This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A pro-abortion activist acting as a federal judge has ruled, again, that American taxpayers must keep giving money to help the profit-loss margin for Planned Parenthood businesses, and the ruling already is facing a challenge.
It is the American Center for Law and Justice that cited the "sweeping order" from Indira Talwani, who ruled "once again" to block Congress from setting spending priorities, and removing Planned Parenthood as a recipient of federal Medicaid dollars.
Talwani, whose earlier pro-abortion funding ruling was struck down on appeal, said in a new 45-page claim that 22 states and the District of Columbia deserve an injunction that requires the continued tax funding of abortionists, even though Congress decided otherwise.
The ACLJ, which has been participating in the litigation, explained, "Congress has the unquestioned constitutional authority to decide how federal dollars are allocated. The judiciary does not get to override those decisions or insulate favored organizations from the consequences of federal policy. Especially not when the organization at issue is the nation's largest abortion provider."
The legal team said it would file a court briefing as soon as possible, as "Congress' spending authority and the integrity of our constitutional structure must be defended."
The spending limit is included in Section 71113 of the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Act.
"If the judge's name sounds familiar, it should. This is the same judge who, just months ago, issued two extraordinarily broad injunctions in favor of Planned Parenthood – first shielding a subset of affiliates from Congress' defunding statute, and then expanding her order to cover every Planned Parenthood affiliate nationwide," the ACLJ documented.
It filed briefs at that time "explaining why Congress acted well within its constitutional authority when it chose to restrict federal Medicaid funds from going to organizations that perform elective abortions. We warned then that the district court's reasoning was dangerously flawed and would, if left uncorrected, upend Congress' control of federal spending."
At that time the 1st U.S. Circuit Court intervened, and canceled Talwani's pro-abortion activism in the case.
Now the abortion advocates have claimed, in new arguments, that Section 71113 is "vague."
Talwani based her claims, the ACLJ explained, on the Spending Clause.
"Under Supreme Court precedent, when Congress imposes conditions on federal funding, it must speak with sufficient clarity so states may knowingly accept the terms. According to the district court, Section 71113 did not meet that standard. The judge concluded that states lacked clarity on who qualifies as a 'prohibited entity,' how to assess multistate Medicaid expenditures, and what it means for a provider to be 'primarily engaged' in certain reproductive health services," the ACLJ said.
The fight is over tax funding for abortionists, and Planned Parenthood's repeated claim that it has a constitutional right to demand money from taxpayers.
"Congress' intent was unmistakable: Federal Medicaid dollars should not subsidize entities that perform abortions outside the narrow bounds of the Hyde Amendment. That condition is not in any way ambiguous; it is clear," the ACLJ said.
The Washington Examiner said Talwani's new order came "despite a federal appeals court lifting her previous halt on the law in a different lawsuit."
The report explained, "Talwani paused her order for seven days to allow for appeal, meaning the provision will not be blocked until that time has passed. She also stood firm on her rationale for why she granted the injunction in the case brought by Planned Parenthood, which is currently paused by a federal appeals court."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
After President Donald Trump called U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., "garbage" at a Tuesday Cabinet meeting, various media representatives have asked the congresswoman about his remarks.
One reporter caught up with Omar on Capitol Hill as she waited for an elevator, asking the Somalia native, "Have you begun packing your bags for Somalia?"
Addressing the recent scandal in Omar's home state involving the stealing of at least $1 billion in taxpayer funds to benefit Somalis both here and in Africa, Trump remark, "I don't want 'em in our country, I'll be honest with you.
"Somebody will say, 'Oh that's not politically correct.' I don't care. I don't want 'em in our country. Their country's no good for a reason. Their country stinks. … I could say that about other countries too."
Trump added, "We're gonna go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage to our country. Ilhan Omar is garbage. She's garbage. Her friends are garbage."
The video from activist Laura Loomer has Omar responding, "I'm not going anywhere. … I'll be here longer than Trump!
"He's an old man losing his mind," said said, adding, "Hope he gets help."
WATCH:
Omar told MS NOW that Trump was "racist, a bigot, xenophobic and Islamophobic."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Ten Commandments, although cited repeatedly by America's Founding Fathers and widely recognized as the moral code on which the U.S. was founded, in recent years have faced an orchestrated suppression campaign.
A decade ago, Roy Moore, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, facilitated a recognition of the moral code in the state's court building, and was removed from office for that.
He was promptly re-elected by voters to the same post.
Now the fight over those laws from God is pending in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
It is First Liberty Institute and Heather Gebelin Hacker of Hacker Stephens LLP who have filed an amicus brief with the court on behalf of 46 members of Congress including Sen. Ted Cruz, Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson, and Rep. Chip Roy.
They are supporting the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
"First Liberty's recent Supreme Court victories in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District make clear that displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools is constitutional," explained Kelly Shackelford, chief of First Liberty.
"Our religious heritage and the best of the nation's history and traditions acknowledge the Ten Commandments as an important symbol of law and moral conduct with both religious and secular significance. Government hostility to religion and our religious history is not the law."
The issue is that judges at the entry level of the federal court system have stopped laws in Texas and Louisiana that call for posting the rules in schools.
In 2024, Louisiana adopted HB 71, which requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools and colleges that receive public funding. That law was partially struck down earlier this year. Texas passed SB 10 in May, requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in school classrooms. A federal judge in San Antonio issued an injunction against the implementation of the bill in select school districts, First Liberty explained.
The brief explains, "As Justice Gorsuch warned in American Legion, if individuals 'could invoke the authority of a federal court to forbid what they dislike for no more reason than they dislike it . . . Courts would start to look more like legislatures, responding to social pressures rather than remedying concrete harms, in the process supplanting the right of the people and their elected representatives to govern them-selves.' If mere 'offense' suffices for standing to challenge a law, any number of legitimate legislative actions could be held up for years in litigation, which is obviously of concern to Amici."
The briefing explains the oddity of the arguments from those opposing the Ten Commandments: that there is no reason except that they "dislike" the rules.
"In other words, because the students will have to see something they disagree with or that is 'unwelcome,' that suffices for constitutional injury," the filing states.
"Both the district court's decision in this case and the panel decision in Roake are wrong and the theory of standing they embrace is inconsistent with Article III of the Constitution."
And the legal failings go further, "Lower courts invented offended observer standing" back in the 1970s, the filing said. Under that Lemon test, thousands of lawsuits followed, and that precedent was overturned.
"Acknowledging the role religion played in our country's founding and our system of laws is consistent with practices at the time of the Founding and ratification of the First Amendment. … While that may offend some, the Supreme Court has made it clear: 'offense does not equate to coercion,' and therefore does not violate the Establishment Clause."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Pro-life pregnancy centers do, in fact, have constitutional speech rights.
That's from a ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges unanimously affirmed the rights of those New York centers to tell pregnant women about the abortion pill reversal protocol.
The decision keeps in place a lower court's block of New York Attorney General Letitia James' agenda to manipulate business fraud laws to censor that speech.
The process has been proven medically effective if used properly. It provides that the chemical abortion process can be reversed successfully if pursued soon after an abortion pill first is taken.
The decision by a panel of three judges said the centers are "likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim."
"Here, the preliminary injunction serves to secure the First Amendment rights of the NIFLA plaintiffs by allowing them to make religiously and morally motivated statements that provide information about APR to women who may wish to attempt to counteract the effects of an abortion initiated by oral medication," wrote Circuit Judge Bianco.
The case is National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. James, and in it, the plaintiffs, with a network of 51 centers, sued James for illegally targeting pregnancy centers to censor pro-life viewpoints she disfavors.
James previously had sued 11 other pregnancy centers to try to force them to be silence.
Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that the "weaponization" of fraud statutes to censor pregnancy centers is viewpoint-based discrimination and an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Liberty Counsel, which has represented other pro-life pregnancy centers in different cases, said it submitted the brief to help these organizations retain the freedom and autonomy to offer life-saving medical aid for children in the womb, including the right to speak and promote APR.
James had claimed that it was commercial speech, despite the fact that the centers offer the protocol for nothing.
James' response? "Someone" has to pay.
The decision said James failed to present any constitutional plan for "regulating" such statements, so an injunction preventing her attacks was appropriate.
The protocol uses progesterone, a naturally occurring hormone that has been used safely and effectively for decades to prevent miscarriage and preterm labor. Progesterone can potentially reverse the effects of the abortion pill Mifepristone if a woman changes her mind within 72 hours after taking the drug.
Mifepristone is used in the nation's abortion industry to kill the unborn child.
Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver said, "The ruling by the U.S. Second Circuit Court is a victory for women and unborn children. New York's attempt to censor life-saving treatment by weaponizing business fraud laws is blatantly unconstitutional."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As President Donald Trump has worked to secure America's borders and remove from the United States those inside its borders illegally, especially criminal illegal aliens, the attacks on those officers enforcing those laws, in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, have exploded.
By thousands of threats and attacks in recent months.
Now the federal government has revealed that two brothers allegedly plotting an attack that was to have killed ICE officers have been arrested.
And one of them was employed as an assistant principal at a high school.
According to an announcement from the Department of Homeland Security, arrested were John Wilson Bennett and Mark Booth Bennett, both American citizens.
They allegedly were "planning to carry out attacks against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents."
The case developed when a Virginia police officer overheard the brothers "discussing plans to 'kill police officers and ICE agents,'" DHS confirmed.
Mark Bennett was also overheard saying he was planning to meet with likeminded individuals in Las Vegas, Nev., to purchased firearms with explosive rounds to carry out the attacks, DHS revealed.
The investigation was launched by the DHS and Virginia Beach police just days ago.
It was on Nov. 19 that Mark Bennett was arrested at the Norfolk International Airport where he was scheduled to depart on a flight to Charlotte, North Carolina, en route to Las Vegas, authorities said.
That same day John Bennett was arrested in Virginia Beach, where he has served as the assistant principal of Kempsville High since 2009, they confirmed.
"It's chilling that a human being, much less a child educator, would plot to ambush and kill ICE law enforcement officers—offering such specifics as to getting a high caliber rifle that would pierce the law enforcements' bullet proof vests. Thanks to Homeland Security Investigations and our partners, these men are behind bars," said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
"Our officers are facing a more than 1,150% increase in assaults against them and an 8,000% increase in death threats while they risk their lives every single day to remove the worst of the worst including murderers, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, and gang members. From bounties placed on their heads for their murders, threats to their families, stalking, and doxxing online, our officers are experiencing an unprecedented level of violence and threats against them and their families."
Pending charges against the two include conspiracy to commit malicious wounding.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A self-described Muslim "imam" delivered a rage-filled rant over being seated next to a Jewish speaker at what was supposed to be a multifaith event, then demanded that Muslims in the audience walk out.
They did.
The stunning exhibition of hate was documented by constitutional expert Jonanthan Turley, who has testified to Congress on the nation's founding document, and represented members in court on those issues.
"The City College of New York campus began the latest example of anti-Semitic and extremist speech this week after Abdullah Mady, a student and self-proclaimed Imam, refused to sit next to a Jewish speaker and called for the tips of the fingers of 'the filthy rich' to be cut off in accordance with Shariah," which is Islamic social law, he explained.
"Mady sparked a walkout of Muslim attendees at an interfaith religious event after objecting to the fact that he was seated next to Ilya Bratman, an adjunct lecturer and executive director of Hillel at Baruch College, launching into an anti-Semitic diatribe," Turley explained.
Mady's exhibition included, "I came here to this event not knowing I would be sitting next to a Zionist and this is something I am not going to accept. My people are being killed right now in Gaza. If you're a Muslim, out of strength and dignity, I ask you to exit this room immediately."
About 100 students followed his Shariah-based orders.
Turley also pointed out that Mady was promoting Shariah, pushing for the "tips of the hands of a thief" be cut off to reduce crime.
And he defined those he wants mutilated.
"I'm talking about the elite, the filthy rich, the ones that continue to steal from people as we speak today. Those are the ones that deserve their tips to be cut off," he claimed.
Turley had his own warning, "What is most notable about these hateful words is how figures like Mady are combining Islamic extremism with the extreme economic messaging in New York, where a socialist was just elected New York mayor."
He also commented on Mady's claims that under Shariah, pornography, alcohol, gambling, interest all is gone.
"Indeed, it sounds like Jews, free speech, separation of church and state and capitalism would be 'gone' in the paradise awaiting the United States as a shariah-based system," he said.
The New York Post said the university now is investigating.
A school official said, "The City College of New York has zero tolerance for acts of hate or bigotry of any kind. We are investigating this incident and will promptly take all necessary and appropriate actions to address any such discrimination and remedy its effects."
The report described Mady as delivering "a Jew-hating tirade."
The students who did not walk about, about 20 Jews and Christians, had to be "escorted" out of the room by campus security "to keep them safe while those who walked out in protest gathered outside," the report said.
Student chaplain Joshua Medina, the moderator, apologized to the students for the ugliness of the Muslims.
Mady reportedly has a degree in psychology and now is trying to learning about "translational medicine."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump's use of tariffs to pursue his national security and economic agendas is pending before the Supreme Court, as a number of special interests claimed that only Congress could determine those components of the president's agenda.
He has been successful in reaching a long list of international trade agreements that actually create a more fair platform for American manufacturers and consumers.
And now Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is predicting the president will win that fight.
"Tariffs are going to be a part of this administration's national security and national economic protection of the American people," Lutnick told FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo.
"We are gonna win the case, it's pretty clear."
The Fox Business report said the White House needs access to tariffs to defend American manufacturing from unfair foreign competition.
If the ruling goes against Trump?
"Lutnick said President Donald Trump has 'all sorts of policies and tools' available, referencing provisions in U.S. trade law such as Sections 232, 301 and 338, which allow the government to impose tariffs or other restrictions in the name of national security or to counter unfair trade practices," the report said.
Lutnick was speaking from Brussels where he was meeting with European leaders, including discussions about the cornerstone of Trump's economic agenda.
"One of the ways to prove to the American people how great tariffs are is to have them share in a part of one year's income from these tariffs and that's $2,000 a head for people who need the money," Lutnick added, referencing a plan raised by Trump some weeks ago about a $2,000 dividend from tariff revenue to low and middle income Americans.
Also possible is using the funds to pay down the nation's $38 trillion debt.
Tariff revenues for America have surged since Trump started using them several months ago, a total of $215.2 billion in fiscal year 2025, which ended Sept. 30. Trump's tariffs only were begun a few months earlier.
The few weeks of fiscal 2026 already have produced more than $40 billion, the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A violent woman who attacked an influencer doing on-the-street interviews in New York City has been sued after the local district attorney in Manhattan, Alvin Bragg, failed to prosecute the case.
Bragg, of course, is the leftist who took President Donald Trump to court over an alleged "hush money" case that resulted in the overwhelmingly Democrat jury members delivering a number of convictions against Trump, a case that remains on appeal.
Essentially Bragg alleged there was an unknown and unspecified crime that was furthered by Trump's payment of legal fees to a lawyer then representing him in various civil disputes. In Bragg's scheme, situations that ordinarily would have been misdemeanor records violations, and beyond the statute of limitations, suddenly became felonies. The judge in the case oddly ruled, too, that the jury's verdict didn't have to be unanimous, in contradiction to ordinary court practices.
In the newest dispute aggravated by Bragg's actions, pro-life activist Savannah Craven Antao has sued Brianna J. Rivers, 30, of the Bronx, after Rivers is on video repeatedly smashing Antao in the face.
A report at Fox News said Antao, host of the YouTube channel "Her Patriot Voice" was conducting interviews for Live Action when Rivers repeatedly struck her.
Bragg aggravated the situation by allowing his office to miss a key filing deadline in what could have been a case charging Rivers, the report said.
The complaint was filed in Bronx Supreme Court and explains Antao had to go to the emergency room for stitches after the attack recorded on video, and had more than $3,000 in medical bills.
Lawyers at the Thomas More Society, representing Antao, further charge Rivers "knowingly, willfully and maliciously continued to mock [Savannah] and her views online in order to further inflict emotional distress."
Fox reported, "Craven Antao's attorneys say the influencer has suffered symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and has received hundreds of death threats since the incident. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress."
Rivers had been accused of assault, but the case had to be dismissed when Bragg's office "failed to turn over discovery on time," the report said.
Antao later told Fox News Digital, "I have to look over my shoulder and worry about if somebody who supports her actions — there are a lot of people out there that do — that they're going to try to do something else. … Because what the DA Alvin Bragg himself has shown to people, with letting this case be dropped, is that they can go assault somebody and hurt them if they disagree with them and nothing is going to happen."
Bragg's office had admitted the failure, calling the error it allowed to occur "unacceptable."
Thomas More Society attorney Christopher Ferrara said Bragg's handling of the case forced them to take civil action against Rivers.
"Savannah was violently assaulted for peacefully expressing her pro-life beliefs and then humiliated all over again when the attacker went online to glorify it," he said in a statement. "The D.A.'s office had every opportunity to pursue justice and due to their incompetency or lack of will, failed to prosecute this vicious assault. Their refusal left us with no choice but to file civil action to hold Rivers accountable."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There are a lot of damaging agendas in the United States these days, from promoting the industry that destroys unborn babies to the failed agenda of Joe Biden to bring in millions of illegal immigrants and the LGBT extremism of transgenderism, in which children are given chemicals, even body-mutilating surgeries to try to make them into something they're not – the opposite sex.
And at least part of the fault for those ideologies can be traced directly to "Christian" leaders who are using their own agendas to present "a distorted gospel message."
The comments come from Gary Bauer, who served in the Reagan administration as under secretary of education and head of the Office of Policy Development.
He was president of the Family Research Council, senior vice president of Focus on the Family, and was appointed by President Trump to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.
He has written online at the Dr. James Dobson Family Institute, founded by the late James Dobson, explaining that among Dobson's top priorities was boosting Christian participation in the "privileges and responsibilities of citizenship."
Christian involvement, he believed, is needed to bring about solutions for America's problems.
"But what if some Christian leaders get involved in the public debate only to throw the Bible away and instead side with some of the most radical forces in America? Two groups claiming to speak for Christians recently issued statements that are deeply disturbing," Bauer explained.
The first involves illegal immigration, which was addressed in a recent "special pastor message' from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"It essentially took the side of open borders and opposed the enforcement of our immigration laws. The bishops' statement presented a distorted gospel message," he charged.
He noted the "compassion" for illegal aliens. "But there was no compassion for taxpayers, including Christians who are footing the bill. Yes, Christ loves immigrants, but He loves taxpayers, too," Bauer wrote.
"There was no compassion for the victims of criminal illegal aliens. During the Biden years, not only did the bishops not say anything about victims of criminal illegal aliens, but most of America's media also downplayed those stories. What about poor minority communities that are most at risk from illegal alien crime?"
He cited the leftist campaign now that calls police "fascists" and leaves officers compared to Nazi "storm troopers."
"Where is the bishops' concern for the men and women of our federal immigration enforcement agencies? They are following the laws of the United States, securing our border, and attempting to remove illegal migrants from the country. … There is a massive increase in assaults on law enforcement personnel enforcing our immigration laws, including attempted murder. Their families have been threatened, and the police have been 'doxed,'" he noted.
"Jesus does not love chaos and disorder. I can find nothing in the Bible suggesting that the teachings of Christ call for millions of people to walk into our country without obeying the duly passed laws of our nation. That would turn Jesus into globalist George Soros or Marxist Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. It is a distortion of the gospel," he said, pointing out that many religious leaders in Europe also are adopting the agenda.
Vice President JD Vance has raised similar concerns, explaining at one point, "I believe the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, if they're worried about the humanitarian costs of immigration enforcement, let them talk about the children who have been sex trafficked because of the wide open border of Joe Biden."
The second distortion comes in society's promotions of transgenderism.
"Some leaders of so-called 'mainline' Protestant denominations and some Jewish groups issued a statement that tries to portray Christ as a supporter of the entire transgender agenda. They claim that transgender individuals are being oppressed and that Jesus certainly would not support their oppression," he explained.
"In fact, there is no 'oppression' of trans people. Instead, there is growing opposition to the policy demands of the transgender movement. Jesus would not want boys who 'identify' as girls being allowed to violate the privacy of girls' bathrooms and locker rooms. The American people do not want that either. They reject allowing boys to compete in girls' sports. They don't want their children indoctrinated with transgender ideology in kindergarten or any other adult sexual concepts in elementary school. Jesus would want our children's innocence to be protected," he wrote.
That particular belief system is based on "lies about God's creation."
"The Bible is clear that God created only two sexes—male and female," he said.
The "religious" leaders he cited include the leader of the Unitarian Universalist Association, a self-described "queer, multiracial, AfroLatine first-generation daughter of immigrants," as well as leaders of several other well-known denominations.
"These two examples of misguided leaders using the gospel of Christ to promote radical, destructive policies are reminders that Christians must be wise and discerning, because we live in an age of deception," he wrote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Multiple media reports indicate that a secret plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war has been drafted and just needs to be agreed to by the warring parties.
Steve Witkoff, President Trump's special envoy, hosted Kirill Dmitriev, an adviser to President Putin, for three days in Florida at the end of October to hammer out a 28-point peace plan.
According to the Financial Times, it demands significant concessions from Ukraine, including recognizing Russian as an official state language and giving up its stockpile of U.S. weapons.
Also part of the still officially secret plan is a requirement that Ukraine half the size of its army and surrenders the Donbas region in the eastern part of the nation.
Ukraine would also grant official status to the local branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, reports the Times of London.
Dmitriev said the Kremlin was likely to accept the plan because "we feel the Russian position is really being heard." He told Axios, which first reported the proposal: "It's happening with the background of Russia definitely having additional successes on the battlefield."
This includes a recent Russian attack on western Ukraine, killing at least 25 people, including children.
The talks between Witkoff and Dmitriev appear to suggest Ukraine and Europe have been frozen out of negotiations. "We don't really care about the Europeans," a White House official told Politico. "It's about Ukraine accepting."
To that end, U.S. Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll arrived in Kiev Wednesday to brief President Zelensky whose administration recently has been rocked by corruption charges.