This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court has used a Florida COVID closure order case to deliver a stunning decision about the government's confiscation of property, setting a huge new precedent for closure orders that became common during the pandemic created by the China virus.
In fact, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that government orders shutting down private beaches during that time period violated the Fifth Amendment's ban on government taking property without compensation.
It is constitutional expert Jonathan Turley who pointed out, "This is a major ruling on takings, including the treatment of the limits as a physical rather than regulatory takings. It could find itself before the Supreme Court on that issue."
The case addressed by the 11th Circuit came from COVID-19 closures in April 2020, when authorities ordered private beaches in Walton County, Florida, closed.
The owners sued under the Constitution's Takings Clause.
That explains "private property" shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that the ordinance, 2020-09, "was neither a physical taking nor a regulatory taking."
The judges said, "This case involves a textbook physical taking: Walton County enacted an ordinance barring the Landowners from entering and remaining on their private property; Walton County's officers physically occupied the Landowners' property; and Walton County's officers excluded the Landowners from their own property under threat of arrest and criminal prosecution. In other words, Walton County wrested the rights to possess, use, and exclude from the Landowners, and it took those rights for itself. That triggers the Landowner's right to just compensation."
Turley pointed out because such constitutional precedents sometimes take years to work out, during a pandemic state and local officials were able to enforce "sweeping limitations on individual and property rights."
He said the Constitution confirms the deep commitment of the Founders to protect property.
"John Adams declared that '[p]roperty must be secured, or liberty cannot exist,'" Turley wrote.
The court explained, "Ordinance 2020-09 physically appropriated the Landowners' property because it barred their physical access to the land. And to enforce the Ordinance, the County entered the Landowners' property at will for the specific purpose of excluding the Landowners. The County's officers parked their vehicles on private property to deter entry, used private property as their own highway, and forced Landowners to vacate their property under threat of arrest. Put simply, the County 'entered upon the surface of the land and t[ook] exclusive possession of it,' thereby triggering the right to just compensation."
The lower court had claimed the ordinance taking control of the property was simply a "use" restriction," but was struck down by the 11th.
"Ordinance 2020-09 prohibited the Landowners from physically accessing their beachfront property under any circumstances. That is different from a restriction on how the Landowners could use property they otherwise physically possessed," the court said.
The ruling built on the Supreme Court's decision in a California case that the owners of private land were allowed to bar union organizers from accessing their property. There, a lower court had held that union organizers were allowed to access the land for a certain number of hours a day and a certain number of days a year in order to be "soliciting support" for their union.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In the wake of her announcement she's quitting Congress, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has jumped to third place on the Polymarket prediction market to be the 2028 Republican presidential nominee.
The Georgia Republican currently stands at 6%, just behind second-place Secretary of State Marco Rubio at 8%, and far behind the current front-runner, Vice President JD Vance who has 55%.
She is ranked ahead of other well-known names, including President Donald Trump, with whom she has had a highly publicized falling out, as well as journalist Tucker Carlson, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and Donald Trump Jr.
But is the MAGA firebrand interested in running?
Time Magazine suggested yes, writing on Saturday: "The Georgia lawmaker has privately told allies that she has considered running for president in 2028, according to two people who have spoken with her directly about the prospect and three others familiar with her thinking.
"The possibility comes amid the dramatic rupture in Greene's relationship with President Donald Trump, which contributed to her decision to announce on Friday that she would resign from the House of Representatives in January."
But Time's article prompted a forceful denial on Sunday from Greene, who called it a "complete lie."
"TIME claims 'sources' told them I'm running for President in 2028, which means this is a complete lie and they made it up because they can't even quote the names of the people who they claim said it. That's not journalism, it's called lying," Greene said in a lengthy statement on X.
"I'm not running for President and never said I wanted to and have only laughed about it when anyone would mention it. If you fell for those headlines, you're still being lulled everyday into psychosis by the Political Industrial Complex that always has an agenda when it does something like this."
She continued: "Running for President requires traveling all over the country, begging for donations all day everyday to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, arguing political talking points everyday to the point of exhaustion, destroying your health and having no personal life in order to attempt to get enough votes to become President all to go to work into a system that refuses to fix any of America's problems.
"The fact that I'd have to go through all that but would be totally blocked from truly fixing anything is exactly why I would never do it. And most importantly, I'm not the kind of person who is willing to make the deals that must be made in order to be allowed to have the title. Again, I'm not motivated by power and titles."
On Friday, Greene posted a video of herself telling supporters, "I will be resigning from office with my last day being January 5, 2026."
Last Sunday, as WorldNetDaily reported, after being labeled by Trump as a "traitor," "fake politician" and "ranting Lunatic," Greene said the commander in chief put a target on her back, placing her very life in danger.
"Being called a 'traitor' isn't just hurtful, it puts a target on my back and puts my life in danger," she said.
Greene told CNN's Dana Bash, "The most hurtful thing he said which is absolutely untrue is he called me a traitor and that is so extremely wrong. And those are the types of words used that can radicalize people against me and put my life in danger."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Although the U.S. military's mandate that service members receive the COVID-19 shot, implemented under the Biden administration, has been widely deemed "unlawful as implemented," and while many calls have since emerged for pardons or amnesty for those service members negatively impacted, these urgent requests have largely been ignored.
On June 2, 2025, representatives from Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services, Inc. (STARRS), the MacArthur Society of West Point Graduates and the Calvert Task Group signed on to a letter sent to President Donald Trump.
The letter accurately stated that "mandatory COVID shots from 2021 to 2023, as well as the earlier anthrax vaccinations from 1997 to 2003, were formally declared by federal officials to be 'unlawful as implemented' and 'illegal,' respectively."
For this reason, the seven signatories respectfully requested that President Trump "order full and unconditional pardons, amnesty and remedies for all Service Members negatively impacted, in any way, by the military's anthrax and COVID mandates."
Regarding the letter, WorldNetDaily interviewed three top people from the STARRS organization. Air Force Col. (Ret.) Ron Scott, president and CEO of STARRS, confirmed that the letter was sent via certified mail with a return receipt requested.
Army Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Joe Arbuckle, STARRS vice chairman-at-large of the board, noted "it has been over five months since our letter was sent to the president requesting that he grant pardons and/or amnesty to those who refused the unlawful Covid and anthrax vaccinations," and to date, there has been no response.
Mike Rose, STARRS executive vice president and general counsel, asserted the president should grant pardons or amnesty to everyone penalized by the military for not receiving the COVID-19 shot, which the government now acknowledges was unjust and illegal as implemented. He argued, "The failure to give pardons/amnesty prolongs the irreparable damage caused by the illegal military COVID mandate, and the failure to even answer requests for pardons/amnesty makes military members feel no one cares to remedy timely the harms the government illegally caused."
To assess the interest in pardons or amnesty among service members themselves, this reporter recently conducted a small-scale, informal survey. All participants were active members of the U.S. military, representing all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces.
When asked whether President Trump and War Secretary Hegseth should consider amnesty or pardons for service members whose records were adversely impacted by the COVID-19 shot, 65 out of 66 respondents, or 98.5%, answered "Yes." The reason for their answer hinges largely on the fact that 58 out 66 respondents, or 88%, also believe the shot was unlawful – and many informed their chain of command of this while requesting accommodation or exemption for the shot.
About 70% of the respondents who answered the question referred to a pertinent law, 10 U.S. Code § 1107a, in their requests for religious accommodations and/or medical exemptions, declaring the shot mandate illegal.
10 U.S. Code § 1107a states that individuals must be informed of their right to accept or decline the administration of a product. In the case of a product authorized for emergency use, like the previously mandated COVID-19 shot, only the president can waive this federal regulation. The code was not waived by former President Joe Biden.
The Department of Defense clearly ignored the law. Will Secretary Pete Hegseth's Department of War right the wrongs?
Taking a step in that direction, Arbuckle pointed out that the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Personnel and Readiness is in the process of forming two task forces to "address some of the vaccination remedy issues" through the review of policy development and implementation of the military's now-rescinded COVID-19 shot mandate.
Arbuckle also added there is "good news and bad news" coming from the Department of Veterans Affairs. On the positive side, he said, "899 cases have had their discharges upgraded to honorable, allowing them GI Bill benefits from the VA." However, he argued, "it appears this is happening based upon individual service members going through the appeal process using the sluggish Boards for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) process.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There's hope for a future for New York City under a mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, who follows socialist, some even say communist, values, and President Donald Trump, who has been accused by Mamdani supporters of being "fascist":
The two political leaders, one heading a city and the other heading the nation, met for talks on Friday only about 10 days after Mamdani was elected.
At stake is the future of the city that has gone far left in recent elections but remains a leading municipality in America.
According to a report from one network, ABC, the two met in the Oval Office and both had good things to say.
"I just want to congratulate. I think you're going to have hopefully a really great mayor and the better he does, the happier I am. I will say there's no difference in party. There's no difference in anything. And we're going to be helping him, to make everybody's dream come true, having a strong and very safe New York and congratulations, Mr. Mayor," Trump said.
Mamdani, meanwhile, followed up by meeting with Trump after promising that he would be willing to work with Trump.
"It was a productive meeting focused on a place of shared admiration and love, which is New York City and the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers," Mamdani said. Trump has spent building skyscrapers in New York, and is known for his support for the city.
They both talked about affordability, which is becoming a problem for more and more people following Joe Biden's tenure in the White House when inflation exploded to as much as 9.1%.
Mamdani actually is a member of the Democratic Socialist organization, but Trump is anything but the "fascist" his critics claim.
Trump noted that Mamdani is "different" but actually ran a successful campaign, "And we all know that runs are not easy."
He said the goal is to make New York strong.
Mamdani had thrown out any conciliatory attitude he had held when he was elected, addressing Trump on election night with, "So hear me, President Trump, when I say this: To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us."
The president does hold a significant power of the purse in a lot of federal programs that provide funding to New York, and has suggested he would withhold that support if needed.
Mamdani has, meanwhile, suggested taxing white people, providing free transit services in the city and other projects that even his fellow liberals do not support. The New York governor has suggested a block on Mamdani plans to boost taxes.
Mamdani also has claimed he'll enforce international law and arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on orders of an international court, if he comes to New York, prompting a scolding from commentators who say Mamdani will earn quickly that he's bound to follow the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump on social media has pointed out that the penalty for the refusal of military troops to obey orders is serious.
Punishment up to and including execution.
The response from the president came after a list of Democrats made a video urging federal employees, including members of the military, to refuse to obey what they called, without a definition, "illegal" orders.
Presumably that would be orders from the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, with which the Democrats disagreed, most likely for political purposes.
Leftist California Gov. Gavin Newsom claimed it was a call by Trump to "hang Democratic lawmakers who spoke out against Trump." But their video clearly is more than speaking out "against Trump," it's a call for the military to stage an insurrection based on the Democrats' belief that Trump orders are "illegal."
Trump's comment triggering Newsom was, "HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!"
In fact, the penalty for treason or insurrection during the Revolutionary War could have been capital punishment.
A report at Mediaite said the Democrats' call to insurrection was in a video, "shared by Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), featured appearances from herself, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), as well as Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), and Maggie Goodlander (D-NH) — all of whom are veterans of the military or intelligence community."
"We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community. The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution. Don't give up the ship." wrote Slotkin in her caption.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, the Texas Democrat who is fighting to keep her seat amid a redistricting war in her state, has delivered some apparently unintentional laugh lines in Congress, and to Congress.
She claimed while the House was voting on a censure move against Rep. Stacey Plaskett, D-Virgin Islands, who was revealed to have been texting with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing, that a long list of Republicans and GOP groups took money from Epstein.
They did, only the records show the donations were from Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, not the convicted sex criminal who died in a New York jail awaiting further charges.
Crockett's comments were described as "disastrously wrong" and social media comments pointed out, "And I once had my house painted by a guy named John Kennedy. What's her point?"
And there was immediate discussion about "censure" for her.
The Gateway Pundit pointed to Crockett's "unintentional comic relief" right before the House gave Plaskett a pass for apparently taking direction from and guiding her congressional questioning based on the convicted sex offender Epstein's texts with her.
Crockett, on the House floor, charged the GOP was exhibiting a double standard.
She claimed, "Folks who also took money from somebody named Jeffrey Epstein, as I had my team dig in very quickly: Mitt Romney. The NRCC. Lee Zeldin. George Bush, WinRed, McCain-Palin, Rick Lazio. I just want to be clear: if this is standard we're going to make, then we're just going to expose it all! And the FEC filings are available for everybody to review."
In fact, it was the Washington Free Beacon's Chuck Ross who took advantage of those records "available to everybody" and confirmed that the Epstein donations to Republicans were from a different Epstein.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It's not always easy being a journalist in the Oval Office.
Just ask Mary Bruce, the White House correspondent for ABC News, who was verbally shredded by President Donald Trump on Tuesday when she asked him why he himself just didn't release the Jeffrey Epstein files without Congress getting involved.
"It's not the question that I mind, it's your attitude. I think you are a terrible reporter. It's the way you ask these questions," Trump told Bruce.
"You start off with a man who's highly respected, asking him a horrible, insubordinate, and just a terrible question. And you could even ask that same exact question nicely. You're all psyched up. Somebody psyched you over at ABC. You're going to psych it. You're a terrible person and a terrible reporter."
Trump stressed he had nothing to do with Epstein since he booted the pedophile from his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, in the early 2000s. But he did reiterate the alleged involvement of former President Bill Clinton and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers with Epstein.
"As far as the Epstein files is, I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein," Trump continued. "I threw him out of my club many years ago because I thought he was a sick pervert. But I guess I turned out to be right.
"But you know who does have? Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, who ran Harvard, was with him every single night, every single weekend. They lived together. They went to his island many times. I never did … You just keep going on the Epstein files."
"And what the Epstein is, is a Democrat hoax to try and get me not to be able to talk about the 21 trillion dollars that I talked about today. It's a hoax," Trump said.
"And ABC is your company. Your crappy company is one of the perpetrators. I think the license should be taken away from ABC because your news is so fake and it's so wrong."
After Trump's smackdown of Bruce, the House of Representatives on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a bill ordering the release of the Justice Department's files on Epstein.
It passed by a margin of 427 to 1, with U.S. Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., the only vote against the measure.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The common claims about tariffs, used liberally by President Donald Trump to bring about a more fair international trading platform for Americans, have been exploded by a new study that assesses the impact of those programs over 150 years.
In fact, the claims by Kamala Harris during her failed 2024 presidential campaign, are "in tatters" and the Fed has been shown to be doing exactly the wrong thing.
"The study removes the most potent intellectual weapon from the free-trade arsenal: the claim that tariffs inevitably raise consumer prices. For generations, this assertion ended policy debates before they could begin. Policymakers considering tariffs faced the accusation that they were imposing a regressive tax on consumers. Kamala Harris, in her failed bid for the presidency last year, repeatedly described Trump's tariff proposals as a national sales tax that would increase consumer prices. Now that idea lies in tatters," explained a report from Breitbart.
"With the consumer price argument dismantled, the debate over tariffs can proceed on grounds better rooted in economic history and national purpose. Policymakers can weigh the benefits of protecting domestic industries, rebalancing trade relationships, and rebuilding manufacturing capacity against the effects on economic activity and employment. They can consider whether tariffs might encourage productive investment and industrial development, questions that have been largely off-limits in mainstream economic discourse. The paper's findings also call into question the Fed's response to tariffs. If the main effects are lower inflation and higher lower employment, monetary theory would suggest that the Fed should cut interest rates when tariffs are imposed. Instead, the Fed this year took the opposite course, holding interest rates steady and only cutting hesitantly—moves that now look like a major policy mistake."
The assessment, from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco considered the "150 years of tariff policy in the U.S. and abroad."
"A careful review of the major changes in U.S. tariff policy since 1870 shows no systematic relation between the state of the cycle and the direction of the tariff changes, as partisan differences on the effects and desirability of tariffs led to opposite policy responses to similar economic conditions. Exploiting this quasi-random nature of tariff variations, we find that a tariff hike raises unemployment (lowers economic activity) and lowers inflation. Using only tariff changes driven by long-run considerations—a traditional narrative identification—gives similar results. We also obtain similar results if we restrict the sample to the modern post World War II period or if we use independent variation from other countries (France and the UK). These findings point towards tariff shocks acting through an aggregate demand channel."
The study found "when countries raise tariffs, prices actually fall, not rise."
Authors Regis Barnichon and Aayush Singh found, "We find that a tariff hike raises unemployment and lowers inflation. … This goes against the predictions of standard models, whereby CPI inflation should go up in response to higher tariffs."
The Breitbart report noted the conclusion was released at a "politically charged moment" since the Trump administration has imposed tariff increases averaging 18% on U.S. imports in 2025."
That resulted in legacy economists claiming that is inflationary.
Federal Reserve officials have joined, claiming they don't want to cut interest rates because they expect tariffs to push up prices.
That agenda, the report said, reveals those are "theoretical foundations" that are "shaky" and are not "backed by evidence," the report said.
Overall, "A roughly 4 percentage point increase in average tariffs lowered inflation by about 2 percentage points while raising unemployment by about 1 percentage point, they found," the report said.
That "contradicts" standard economic assumptions, the report said.
The study found, "We provide suggestive evidence that an aggregate demand channel can be at play, but an important avenue for future research is to understand the theoretical reasons for these surprising yet robust findings, which are central to the appropriate monetary response to tariff shocks."
Political parties long have held opposing views, with Republicans favoring tariffs and Democrats opposing them.
The authors found that "since recessions did not favor one party over another, there was no general relation between the direction of tariff changes and the state of the economy."
They then looked at a long list of tariff actions, from the McKinley Tariff of 1890 to President Trump's recent actions.
The report commented, "What emerges is a picture of tariffs far different from what opponents have typically portrayed. Rather than a crude tool that raises prices and harms consumers, tariffs appear to operate through sophisticated demand and supply mechanisms that reshape economic activity in ways economists are only beginning to understand."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – After being labeled by President Donald Trump as a "traitor," "fake politician" and "ranting Lunatic," U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says the commander in chief has put a target on her back, placing her very life in danger.
"Being called a 'traitor' isn't just hurtful, it puts a target on my back and puts my life in danger," the Republican from Georgia said.
Appearing Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," Greene told host Dana Bash, "The most hurtful thing he said which is absolutely untrue is he called me a traitor and that is so extremely wrong. And those are the types of words used that can radicalize people against me and put my life in danger."
On Saturday, Greene revealed that in the wake of Trump's verbal attack on her, "I am now being contacted by private security firms with warnings for my safety as a hot bed of threats against me are being fueled and egged on by the most powerful man in the world.
"The man I supported and helped get elected. Aggressive rhetoric attacking me has historically led to death threats and multiple convictions of men who were radicalized by the same type rhetoric being directed at me right now.
"This time by the President of the United States. As a woman I take threats from men seriously."
Speaking to reporters at Palm Beach International Airport Sunday evening, Trump said: "I don't think her life is in danger. Frankly, I don't think anybody cares about her."
The congresswoman said she believes her push to release all the files concerning convicted pedophile Jeffery Epstein prompted Trump's rage against her.
"Unfortunately, it has all come down to the Epstein files, and that is shocking," Greene told Bash.
"I stand with these women. I stand with rape victims, I stand with children who are in terrible sex-abuse situations, and I stand with survivors of trafficking and those that are trapped in sex trafficking. And I will not apologize for that. I believe the country deserves transparency in these files. And I don't believe that rich, powerful people should be protected if they have done anything wrong."
When asked by Bash if there were something in the Epstein files that Trump doesn't want Americans to see, Greene responded: "The women themselves that I have talked to have over and over again said that Donald Trump did nothing wrong."
"Quite a few of them even told me they voted for him and those are the women I would like to see in the Oval Office with support. I would like to see all of the women there with support," she continued.
"I have no idea what's in the files. I can't even guess. But that is the question everyone is asking is: 'Why fight this so hard?'"
Greene's remarks come the day after a Trump triple-blast against her on X.
"Marjorie 'Traitor' Green is a disgrace to our GREAT REPUBLICAN PARTY!" Trump wrote, spelling her last name incorrectly.
He also said: "All I see 'Wacky' Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN! It seemed to all begin when I sent her a Poll stating that she should not run for Senator, or Governor, she was at 12%, and didn't have a chance (unless, of course, she had my Endorsement — which she wasn't about to get!). She has told many people that she is upset that I don't return her phone calls anymore, but with 219 Congressmen/women, 53 U.S. Senators, 24 Cabinet Members, almost 200 Countries, and an otherwise normal life to lead, I can't take a ranting Lunatic's call every day.
"I understand that wonderful, Conservative people are thinking about primarying Marjorie in her District of Georgia, that they too are fed up with her and her antics and, if the right person runs, they will have my Complete and Unyielding Support. She has gone Far Left, even doing The View, with their Low IQ Republican hating Anchors."
Greene pushed back against Trump's claim about discussions with him about interest in higher office.
"That is absolutely not true. I have never had a conversation with President Trump about running for Senate or governor. Those decisions were completely my own," she said.
"And after the past two months of the government shutdown, Americans saw exactly why I would never want to be in the Senate!"
"I also haven't called him. White House logs would prove that. The only messages I posted were the ones I actually sent, asking him to get involved because the American people want the Epstein files released. That's it."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
School officials in the city of Chicago are being sued by the famed Moody Bible Institute for their public schools programs that banish qualified prospective teachers from Moody from participating in required classroom observations.
"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that religious institutions and religious people have the same rights as everybody else," said a lawyer for the ADF, which is representing Moody.
"We believe that the First Amendment speaks very clearly to that issue. And just like Christian students shouldn't be forced to give up opportunities for following their faith, a Christian school shouldn't be forced to choose between its faith and advancing educational opportunities for its students," he said, according to a report at CBN.
The case is seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction to prevent Chicago Public Schools from continuing its discrimination against Moody students.
The filing charges the district not only has harmed the school's reputation but also its elementary education students' job prospects.
The action against the city and its board of education was triggered by officials' decision to bar students from Moody from participating in a student-teacher program, because of the college's faith-based hiring policies.
The filing was in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The report explained, "Moody Bible Institute's Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education program requires prospective teachers to complete a minimum number of classroom observation, practicum, and student-teaching hours."
But Chicago school officials are refusing to let Moody students participate "unless Moody abandons its religiously based hiring practices and hires employees who disagree with Moody's core mission and biblical values," the report said.
The heart of the issue is the district's advocacy for the anti-biblical transgender agenda.
"As a condition of participation, Chicago Public Schools insists that Moody sign agreements with employment nondiscrimination provisions that forbid Moody from employing only those who share and live out its faith," the lawsuit charges.
Moody requested an amendment to the policy, as the district already has agreed with other schools including Trinity Christian College and Concordia University, but was refused.
"By allowing these other colleges and universities to participate in the Program, Chicago Public Schools demonstrates that it selectively enforces its employment nondiscrimination policy," the filing charged.