This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Keith Olbermann, formerly an MSNBC anchor known for his wild and outlandish ideas, such as his suggestion to dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court, now has gone on social media with an implied threat to President Donald Trump.

It was a Joe Biden campaign account that commented about Trump explaining he's been persecuted worse than any president in history, including Abraham Lincoln, and Olbermann said, "There's always hope."

Fox News cited Olbermann's reputation for "inflammatory" statements.

Fox reported, "One account that responded to Olbermann's post suggested the commentator's account should be 'permanently suspended' for appearing to endorse someone killing Trump, the presumptive nominee for the 2024 Republican nomination. Trump is trying to become only the second president since Grover Cleveland to win another White House term after losing a previous re-election bid."

Off the Press explained Olbermann appeared to "hope" that Trump "would be assassinated."

The Biden campaign statement had said, "Trump says he has been treated worse than Abraham Lincoln, who was assassinated."

It's not the first statement that could be seen as a threat to Trump.

The Gateway Pundit earlier reported that Alex Soros "tweeted out an obvious threat against President Trump on Sunday evening."

The image included a picture of a bullet hole and a sum of $47. Under the image, he said, "Last year, the crime and inflation crises largely evaporated. So did the leading theories about what had caused them."

The Pundit report noted, "Being subtle like a brick through a window the billionaire leftist posts a picture of a 'Bullet Hole' and '$47.' President Donald Trump is going to be the 47th President."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new study confirms Google, the gorilla in the room regarding internet searches, has interfered in American elections 41 times in recent years.

It is the work of the Media Research Center that was revealed in a report by Fox News.

Dan Schneider, MRC's Free Speech America vice president, and Gabriela Pariseau, editor, said in a summary, "MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates – regardless of party – who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice."

Their report continued, "From the mouths of Google executives, the tech giant let slip what was never meant to be made public: That Google uses its 'great strength and resources and reach' to advance its leftist values. Google’s outsized influence on information technology, the body politic, and American elections became evident in 2008. After failing to prevent then-candidate for president Donald Trump from being inaugurated following the 2016 election, Google has since made clear to any discerning observer that it has been — and will continue — interfering in America’s elections."

In response, Google claimed it was a "business incentive" to keep "both sides" happy, according to the report.

Fox reported, "MRC Free Speech America, a division of the conservative Media Research Center, believes the most recent example was recorded after Google artificial intelligence Gemini 'refused to answer questions damaging' to President Biden."

And, MRC found, from 2008 through February 2024, the web behemoth "has utilized its power to help push to electoral victory the most liberal candidates, regardless of party, while targeting their opponents for censorship."

Samples: Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008, and Obama over Mitt Romney in 2012. And refusing to correct a "Google bomb" that smeared Rick Santorum at a time he was a leader, and when it used "its algorithm to exclude autofill results that were potentially damaging to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Fox reported, "Other examples cited by the MRC include disabling Tulsi Gabbard’s Ads account just as she became the most searched candidate following the first Democratic Party primary debate in 2020, suppressing news critical of Biden, concealing most Republican campaign websites for the 12 competitive Senate races in 2022, and aiding Biden in 2024 by 'burying in its search results the campaign websites of every one of his significant opponents.'"

The evidence shows Google helped those who aligned most closely with its leftism as far back as 2008, and it targeted for censorship those who threatened that ideology, the report said.

"While its interference was first evident in 2008, its meddling has turned into an organizational mission to ensure that its candidates win on election day," the MRC report said. "Many studies reveal the results of the tech giant’s commitment.":

They cited other studies suggesting Google probably shifted 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and likely boosted Democrat votes by six million in 2020.

Google claimed the information was "baseless" and "inaccurate."

There are solutions, the MRC work suggested, including that House Speaker Mike Johnson should "direct relevant committees" to investigate the likely violation of constitutional rights involved in the censorship.

Also possible would be to declare Google a common carrier.

Or consumers should use other "better, less-biased" products.

Media Research Center founder and president Brent Bozell urged Congress to act.

"No organization has more control over information than Google, and they have repeatedly used that power to manipulate the public to vote for the most left-wing candidates in every major election since 2008. It’s un-American to attempt to manipulate elections this way. It’s time Congress acts to shut down this massive election interference scheme," Bozell told Fox News Digital."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Supreme Court heard arguments about a Biden regime agenda to push, using the influence of the federal government, and social media companies to censor ideas and comments that the administration dislikes.

And Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which brought the dispute to the court system, said it's just not allowed under the Constitution for politicians to pick "disfavored" statements and order them suppressed.

"Our clients, who include top doctors and scientists, were censored for social media posts that turned out to be factually accurate, depriving the public of valuable perspectives during a public health crisis. We’re optimistic that the majority will look at the record and recognize that this was a sprawling government censorship enterprise without precedent in this country and that this cannot be permitted to continue if the First Amendment is to survive," Younes said.

A ruling in the case isn't expected from the court for some time, but it likely will have a massive impact on the concept of free speech and the First Amendment across America.

The trial court judge likened the government's scheming in the case to the Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" that propagated nothing but lies.

Many of the details of that ruling were affirmed by an appeals court, but the government, insisting on the right to determine the information to which people have access, took it to the Supreme Court.

Much of the censorship at the time concerned the COVID-19 pandemic and the experimental shots that were developed and given to millions of people at the time.

That included giving shots to children, who had a very high resistance to COVID.

Further, evidence now has confirmed a multitude of side effects of the COVID-19 shots, up to and including death.

"I stand here representing the hundreds of millions of Americans who are not medical professionals, academics, or journalists but who simply knew that what was happening in America was not right. We went to social media to voice our opinions and were silenced by government employees who bullied social media snowflakes into silencing our voices. The government has no authority to police our opinions; they are protected speech. I would argue the government is the source of misinformation, and it is our responsibility as Americans to make every effort to correct that," said Jill Hines, one of the plaintiffs.

A report from NCLA said the case is Murthy v. Missouri, and the high court considered whether to affirm a historic preliminary injunction granted by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

That has been temporarily "stayed," but it would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.

It originally sas U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty who blasted the government for its program to blacklist, shadow-ban, de-boost, throttle and suspend social media activity by those who disagreed with the Biden administration's chosen, and sometimes faulty, opinions on COVID.

"This censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to CVID-19 exists, the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy," the legal team said.

NCLA has pointed out that the First Amendment’s text forbids "abridging" the freedom of speech, "meaning the government’s scheme violates the Constitution even when it encourages social media platforms to suppress legal speech without coercing them."

Other plaintiffs are Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Aaron Kheriaty, and Martin Kulldorff.

"Just down the street, the Constitution of the United States sits in the Archives. If Americans don’t stand up and defend our constitutional rights, it is just a piece of paper. I am honored to be here with NCLA and my co-plaintiffs to defend the constitutional right of free speech, which has been systematically suppressed by the federal government. I trust that the Supreme Court will do the right thing and uphold the injunction against government censorship of constitutionally protected speech," Kheriaty said.

Mark Chenoweth, president of the NCLA, said, "The First Amendment does not allow the government to abridge speech based on whether the speech is true or false. That is what the government did here, and if that is allowed then the First Amendment is a dead letter"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

One part of the scheming by the federal government to censor information it dislikes has been uncovered and revealed in a new report by Mike Benz, Allum Bokhari, and Oscar Buynevich at the Foundation for Freedom Online.

It involves a "Disinformation Primer" that was unleashed by USAID in a 97-page document that was labeled "for internal use only."

USAID, which is a branch of the federal government that "purports to use taxpayer dollars for 'strengthening resilient democratic societies,'" the report said, instead has been "pushing private sector technology companies, media organizations, education ministries, national governments, and funding bodies to adopt social media censorship practices."

The report explains the document was obtained by American First Legal, which was forced by the feds to sue to gain access to documents subject to a Freedom Information Act procedure.

The revelatory paperwork shows USAID's pursuit of many damaging censorship strategies that were used to throttle comments during the 2020 election and more.

The document is dated February 2021, just after Joe Biden took office, and calls for censorship strategies for "virtually every governmental, non-governmental and private sector commercial actor," calling for them to "take action against disfavored speech online."

For example, tech companies could deprive those with objectionable speech of funding, governments could regulate those statements, media groups could attack any source of information that does not meet the standards for being politically correct, and more.

USAID told think tanks, non-profits, and others to "blacklist' sources of "wrong" opinions.

The report explains, for example, USAID calls for financial "throttling," "To disrupt the funding and financial incentive to disinform, attention has also turned to the advertising industry, particularly with online advertising. A good example of this is the concerted response to the discovery of the websites traced to the village of Veles outside of Skopje, Macedonia, which showed how easy it was to exploit the digital advertising model to flood the news ecosystem with fabricated content. Wired Magazine profiled the Veles case study in 2017. As most online advertisers are unaware of the disinformation risk of the domains featuring their ads due to the automated process of ad placement, they inadvertently are funding and amplifying platforms that disinform."

It claims that online competition with "traditional media" is the problem because it reduces the power of those leftist corporations that control networks and publications to "shape … dialogue."

So, it insists, those casting doubt on those partisan sources should be attacked.

"Because traditional information systems are failing, some opinion leaders are casting doubt on media, which, in turn, impacts USAID programming and funding choices," the warning came.

Having sources of information outside of the legacy media industry is problematic, it charges.

"It leads to a loss of information integrity. Online news platforms have disrupted the traditional media landscape. Government officials and journalists are not the sole information gatekeepers anymore. As such, citizens require a new level of information or media literacy to evaluate the veracity of claims made on the internet."

The report said FFO chief Mike Benz has released a video primer on the ideology of "media literacy."

The agenda also includes using Google to redirect people who come across information that the bureaucracy doesn't want Americans to see to other, "curated" videos that cast doubt, often falsely, on the sought-after information.

Those posts "debunk" the information that is being hidden from the public, the report said.

USAID also wants various of its compatriots in the war on "unapproved" information to do "prebunking," which involves "anticipating what disinformation is likely to be repeated" and having a different opinion already prepared.

"USAID’s Disinformation Primer also suggests various other technological tools for combatting disinformation," the report said.

The foundation report noted, "In addition to mis- (speech that unintentionally causes harm or is inaccurate) and dis-information (speech that is deliberately created to cause harm), the USAID mimics the censorship industry’s proclivity to also target factually true speech under the framing of 'mal-information.' Misinformation is speech that is factually accurate, but is deemed wrongthink by the censors because it presents an oppositional narrative."

USAID even attacks "satire or parody" in its "Ten types of mis- and disinformation."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

As the number of suspected terrorists reportedly plotting assassinations and deadly attacks in America continues to grow, so does the risk of interfering with this year's presidential election.

Historically, election cycles around the world have often faced disruption by adversaries, whether through election interference, threats of violence, or actual violence. For example, the commuter train bombings in Spain on March 11, 2004, carried out by Islamic terrorists, which killed 193 people and injured over 1,800, took place just three days before a national election. The coordinated attack is believed by many to have influenced voters to reject a Spanish government that participated in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

For Middle East expert and terrorism scholar Adrian Calamel, attacks like the one in Madrid have him growing increasingly fearful about similar violence being used to disrupt November's presidential election in the U.S.

Calamel, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Arabian Peninsula Institute, tells WND the "specter of something like this happening in America" is related to an active assassination plot against several Trump-era officials. Earlier this month, news began to circulate that an agent of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security, or MOIS, was "wanted for questioning in connection with the recruitment of individuals for various operations in the United States, to include lethal targeting of current and former United States Government officials as revenge for the killing of IRGC-QF Commander Qasem Soleimani."

In 2020, Soleimani was killed by a U.S. drone strike on the order of then-President Donald Trump. As a result, Iran pledged to retaliate and named multiple American targets, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser John Bolton, former U.S. special representative for Iran Brian Hook, as well as other current and former officials of the U.S. government.

What this tells Calamel is that "Tehran is intent on hitting America inside its borders, on its soil." But it's how they'll do it that he questions. According to Calamel, "[Iran] has a lot to lose after gaining so much leverage during the Biden administration." Most recently, the administration has
reapproved a sanctions waiver that would allow as much as $10 billion in frozen assets to be released to the Iranian government.

For this reason, he said, "[Iran] will be looking for plausible deniability." While many believe Hezbollah is the primary terrorist threat to the United States, Calamel points a finger to al Qaeda. Although Iran's MOIS agents and proxies like Hezbollah might secretly help coordinate an attack on U.S. soil, he said, "they're too close to Tehran and have too much to lose from the United States to take the blame for it."

To grasp how the next terror attack could unfold on U.S. soil, Calamel said, "the West needs to put aside the whole Sunni and Shia differences of these groups, thinking that they hate each other and don't coordinate their intentions." While it's widely accepted that groups like Hezbollah and al Qaeda do not coordinate their efforts due to their religious differences, Calamel said this kind of thinking was "clearly disproven" by the 9/11 Commission Report.

In the events leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the report revealed (on p. 240), "... senior managers in al Qaeda maintained contacts with Iran and the Iranian-supported worldwide terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based mainly in southern Lebanon and Beirut. Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah."

In 2011, it was also concluded by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that "the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), and Iran's terrorist proxy Hezbollah, all materially aided and supported al Qaeda before and after 9/11."

"I believe al Qaeda is drawing up plans to attack the West, and these attacks could come to fruition as early as this election cycle," Calamel warned. According to him, the terror group is emboldened because "this American administration and their intelligence agencies think they're defeated when they are not."

"I fear Tehran may be using al Qaeda to facilitate an attack on the United States right under the noses of this administration," he said, adding that "the inability to connect the dots between Al Qaeda and the Islamic Republic of Iran will only harm the United States in the end."

In addition, Calamel said, "Al Qaeda may very well pin the attack to ISIS as they've often done in the past." By doing so, he argued, "Iran will undoubtedly build a couple of layers of plausible deniability, knowing this administration would struggle to connect the dots while Americans deal with the tragic loss of life and the most chaotic election cycle the country has ever seen."

National security agencies must remain vigilant, he asserted.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Long have there been charges that there are two tiers of justice in America: One for leftists and liberals and one for those who are more conservative. For example, the government failure to charge Hillary Clinton after she posted national secrets on an unsecured web server in her home.

Others have gone to jail for far less.

Jonathan Turley, the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, historically has discounted the idea that the identity of the suspect would determine the attacks by the feds.

But in an online column, he explained, "It is becoming harder to deny the existence of a two-track system of justice in the country as commentators and even a few courts raise concerns over the role of politics in prosecutions.

"For years, conservatives have objected that there is a two-tier system of justice in this country. I have long resisted such claims, but it has become increasingly difficult to deny the obvious selective prosecution in a variety of recent cases and opinions."

For example, he noted, there's the recent scandal in Georgia where Democrat Fulton County DA Fani Willis was accused of financially benefiting from the fact she hired, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $700,000, her paramour to create an organized crime case against President Trump and others, then took exotic vacations with him as part of their relationship.

The paramour, Nathan Wade, now has been removed from the case. But Willis remains.

Citing the "odor of mendacity" referenced by play author Tennessee Williams in "Cat on a Hot Tim Roof," Turley said, "That odor was particularly strong after the hearings indicated that Wade may have committed perjury in his earlier divorce case and that both Willis and Wade were credibly accused of lying on the stand about when their relationship began.

"They are prosecuting defendants in the Trump case accused of the same underlying conduct, including 19 individual counts of false statements, false filings or perjury."

But there's more, he said.

That "odor" is coming from multiple courtrooms around the country, and now is "becoming intolerable for many Americans as selective prosecution is being raised in a wide array of cases."

He cited the "strong" evidence against President Trump for having government documents at Mar-a-Lago.

"However, the recent decision of Special Counsel Robert Hur not to bring criminal charges against President Joe Biden has undermined even that case. Hur described four decades of Biden serially violating laws governing classified documents. The evidence included Biden telling a third party that he had classified material in his house and reading from a classified document to his non-cleared ghostwriter," he said. "There is evidence of an effort to destroy evidence and later an effort of the White House to change the report."

Hur recommended against charging Biden because of his "diminished" capacities.

But special counsel Jack Smith, running virtually the same charges against Trump, now "is absurdly in conflict with the treatment Biden is receiving."

And then, in New York, lawmakers changed their law to let Trump be sued over financial dealings in which no one lost any money, he said.

The AG there, Letitia James, essentially campaigned on a pledge of "selectively" prosecuting Trump.

Not to be left behind, "Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has also come up with an unprecedented way of using a state law to effectively prosecute Trump for a federal offense that the Justice Department has already rejected," Turley noted.

On the other side, the DOJ proposed a "ridiculous" plea bargain for Hunter Biden "that would have allowed for no jail time and a sweeping immunity agreement…"

And, Turley wrote, it's not just Trump.

"In California, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney issued an opinion that found such evidence of selective prosecution against conservative groups. In considering a far-right group, Carney noted that the Justice Department has had sharply different approaches based on the political views of the defendants."

Carney ruled, "Such selective prosecution leaves the troubling impression that the government believes speech on the left more deserving of protection than speech on the right," something the Constitution forbids.

He said, "FBI Director James Comey received similar gentle treatment after removing FBI material and arranging for information to be leaked to the media. Meanwhile, defendants such as Trump’s National Security Adviser Michael Flynn were pursued relentlessly for making false statements to investigators under Comey’s watch."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama was caught on camera Monday entering and exiting 10 Downing Street in London, the home of British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, sparking questions and theories about the reason for his unannounced visit.

"Why is Obama having private meetings with world leaders?" asked American political activist Laura Loomer.

Loomer later added: "Glad it has now been confirmed that Obama is running the country. Guess Biden was too sick today to make the trip to the UK. His body is shutting down. It's only a matter of time now."

Reactions to the video include:

"He no longer trusts Joe Biden ... He is handling it himself."

"Because Obama has never stopped being POTUS. We know he's pulling the strings with Biden."

"He has been betraying America like this since Trump was first inaugurated. We should look upon foreign leaders who took these secret meetings with him as enemies."

"Lol, you have to ask? The real question is, why are they letting us know it's happening?"

"Well, if he's attempting to conduct foreign policy on his own, that would violate the Logan Act, which Mike Flynn was unfairly prosecuted for. Presumably, he's not doing that. Which means he's speaking for the government. Then you have to ask, why doesn't President Biden trust our ambassador to Great Britain to do their job properly? Bottom line, something is screwy somewhere."

"They have to discuss his 4th term."

"Yes, I love how people act like this is normal. It's not."

"Needs to pick up a certified copy of his forged birth certificate from MI6."

Sky News in Britain reports:

Our political correspondent Tamara Cohen says the meeting was a "courtesy visit" while Mr Obama is in London for meetings to do with his foundation.

Mr Obama and Rishi Sunak have never met before as the former president left office in 2017.

As it was a private meeting, Tamara says we will not be given a full readout of everything they discussed.

Likely topics, however, include the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

"Whether it touches on UK or US politics, we may not find out," Tamara says.

She adds that it "took us all by surprise to see him walking up the street" when Mr Obama arrived this afternoon.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

It looks like NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers will not be the presidential running mate of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after all.

A published report by Mediaite indicates the independent candidate is planning to select Nicole Shanahan, a California-based attorney and entrepreneur once married to Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

The report said consideration of the New York Jets football star as the VP pick "prompted concerns among donors to the campaign."

Shanahan was behind Kennedy's Super Bowl commercial and is now expected to be named RFK Jr.'s choice.

"They align on numerous issues," a source close to the campaign said of Kennedy and Shanahan.

"The campaign is also looking for a candidate who can help finance the ballot access initiative."

"She might be infusing millions of dollars into the campaign to help fund the ballot initiative, which makes her attractive financially; however, she lacks the qualifications to do the job."

"Mediaite found that the domain www.kennedyshanahan.com was registered on March 13th, and verified the donation page is live and accepting donations at the subdomain pay.kennedyshanahan.com," the website said.

"Mediaite donated $1 through that donation page to discover the domain was registered by Kennedy senior advisor Link Lipsitz," it noted.

Meanwhile, Kennedy's campaign is keeping tight-lipped on any formal decision.

"There has been a lot of speculation in the media about Mr. Kennedy’s pick of vice presidential running mate,” his press office told the New York Post in a written statement.

"The official announcement will be on March 26 in Oakland, CA. We hope to see you there."

Shanahan, 38, told the New York Times she donated $4 million to the American Values 2024 super PAC, to help fund the $7 million 30-second commercial during this year's Super Bowl.

"While claiming not to be an 'anti-vaxxer,' she said she shared Kennedy's constant attacks on vaccines. She also describes herself as a progressive who cares about children's health," the Post reported.

According to records obtained by the New York Times, Shanahan donated to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign and gave a maximum of $6,600 to Kennedy's campaign in May of last year while he was still seeking the Democratic nomination.

The Post reported:

The Bay Area attorney was married to Google’s Brin in 2018 – but they officially divorced last summer after she was reportedly romantically involved with Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

Musk and Brin were previously longtime friends, and Musk frequently stayed over at Brin’s home, the Wall Street Journal reported in 2022.

However, the two reportedly had a falling out following Musk and Shanahan’s brief fling in December 2021, when Brin requested that his financial advisers sell his personal investments in Musk’s companies.

Musk and Shanahan have denied the allegations.

"This is total bs," Musk posted on X in July 2022, in response to a user who shared the WSJ article.

"I've only seen Nicole twice in three years, both times with many other people around. Nothing romantic," he added.

Brin filed for a dissolution of marriage from Shanahan in January 2022. The couple shares a young daughter together, according to People.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new report stunningly has revealed that those "studies" regarding gender dysphoria, studies used to promote the scientifically impossible ideology that men can become women or vice versa, are not studies at all.

Essentially, they're propaganda.

It is Liberty Counsel, a team of legal experts that has fought multiple bans on counseling that helps people deal with those unwanted sex attractions, that has reported, "A group of scientists reviewed the compendium of current 'studies' on gender dysphoria. The researchers reviewed 5,765 scientific articles across 46 different health, psychology, science, social, and humanities databases."

The report said, "What these scientists found is that nearly all of the published research around gender affirmation includes significant flaws. These flaws would never be justified in actual scientific diagnostic procedures without the highly coordinated social and political pressure campaign the rabid LGBTQ community is waging."

Explained Liberty Counsel, "For several years, we have been told that gender dysphoria must be treated by affirming the patient’s delusion and poisoning the patient with cross-sex hormones while waiting for body mutilation surgeries to remove healthy organs. How many times have we been told that 'the science is settled'? Well, it turns out 'the science' isn't settled. What the so-called gender industry has been shoving down our throats is not science at all."

The report cited the review that confirmed many studies are no more than the "political bias" of the "gender affirmation" industry.

"This garbage is being used to BAN Christian counseling," the team explained.

"We’ve overturned 23 Christian counseling bans, but this truth-telling and lifesaving counseling remains banned in 87 other cities and states."

Such counseling involves talk therapy that might discuss a trauma that could trigger unwanted feelings and methods to cope with those. Most of the "bans" that have been adopted continue to allow, even encourage, counseling that promotes LGBT beliefs but ban anything that would suggest people leave those lifestyles.

The report notes the review of studies found "a near-complete 'lack of reliable and valid diagnostic criterion' being used to diagnose people with gender identity disorders."

"The American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) own website states that randomized control trials are considered the most valid method of approaching 'scientific data' in establishing treatment guidelines. Yet those trials have not been performed on the people the so-called 'gender care' industry targets. Instead, study after study was based on 'clinical data' drawn from therapists’ opinions after observation," the report warned.

Even the APA calls that the least reliable method for assessments.

Liberty Counsel pointed out, "Half of the studies reported to the APA justifying 'gender affirmation' care never even bothered to describe the methodology used to come to the authors’ conclusion. As a result, the researchers note that 'it is impossible to assess the reliability or validity of the methodology.'"

The studies, despite their lack of science, still promote "surgical" mutilations of bodies, the report said.

"They are wrong. Those pushing the LGBTQ agenda want to silence the truth and deprive people of receiving the counsel of their choice. They want to indoctrinate children, and force the LGBTQ propaganda on parents, students, and employees," Liberty Counsel warned.

"What these 5,765 studies reveal is that we have a highly politicized mental health system more concerned with billable insurance codes and profitable designer surgeries than with proper mental health treatment."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Democrats and unions go together, mostly.

Organized labor almost always is aligned with the political goals of the Democrat Party. Few Republicans ever see a union endorsement, and the donations from union members largely end up in Democrat coffers.

But that hand-in-glove relationship is taking a hit in Colorado, where union leaders are complaining that Democrat leaders in the statehouse are refusing to engage in wage talks.

The fight is described by Colorado Politics and involves the Political Workers Guild of Colorado.

That group represents legislative aides, organizers, and campaign workers, and in a letter charged that its members suggested a cost-of-living wage increase from $23 an hour to $30 an hour.

And they proposed full benefits like other members of Colorado's legislature.

But the union said state leaders, all Democrats in Colorado's one-party rule, "ignored the proposal and declined to meet."

"Democratic leadership abandons the labor values they campaign on when it comes time to pay their staff a living wage," the union charged.

The union said negotiations have stalled because Democrat leadership won't engage, but Senate President Steve Feinberg said it's simply a matter of the legislative process, and the bill tied to the discussions has advanced from the House to the Senate.

Fenberg said Democrat leaders have been working with PWG since its creation in 2021.

He called it a "mischaracterization" to say Democrats are not negotiating.

Twenty-four members of the state House joined in the letter expressing concerns about the pay, but Fenberg said those members should have addressed their concerns when the bill was before them.

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts