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.
Members of the U.S. Senate are asking the chief judge in the Washington district to suspend James Boasberg while an impeachment case against him develops.
Boasberg was the judge who was an active participant in the Democrats' lawfare against President Donald Trump as far back as the 2016 presidential election, that vote stained by the fabricated "Russiagate" scandal that used lies to try to injure Trump.
Boasberg's long activism against Trump extends far beyond his pursuit of the Democrats' "Arctic Frost" investigation against Trump, too.
He radically ordered jets carrying illegal aliens being deported from the United State to be returned, with the criminals aboard, disregarding whether the jets even had the fuel to make it back.
He's been targeted with misconduct complaints for openly questioning whether Trump, who was involved in cases pending before the judge, would obey court orders.
The letter explains there is bicameral support for an impeachment of Boasberg, who was accused of improperly assigning himself a case for which the Supreme Court later found he lacked jurisdiction.
He's tried to enforce his own orders despite being overturned by the Supreme Court.
Now the Washington Examiner said senators led by Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., are pressing the federal judiciary for a Boasberg suspension.
They cite the latest scandal involving Boasberg, his decision to authorize Biden administration investigators to access the telephone records of multiple senators – without informing them.
The letter was directed to D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan.
U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, already has filed impeachment articles over Boasberg's activism.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are refusing to appear before the U.S. Congress to testify in connection with the sordid case of convicted Palm Beach pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, according to a member of the House Oversight Committee.
U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., made that assertion Monday afternoon, stating: "Bill and Hillary Clinton are refusing to appear before House Oversight for their depositions regarding Jeffrey Epstein."
"Notice how House Democrats suddenly have nothing to say about it," the congresswoman added.
On Monday, President Donald Trump again directly tied Bill Clinton to Epstein, saying, "All of [Epstein's] friends were Democrats. You look at this Reid Hoffman, you look at Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, they went to his island all the time, and many others. All Democrats."
This comes on the heels of Trump's Truth Social post on Friday, where he named the same names, saying, "Records show that these men, and many others, spent large portions of their life with Epstein, and on his 'Island.' Stay tuned!!!"
With Former President Clinton being potentially connected to Epstein by Trump with last week's release of more emails, Clinton spokesman Angel Ureña stated in a brief statement on X: "These emails prove Bill Clinton did nothing and knew nothing. The rest is noise meant to distract from election losses, backfiring shutdowns, and who knows what else."
As WorldNetDaily reported earlier Monday, after initially calling people urging the release of files on convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein "stupid" and "foolish," Trump has pulled a 180 and is now making a fresh call to make all the files public.
In a lengthy Truth Social post Sunday night, Trump said: "House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it's time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat 'Shutdown.'
"The Department of Justice has already turned over tens of thousands of pages to the Public on 'Epstein,' are looking at various Democrat operatives (Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, Larry Summers, etc.) and their relationship to Epstein, and the House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to, I DON'T CARE!
"All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT, which is the Economy, 'Affordability' (where we are winning BIG!), our Victory on reducing Inflation from the highest level in History to practically nothing, bringing down prices for the American People, delivering Historic Tax Cuts, gaining Trillions of Dollars of Investment into America (A RECORD!), the rebuilding of our Military, securing our Border, deporting Criminal Illegal Aliens, ending Men in Women's Sports, stopping Transgender for Everyone, and so much more! Nobody cared about Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive and, if the Democrats had anything, they would have released it before our Landslide Election Victory.
"Some 'members' of the Republican Party are being 'used,' and we can't let that happen. Let's start talking about the Republican Party's Record Setting Achievements, and not fall into the Epstein 'TRAP,' which is actually a curse on the Democrats, not us. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"ADVERTISEMENT
Trump's new position on the files is the exact opposite of his stance in July, when he unleashed a furious tirade against his own supporters who sought the files, saying he no longer wants their support.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Colorado family wants to punish the town of Elizabeth for ticketing their son, now an adult, for an alleged curfew violation that was based on an unconstitutional law.
Technically, the family is suing for years of out-of-pocket costs for court battles, compensatory damages, and even punitive damages. Plus lawyers' fees and interest.
It is at Complete Colorado that the situation is described.
Michael and Jennifer Saunders, along with their now-adult son Joseph, are suing the town for the curfew ticket issued to a then 17-year-old Joseph several years ago.
It was in 2021 when he was returning home from a Saturday evening with friends, with his parents' permission.
It was a little after midnight that Elizabeth police officers stopped a group of people and cited the high school boys for the curfew violation.
That law, at the time, banned individuals under 18 from being out past midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. It also barred them from public streets before 5 a.m. on all days.
A municipal court found Saunders guilty, but the case was appealed and a district judge in Elbert County in 2024 declared the ordinance unconstitutional.
The town didn't appeal and the citation eventually was waived and the ordinance changed to comply with constitutional requirements.
Now the Saunders family members are seeking, in federal district court, compensation for their years of trouble and expense.
The parents spent "thousands of dollars defending" this case, according to their complaint, and the "entire family suffered extreme emotional distress from the incident, the Parents were ridiculed by others in the community, and they were afraid to allow their children to travel within the Town of Elizabeth at any time. The Parents feared reprisal from the Town and the Police Department. The Parents experienced great stress and lived in fear that they may be improperly parenting their children."
It cites, specifically, "damages for pain and suffering, physical injury, mental and emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and all other non-economic and economic damages."
Defendants, beside the town, include three police officers involved in the original citation.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden's "puddles" agenda for water rules now is under fire from Environmental Agency chief Lee Zeldin.
It is the Waters of the United States rule that left an Idaho couple facing fines of up to $33,000 a day for starting to build a home on a residential subdivision land plot in Idaho.
The U.S. Supreme Court earlier reversed the outcome in that case, involving the Sackett family.
But Zeldin is working on a revamp of the regulation that was adopted during the Nixon administration under the Clean Water Act to control wetlands.
The Barack Obama and Biden administrations expanded the definitions of "navigable waters" to the point landowners feared the EPA "could swoop in at any moment and usurp control of their lands," according to a report at Fox News.
Zeldin explained, "When it comes to the definition of 'waters of the United States,' EPA has an important responsibility to protect water resources while setting clear and practical rules of the road that accelerate economic growth and opportunity."
Obama had grabbed vast new powers under the law, before Trump during his first term in office restored them to working definitions, the report said.
But Biden again expanded the federal government's reach.
Under his standards, low spots that collected puddles "could be found to have a 'significant nexus' to navigable water," the report said.
Zeldin said the goal now is to deliver on a Trump administration promise to make regulations clear while also protecting the nation's waterways.
The EPA said nine "listening sessions" were held and the conclusions offered were that commonsense guidelines were needed.
Now being developed are definitions for "relatively permanent" waterways, "tributary" and more.
"Wetlands" now in fact must be "wet" for a minimum time each year.
"Democrat administrations have weaponized the definition of navigable waters to seize more power from American farmers, landowners, entrepreneurs, and families," Zeldin said. "We heard from Americans across the country who want clean water and a clear rule. No longer should America's landowners be forced to spend precious money hiring an attorney or consultant just to tell them whether a Water of the United States is on their property."
WorldNetDaily reported over the years on the Sackett fight. The Supreme Court eventually gave the Idaho couple, Chantell and Mike Sackett, victory in their years-long fight with the Environmental Protection Agency.
It agents claimed their residential building land in Priest Lake was protected "wetlands" even though it wasn't wet, wasn't attached to navigable waters and was surrounded by homes on other lots.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
While the federal government cracks down on illegal aliens who obtained commercial driver's licenses from California, the state of New York has its own scandal where employees of the Department of Motor Vehicles were allegedly getting paid to take the written driving tests on behalf of trucker-wannabes.
Seven people, including DMV employees, have been charged with 51 felony counts by the Nassau County District Attorney's Office on Long Island.
"Bypassing that safeguard is far from a harmless shortcut, it is a dangerous threat to public safety," said New York Inspector General Lucy Lang last month.
WABC-TV reported: "Among those charged include Kanaisha Middleton, a supervisor at the Garden City branch of the DMV, as well as her sister, Jamie Middleton, who is accused of taking at least 10 different permit tests for no-show drivers.
"Surveillance images show Jamie Middleton wearing different disguises, even fake facial hair as she posed as a man who would be applying for a commercial driving permit, but she forgot to take off her fake nails."
"We think it's pretty, pretty poor. The finger nails kind of gave it away," Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly said.
"She's in disguise, coming in different clothing and even going so far as to wear fake mustaches, beards, glasses, masks – almost like a spy in an espionage thriller,"
according to the New York Post.
"These disguises were all about selling the scheme for the cameras," she said. "[The real applicants] never set foot in the Garden City DMV, never clicked a single button to take the required test."
Authorities say the defendants charged up to $3,000 per test, with two of the accused working the DMV counters so they could wave through the phony test taker.
Donnelly said Middleton sat for at least 10 tests, despite looking nothing like the applicants.
"One day, she actually sat twice. Came out, went back to the counter, and back in five minutes later," Donnelly said.
Charges include impairing the integrity of a government licensing examination, tampering with public records, corrupting the government and falsifying business records.
If found guilty, the accused face a maximum sentence of 2.5 to 7 years in prison.
As WorldNetDaily reported last week, an investigation by the U.S. Department of Transportation revealed California has issued 17,000 commercial licenses to "dangerous" foreign-born truck drivers.
"After weeks of claiming they did nothing wrong, Gavin Newsom and California have been caught red-handed," Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Wednesday.
"Now that we've exposed their lies, 17,000 illegally issued trucking licenses are being revoked."
"This is just the tip of the iceberg. My team will continue to force California to prove they have removed every illegal immigrant from behind the wheel of semitrucks and school buses."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Copies of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence used by students in the Anchorage, Alaska, school district have been slapped with a surprising disclaimer.
Now school officials are explaining it all was a "mistake."
According to a report from the Anchorage Daily News, images were posted online of a Hillsdale College handout of the Declaration and the Constitution, with the label attached that read, "The Anchorage School District does not endorse these materials or the viewpoint expressed in them."
A district official has a reason.
MJ Thim, a district official, explained in an email the stickers are meant to clarify the difference between "official district information" and materials from outside sources.
"This was our mistake. The request that came in wasn't for a flyer or poster and shouldn't have been processed through that system. We will be following up directly with the requestor to make things right," Thim said, according to ADN.
"The U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence are an important part of what students learn social studies," Thim wrote. "These founding documents are taught in every school and reflect the values we want every student to understand."
Hillsdale is a private liberal arts school in Michigan, and donates the booklets.
"Alaska's Attorney General appointee Stephen Cox is the treasurer on the board of directors for Thomas More Classical School, a Hillsdale-affiliated K-6 private school set to open in Anchorage next fall. Cox is also listed as a co-founder and past board president of the school," the report said.
Cox said on social media, said, "something has gone terribly wrong."
"A disclaimer saying the school district doesn't endorse these documents can only confuse students, by implying their own school won't stand for the first principles of our Republic. It raises important questions, and we'll get the answers," Cox said.
The College Fix said a student noticed the disclaimer, and showed it to her mom, who wrote on social media, "I was honestly stunned. These aren't controversial documents, they are the foundation of our country and what our students are supposed to be learning about. Why would a school need to distance itself from the very principles we are built on?
"I fully support transparency in education and just want to understand this policy better. Parents deserve clarity. If outside materials are being sent home, especially involving American founding documents, the messaging should be thoughtful and not confusing to families."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The fight is between two people who never married but whose daughter now is nearly a teen. And the coming decision by the Maine Supreme Court will determine if judges in that state can simply overturn the constitutional religious rights of parents.
The battle has been outlined by Liberty Counsel, which explained the judge's trial court ruling in the dispute between mother and father is well into the extreme range, or beyond.
For example, the judge ruled that the custodial mother "is a fit parent EXCEPT for the fact that she is a Christian."
The war erupted over the non-custodial father's opposition to Christianity, specifically demanding to ban his daughter's attendance at a Christian church.
But, based on the "counsel" to the court from a "Marxist former sociality professor," the judge said the daughter "cannot associate with any of her church friends or any member of Calvary Chapel Portland."
And, "If Ava meets a new friend outside of Calvary and that person begins attending Calvary, Ava must cut ties with that friend."
And, "Ava cannot attend ANY Christmas, Easter, or any other Christian event or celebration at ANY church, including any wedding, funeral, or even hospital visits with anyone associated with Calvary Chapel."
And, "Ava cannot have any contact or participation with ANY religious organization (which would include Salvation Army or a food bank, homeless shelter, or crisis pregnancy center."
And, "Ava cannot read the Bible or religious literature or be exposed to any 'religious philosophy'"
But even with that extremism, the judge wasn't done with his anti-Christian agenda, Liberty Counsel reported.
"The judge mocked Ava and Emily's faith by purposefully refusing to capitalize the word 'God' — something I have never seen," reported Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver, who argued the little girl's case before the state Supreme Court last week.
"The judge even chastised Emily for allowing the church pastor to pray for Ava. And the judge ruled that Emily could not take Ava to ANY church unless Matt approves. And Matt has steadfastly refused to approve ANY church."
Newsweek wrote that the judge's order was "unusually sweeping."
"The state's high court must now determine whether judges can curtail a fit parent's religious practices based on findings of potential psychological harm, a question that could reshape how courts nationwide weigh parental rights, religious freedom and expert testimony in custody disputes," the report said.
Staver pointed out to the court, "There is no finding of abuse or neglect" in the record, which only shows an incident where the child experienced "anxiety."
The agenda to comply with the anti-Christian wishes of the father and his advisers violates the Constitution regarding the mother's rights, he said.
A lawyer for the father, Matthew Bradeen, claimed it is a compelling state interest to violate the rights of the mother, Emily Bickford.
Staver described the lower court's ruling as reeking of "hostility."
That decision gave Bradeen totalitarian control over religious decisions for the girl, soon to be 13.
A report from WCSH-TV said Bradeen's "expert" witness looked at Calvary Chapel's sermons and then claimed they were a "psychological risk."
At issue is the fact that courts are not allowed to sit in judgment of religious beliefs or doctrines.
Liberty Counsel explained the background: "Matt Bradeen never married Emily after she became pregnant over a dozen years ago. The relationship ended before Ava was even born. Emily had primary custody of Ava, and Matt had visitation rights. Ava and Emily had been attending Calvary Chapel, an evangelical Christian church in Portland, ME, for 3½ years. Ava informed her father last year that she was excited to be baptized. But whereas most parents would be overjoyed, Matt found an ACLU judge and flew in a Marxist former sociology professor from California to testify that Calvary Chapel (and any church that believes the Bible) are 'cults' that cause psychological harm to children."
Staver explained of the recent court hearing, "The majority of justices said the order is hostile toward religion and that it used a 'nuclear option' by taking all decision-making away from an unquestionably fit parent regarding the religious upbringing of her daughter."
A ruling is expected in the coming weeks.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – After initially calling people urging the release of files on convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein "stupid" and "foolish," President Donald Trump has pulled a 180 and is now making a fresh call to make all the files public.
In a lengthy Truth Social post Sunday night, Trump said: "House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it's time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat 'Shutdown.'
"The Department of Justice has already turned over tens of thousands of pages to the Public on 'Epstein,' are looking at various Democrat operatives (Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, Larry Summers, etc.) and their relationship to Epstein, and the House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to, I DON'T CARE!
"All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT, which is the Economy, 'Affordability' (where we are winning BIG!), our Victory on reducing Inflation from the highest level in History to practically nothing, bringing down prices for the American People, delivering Historic Tax Cuts, gaining Trillions of Dollars of Investment into America (A RECORD!), the rebuilding of our Military, securing our Border, deporting Criminal Illegal Aliens, ending Men in Women's Sports, stopping Transgender for Everyone, and so much more! Nobody cared about Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive and, if the Democrats had anything, they would have released it before our Landslide Election Victory.
"Some 'members' of the Republican Party are being 'used,' and we can't let that happen. Let's start talking about the Republican Party's Record Setting Achievements, and not fall into the Epstein 'TRAP,' which is actually a curse on the Democrats, not us. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Trump's new position on the files is the exact opposite of his stance in July, when he unleashed a furious tirade against his own supporters who sought the files, saying he no longer wants their support.
"I don't want their support anymore!" Trump exclaimed on Truth Social.
"My PAST supporters have bought into this 'bullsh**,' hook, line, and sinker."
His full statement reads:
"The Radical Left Democrats have hit pay dirt, again! Just like with the FAKE and fully discredited Steele Dossier, the lying 51 "Intelligence" Agents, the Laptop from Hell, which the Dems swore had come from Russia (No, it came from Hunter Biden's bathroom!), and even the Russia, Russia, Russia Scam itself, a totally fake and made up story used in order to hide Crooked Hillary Clinton's big loss in the 2016 Presidential Election, these Scams and Hoaxes are all the Democrats are good at – It's all they have – They are no good at governing, no good at policy, and no good at picking winning candidates.
Also, unlike Republicans, they stick together like glue. Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this "bullsh**," hook, line, and sinker. They haven't learned their lesson, and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for 8 long years.
I have had more success in 6 months than perhaps any President in our Country's history, and all these people want to talk about, with strong prodding by the Fake News and the success starved Dems, is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax. Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don't even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don't want their support anymore! Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Trump also told reporters: "I don't understand it, why they'd be so interested. He's dead for a long time. He was never a big factor in terms of life, I don't understand what the interest or what the fascination is."
"It's pretty boring stuff. It's sordid, but it's boring. And I don't understand why it keeps going. I think really only pretty bad people including fake news want to keep something like that going. But credible information, let 'em give it. Anything that's credible, I would say let them have it."
The U.S. House Of Representatives is scheduled to vote on releasing all the Epstein files this week.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
City officials often boast of their climate, their schools, their community life, their economy, even their sports teams.
However, a new survey has been released by WalletHub that probably will not attract a lot of attention from those public relations offices responsible for touting the benefits of their locations.
It's about the nation's most sinful cities.
It is KDVR television in Denver that noted its city ranked No. 6 overall.
No. 1 was "Sin City" Las Vegas, Nevada.
"The study looked at seven areas of focus: anger & hatred, jealousy, excesses & vices, greed, lust, vanity and laziness to determine the ranking using 37 data points including things like violent crime, obesity rates and online searches for illicit behavior," the report said.
Just what a city wants to be known for: "Online searches for illicit behavior."
After No. 1 Las Vegas came Houston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Atlanta.
Following No. 6 Denver were Miami, Dallas, Phoenix and New Orleans.
WalletHub's goal was to be ranking "the darkest corners of America."
Denver exceled at "anger & hatred," which to state residents isn't a surprise based on the state's long-term agenda to attack Christians and Christianity.
The state's history of anti-Christian activism dates back more than a decade already. Phillips, of Masterpiece Cakeshop, has been in the courts for that long for refusing to submit his Christian faith to the progressive LGBT agenda in which state officials believe.
That's despite the state losing at the U.S. Supreme Court in the fight.
Same thing happened with the state's demand a web designer give up her Christian faith in order to operate her business. It lost again at the Supreme Court, and taxpayers there were billed millions for state officials to waste in their legal fight.
Right now the Supreme Court is considering whether the allow the state to censor pro-Christian comments by counselors, who are urged to deliver pro-LGBT ideologies to young clients. And the state recently attempted to impose its transgender beliefs on a Christian children's camp.
Most recently, the state was sued for an anti-Christian discrimination in a program purportedly providing preschool to children.
The report said, "Data points in the anger and hatred category include violent crime rates, bullying, hate groups, gun deaths and mass shootings. In the lust category, the study looked at adult entertainment establishments, online searches for 'XXX Entertainment' and 'Tinder' and teen birth rates."
Denver was No. 2 among dozens and dozens of cities evaluated for excesses in drinking and vices.