This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

PALM BEACH, Florida – U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says American military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen are not a "one-night thing," and he echoed President Donald Trump's warning to Iran which has been sponsoring terror against ships in the Red Sea.

"This isn't a one-night thing," Hegseth said on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel. "This will continue until you say we're done shooting at ships, we're done shooting at assets."

The U.S. military pounded targets in Yemen on Saturday to commence the operation.

"We got the reports last night. The Houthis' capital felt like an earthquake," said Hegseth.

"Dozens and dozens of precision heavy munitions dropping precisely on the targets that we wanted to hit, sending a very clear message. And the message is very clear to Iran as well.

"We will not be nice about it. This is not the Biden administration. The message is clear. We will come after the Houthis until they stop shooting at our ships and the Iranians better stay out of it."

More than 100 Houthis attacks have targeted shipping in the region since November 2023, claiming solidarity with Palestinians over Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza.

"Freedom of navigation is basic. It's a core national interest," said Hegseth.

"This campaign is about freedom of navigation and restoring deterrence. The minute the Houthis say we'll stop shooting at your ships, we'll stop shooting at your drones, this campaign will end; but until then, it will be unrelenting."

Saturday afternoon, Trump posted a message on Truth Social announcing the military strikes:

"Today, I have ordered the United States Military to launch decisive and powerful Military action against the Houthi terrorists in Yemen. They have waged an unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence, and terrorism against American, and other, ships, aircraft, and drones.

"Joe Biden's response was pathetically weak, so the unrestrained Houthis just kept going. It has been over a year since a U.S. flagged commercial ship safely sailed through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, or the Gulf of Aden. The last American Warship to go through the Red Sea, four months ago, was attacked by the Houthis over a dozen times. Funded by Iran, the Houthi thugs have fired missiles at U.S. aircraft, and targeted our Troops and Allies. These relentless assaults have cost the U.S. and World Economy many BILLIONS of Dollars while, at the same time, putting innocent lives at risk.

"The Houthi attack on American vessels will not be tolerated. We will use overwhelming lethal force until we have achieved our objective. The Houthis have choked off shipping in one of the most important Waterways of the World, grinding vast swaths of Global Commerce to a halt, and attacking the core principle of Freedom of Navigation upon which International Trade and Commerce depends.

"Our brave Warfighters are right now carrying out aerial attacks on the terrorists' bases, leaders, and missile defenses to protect American shipping, air, and naval assets, and to restore Navigational Freedom. No terrorist force will stop American commercial and naval vessels from freely sailing the Waterways of the World.

"To all Houthi terrorists, YOUR TIME IS UP, AND YOUR ATTACKS MUST STOP, STARTING TODAY. IF THEY DON'T, HELL WILL RAIN DOWN UPON YOU LIKE NOTHING YOU HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE!

"To Iran: Support for the Houthi terrorists must end IMMEDIATELY! Do NOT threaten the American People, their President, who has received one of the largest mandates in Presidential History, or Worldwide shipping lanes. If you do, BEWARE, because America will hold you fully accountable and, we won't be nice about it!"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Officials with the United States Postal Service have informed Congress of a new agreement through which they will reduce the staffing numbers for the money-losing agency by 10,000.

A report from Fox News cited the letter from U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy to members of Congress.

His agreement is with the General Services Administration and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.

DeJoy has expressed that the USPS is a "broken business model that was not financially sustainable without critically necessary and core change."

His letter explained, "Fixing a broken organization that had experienced close to $100 billion in losses and was projected to lose another $200 billion, without a bankruptcy proceeding, is a daunting task. Fixing a heavily legislated and overly regulated organization as massive, important, cherished, misunderstood and debated as the United States Postal Service, with such a broken business model, is even more difficult."

The $78 billion a year agency currently has some 640,000 workers.

Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., was upset by the efficiency agenda.

"The only thing worse for the Postal Service than DeJoy's 'Delivering for America' plan is turning the service over to Elon Musk and DOGE so they can undermine it, privatize it, and then profit off Americans' loss," he explained in a statement.

A spokesman for the union representing letter carriers said the organization would oppose any move to privatize the work.

The staffing reduction will be done through a voluntary early-retirement scheme, the report said.

In recent years, with the advent of email and the electronic exchange of documents and information, there has been a drop in the number of first-class letters being mailed.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Mostly Democrats, but also some Deep Staters as well as federal employee union-supporting radicals who are enraged by Elon Musk's work with President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency have been warned there's a bull's-eye on their backs if they vandalize Tesla dealerships and vehicles.

It's been happening over and over across the country because of Musk's ownership of Tesla, and his work with DOGE to eliminate fraud, waste and corruption in the United States government.

That so far has involved slashing spending, cutting programs and firing a lot of people, moves that sometimes are being blocked in the courts by local district judges who were chosen by case plaintiffs for their ideological bent.

But the vandalism is going to stop, Attorney General Pam Bondi has revealed.

Bondi warned, "We have someone in jail right now for one of the dealerships, they threw a Molotov cocktail through a dealership. They're looking at up to 20 years in prison.

"So if you're going to touch a Tesla, go to a dealership do anything, you gotta watch out so we're coming after you. And if you're funding this we're coming after you. We're going to find out who you are."

Ironically, also on social media was a plea from a parent who wanted to minimize an 18-year-old daughter's punishment for vandalizing Teslas.

The parent wrote, "My daughter (African American, 18 year old) was involved in a protest at a Tesla dealership. After the protest, she apparently vandalized (spray paint + physical damage/breaning a Tesla and a cyber truck and was caught on Sentry mode (how clear are these cameras??). She told her lawyer and I that that (sic) she was coaxed by friends to do it."

The parent continued, "I'm scared for her and want her to have the best possible future. But I'm afraid that she is going to get a harsh sentence if found guilty, which her lawyer said is highly likely given the evidence. Will she be expelled form school? Will she be able to get a job? Anyone have any advice for me or her?"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Too many decide cases 'on their personal preferences rather than what is stated in the Constitution, statutes, and applicable precedent'

Mostly leftists across America have flooded the nation's court system in their rage over the election of President Donald Trump.

He is doing, in office, exactly what he promised during the election: clean out the Deep State in Washington, cut federal waste, fraud and crime, and purge the government of activists who are profiting from their manipulation of taxpayers' money.

Polls show vast majorities approving.

But those 119 lawsuits already have been advanced with frivolous injunctions that cost taxpayers millions, even billions of dollars, from activist judges trying to maintain the power the left has wielded under presidents like Joe Biden and Barack Obama. One analyst called the movement and agenda a "judicial insurrection."

For example, one judge said Trump cannot fire a member of the executive branch's National Labor Relations Board. Another ordered other fired employees back on the public payroll. Still another ordered the president to disburse two billion dollars of tax money he had withheld.

And much more.

Now a column in the Washington Examiner by Tom Fitton, of government watchdog Judicial Watch, explains there is a solution.

"Many are asking if federal judges can be impeached as a consequence of judicial activism,  deciding a case based on their personal preferences rather than what is stated in the Constitution, statutes, and applicable precedent and in usurpation of legislative and executive power. The answer is yes," he wrote.

"A series of extreme and activist decisions against President Donald Trump's constitutional authority exercised through the Department of Government Efficiency and his appointees such as Elon Musk have brought the question to the fore."

He cited Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff, who explained, "The threat to democracy — indeed, the existential threat to democracy — is the unelected bureaucracy of lifetime, tenured civil servants who believe they answer to no one, who believe they can do whatever they want without consequence, who believe they can set their own agenda no matter what Americans vote for."

Fitton continued, "So, you can see why conservatives are disturbed several judges went beyond their constitutional powers in constraining Trump and other executive branch officials from exercising legitimate constitutional powers, such as firing bureaucrats and making sure tax money isn't being spent corruptly."

Fitton cited Amy Jackson, a Washington judge who ordered Trump to restore Hampton Dellinger to his job in the Office of Special County.

That was reversed and Dellinger himself gave up.

But that order from Jackson "outrageously" had demanded Trump not "recognize the authority of any other person as Special Counsel."

Fitton cited, however, the "complete security" the founders gave Americans when they provided for impeachment of the judiciary based on cause.

"The use of the impeachment power to restrain judicial department usurpations has essentially lain dormant in Congress since 1804, when Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House for, among other alleged misconduct, 'tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan,'" Fitton noted.

"That dormancy may end in the coming days. House members led by Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) filed a bill in February to impeach Southern District of New York Judge Paul Engelmayer, an Obama appointee who last month issued an order blocking DOGE access (and even the treasury secretary's access!) to the Treasury Department system for government payments."

Trump himself, meanwhile, as WND reported, has instructed government entities to start asking courts to require that bonds be posted when injunctions are issued.

Thoe bonds would cover the cost to taxpayers of those injunctions should the government ultimately prevail.

That's already allowed, but seldom has been used, in federal law.

But it will be now, under orders from President Donald Trump, who explained in a new order Thursday, "In recent weeks, activist organizations fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and sometimes even government grants have obtained sweeping injunctions far beyond the scope of relief contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, functionally inserting themselves into the executive policy making process and therefore undermining the democratic process."

Those cases include challenges to Trump's decisions to fire executive branch employees, to cut off inappropriate funding and to eliminate fraudulent activities in the federal spending.

"This anti-democratic takeover is orchestrated by forum-shopping organizations that repeatedly bring meritless suits, used for fundraising and political grandstanding, without any repercussions when they fail. Taxpayers are forced not only to cover the costs of their antics when funding and hiring decisions are enjoined, but must needlessly wait for government policies they voted for. Moreover, this situation results in the Department of Justice, the nation's chief law enforcement agency, dedicating substantial resources to fighting frivolous suits instead of defending public safety," Trump said.

He said a key to fighting such abuse is "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) (Rule 65(c))."

That mandates "that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (injunction) provide security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is wrongly issued," Trump explained.

He said enforcement of that provision "is critical to ensuring that taxpayers do not foot the bill for costs or damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief by activist judges and to achieving the effective administration of justice."

He then ordered that it now is the "policy" of the U.S. to demand that parties seeking injunctions "cover the costs and damages incurred if the government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President has Tesla showroom come to him, buys car at full price

Vowing to catch those who recently have attacked and vandalized Tesla dealerships around the nation – and declare them "domestic terrorists" – President Donald Trump today appeared with Elon Musk outside the White House at a temporary showroom, and paid full price for one of the vehicles.

As he spoke to media alongside Musk, Trump explained that the vandals are "harming a great American company."

Said Trump, "Those people are going to have a lot of problems when we catch them. … They're bad guys. They're the same guys who screw around with our schools and universities" – a reference to recent pro-Hamas protests at Columbia and other campuses.

Speaking about Musk, Trump labeled the world's richest man "an incredible patriot," and added, "I don't even know if he is a Republican!" Musk has taken heat since Trump's inauguration for his work at DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency.
The president affirmed to reporters that he was paying full price for the red Tesla Model S parked outside the South Portico of the White House. Responding to Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy, Trump stated, "I know [Musk] would give me a discount, but honestly I don't want to ask for one."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

WASHINGTON – The White House is now promoting a new Customs and Border Patrol app called Home, with an "intent to depart" feature.

It offers undocumented immigrants an "orderly and defined process" for letting the government know they intend to leave before any enforcement action is taken.

"The CPB Home app strengthens our mission to secure the border and provides illegal aliens with a straightforward way to leave now before facing much harsher consequences," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt elaborated during her press briefing on Tuesday.

This new feature comes as illegal border crossings from Central America dropped 99% in February. Unlawful entries are down 94% overall since President Trump took office.

Also on the subject of immigration, Leavitt was asked about the removal process for Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder accused of disseminating pro-Hamas materials on his college campus.

The arrest of the Columbia University graduate comes after Trump issued an executive order commanding ICE to detain those who engaged in "anti-Semetic harassment and violence" during Pro-Palestine campus demonstrations last spring.

Asked if a green-card holder needs to be charged with a crime to be deported, Leavitt said, "Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the secretary of state has the right to revoke a green card or a visa for individuals who are adversarial to the national security interests of America."

She went on to say Khalil was a student who "took advantage" of the "privilege" of coming to America.

"This is an individual who organized group protests that not only disrupted college campus classes. [Those protestors] harassed Jewish-American students and made them feel unsafe on their own college campus, but also distributed pro-Hamas propaganda. Fliers with the Hamas logo on them."

Leavitt said Khalil's fliers were on her desk, but she chose not to bring them to the podium, saying it would be disrespectful to the room.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

'In contravention of federal law and the standards of the House of Representatives'

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, D-N.Y., has been cited in an ethics complaint for her "troubling" expenditures, according to a report from Fox News.

She is thought to have misappropriated funds from her "Member Representational Allowance," a fund that gives members of Congress cash to use for costs of "official duties." Those funds may not be used for "personal or campaign purposes," according to the Congressional Research Service.

The complaint was filed by a group called Americans for Public Trust, which wrote to the Office of Congressional Ethics about the "several troubling expenses" that AOC paid from the fund.

The allegation is that her spending schemes are "in contravention of federal law and the standards of the House of Representatives."

The organization is seeking an investigation into AOC.

The accusation is that the member of the extremist "Squad" that has opposed everything President Donald Trump has done is instead spent money for "campaign" events.

She apparently paid "Juan D Gonzalez" $3,700 and "Bombazo Dance Co Inc." $500.

Both expenses were listed as "training."

Cortez went to social media to claim, "None of this is taxpayer money, this is an FEC filing. Be loud and wrong about something else. Try again next time."

However, the complaint explains that her claims are "not reflective of her MRA – as well as her claim that '[n]one of this is taxpayer money' – is both troubling and obviously incorrect."

Caitlin Sutherland, of the Americans for Public Trust, explained, "Either she does not know the difference between her campaign funds and MRA, or, more likely, she knows the highlighted expenses were not for official business and should have been paid by her campaign and reported to the FEC."

Sutherland said there's a need for an investigation to determine because "the American people deserve to know lawmakers are being good stewards of their tax dollars."

Cortez already has faced multiple ethics charges, including that she accepted "impermissible gifts" while attending a Met Gala, that she violated House rules and federal law, and that she made false accusations against the creator of the Libs of TikTok Twitter account.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

PALM BEACH, Florida – U.S. fighter jets were again forced to scramble near President Trump's Mar-a-Lago home over the weekend as two violations by civilian pilots took place in what has become a disturbing pattern.

The first occurred at about 8:50 a.m. Saturday as a general aviation aircraft violated the TFR zone, or temporary flight restriction.

F-16 fighter jets intercepted the plane to escort it out of the area.

"NORAD and the FAA work closely together to keep the skies over America safe, with close attention paid to areas with Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR)," said Gen. Gregory Guillot, Commander, NORAD and U.S. Northern Command.

"Adherence to TFR procedures is essential to ensure flight safety, national security, and the security of the President. The procedures are not optional, and the excessive number of recent TFR violations indicates many civil aviators are not reading Notice to Airmen, or NOTAMs, before each flight as required by the FAA, and has resulted in multiple responses by NORAD fighter aircraft to guide offending aircraft out of the TFR. Should the pilot of an aircraft happen to find itself intercepted by one of fighters or helicopters, they should immediately come up on frequency 121.5 or 243.0 and turn around to reverse course until receiving additional instructions on one of those frequencies."

Then on Sunday afternoon at approximately 1:15 p.m., another civilian plane entered the restricted zone, and NORAD F-16s were again dispatched, having to deploy flares to get the pilot's attention before escorting him out.

Guillot says there have been more than 20 similar violations in Palm Beach since Trump was inaugurated Jan. 20.

Last weekend, as WorldNetDaily reported, at least three similar incidents took place in a short period of time, as military jets were forced to intercept and escort aircraft away from the area.

In February, another three violations of airspace took place while President Trump was staying at the so-called "Winter White House" at Mar-a-Lago.

The Palm Beach Post reported: "A spokesperson for the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, confirmed Wednesday that there were three airspace violations of the imposed presidential protected space during Trump's six-day visit to Mar-a-Lago, his mansion in Palm Beach. Two occurred on Feb. 15 and one on Presidents Day, Feb. 17."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The court fight that could end up being the vehicle through which the egregious Obergefell ruling from the Supreme Court, which fabricated the "right" to same-sex marriage like Roe fabricated a federal "right" to abortion, is one step closer to the Supreme Court.

That's after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unleashed a ruling in Kim Davis' appeal.

The former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk withheld marriage licenses from everyone for a short time after the Obergefell opinion, which Supreme Court justices themselves admitted was unrelated to the U.S. Constitution, fabricated same-sex "marriage" all across America.

That ruling infringed on her religious beliefs and a biased federal judge, while Davis was working to obtain recognition of a religious exemption to the processing of those licenses, put her in jail.

She later was sued by two same-sex duos for "damages" when she didn't immediately grant them licenses.

One jury awarded $50,000 in damages to both David Ermold and David Moore for "emotional distress" based on "hurt feelings," while the other jury considering the same facts announced there was no evidence of damages.

The ruling from the 6th Circuit "indicated this is potentially a case of 'first impression,' where a question regarding an interpretation of the law that has never arisen before is first presented to the court," according to Liberty Counsel, which has represented Davis.

"The 6th Circuit affirmed the jury verdict against her, but did so in a way that provides Davis with excellent grounds to appeal the decision to the full 6th Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States," the Liberty Counsel report said.

"On appeal, Davis argued that she was entitled to First Amendment protections in her position as county clerk, and that the jury was prohibited from issuing any damage award against her. According to legal precedent, the First Amendment prohibits imposing liability on an individual for the exercise of their sincerely held religious beliefs. While most of the cases holding establishing this position were based on the Free Speech Clause, there is no reason to make a distinction between the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses for this purpose," the legal team explained.

The court, however, claimed, "Writing on this blank slate, we are wise to tread lightly. To that end, the fact-specific nature of our holding again bears emphasis: a government employee, acting in the scope of that employment, does not have a unilateral free exercise right to use an arm of the state to infringe on a clearly established equal protection right of the public. Change the factual setting, and a free exercise defense to a civil rights lawsuit may have more traction. It is always the case that '[a] later court assessing a past decision must . . . appreciate the possibility that different facts and different legal arguments may dictate a different outcome.'"

The ruling found, essentially, that government officials lose their conscience protections when they are government officials. That was after evidence showed the LGBT duos did not go to nearer clerks who would have given them licenses, but instead specifically targeted Davis.

One of the panel's judges, Chad Readler, admitted that the legal precedents in the fight are "not entirely settled."

Liberty Counsel explained, "The court found that the 2015 Obergefell 5-4 opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday, June 26, 2015, 'clearly established' that Davis as the Rowan County Clerk in Kentucky must issue licenses to same sex couples when she commenced work on Monday, June 29. The problem with this ruling, however, is that Davis' function is totally defined by state law. To issue a license to someone not authorized to receive one under state law could subject Davis to criminal prosecution."

At the time of the Obergefell ruling, same-sex marriage was illegal in many states.

Liberty Counsel said it would seek further answers on topics including the Free Exercise defense for individual capacity claims against government officials, whether Obergefell was wrongly decided, and even if the court does not want the Obergefell question, whether it created a clearly established right to obtain a marriage certificate from a specific government official.

Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel chief, said, "The full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will have a chance to give Kim Davis justice in this case since the emotional distress damage award against her in her individual capacity is barred by the First Amendment. This case underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, because that decision threatens the religious liberty of many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. The First Amendment precludes making the choice between your faith and your livelihood."

The legal team previously has noted the path to overturning Obergefell could follow the same path as that was used to overturn Roe: that the Constitution does not even mention same-sex marriage and thus, under the Constitution, the issue must be left to states.

Further, the organization MassResistance has confirmed that there are at least six state legislatures that have considered a resolution encouraging the high court to reverse itself..

The organization recently confirmed it has drafted sample language and resolutions are pending in Idaho, North Dakota, Montana, Michigan, Iowa and Kansas.

"The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was passed by a slim 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices," MassResistance reported. "It has caused immense societal havoc across the country. States have been forced to ignore their legitimate laws and constitutional amendments regarding marriage. Governments, businesses, and even schoolchildren have been forced to accept same-sex 'marriage' – and by extension homosexual behavior – as normal, under pain of punishments, fines, and even imprisonment."

"The First Amendment guarantees free speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and the right to petition government for redress of grievance. By forcing same-sex 'marriage' on the country in this way, Obergefell challenged all those rights," the group reported.

And unlike in 2015, when the Supreme Court was dominated by leftist ideologues, there now is a majority of constitutionalists on the bench, the report said.

"In order to invent a previously unknown constitutional 'right' to same-sex marriage, the 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices used a strategy concocted by the LGBT lawyers. They redefined the Fourteenth Amendment to allow them to effectively change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to 'two people who love each other,'" the group reported.

But the 14th Amendment actually states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and does not mention marriage.

The Obergefell promoters at the time also cited "substantive due process," which is not in the Constitution, a maneuver that was caught by Justice Clarence Thomas, who said that use in Obergefell, like Roe, "is faulty, and a basis for revisiting those cases."

He said, "We should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

The decision was biased because two justices, Ruth Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, who joined in creating the new right, already had officiated at same-sex weddings, indicating they had a clear bias in favor.

Liberty Counsel already has argued, "Obergefell was not grounded in the nation's history or traditions, nor could it have been because it was not rooted in any nation's history or traditions. As Chief Justice Roberts noted, the right that the Obergefell majority created out of whole cloth was inconsistent with 'the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history.' Indeed, 'marriage has existed for millennia and across civilizations [and] [f]or all those millennia, across all those civilizations, marriage referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman.'"

In fact, WND later reported that the Davis case got a "Told you so," from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after the high court declined to review one issue of the attacks on Davis.

In a statement then, Thomas said Davis "may have been one of the first victims" of the Supreme Court's "cavalier treatment of religion" when it issued its same-sex marriage ruling, "but she will not be the last."

Thomas called Davis a "devout Christian" who "found herself faced with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job."

"Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws," Thomas wrote. "Moreover, Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."

In fact, since then the state of Colorado twice has launched attacks on Christians who failed to promote the state's messaging on same-sex unions, a baker and a web designer. And both times it has suffered defeat at the Supreme Court, including once when the justices scolded the state for its hate of Christianity.

Thomas said, "Several members of the court noted that the court's decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the states had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs. The court, however, bypassed that democratic process. Worse still, though it briefly acknowledged that those with sincerely held religious objections to same-sex marriage are often 'decent and honorable' … the court went on to suggest that those beliefs espoused a bigoted worldview…"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Higher education across America long has dealt with the upper echelons of the economy: Billions of dollars in endowments, tuition of $50,000 or more, and faculty salaries routinely in six digits.

But even so, a sudden drop of $400 million in grants is bound to be noticed.

That's what's happening to Columbia University, because of the anti-Semitism it has allowed on campus.

President Donald Trump's announcement Friday was that the government will rescind more than $400 million in federal grants to the leftists running the school.

The move even earned the support of Sen. John Fetterman, a Democrat.

A report from Fox News said just days ago the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education and the U.S. General Services Administration revealed a full review of more than $5 billion in federal grants going to Columbia.