preferred" pronouns for participants. That could be the totally inaccurate "she" or "her" for a man.
The women bringing the action against the conference asked him to recuse from the case, as his courtroom demeanor suggested he had prejudged the case. He refused.
They asked to appeal. And he refused again.
He claimed that he was allowing an exception for the women in this legal fight, so there were no grounds to appeal.
The underlying fight is over Fleming, and his presence on the women's team for San Jose State University's volleyball team.
"Eleven current and former collegiate athletes and one SJSU volleyball coach on Nov. 13 sued the Mountain West Conference, and SJSU and its umbrella organization in the federal U.S. District Court for Colorado," the report explained.
Wyoming forfeited two of its games against San Jose State University because of the man's participation on the women's team. Several other teams also forfeited.
The report noted, "Crews maintains a rule requiring the use of 'preferred' pronouns for transgender people referenced in his court."
The women argued that he should not hear the case, as he has shown he "has pre-judged the case and its question of whether a transgender volleyball player is a woman under the law."
The response from Crews, over his refusal to allow an appeal, was that he said he waived the pronoun requirement for participants in this case.
The judge turned sarcastic in his response to the women athletes, stating, "Rather than operating under the purported 'stigmas' and 'specters,' the Court encourages Plaintiffs to take 'yes' for an answer. Countless times now, the Court has told Plaintiffs they may use whatever pronouns they choose in these proceedings. They've done so from the start. They've done so without sanction or admonishment from the Court."
However, his answer did not address the fact that his ordinary courtroom standards include the "pronoun" requirement, leaving still standing the perception of his bias.
The judge also claimed his rules that benefit one side of the transgender arguments do not suggest a pre-judgment.
The case will now proceed in the district court where it was filed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'If a program designed for temporary academic training now facilitates long-term labor substitution, bypasses wage standards and government oversight, and encourages the offshoring of U.S. jobs ... why is it still allowed?'
WASHINGTON – Originally intended to support academic exchange, U.S. student visa programs have gradually been expanded and transformed into large-scale foreign labor channels, all to the detriment of multitudes of American workers.
Since the 1990s, changes to the international student F-1 visa framework and the introduction of Optional Practical Training, or OPT, have enabled hundreds of thousands of international graduates to enter the American workforce annually, often without the oversight, wage protections or regulatory limits required under traditional employment visa programs.
Among the organizations recognizing and operationalizing this shift is Miles Education, an India-based company, which has developed a business model that integrates education, immigration, employment and offshoring, thereby largely redefining the role of the U.S. student visa system.
The international student F-1 visa, established under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, enables foreign nationals to attend accredited U.S. educational institutions as full-time students. Students must demonstrate financial sufficiency and a nonimmigrant intent – that is, an intention to stay temporarily in the U.S. but not immigrate or seek permanent residency.
In 1992, the U.S. Department of Justice introduced Optional Practical Training, allowing F-1 international student graduates to work for 12 months after completing their studies. Then in 2008, the George W. Bush administration expanded this with the STEM Optional Practical Training Extension, granting an additional 24 months to graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields.
Thus, these Optional Practical Training and STEM OPT programs enable international graduates to work in the United States for up to three years after completing their studies, and with very few restrictions on employers. Companies are not required to prove that American workers are unavailable for the job, meet minimum wage standards based on the industry or location, or sponsor the worker through a formal visa process.
Additionally, there is no limit on the number of OPT workers a company can hire. As immigration policy expert Dr. Ron Hira has testified before Congress, this structure effectively created a parallel labor market operating without congressional authorization or traditional worker protections.
Miles Education's model thrives within this regulatory void.
How OPT has changed under different administrations
U.S. companies have obvious and powerful financial incentives to hire Optional Practical Training workers instead of American graduates.
Through Miles' placement services, corporations gain access to an ever-abundant pool of OPT workers who are ready for immediate employment, offering a workforce that is less expensive, less regulated and less legally encumbered than their American counterparts.
One obvious example: Employers who hire OPT workers are exempt from paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, resulting in approximately an 8% reduction in employment costs per worker. Such advantages make OPT workers significantly more affordable and easier to hire than American graduates, leading businesses to favor foreign student labor over the domestic workforce.
Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Labor has no authority to enforce wage standards for Optional Practical Training workers, which means it operates outside normal employment-based immigration oversight. The Department of Homeland Security certifies student visa programs, but does not require employers to test the labor market – i.e., demonstrate to the government that they've tried but failed to find a qualified, willing, available U.S. worker for a specific job before hiring a foreign national. Also, Optional Practical Training's classification as a "student benefit" rather than a work visa shields it from labor protections.
As of 2023, the Department of Homeland Security's SEVIS database – short for Student and Exchange Visitor Information System – reported over 1.5 million active F-1 and M-1 visa holders, with approximately 539,000 authorized for work through OPT or STEM OPT. Organizations that took note of the gap between immigration intent and labor reality viewed it not as a loophole, but as a market opportunity. For companies like Miles Education, which structured its business around that gap, it has proven to be highly profitable.
Transparency reports from the first Trump administration revealed that corporations such as Amazon, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and JPMorgan Chase were among the largest employers of workers under the OPT and STEM OPT programs. In 2019, for example, Amazon employed 2,813 OPT/STEM OPT participants, Deloitte employed 822 and Ernst & Young employed 431, figures publicly available through the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Student and Exchange Visitor Program.
However, under the Biden administration, ICE stopped releasing employer-specific Optional Practical Training data, reducing public visibility into how major companies utilize the program. This rollback in transparency has been noted by immigration policy analysts and organizations advocating for greater oversight.
However, under the Biden administration, ICE stopped releasing employer-specific Optional Practical Training data, reducing public visibility into how major companies utilize the program. This rollback in transparency has been noted by immigration policy analysts and organizations advocating for greater oversight.
For a reported fee of approximately $48,000, students were promised admission into partner U.S. universities, support in securing international student F-1 visas, assistance obtaining Optional Practical Training authorization and direct placement into U.S. companies. Internal promotional materials emphasized career outcomes, expedited and guaranteed immigration services and corporate hiring connections, with significantly less emphasis on traditional academic achievement.
This image is prominently displayed on Miles Education's U.S. Pathway website, illustrating how its program can assist Indian nationals in achieving a successful career in the U.S. with an impressive salary in just seven months.
Scaling the model: Miles' partnerships and reach
Miles Education's business model has demonstrated significant success and operational presence in the U.S. market, characterized by financial growth, university collaborations and successful placement of graduates into American firms. As of March 31, 2023, the company reported annual revenues of approximately $22.8 million USD, reflecting a compound annual growth rate of 94% over five years. This growth highlights the commercial viability of its integrated education-to-employment pipeline.
The company's success is fueled by a marketing strategy that emphasizes access to the U.S. job market over traditional academic achievements. By providing a comprehensive suite of services that includes entry into the U.S. education system, a pathway to legal work authorization and direct job placement with American companies, Miles serves effectively as an education consultant, visa facilitator, labor supplier and offshore partner. This multi-faceted approach enables the company to capture commercial value throughout the student-to-worker transition.
A key modification to its model involved redesigning degree programs to enhance student eligibility for the STEM framework of Optional Practical Training. To obtain eligibility for the STEM OPT extension, Miles collaborated with U.S. universities to provide STEM-designated Master's programs in accounting, partnering with institutions such as Michigan State University, Rutgers University, Case Western Reserve University and the University of California, Riverside.
Although accounting, one of Miles' primary offerings, is not classified as a STEM field by the Department of Homeland Security, the company worked with these universities to integrate data-centric courses like business analytics and information systems, an enhancement that allowed these programs to achieve STEM OPT designation, in turn extending U.S. work authorization for international graduates from 12 to 36 months.
Miles marketed its services to U.S. employers as an efficient workforce solution, highlighting advantages like "visa-free hiring" and "visa-less talent access," which appeal to employers seeking graduates already authorized to work under Optional Practical Training.
Building the pipeline
Miles Education has developed several subsidiaries and program services that significantly contribute to its full-cycle success in the international education and labor markets.
Miles STEM Pathway, for example, promotes the advantages of three years of work without visa sponsorship, effectively transforming a non-STEM accounting degree into a STEM-designated program by integrating data analytics.
Through the STEM Pathway program, Miles has positioned itself as a key player in the global education and labor sectors by connecting academic pathways to employment opportunities. The integration of STEM elements into non-STEM degrees has improved job prospects, establishing Miles as both an education provider and a facilitator of labor-market access through its Ed-Work model, which combines academic enrollment with employment placement.
Likewise, Miles's subsidiary Miles Talent Hub provides pre-vetted, work-ready candidates who do not require sponsorship or labor condition applications, enabling cost savings and facilitating rapid team scaling. This approach has established student visa work authorizations as a viable hiring option.
In the U.S., Indiana's CPA Society's Vendor Directory, for example, highlights Miles' pool of over 1,200 international graduate accountants available for three years without the need for visa sponsorship.
Miles Talent Hub also promotes its Placement Drive program as a direct hiring pipeline into U.S. accounting and finance firms, providing international graduates with competitive starting salaries. Key partners include EisnerAmper, BPM and major tech companies including Amazon and Microsoft, all of which highlight successful alumni placements. Additionally, the company leverages its connections with the Indian "Big Four" – Deloitte India, EY India, PwC India and KPMG India – to develop a robust foreign labor channel into the U.S. market.
Miles Education's Dual Coursework program, provided through its U.S. Washington-based subsidiary, Futurense Technologies US Pathways allows candidates to complete some coursework in India and avoid standard entrance exams, including the English language tests typically required for F-1 visas for studying at U.S. universities. This approach not only minimizes the educational requirements in the U.S., but also expedites the transition to employment.
In a story published by English-language Indian news site News 24 Futurense's US Pathway is characterized as disrupting traditional study abroad models by cultivating strategic partnerships, providing scholarships and streamlining master's degree processes for Indian talent. This involves collaborations with top-ranked universities in the United States, including Case Western Reserve University, DePaul University, Drexel University, Rutgers, SUNY Buffalo and others in the pipeline.
Futurense founder Raghav Gupta remarked, "Unfortunately, studying abroad has evolved into a societal privilege, inaccessible to Indians due to exorbitant tuition fees, complex systems and high entry barriers. The numbers were distressing and something had to be done to make the U.S. masters and its market available to all deserving candidates in India. This is why we created India's very own Pathway program."
In addition to their rapid-degree programs, reportedly Futurense provides a "tailor-made" untapped talent pool sourced through unconventional methods that can be onboarded in as little as 48 hours and can save employers up to 65% on their costs.
Offshoring careers: Completing the Miles labor cycle
When students' OPT and STEM OPT work authorization periods near expiration, Miles has facilitated the next stage, transferring workers to offshore operations in India via its affiliate, Miles Talent Hub. Through this model, companies could retain trained personnel at even lower wage rates, sidestepping U.S. immigration complexities altogether.
What began as a student visa for academic pursuit frequently ended in permanent offshore labor substitution, a transformation few policymakers anticipated when these programs were created.
Conclusion: A system quietly rewritten
The international student F-1 visa and Optional Practical Training programs were introduced under the premise of educational exchange – temporary in nature, academic in intent and limited in scope. Federal law makes clear that international student F-1 visa students must pursue full-time study, with no guaranteed right to remain in the United States for work. Optional Practical Training was created as a training benefit, not as a labor source.
Yet Miles Education's model operates at the opposite end of that framework. Rather than focusing on education for its own sake, its approach views education as a pathway to long-term work authorization. By integrating STEM-designated admissions, immigration consulting, U.S. job placement and offshore continuity into a single, cohesive pipeline, Miles functions more as a private labor channel than as a traditional academic provider. While Miles frequently markets its program as a solution to help address America's "skills gap" crisis, the model is strategically designed to make India "the powerhouse of talent."
As a final consideration: If a program designed for temporary academic training now facilitates long-term labor substitution, bypasses wage standards and government oversight, and encourages the offshoring of U.S. jobs while offering no protections for American workers, then the question becomes unavoidable:
Why is it still allowed?
As companies optimize for cost savings and compliance avoidance, and as intermediaries design business models that extract value from each regulatory blind spot, the intended purpose of these programs fades further and further from their original intent. If the outcomes result in tangible harm to American graduates and the irreversible loss of opportunities, it highlights not only a policy failure, but also the need for a critical national decision.
The international student F-1 visa and Optional Practical Training programs were not created to displace Americans, yet today they are routinely used in ways that do precisely that, and on an increasingly wide scale.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Under Joe Biden, the federal government was weaponized against Christians and other people of faith.
A SWAT team was dispatched to arrest a father who protested the killing of the unborn.
Traditional Catholics were described as domestic terrorists.
Law-abiding pro-life organizations were described with the same defamatory claim.
Multiple incidents of violence against pro-life organizations were ignored.
President Donald Trump, on taking office for his second term, made clear that would change. He issued pardons and established new priorities for prosecutions.
And now he's gone further, setting up and appointing prominent faith leaders to a new Religious Liberty Commission.
Religious freedom, after all, was part of why the United States was founded.
"The principle of religious liberty was enshrined in American law with the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1791. Since that time, the Constitution has protected the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans' first freedom," he noted.
He explained in the past few years, "some Federal, State, and local policies have threatened America's unique and beautiful tradition of religious liberty. These policies attempt to infringe upon longstanding conscience protections, prevent parents from sending their children to religious schools, threaten loss of funding or denial of non-profit tax status for faith-based entities, and single out religious groups and institutions for exclusion from governmental programs. Some opponents of religious liberty would remove religion entirely from public life. Others characterize religious liberty as inconsistent with civil rights, despite religions' vital roles in the abolition of slavery; the passage of Federal civil rights laws; and the provision of indispensable social, educational, and health services."
He said the new commission shall report on the "foundations of religious liberty in America, the impact of religious liberty on American society, current threats to domestic religious liberty, strategies to preserve and enhance religious liberty protections for future generations, and programs to increase awareness of and celebrate America's peaceful religious pluralism."
Focal points will be "First Amendment rights of pastors, religious leaders, houses of worship, faith-based institutions, and religious speakers; attacks across America on houses of worship of many religions; debanking of religious entities; the First Amendment rights of teachers, students, military chaplains, service members, employers, and employees; conscience protections in the health care field and concerning vaccine mandates; parents' authority to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children, including the right to choose a religious education; permitting time for voluntary prayer and religious instruction at public schools; Government displays with religious imagery; and the right of all Americans to freely exercise their faith without fear or Government censorship or retaliation."
Several officials, such as the attorney general, will be ex officio members, but the chairman is Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who has battled critical race theory, DEI practices and worked to place "In God We Trust" in the state senate.
Several members who have high profiles include Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York; Franklin Graham, president of Samaritan's Purse; and Ben Carson, a pediatric neurosurgeon who was secretary of Housing during the first Trump administration.
Others include Ryan T. Anderson, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center; Bishop Robert Barron, of Word on Fire ministry; Carrie Prejean Boller, former Miss California USA and author of "Still Standing: The Untold Story of My Fight Against Gossip, Hate, and Political Attacks;" Allyson Ho, an appellate lawyer. Phil McGraw, host of Dr. Phil; Eric Metaxas, speaker, radio host and author of many books; Kelly Shackelford of First Liberty Institute; Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, of Congregation Shearith Israel; and Paul White, founder of Paula White Ministries.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Long have there been questions about how some of America's elected leaders acquire so much wealth.
While those who seek seats in Congress generally come from a background of political or business successes, and their salaries, currently $174,000 for members, are far above the average for Americans, still questions arise because after a number of years in office, some report net worth of not just tens of millions of dollars but hundreds of millions.
The result is obvious: questions about insider trading, because they are the ones who set policy and establish actions that actually change the economics of certain industries or investments, and they have advance knowledge of their own plans.
One such situation involved two-time House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, when reports confirmed she pushed billions in federal aid for electric vehicles and her husband's stock in Tesla, an EV manufacturer, surged in value.
So U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., is proposing a new law that would crack down on such situations that certainly create the appearance of conflicts of interest and insider knowledge.
And he's calling it the PELOSI Act, an acronym for "Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments."
It would bar members, and their families, from trading stocks while in office.
A report at American Greatness explained, "The name of the act is a direct nod in the direction of 20 term Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) whose net worth has soared from $160,000 when she was first elected in 1987 to more than $140 million in 2024." That's an increase in her worth of more than $3.5 million, per year.
Her husband was described in the report as an investor "who has made significant financial gains on stock trades that some speculate may have been based on insider information."
President Donald Trump has said he would sign the bill if it arrives on his desk.
"Americans have seen politician after politician turn a profit using information not available to the general public. It's time we ban all members of Congress from trading and holding stocks and restore Americans' trust in our nation's legislative body," Hawley explained.
The plan bans lawmakers and their spouses from purchasing, selling or holding stocks during the time that the lawmaker is in office.
Previous reports have confirmed that Pelosi, for example, saw her portfolio grow nearly 71% between Dec. 29, 2023, and Dec. 30, 2024. That compares to the S&P 500's 24.9% return for the period.
"Pelosi outdid many of the world's oldest and largest hedge funds in 2024, including Citadel, which had $66 billion in assets under management as of December, and Discovery Capital, which has been around for over 25 years and had $15 billion in assets under management at its peak. She also outperformed legendary investor Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, more than doubling its 27.1% 2024 return," the Daily Caller News Foundation has reported.
A spokesman for Pelosi's office said Pelosi does not own stocks, and has "no prior knowledge or subsequent involving in any transactions."
But the report added, "Pelosi has made other shrewd trades in the past, unloading more than $1.5 million worth of stock in Google's holding company Alphabet one month before the Department of Justice announced an antitrust lawsuit against the tech giant."
Reports confirmed that in 2023, Pelosi made a 65% profit on her stock trading portfolio.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump says pollsters for major media companies including the New York Times, Washington Post and Fox News should be investigated for election fraud, as he expresses outrage at recent surveys about his approval rating.
In a Monday message on Truth Social, Trump stated: "Great Pollster John McLaughlin, one of the most highly respected in the industry, has just stated that The Failing New York Times Poll, and the ABC/Washington Post Poll, about a person named DONALD J. TRUMP, ME, are FAKE POLLS FROM FAKE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS.
"The New York Times has only 37% Trump 2024 voters, and the ABC/Washington Post Poll has only 34% Trump Voters, unheard of numbers unless looking for a negative result, which they are.
"These people should be investigated for ELECTION FRAUD, and add in the FoxNews Pollster while you're at it. They are Negative Criminals who apologize to their subscribers and readers after I WIN ELECTIONS BIG, much bigger than their polls showed I would win, loose (sic) a lot of credibility, and then go on cheating and lying for the next cycle, only worse.
"They suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, and there is nothing that anyone, or anything, can do about it. THEY ARE SICK, almost only write negative stories about me no matter how well I am doing (99.9% at the Border, BEST NUMBER EVER!), AND ARE TRULY THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! I wish them well, but will continue to fight to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
On Sunday, a poll by ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos claimed "Trump has the lowest 100-day job approval rating of any president in the past 80 years, with public pushback on many of his policies and extensive economic discontent, including broad fears of a recession."
ABC noted: "Yet he still beats the Democrats in Congress in terms of trust to handle the nation's main problems."
"Thirty-nine percent of respondents in this ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll said they approve of how Trump is handling his job as president, down 6 percentage points from February, while 55% said they disapprove.
"The previous low in approval for a president at or near 100 days in office, in polls dating to 1945, was Trump's 42% in 2017."
Interestingly, on April 16, CNN polling analyst Harry Enten dispelled the notion some Democrats have claimed that a huge segment of Americans regret giving Donald Trump their vote in November.
"The bottom line is, for all this talk of Trump voters regretting their vote, in the numbers it really just doesn't show up," Enten said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A California dad's account of getting billed more for his daughter's medically needed ambulance ride because he has insurance has gone viral, with millions watching and hearing his stunning report.
It's because of a new state law that requires a "discount" for uninsured people, but in his case, the process billed a man four times as much because he has insurance. His insurance paid only a portion.
It is the Gateway Pundit that said it was "the latest example of how backward and broken California's Democrat-run healthcare system has become.
It is Robby Witt who went to TikTok with his story.
He initially was billed $600 for the ride. Then, when he informed officials he had insurance, his bill was jacked up to $2,342, of which is insurance paid less than $1,100, leaving the rest for him.
"This is not satire. This is the state of healthcare in America—a lifesaving ambulance ride for my daughter. The state of California is penalizing citizens who have insurance," he said.
He explained to the operator he got the bill for $600, then provided insurance information, and was billed more than double.
The first showed the state-mandated discount, he is told.
"Can I go back to the discount without the insurance?" he asks.
No, he is told. "Since you're insured, you're not eligible for the discount."
How about canceling the insurance?
Not good enough, because that would have had to have been done before the service was needed, he's told.
"You're only eligible for the discount if you're uninsured," he is told.
He's told, "This is just a new law that started in 2024—AB 716. The law is that you receive a discount if you're uninsured. When we first send an invoice to the patient, we bill them as if they're uninsured. If you're insured, unfortunately, you're not eligible for the discount."
The Gateway Pundit noted Witt was interviewed by Fox:
"Your whole life, you've been told, right? Like, you want to buy health insurance so that if something – God forbid – happens, then you will get a lower rate than if you didn't have the insurance. Like, that's what we've all been told our whole lives. And then the exact opposite happened. My real problem, I guess, is that it's based off of insurance and why this bill wasn't written based off of income… So in fact, you could have a higher-income family than me who decides to say, you know what? We're not going to buy insurance. And now, all of a sudden, their ambulance bills are going to be cheaper, even though they're higher income."
He noted, "Sometimes when they go to legislate these things, I don't know if they ran out of IQ points to get it done, but it just doesn't make sense to me that you would offer discounts based on whether someone's insured and not based off of their W-2 income."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An American woman in an American city trying to purchase American food from an American restaurant has been denied service.
For speaking English.
Alexandria Montgomery kept trying, explaining, "Don't tell me you can't take my order because you don't speak English."
To no avail.
She posted her video online, and columnist Todd Starnes opined, "It seems to me that anyone who moves to America and refuses to learn our language should be deported. Without a common language we can't have a sovereign nation nor can we order the delicious Cheesy Gordita Crunch."
The situation developed at a Taco Bell drive-through in Hialeah, Florida.
"Nobody here speaks English? Nobody in the back speaks English? So you can't take my order," Montgomery said.
The workers clearly understood much of what Montgomery said, but they responded in Spanish, and shaking their heads no.
"She doesn't want to help me because she don't speak English. But you know the menu. You work here, so you would know what I'm talking about if I say I want number six on the menu. You understand what I'm saying? Like, you just don't completely shut me out cuz you don't speak English, that's not fair," Montgomery told them.
The corporation later apologized and offered a gift card. The situation "does not meet our customer experience expectations."
She told a local reporter, "I understand everyone in Miami doesn't speak English, and that's fine, but if she was willing to work with me, I think the outcome would've been different."
Social media commenters suggested ICE will be investigating, and "This is wrong on every level."
"Devastating managerial miscalculation. Hired and scheduled too many people who don't speak English. Oops!" said another.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A lawyer for parents calling for protections for their religious rights has told justices on the Supreme Court the practices by the school district in Montgomery County, Maryland, don't involve "exposure" to children of its LGBT ideologies.
"It's indoctrination."
"Our clients' faith teaches they shouldn't expose children during their years of innocence to instruction about sexuality without moral context," Becket lawyer Eric Baxter told the justices. "That's not just exposure — it's indoctrination."
A report from the Washington Examiner pointed out that at least five of the justices appeared to be willing to be granting protections for parents' religious rights in the fight.
The dispute is over the decision by school officials to push LGBT ideologies to children as young as three years old, and then refuse permission for parents to opt their children out of indoctrination that would violate their religious faith.
Bringing the case was a coalition of Muslim, Christian and Jewish parents.
"Several justices appeared sympathetic to the parents' concerns, especially regarding the young age of the students. Justice Samuel Alito noted that some of the books were approved for children as young as three or four years old," the report said.
Baxter explained Montgomery County's curriculum imposed a "uniquely coercive" environment on much younger children, in part by designing instruction to "disrupt cisnormativity:" and challenge traditional gender beliefs.
Leftists on the court argued for giving the school district absolute authority to decide what its mandatory lessons would include, the report noted. "Justice Elena Kagan warned that granting such a right whenever a parent has a sincere religious objection could effectively turn every classroom into a battlefield."
Baxter explained there are three levels of violation in the district program: Substantial interference with religious upbringing, pressure to abandon beliefs to access a public benefit, and discriminatory treatment, such as granting opt-outs for some religious views but not others."
The Daily Caller News Foundation explained Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that Maryland was founded on religious liberty, but now appears intent on denying it.
"Maryland was founded on religious liberty and religious tolerance, a haven for Catholics escaping persecution from persecution in England going back to 1649," the justice said. "I guess I'm surprised, given that this is the hill we're going to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty."
The arguments revealed the district does allow opt-outs for musical performances, dissections, high school sex ed classes, and more, but refuses to allow them for the books used to indoctrination young children.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that the district presents the LGBT ideology as fact, and that's not the same as simply exposing students to an idea.