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.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Democrat judge in New Mexico has resigned, fleeing his office, after a suspect, allegedly a member of the violent Tren de Aragua gang from Venezuela, was found living at his home.
A report from Fox News explains, "Doña Ana County Magistrate Judge Joel Cano's resignation letter is dated March 3, but a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) told Fox News Digital it was not received by the Supreme Court and 3rd Judicial District Court until March 31."
The report explained Homeland Security Investigations in Las Cruces started looking into Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, a native of Venezuela, described as an illegal alien and a suspected member of a criminal gang."
The allegations included that he was living with other gang members and "in possession of firearms."
Then, two search warrants were executed at a home that was identified as owned by Cano's wife, Nancy Cano.
"Ortega-Lopez and his roommates were taken into custody, and agents seized four firearms from April Cano's residence.' April Cano is the daughter of Nancy and Joel, court documents state," according to the report.
Further, Ortega-Lopez had posed on social media with various weapons, the report said.
The suspect admitted he entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico in 2023, and was living in an El Paso apartment with others when he met Nancy Cano "to install a glass door for her," the report said.
When he was later evicted from the apartment, the report said, Nancy Cano offered a place for him to live in the back of the home she shared with husband Joel Cano, the report said.
Property records show the home is owned by Nancy and Jose Cano, "who goes by Joel."
Officials said the state Supreme Court has now scheduled a hearing regarding Cano.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'The only thing agents should be armed with are calculators'
House Republicans have begun pushing a plan that would take guns and ammunition away from agents of the Internal Revenue Service.
Likely among the most feared agencies, those agents now have thousands of guns and tons of ammunition.
But a congressman has determined that, "The only thing IRS agents should be armed with are calculators."
A Fox News report explains the plan, called the "Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act," would disarm the agents and their agency.
It would prohibit the commissioner of the IRS from using funds to buy, receive or store firearms and ammunition, and require the bureau to transfer the arms it already has to the administrator of General Services.
From there, they would go to auctions or sales to licensed dealers, the report said.
And taxpayers actually would benefit from the income from those sales.
The plan comes from U.S. Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., who was blunt in his assessment: "The IRS has consistently been weaponized against American citizens, targeted religious organizations, journalists, gun owners, and everyday Americans.
"Arming these agents does not make the American public safer. My legislation, the Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act, would disarm these agents, auction off their guns to Federal Firearms License Owners, and sell their ammunition to the public. The only thing IRS agents should be armed with are calculators."
Cosponsors included GOP Reps. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Mary Miller of Illinois and Clay Higgins of Louisiana.
Moore explained, on social media on Tax Day this year, "Tax Day is a great reminder that it's time for the IRS to stop wasting our taxpayer dollars stockpiling guns and ammo."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A "Saturday Night Live" skit has social media abuzz, as political conservatives praise the segment while progressives pan it.
The premise of the sketch involves two homosexual men who show up at a friend's gathering with a small baby in tow – a surprise to the others in the room. As their friends question them about why, suddenly, the couple has a child, the men berate their questioners with phrases like, "You can't ask that!"
Commentator Charlie Kirk posted an excerpt from the full video:
Many on X were encouraged that the longstanding comedy show was broadening its horizons regarding who it was OK to mock.
One user posted, "I have not laughed at SNL since I was 12. This was funny!"
A conservative woman was not impressed, stating, "SNL is just following the political winds after record low viewership. Let's not support this smut. Make an alternate SNL that doesn't need descriptive sexual humor. We can do better."
Meanwhile, detractors were dismayed.
"SNL gay dad with baby sketch is awful. putting us back years," replied one user.
"The people that want queer people dead already won, must you also validate them by trying to curry their favor? what are you doing. really," said writer Ayesha Siddiqi.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Artificial intelligence is the new web, the new cell phone, the new email, the new laptop, and the new tech that is expected to impact lives in a major way, as all of those earlier advances did.
But it also offers a threat, especially to families, according to a submission from the Family Research Council to the government's ongoing comment period for rules regarding the advances and use of AI.
The comment included a description of an incident uncovered by an ethicist who tested an AI chatbot. The question was about a 13-year-old girl whose 31-year-old "boyfriend" had "invited her on a trip and was talking about having sex with her for the first time."
The chatbot, it was not identified which one was tested, ignored the clear potential for criminal pedophilia, statutory rape, kidnapping, or worse, the report explained.
Instead, the chatbot "offered suggestions on how to make her first time special," FRC noted in its comments.
"Children's brains are still developing, and their emotions tend to run high. The possibility of social isolation for children and teens is even more pronounced and can severely affect their lives for the worse. An AI-saturated world presents new challenges for parents who want to raise children capable of healthy relationships.
"When children interact with AI, they may internalize distorted messages about human relationships and how to treat people. Since chatbots are designed to be addictive, they will often tell children exactly what they want to hear. This can hinder children's ability to handle disagreements, think critically about media, and respect their parents. Relying on AI chatbots will not help children develop into well-rounded individuals or integrate into society effectively. No matter how well-packaged certain apps and chatbots are, AI will never replace real friends, mentors, teachers, and family," the FRC said.
A report from the FRC said the comment on AI rules noted that "chatbots" will have the power "to morph into dangerous technology."
"Family is the foundation of society. Throughout history, major technological advancements — such as industrialization and communications innovations like the cell phone — have significantly impacted how people meet, marry, start families, and raise children. The rise of AI presents opportunities and challenges on a scale we have never encountered before, and they can be difficult to predict," the FRC explained.
The FRC itself was targeted by a leftist a few years ago. A violent criminal charged into its Washington offices with weapons, shooting and injuring a security officer who eventually was able to subdue the attacker.
During the court proceedings, it was revealed the attacker, who picked out the FRC because it was listed, wrongly, on the "hate" map assembled to target Christians and conservatives by the often-sued Southern Poverty Law Center, wanted to kill as many FRC employees as possible that day.
The FRC explained, "In February, Vice President J.D. Vance noted the second Trump administration is drawing up a 'precautionary regulatory regime' to allow broader use of artificial intelligence while assuring it serves everyone's interests."
The council said, however, that for "all Americans to benefit from the technology," any action plan must "prioritize considerations for how AI will affect families and children."
The report said already the "Veterans Administration will now use AI to analyze veterans' health care needs; NASA will use AI to plot space exploration; and the Justice Department will use AI modeling to assess patterns of crime."
"America is an exceptional country, and we can do this the right way. We ought to be careful not to rush into AI development, as we do not fully understand its potential impacts," FRC suggested.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The United States is at odds with Mexico over its allowance of millions of illegal aliens to arrive at, and cross, America's southern border.
Americans further take offense at the tons of drugs, including the dangerous fentanyl, that are shipped from Mexico into the United States.
Then there are the drug cartels themselves, which President Donald Trump now has designated as foreign terrorist organizations.
Now it's water.
President Trump said, "Mexico OWES Texas 1.3 million acre-feet of water under the 1944 Water Treaty, but Mexico is unfortunately violating their Treaty obligation. This is very unfair, and it is hurting South Texas Farmers very badly. Last year, the only Sugar Mill in Texas CLOSED, because Mexico has been stealing the water from Texas Farmers.
"Ted Cruz has been leading the fight to get South Texas the water it is owed, but Sleepy Joe refused to lift a finger to help the Farmers. THAT ENDS NOW! I will make sure Mexico doesn't violate our Treaties and doesn't hurt our Texas Farmers. Just last month, I halted water shipments to Tijuana until Mexico complies with the 1944 Water Treaty. My Agriculture Secretary, Brooke Rollins, is standing up for Texas Farmers, and we will keep escalating consequences, including TARIFFS and, maybe even SANCTIONS, until Mexico honors the Treaty, and GIVES TEXAS THE WATER THEY ARE OWED!"
The Hill explained Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum admitted her country had failed to meet its obligations.
She claimed that was caused by drought.
Cruz confirmed, "I can tell you, Mexico is in the process now of negotiating with the State Department to provide for the water. We're going to get the water. And that's a great victory in America."
The original agreement requires Mexico to send 1.75 million acre-feet of water to the U.S. from the Rio Grande every five years, while the U.S. sends 1.5 million acre-feet of water every year to Mexico from the Colorado River.
An acre-foot of water, by volume, is the water needed to cover one acre of land one foot deep. It's about 326,000 gallons.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Shortly before direct nuclear negotiations are set to begin between the U.S. and Iran in Oman, Tehran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has executed a dramatic political U-turn.
After publicly denouncing talks with Washington as "unwise, irrational and dishonorable" in a televised speech on March 2, he has now quietly agreed to sit at the same negotiating table. This abrupt reversal isn't just a diplomatic maneuver – it reflects the regime's acute fear of internal collapse.
With protests simmering amid economic hardship and a deepening water crisis, Tehran's leadership is facing unprecedented domestic pressure. The fear of a looming uprising, combined with growing international resolve, has forced the regime into a corner.
Iran's appalling global record on executions
According to Amnesty International, Iran was responsible for 64% of all recorded executions worldwide in 2024. That staggering figure reflects a deliberate strategy of mass repression, particularly after the regime lost key regional strongholds – including its strategic influence in Syria and Lebanon.
Khamenei once justified Tehran's involvement in the Syrian conflict by declaring: "If we don't fight there, we'll have to fight here, inside Iran." With that regional buffer eroded, the regime has turned its tools of suppression inward, accelerating executions to instill fear and deter dissent.
Repression fueled by manufactured enemies
Authoritarian regimes often rely on external threats to justify domestic repression. Iran's clerical regime is no different. For over four decades, slogans like "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" have served as both political cover and ideological glue. As one regime insider admitted, "That slogan did more for us than ten intelligence agencies could have."
But the real target of Tehran's brutality has always been internal – the Iranian people and an organized democratic opposition demanding justice and change.
The international cost of silence
Tehran's crimes have long spilled beyond its borders. In 1988, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa that led to the execution of some 30,000 political prisoners – an act widely described as a crime against humanity. But the global community largely turned a blind eye. That inaction emboldened the Khomeini regime, paving the way for further bloodshed in Iraq, Syria and Gaza.
Every time unrest threatens the regime at home, Tehran tries to ignite conflict abroad. Its tactics are predictable. Its brutality, meanwhile, continues to escalate.
Reform is not an option
Rooted in hardline radical theocracy and political absolutism, the Islamic Republic has proven fundamentally incapable of reform. Calls for moderation have either been suppressed or co-opted by the regime to buy time and legitimacy.
Any genuine reform would require freedom of expression, legal accountability and political pluralism – principles that directly contradict the regime's core DNA.
Direct talks: A fracture in the regime's armor
The decision to pursue direct talks with Washington is not just a diplomatic shift – it's a seismic ideological rupture. The regime built its identity on opposition to the West. Now, facing internal collapse, it is compromising the very pillars of its supposed legitimacy.
This contradiction is not lost on the regime's hardliners – including parts of the Revolutionary Guards and intelligence apparatus – who see these negotiations as a betrayal. That tension may soon erupt, opening space for a broader social uprising.
Peace in the region starts with accountability in Iran
Denuclearization is essential, but is not enough. The Iranian people – who have borne the brunt of the regime's brutal repression and whose economic future has been sacrificed on the altar of uranium enrichment – need more than empty gestures. They need real international solidarity.
Back in 2002, it was the Iranian opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, or NCRI, that revealed the regime's secret nuclear sites. Today, NCRI continues to push for regime change – from within. But the international community must take concrete steps for this to occur.
Conditioning political and trade relations on an immediate halt to executions in Iran is one such step. It's not only a moral imperative; it's a strategic necessity to prevent future bloodshed and ever-widening regional instability.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., made an unqualified announcement on CNN: "We encourage people to get the measles vaccine."
He also said government "should not be mandating those," but did not mention any concerns about safety. One might point out that the calculus of risks and benefits is different when there is an outbreak, or that the risk of triggering a neurodevelopmental disorder appears to be less in children older than three years.
Some people have moral concerns about the use of a product developed using aborted human fetuses. In immunosuppressed persons, the vaccine is neither effective nor safe. Children under one year of age are not eligible to be vaccinated with MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine).
Hence, it is important to note, writes Dr. Peter McCullough, that there is an alternative: measles immunoglobulin (Ig), derived from donor blood. This provides passive protection with antibodies for a period of time and can be given to pregnant or susceptible individuals.
A recent review of nine studies involving 660 patients who received either Ig or measles vaccine showed effectiveness ranging from 76%-100% for Ig and from 83%-100% for the vaccine.
Post-exposure prophylaxis is recommended within 6 days for Ig or 72 hours with the vaccine.
This option, which may be safer and morally acceptable to many, should not be ignored.
For additional information: