This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A radical group promoting abortion has lost its bid in court to overturn a parental consent law in the state of Missouri.
The American Center for Law and Justice reports it was a "decisive" victory for life, parental rights and the rule of law.
The court ruling, from the Circuit Court of Jackson County in Kansas City, dismissed the lawsuit filed by abortion promoters seeking to destroy "the state's commonsense parental consent law."
"This is a major win for Missouri families," the legal team explained.
The ACLJ, which filed a legal brief in the fight to defend the right of parents to be involved in the most serious life decisions in their children's lives, said, "A group of abortion activists backed by 'The Lawyering Project,' an organization devoted to expanding abortion through the courts, attempted to strike down Missouri's long-standing parental consent law."
The statute, which dated back decades, ensures minors cannot undergo abortions without the knowledge and consent of a parent or guardian.
The fight was taken by abortion promoters to extremes, the report said.
"In a shocking legal stunt, they sued a small handpicked list of prosecutors, asking the court to certify them as a 'defendant class' that could speak for the entire state – effectively silencing Missouri's elected attorney general and the millions of citizens whose voices shaped the state's pro-life protections. The ACLJ answered the Missouri AG's request to file in opposition to this attempt to create a class for a class-action suit," the ACLJ reported.
Now, with the dismissal, the result is "a resounding rejection of the abortion industry's underhanded tactics," the report said, and, "Missouri's parental consent law remains in full effect – protecting young girls from being pressured or manipulated into abortions without their parents' knowledge and preserving the state's rightful authority to uphold pro-life values."
It's also a win for Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway who has been defending the state's broader pro-life protections in a separate case.
"The court affirmed that Missouri has both the right and the responsibility to protect minors, defend parental authority, and stand against the abortion industry's reckless disregard for law and life," the ACLJ said.
The court ruling found that that plaintiffs were operating "as an unincorporated association," so they didn't even have the right to sue.
"In the absence of statutory authority, a voluntary or unincorporated association cannot sue or be sued as such. As a general rule, an unincorporated voluntary association is not a legal entity apart from its members and therefore cannot sue or be sued as a separate entity," the ruling said.
"Consequently, absent incorporation or other formal legal registration of Right By You with the Missouri Secretary of State, it remains purely a voluntary association with 'no entity status beyond the status of those persons who comprise the association.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Colorado has a novel concept in its state constitution. TABOR, the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, dates back to when the state was both Republican and Democrat, unlike its current leadership that is all-Democrat.
The provision simply calls for a vote of the people before any taxes are raised.
Now lawmakers frequently have run end-arounds to their own constitution, insisting that the money they demand is a "fee," not a tax. But that defies reality in that they charge "fees" for Colorado residents to use roads and bridges, but refuse to charge that same "fee" to out-of-state drivers using the same roads and bridges.
If it walks and talks like a tax…
Leftists in the Democrat-majority legislature also repeatedly have used a state Supreme Court ruling that appeared to allow "de minimus" or "incidental" tax revenue changes without a vote.
Now the lawmakers were faced with a serious budget shortfall, which was aggravated by their decision to replace millions of dollars abortionists lost because of congressional action and millions that wealthy EV buyers would have lost because of federal changes, with money from state taxpayers' pockets, and turned to their agenda of scooping up all the money they can.
Too much, came the warning, even from the state Supreme Court, which is so far left members tried to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot before being scolded by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A report at Complete Colorado revealed the state court has put officials on notice about those tax hikes.
The warning came in a court ruling that struck down two tax increases in the city of Lakewood.
"In doing so, justices raised issues that cast doubt on 'hocus pocus' incantations relied upon by legislators during the special session," the report explained.
The court, through Justice Richard Gabriel, said, "[A] taxing district (including the state) cannot exempt itself from TABOR's restrictions and requirements simply by declaring that a legislative change has a purpose other than revenue generation."
"This should be a cold shower for lawmakers who think they can alter reality with a legislative declaration. Passing a bill that declares, 'up is down,' doesn't make it so," the report said.
Further, the court found, "it was obvious when each (Lakewood) Ordinance was enacted that it would have the effect of raising revenue," and added, "although revenue generation may not have been the only purpose … revenue generation was not merely incidental."
To bring that back to state lawmakers, in their special session in August, they "passed several bills to raise tax revenue and partially fill the growing chasm between federal tax policy and progressive Democrats' insatiable spending," the report said.
The state's Democrat majority demanded Colorado taxpayers increase their state tax liability by adding back a 20% deduction allowed under federal law for business income received from partnerships, sole proprietorships and certain corporations, the report said.
That bill is expected to increase tax revenue by $97 million in 2025-26, the report said.
Further, lawmakers decided to reduce a tax deduction for insurance companies that keep at least 2% of their employees based in Colorado, resulting in an estimated $90 million increase in tax revenue, the report said.
Their thinking was that nearly $200 million in tax increases was "incidental" and "de minimus."
House Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) is winning praise from the left as she strays from her party's shutdown talking points.
The Georgia congressman is demanding the renewal of the Obamacare tax credits at the center of the government shutdown, warning that premiums will double unless Congress acts.
“I’m absolutely disgusted that health insurance premiums will DOUBLE if the tax credits expire this year,” Greene wrote on X.
With her take on the subsidies, Greene is at odds with Republican leaders who have insisted on passing a "clean" continuing resolution to open the government without any policy attachments.
Democrats have refused to support a funding bill without guarantees that Congress will extend the enhanced tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year.
Greene said she is "not a fan" of the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare, and she acknowledged the health care law made insurance unaffordable for her family. But she defended the tax credits that many people, including her own children, rely on to afford the steep premiums on the Obamacare health exchanges.
“I’m going to go against everyone on this issue because when the tax credits expire this year, my own adult children’s insurance premiums for 2026 are going to DOUBLE, along with all the wonderful families and hard-working people in my district,” the Georgia Republican continued.
Democrats including Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-Ny.), the party's leader in the shutdown fight, have highlighted the support from Greene to attack her party as out of touch on healthcare.
“So hold on to your hats,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “I think this is the first time I said this, but, on this issue, Representative Greene said it perfectly.”
Greene is regarded with contempt by most liberals, making her alignment with Democrats on Obamacare surprising to many.
But this is not the first time that the Trump-supporting Greene has bucked the president and his party, with Greene also supporting a discharge petition to force a vote on the so-called Epstein files as Trump seeks to move on from the controversy. Greene has also criticized Trump at times for moves on foreign policy that she says betray the "America First" creed.
Republicans, including Trump, have said they are willing to negotiate healthcare, but not while the government is shut down.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has dismissed Greene's criticism of the party's healthcare plans as uninformed.
“Congresswoman Greene does not serve on the committees of jurisdiction to deal with those specialized issues, and she’s probably not read that in on some of that, because it’s still been sort of in their silos of the people who specialize in those issues,” Johnson said Tuesday.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new study from South Korea has documented how COVID shots and their boosters, mandated by corporations, military commanders, federal officials and more during the pandemic created by the China virus, push up the risk of cancers.
A report at Childrens Health Defense cites the study by South Koreans published in Biomarker Research, a Springer Nature journal.
The study included more than eight million people and found COVID-19 shots and boosters "are associated with a higher risk of breast, colorectal, gastric, lung, prostate and thyroid cancer, across all vaccine types and age groups."
"Mainstream medical commentators" claimed the findings are "flawed."
But others found value in the results.
"In plain terms: both major COVID-19 vaccine platforms appear to be carcinogenic," epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher wrote in a post on Substack.
Those would be mRNA and non-mRNA.
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a medical oncologist, told The Defender the study builds on other recent findings but 'is the first to show that cDNA [non-mRNA] and mRNA vaccines are associated with cancer risk, suggesting that the spike protein is directly carcinogenic,'" the report said.
The report noted, "The researchers said the 'shared structures' contained within the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 vaccines, including the spike protein, might mean that the COVID-19 shots are associated with cancer risks."
The data comes from some 8.4 million people in South Korea's National Health Insurance Service database. And researchers tracked patients for a year, after dividing them in vaccination status groups, and found the overall cancer risk among those given shots was 27% higher.
For breast cancer, the risk was 20% higher, 28% higher for colorrectal cancer, 34% higher for gastric cancer, 53% higher for lung cancer and 69% higher for prostate cancer.
The report said, "COVID-19 mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna showed a 20% higher overall risk of cancer and were most closely linked to a higher risk of breast, colorectal, lung and thyroid cancers. Non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, known as cDNA vaccines and which include the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) shots, were associated with a 47% higher overall risk of cancer. They were specifically linked to an increased risk of colorectal, gastric, lung, prostate and thyroid cancers."
Hulscher confirmed, "The elevated cancer risks were not confined to one vaccine platform. Each vaccine type was associated with a measurable increase in overall cancer — and each had specific cancer sites driving the signal. In other words, no vaccine technology was free of cancer risk in this dataset."
Hulscher wrote: "Both the overall and site-specific results show a consistent pattern — every demographic group experienced elevated cancer risks, though the type and absolute burden varied. Women and the elderly were hit hardest, but no population segment was spared."
Critics charged the study failed to account for family histories of cancer, and screening histories.
But Children's Health Defense research scientist Karl Jablonowski explained, "The criticism levied against the study is of healthy user bias. The idea that people more likely to engage in one medical intervention (vaccination) are also more likely to engage in another (cancer screening) … is a valid concern for a vaxed-unvaxed study such as this one, as those seeking a vaccine will have drastically different healthcare-seeking behavior than those not seeking a vaccine.
"[However,] this is not just a vaxed-unvaxed study — it also differentiates the vaccines. Healthy user bias is not a point of argument for why one vaccine (cDNA) shows a strong cancer risk above another (mRNA). Further, the study doesn't say vaccines cause cancer, but are associated with them."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump's Sept. 19 proclamation imposing a $100,000 fee on all new H-1B petitions while acknowledging that the program has unjustly displaced many American workers has put the whole H-1B visa program under sharp scrutiny. It is the first time a presidential administration has admitted publicly that the program has inflicted measurable harm on Americans.
The H-1B promise vs. reality
The H-1B visa was created in 1990 under the Immigration and Nationality Act. It was meant to let companies bring in foreign workers for "specialty occupations" when no American worker could be found. Congress set the cap at 65,000 visas per year, later raising it to 85,000.
On paper, it looked like a narrow tool for filling rare shortages. In practice, the safeguards never existed and abuse has exploded.
Employers don't have to prove there's truly a shortage. They only need to claim they'll pay a "prevailing wage." Yet in reality, those wages are often well below market pay. On top of that, spouses and dependents arrive on H-4 visas, many of them also thus eligible to work. What was sold as a limited program has ballooned into a pipeline far larger than the statutory cap suggests.
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector
A 'cap' that isn't a cap
What most people don't know is that there are entire categories of employers, universities, research institutions and qualifying nonprofits that are legally exempt from the annual cap. Which means they can sponsor unlimited numbers of foreign workers year-round.
An even lesser-known loophole makes the system even more porous: Once a worker is hired by a cap-exempt employer, that same worker can hold a second job at a private company that normally would be subject to the cap. This effectively allows corporations to skip the H-1B lottery and gain unlimited access to foreign workers under the protection of nonprofit sponsorship.
The Build Fellowship: A nonprofit mask for corporate labor
The Open Avenues Foundation/Build Fellowship shows how these exemptions are being commercialized. Marketed as an educational fellowship, it advertises itself as a way to connect foreign professionals with U.S. universities. But the program's own documents reveal its business model is actually a visa pipeline.
Fellows are placed in nominal nonprofit roles for just five hours per week. That's enough to qualify them for a cap-exempt H-1B visa. Once they've cleared that hurdle, they move into full-time jobs at private companies through concurrent H-1B filings.
Universities like George Washington University lend the program legitimacy. Through GW's Market Discovery Program, international startups gain access to American markets under the guise of academic collaboration, with subsidized office space in Washington, D.C.'s Penn West "innovation district."
Other nonprofit partners, like DREAM Venture Labs repeat the same pattern. They openly pitch the fellowship as a way for immigrant entrepreneurs to obtain nonprofit roles that open the door to cap-exempt visas.
Universities from Boston University to Ohio State, Vanderbilt and Illinois Tech provide the legal foundation, giving the program an aura of academic respectability. In reality, these partnerships act as visa gateways, enabling a parallel immigration system outside the federal cap.
By layering nonprofit sponsorship over private-sector jobs, Build allows companies to bypass the federal H-1B lottery, avoid stronger wage requirements and slip foreign workers into U.S. jobs with minimal oversight. In its 2023 annual report, Open Avenues proudly describes itself as a "cap-exempt H-1B provider" with a "solid track record."
The report reveals its goals:
* Market the cap-exempt model nationwide, licensing it to other nonprofits.
* "Open source" the approach to scale it across the country.
* Promote it as a repeatable pathway for global workers to secure careers in the U.S.
In practice, this means nonprofits and universities are converted into labor sponsors, their nonprofit status used as cover while corporations gain steady streams of foreign hires. It's a structure that looks academic on the outside, but functions as a staffing pipeline.
When Build claims that immigrant workers participate in the labor force at higher rates than native-born Americans, it is not evidence of a high-skilled labor shortage. It reflects a stacked system of visa programs like the H-1B, F-1/OPT, L-1, H-4 EAD and others that enable employers to sideline qualified Americans in favor of cheaper foreign labor.
Discrimination hidden under 'diversity' branding
The Build Fellowship markets itself as a champion of "diverse teams," claiming diversity as a central benefit of its model. But its own documents reveal that the program brings real problems, from communication barriers to outright discrimination. Instead of treating these as failures to fix, the fellowship brushes them off as acceptable trade-offs, arguing that the program's benefits outweigh the harms.
What's left unsaid is crucial: Diversity is not a legal basis for an H-1B visa. By law, the H-1B can be used only for specialty occupations and then only when no qualified American is available. It doesn't matter whether that American worker is "diverse" or not; the law is about protecting U.S. jobs, not advancing corporate diversity campaigns.
The reliance on diversity as justification is not unique. Recent congressional oversight has raised alarms that H-1B visas are being used to staff Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) roles at universities, hospitals and public institutions, positions that do not meet the statutory definition of a specialty occupation under federal law.
The core issue is not only statutory compliance, however, but the real impact on American workers. By importing foreign nationals to fill positions labeled as "diversity" roles, employers bypass U.S. talent, including members of America's own minority populations. Instead of opening pathways for underrepresented Americans, these roles are diverted to foreign nationals whose continued presence in the United States depends on maintaining employment. This creates a system where the goal of increasing diversity within American institutions is achieved not by advancing opportunities for historically disadvantaged U.S. groups, but by expanding visa pipelines that place foreign workers into these roles.
Control, not talent
Build Fellowship materials highlight that visa sponsorship makes workers "much less likely to leave." In this model, retention is not driven by performance, merit or opportunity; it is secured through immigration status. A fellow's ability to remain in the United States depends entirely on a sponsoring employer. Federal anti-trafficking guidance identifies this dependency as a potential indicator of labor exploitation, since a worker's legal right to stay is contingent on keeping the job, regardless of working conditions.
This arrangement departs from the original purpose of the H-1B program. Congress designed the visa to address narrow shortages in specialty occupations, with wage and worksite safeguards in place. Under models like Build, however, the visa operates as a tool to control labor supply. It becomes less about meeting genuine skill needs, and more about leverage, binding the worker to the employer through paperwork and legal dependency.
Federal oversight bodies have repeatedly warned that this structure is vulnerable to abuse. The Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General has reported criminal investigations exposing employers who misused temporary visa programs to commit labor trafficking. In one case, defendants tied to a transnational criminal organization allegedly exploited visa workers by charging unlawful fees, confiscating immigration documents, forcing them into physically demanding labor for little or no pay, housing them in degrading and unsanitary conditions and threatening deportation or violence.
The Office of Inspector General has also concluded that the H-1B program is "susceptible to significant fraud and abuse" by certain immigration agents, attorneys, labor brokers, employers and organized criminal groups.
The result is not a pipeline of specialized talent, but a system of dependency. Sponsorship functions less as a means of skills exchange and more as leverage, keeping workers tied to the employer who controls their legal status. For employers, this dependency brings clear financial advantages: Sponsored workers are less likely to leave for higher pay, less likely to demand competitive wages and less able to challenge conditions. Turnover costs are reduced, labor expenses are contained and the balance of power remains firmly with the sponsoring organization.
Build's fellowship structure capitalizes on this dependency, packaging visa sponsorship as a retention tool that guarantees employer control.
The benefactors' loophole
Build's benefactor guide reveals how the finances work. Every applicant must secure a "benefactor" to cover the cost of his or her visa. That benefactor can be an employer, a foreign company or even a shell LLC formed by the worker or a relative.
To qualify, applicants are required to make payments from a business account and demonstrate at least $250,000 in available funds or, alternatively, bypass the proof of funds by prepaying six months of fees in advance.
Build boasts a "99% acceptance rate," essentially turning immigration benefits into a purchasable commodity.
No employment commitment is required of the benefactor and payments can originate from entities outside the United States. Together, these elements create a system vulnerable to displacement of U.S. workers, manipulation of immigration rules and potential misuse of funds. For American professionals already navigating a competitive labor market, the effect is a system in which visa access can be financed and traded, while statutory protections for U.S. jobs are bypassed.
The pay-to-play pipeline
According to Build's pricing model, companies pay $4,000 per month for each participant. For that fee, Build places the worker in a token nonprofit role and secures cap-exempt status. From there, spouses and dependents also gain work authorization, multiplying the labor supply.
Nonprofits profit, too: They earn upfront fees, monthly "salary shares" and profits of $100 to $225 per fellow per month. A nonprofit hosting 50 fellows could generate more than $600,000 per year.
Build even offers to act directly as the visa sponsor, charging companies over $75 per hour for workers it places. At that point, it functions as both staffing agency and visa broker.
The numbers don't lie
Open Avenues has published extensive materials promoting its cap-exempt H-1B framework as a nonprofit innovation. The numbers, however, provide the clearest picture of how the model has been put into practice.
Between 2019 and 2025, Open Avenues filed 351 H-1B applications. In 2025 alone, it submitted 128 with most at the two lowest wage levels recognized by the Department of Labor. Many listed salaries under $60,000, well below industry standards.
The roles weren't limited to high-tech shortages. Petitions covered jobs in real estate, human resources, market research, finance and even graphic design, far outside the program's original purpose.
Nationwide, nonprofit and university-affiliated organizations secured 16,536 H-1B approvals in 2021, 23,079 in 2022, 25,019 in 2023 and 25,585 in 2024. By 2025, more than 3,200 nonprofit employers were listed as cap-exempt petitioners.
Taken together, the filings, federal statistics and Open Avenue's impressive list of "Company Partners" show how the nonprofit exemption has been operationalized into a very successful business model.
The bigger picture
Co-founder Danielle Goldman has been clear that her perspective is rooted in immigration law, citing her father's career as an immigration attorney and stating publicly, "We've always known the value of foreign talent in the United States." Michael Cruse, the fellowship's Immigration Program Co-Director, spent more than 15 years as an immigration lawyer for corporate and nonprofit clients before taking on the role of designing and managing its visa processes. Together, these backgrounds illustrate how the program has been constructed with insider legal expertise, ensuring that cap-exempt provisions are not incidental advantages, but central to its operating model.
The Build Fellowship by Open Avenues "law Firm Networks"
Closing the gap with cap
The Build Fellowship demonstrates how the system has drifted away from serving American interests. What was originally intended to address rare labor shortages has instead become a marketplace where visas are bought, sold and scaled, leaving American workers excluded.
Each loophole erodes fairness in the labor market. Every carve-out forces U.S. workers to compete not against genuine shortages, but against a system deliberately structured to undercut them. For American families, this translates into lost jobs, lower wages and diminished opportunities for future generations. For the nation, it represents a loss of sovereignty over who works and who benefits from the economy.
The H-1B cap was designed as a safeguard for American workers. Programs like Build reveal that, in practice, the cap no longer functions and unless the system is corrected, American workers will continue to bear the cost.
WND contacted the Build Fellowship with questions regarding its role in the H-1B cap-exempt process. In particular, Build was asked to address the contrast between its public branding as an educational fellowship and its own reports marketing the program as a cap-exempt H-1B model designed to scale nationally and provide corporations with steady access to foreign workers.
As of publication, Build has not responded. This article will be updated as the story develops.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In 2020, the Census Bureau undercounted the population in five mostly Republican states: Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas.
And it overcounted in six mostly Democrat states: Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island.
It also undercounted Democrat Illinois and overcounted Republican Utah and Ohio.
But the bottom line, according to a letter from Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., is that "the political infrastructure determined by the census — the Electoral College, congressional districts, and congressional seat apportionment — are built on inaccurate information. We are stuck using these faulty census results until the 2030 Census because, even if we had another census now, U.S. Code mandates that mid-decade census results 'Shall not be used for apportionment of representatives in Congress … nor shall such information be used in prescribing congressional districts,'" explains a report at the Federalist.
Among the results is that that count "wrongly" gave "six congressional seats and Electoral College votes to the Democrat party."
Banks' letter to the Census Bureau charged, "The reports may have also miscounted the population in a number of voting districts. And the reports definitively included illegal aliens without tracking those aliens' citizenship status. If left uncorrected, these errors will continue diluting the political power of American citizens."
The Federalist explained we know about the overcounts and undercounts because the Census admitted that.
Banks now wants "information that will make it possible to review the accuracy of the 2020 Census and to assure an accurate count in 2030."
Banks charges that the Census Bureau "published census data using a new methodology that intentionally miscounted the population and masked demographic data. The methodology, differential privacy, injects noise into individual voting districts."
"Differential privacy," the report explains, "is a method of collecting data that is supposed to protect privacy by adding random data into the mix so no one can be sure if the data they are looking at is accurate or the added fake data. From there, algorithms are applied that get the data in the ballpark, but never a precise count."
Banks warned that the results of the Biden administration's intervention in the census is that the results gave "disproportionate political power to Democrats and illegal aliens."
The real numbers, collected before they were manipulated through Biden's "treatment," have remained secret, he said.
"It is crucial that the Census Bureau republishes the 2020 Census using the raw data," Banks said.
The report explained, "Before the 2020 census, the Trump administration requested citizenship status be included in the questions, but the request was challenged and the Supreme Court stopped the inclusion of that question. But, according to Banks' letter, it was a procedural decision and did not address whether illegal aliens could be excluded from the census. "
He charged it is "crucial" that the 2030 Census "does not allocate political power to illegal aliens. Counting illegal aliens as part of a state's population means that states with more illegal aliens get more government funding and more voting power. States with sanctuary cities benefit the most."
Adam Kincaid, of the American Redistricting Project, told the Federalist the wrongful counts impact the nation's greatest decisions – picking a president.
"Electoral College votes are determined by the total number of House and Senate seats a state has. For example, sparsely populated Wyoming has one representative seat and two senators for a total of three Electoral College votes," the report said.
Kincaid said, "We are living in a malapportioned country right now… The Electoral College should be about six seats, redder — six votes, redder than it is. And a proper apportionment likely means that Republicans this decade would be able to win the White House without winning a single Rust Belt state. So, we are electing the [Republican] president right now with a handicap of six votes."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The activation last month of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal's "trigger mechanism," reimposing international sanctions on Iran – a clear indicator of the theocratic regime's growing isolation – has yielded an unexpected consequence: President Donald Trump's Mideast peace plan has reportedly been met with acceptance by all Arab and Islamic countries as well as by European nations, even by Hamas, who once was militarily and logistically supported by Tehran in its anti-Israel campaigns across the region.
Yet on Oct. 1, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, through an editorial in a state-run newspaper, dismissed the plan as "a scheme to rescue Netanyahu from the Gaza quagmire."
The reality is clear, however: The Islamic Republic of Iran currently stands alone in rejecting a plan that seeks to end war, destruction and human suffering in Gaza – and by extension, across the region.
Tehran's opposition to peace is nothing new. The founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, once referred to the ceasefire with Iraq after an extraordinarily bloody eight-year war as a "chalice of poison." Today, for his successor, Khamenei, any form of peace in the Middle East is a similar poison – one his regime cannot digest without resorting to war, repression or the pursuit of nuclear weapons.
As an old Persian proverb goes, "The snake is the source of all evil – war, bloodshed, poverty and suffering." And based on this logic, the Iranian resistance has long insisted that the head of the snake lies in Tehran.
While the regime fuels conflicts abroad, it has also plunged its own people into extreme poverty and repression at home.
Trigger mechanism and a collapsing economy
Following the reactivation of sanctions on Sept. 27 after months of failed political maneuvering, even regime-aligned media couldn't mask the consequences. In a piece titled "Apocalyptic Joy Over the Return of Sanctions," the government-affiliated Setareh Sobh newspaper wrote:
"Extremists are celebrating the activation of the trigger mechanism – despite the catastrophic consequences it will have on the economy and people's lives."
Previously, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, former head of the Iranian parliament's National Security Commission, had expressed similar dismay:
"The extremists' celebration of renewed sanctions is unbelievable. Their lives are worlds apart from the people's suffering. Their lavish lifestyles are built on the pain of children who go to bed hungry."
Although Falahatpisheh avoided naming these "extremists," the veil was partially lifted by Abdolnasser Hemmati, the former minister of economy recently ousted by President Masoud Pezeshkian. Speaking during his impeachment session on Feb. 28, 2025, Hemmati revealed:
"This country faces over $30 billion in smuggling annually. People ask what the Minister of Economy is doing. But when 20 million liters of diesel are smuggled abroad every day, what can the Minister really do? Our nation is caught in the grip of smugglers, sanction profiteers and rent-seekers. Nearly 80% of the population is being crushed by the weight of their corruption."
While Hemmati did not explicitly name those behind this massive smuggling network, only institutions linked to Khamenei's inner circle or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have the power and infrastructure to operate on this scale. Indeed the IRGC, which controls many of Iran's key ports and borders, is uniquely positioned to carry out the daily smuggling of tens of millions of liters of fuel.
The real conflict: People vs. the regime
Over the past 34 years, Iran's resistance movement – particularly the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) – has disclosed over 130 revelations about Tehran's nuclear weapons program, significantly hindering its path to a bomb. Without their efforts, a nuclear-armed Iranian theocracy would now be a reality.
Unfortunately, Western appeasement policies have enabled the regime to inch ever closer to nuclear capability, bringing the region to the brink, most recently during the 12-day war, and plunging it into a precarious state of "no war, no peace."
Iran's rulers still refuse to accept zero uranium enrichment, a key non-proliferation demand.
But the real question is not about centrifuges. It's about who truly holds power in Iran.
Since the nationwide uprising of 2017-2018, the Iranian people have made their stance unmistakably clear: They reject the brutal theocratic regime. This historic demand has been expressed through an ever-growing organized resistance movement. Today, in every province across Iran, the real confrontation is not external; it is between the Iranian people and their rulers.
On one side is the IRGC, the regime's military-industrial backbone. On the other, thousands of resistance units, affiliated with the PMOI/MEK, are carrying out daily acts of defiance, organizing protests and challenging the regime's stranglehold on their society.
For years, Western governments have ignored or dismissed this reality. Yet these resistance units are the only viable force capable of driving meaningful, lasting change in Iran.
Last month, Khamenei himself admitted his fear, referring to these activists as "MEK sleeper cells," and warning of their role in planning another uprising. His fear of a domestic rebellion is what led him to ignite the current war in Gaza – hoping to distract the public and galvanize loyal forces through external conflict.
The only viable path forward: Regime change by the people
There is only one sustainable solution for both Iran's future and regional stability: regime change led by the Iranian people and their organized resistance.
This is not just a call for democracy in Iran. It is a strategic imperative for global peace and security.
The time has come for the international community to acknowledge the Iranian people's uprising, recognize their right to resist, and support their struggle for a free, democratic Iran.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem is revealing bounties of up to $10,000 have been put on the heads of federal agents, encouraging Americans to murder officers enforcing U.S. immigration laws.
"Gangs, cartel members, and known terrorist organizations have placed bounties on the heads of several of our law enforcement officers," Noem posted Sunday on X.
"These violent riots are not about free speech. This is the rule of law vs. anarchy. We will win."
U.S. cities including Portland, Oregon, and Chicago have been the scene of increasing attacks against ICE officers in recent days, and during an appearance on "Fox & Friends" Sunday morning, Noem detailed the bounties that urge Americans to kidnap or kill the federal officers.
"Our intelligence indicates that these people are organized," Noem said.
"They're getting more and more people on their team as far as attacking officers and they're making plans to ambush them and to kill them."
"We have specific officers and agents that have bounties that have been put out on their heads. It's been $2,000 to kidnap them, $10,000 to kill them. They've released their pictures. They've sent them between their networks and it's an extremely dangerous situation and unprecedented."
Noem said "protective detail" has been placed around the targeted officers, and DHS has "changed some of our operations to keep our officers safe."
"But make no mistake," she added. "This isn't just about protesting free speech or that they don't like that people out here are upholding the law of our country.
"They're actually going out there and saying, 'Kill these people, and we'll give you this much money to do it.'"
As the federal government remains shuttered, a bitter partisan standoff in the Senate has dashed hopes for a swift resolution, pushing the shutdown into the weekend, Fox News reported.
The ongoing government shutdown, now in its third day, stems from Senate Democrats blocking a Republican-led effort to reopen federal operations, with disagreements over healthcare funding at the core of the impasse.
The shutdown began earlier this week, leaving federal workers furloughed and services halted after lawmakers failed to agree on a funding plan.
On Friday, the Senate saw its fourth attempt to pass a bill to reopen the government fail, with a vote of 54-44, largely split along party lines.
Despite the divide, three members of the Democratic caucus—Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, and Angus King of Maine, an independent, crossed over to support the Republican proposal alongside most GOP senators.
Little progress was made after lawmakers took a break for Yom Kippur, intensifying frustration as the deadlock persists.
At the heart of the conflict is the Democrats’ demand to negotiate the extension of expiring Obamacare tax credits, which are set to lapse by year’s end and could lead to higher healthcare premiums if not addressed.
Republicans, however, insist they will only discuss this issue after the government is reopened, with some expressing interest in reforms rather than a permanent extension as Democrats propose.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, voiced exasperation, stating, "They have taken hostage the federal government and, by extension, the American people, who are the only losers in this."
Thune added, "Everybody's talking about who wins and who loses and who gets the blame. That's not what this is about. This is about doing what's in the best interest of the American people."
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, emphasized the urgency of action, saying, "We know Americans want this, and we know many of my Republican colleagues want this as well. But failure to act would be devastating. And Republicans know it."
The White House has ramped up pressure on Democrats by targeting funding in areas led by their party, including halting $2.8 billion for Chicago infrastructure projects on Friday, citing opposition to certain contracting practices.
Earlier in the week, the administration also withheld $18 billion for New York City infrastructure and $8 billion in environmental funding from 16 Democratic-led states, moves that have drawn sharp criticism.
Thune pointed to these actions, noting, "They are allowing the administration to do the very thing that, back in March, they said they didn't want to give them the authority to do."
Behind the scenes, bipartisan discussions are underway, with ideas like a temporary extension of healthcare credits for a year or a short-term funding measure tied to the Nov. 1 open enrollment period being floated, though no agreement has been reached.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Federal agents Saturday were rammed and boxed in by 10 cars in Broadview, Illinois, near Chicago, where crowds have been gathered for days protesting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions. So reports DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
"Pritzker's Chicago Police Department is leaving the shooting scene and refuses to assist us in securing the area. There is a growing crowd and we are deploying special operations to control the scene," McLauglin wrote in an X post.
Reportedly, the agents were unable to move their vehicles and had to exit, Fox News reported. One of the drivers accused of ramming into the law enforcement vehicle was armed with a semi-automatic weapon, according to McLaughlin. She said officers "were forced to deploy their weapons and fire defensive shots at an armed U.S. citizen."
The post indicated that the armed woman "drove herself to the hospital to get care for wounds."
McLauglin noted the woman, who was a U.S. citizen, was named in a CBP intelligence bulletin. She reportedly doxxed agents and posted online, "Hey to all my gang let's f–- those motherf––– up, don't let them take anyone."
According to DHS, no law enforcement officers were seriously injured during the incident.
According to Fox, the agents were reportedly performing a routine patrol in Broadview when the alleged assault occurred.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said on Friday that she and her team were blocked from accessing the Village of Broadview Municipal Building to use the restrooms. The secretary and her team were apparently stopping for a "quick bathroom break."