This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

"Learn to Code" Backfires Spectacularly

The recent Futurism article got one thing right, American computer science graduates are facing shockingly high unemployment and a bleak job market. But here's what they and most of the media don't want to say out loud, it's not AI that's destroying entry-level jobs for American students. It's America's own immigration system.

Let's set the facts straight

For years, America's leaders and tech executives told young Americans to "learn to code." They promised a stable future, good pay and a world of opportunity. Now, thousands of talented American grads are locked out of entry-level jobs not because of automation, AI, or other false narratives but because those jobs are being quietly handed to foreign workers brought in through government visa programs like H-1B and STEM OPT (Optional Practical Training- OPT).

• STEM OPT lets foreign graduates work in the U.S. for up to three years after college, often at much lower cost to employers due to no safeguards in place to ensure they are paid at the least a prevailing wage and then employers don't even have to pay basic payroll taxes for these workers.
• H-1B allows companies to bypass qualified Americans by claiming a "shortage," flooding the market with cheap, temporary labor year after year.

These programs were sold as tools to fill supposed "skill gaps." In reality, they've become a pipeline for corporations to drive down wages and systematically replace American graduates in the very fields they were told would guarantee success.

The numbers tell the real story

The New York Federal Reserve reports a 6.1% unemployment rate for new computer science grads, higher than journalism and among the worst for any major. Computer engineering is even higher at 7.5%. Meanwhile, the U.S. approves more than 100,000 new tech worker visas every year, giving companies every incentive to pass over qualified Americans.

It's not about AI, it's about displacement

Don't let Big Tech and their lobbyists fool you. The narrative blaming AI is a convenient distraction from the truth, as more jobs go to imported workers through visa programs, more Americans are pushed out of their own job market. Many "automated" jobs aren't lost to robots or software; they're quietly offshored or given to cheaper, temporary labor.

Who pays the price?

Winners: Big Tech, outsourcing companies and Indian multinationals grow their profits.

Losers: Hardworking American families, new graduates and the entire next generation who played by the rules and got left behind.

America needs to wake up

If you're wondering why your kids can't land those entry-level jobs, don't just look at technology, look at America's failed immigration system. Until Congress puts Americans first and closes these loopholes, they will keep watching the American Dream slip further out of reach for their own children.

Bottom line

It's not AI that's replacing American workers. It's America's own broken visa system, and it's time to demand better for America's kids.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

For the past year, American tech workers have been told a familiar story: Artificial intelligence is replacing jobs. From boardrooms to press briefings, executives have framed workforce reductions as the inevitable result of machine learning and automation. It's the narrative that's guided mass layoffs across the industry.

But in the case of Salesforce, one of the most prominent voices in enterprise software, the facts point elsewhere.

Behind the company's public claims of AI-driven efficiency lies a more traditional and far more controversial strategy: offshoring. Between 2020 and 2024, Salesforce reduced its U.S. workforce by thousands while growing its employee base in India by more than 420%. Offices in San Francisco, Portland and other U.S. hubs were shuttered. Simultaneously, the company signed formal training and hiring agreements with the Indian government and celebrated explosive growth in Hyderabad, Mumbai and beyond.

Salesforce isn't alone in the illusion of automation. Amazon's heavily hyped "Just Walk Out" AI-powered checkout was, in truth, driven by over 1,000 workers in India manually reviewing surveillance footage. What was marketed as innovation was really offshore labor behind the scenes. Likewise, Microsoft's investment in a virtual assistant "Natasha" turned out to be 700 Indian employees posing as chatbots.

Republican lawmakers are not seeing additional opposition to President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" even after Elon Musk's calls to kill it, the Washington Examiner reported. The former head of the Department of Government Efficiency attacked the bill and the president.

Musk and Trump were on fantastic terms until recently, when the Tesla billionaire began his exit. Then Musk sent out a barrage of social media posts opposing the legislation due to its hefty price tag.

"I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it," Musk posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore.

This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.

Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 3, 2025

The Attacks Continued

The posts Musk made were extremely pointed and at times unhinged as he attacked Trump and his signature legislation. However, Musk began by warning that the bill was expensive and would add to the national debt.

He quoted Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson in their previous social media posts, in which they opposed such deficit spending. However, Musk also took his personal attacks to the next level by insinuating Trump had ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

"Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!" Musk posted in a since-deleted Tweet, the New York Post reported.

Trump said Musk must have "lost his mind" with these allegations, and the president has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in the past. In fact, Epstein was barred from Mar-a-Lago in 2007 after an incident involving the teenage daughter of one of the members.

"This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted. The president is focused on passing this historic piece of legislation and making our country great again," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained.

No Impact

Despite all that Musk has thrown at the bill, Republican lawmakers in the House have reported no change in what they're hearing from constituents. "We didn’t see an increase in calls at all," a senior aide told the Washington Examiner Friday.

GOP senators have also seen no noticeable change in calls to their offices about this issue. Even Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), who is critical of the bill, says the "vast majority" of people demanding he vote against it weren't spurred on by Musk's remarks.

"My guess is that’s not coming from either my supporters or President Trump’s supporters. I take that seriously," Johnson said.

"But again, I’m going to do what I think is right for the American people, for our kids, and grandkids. That’s always been my position. It’s not easy. I said this is hard, and I hope people understand that," Johnson added.

Musk has always marched to the beat of his own drummer, but the world of politics seems to have brought out a new volatility in his personality. It's probably best that he parted ways with Trump, regardless of whether the legislation is right for the country or not.

Elon Musk's row with President Donald Trump turned ugly after Musk resorted to leftist smear tactics to attack Trump using “a guilt by association” smear.

Musk falsely claimed on Thursday that the Department of Justice has not released the Jeffrey Epstein files because President Trump is named in them. While Trump's connection with the late billionaire financier has been established, Musk's claims of Trump being a client are completely unfounded.

Trump, like the entirety of America's rich and powerful, has either met Epstein or conducted some kind of business with him.

Epstein, who was convicted of sex trafficking young girls for the rich and powerful, made it a point to connect with anyone with influence and power. However, Trump has never been named by any of Epstein's victims, and there is nothing indicating that Trump participated in Epstein's sordid business.

This much is obvious, as anything connecting Trump to Epstein's sex trafficking would have come out years ago. This didn't stop Musk from making absurd claims against Trump in a tantrum that has been humiliating for all involved.

No Receipts

Musk's sudden decision to go ballistic on Trump has been humiliating for Musk's supporters in the Republican Party, as Democrats, who have treated Musk like the second coming of Hitler, are eagerly jumping on this bizarre spat.

In a post to X, Musk stated, "Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!"

No citations or new information were provided in this post, and the post felt like a retread of a very tired attack against Trump. Trump's innocence in the Epstein saga has long been established, as Trump was one of the first major figures to distance himself from Epstein.

All the way back in 2004, Trump distanced himself from Epstein months ahead of a criminal investigation into Epstein. At the time, Epstein was a massive power player in New York and Democrat social circles.

Furthermore, the reason the Epstein files are being slowwalked is because of the massive operation that the Department of Justice is taking to protect victims and filter out criminal material.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a statement saying that the DOJ was busy handling "tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children or child porn." Bondi confirmed there were “hundreds of victims,” and explained that “no one victim will ever get released."

Taking A Break

Many suspect that this spat between Trump and Musk will likely not be permanent, as Trump has exercised significant restraint in not attacking Musk. Furthermore, many of Musk's threats have remained just threats.

Many Republicans suspect that Musk will be back in the fold quickly, as the GOP is the only place where his political views will be welcomed. Musk has been demonized by Democrats who have accused him of being a Nazi and an oligarch determined to overthrow the nation.

However, Musk has done permenant damage to his reputation with this tantrum as many Conservatives have watched him go ballistic over a political disagreement and resort to slinging mud at someone who has been a close ally.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

CatholicVote calls for removal of 'blasphemous episode from Apple TV+'

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple and long a leftist advocating for leftist ideals and ideologies, has been called out by a Catholic organization for his "mean-spirited attempt to mock Catholicism."

It happens in an episode of an Apple TV+ program, a scenario caught and criticized by CatholicVote.

Vice President Josh Mercer has written to Cook calling for a removal of the episode as well as a meeting "to discuss how Apple can foster true diversity and tolerance by ensuring its content is respectful of the religious practices of Catholics."

"Is promoting content which mocks and degrades the faith of Catholics compatible with this 'culture of dignity, respect, and opportunity for everyone?'" the letter asks, pointedly demanding, "Would you permit an equivalent mockery of the Islamic faith or the Jewish faith? We think not."

The letter said, "Why is it acceptable to Apple to disrespect Catholicism in this way."

The letter explains is is Episode 6 of "Your Friends and Neighbors" that is unacceptable.

The characters break into a church.

"The male character steals Eucharistic hosts from the tabernacle, which they eat as a snack. The man flippantly remarks about how they are eating the Body of Christ. The man feeds a host to the female character and feigns blessing her. Then they begin engaging in romantic activity in the pews…"

The letter explains that, "As Catholics, we have believed for 2,000 years that the Eucharist is not simply a piece of bread. It is the body, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. The practice of taking communion was institute by Christ himself at the Last Supper. Receiving the Eucharist at Mass is, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, 'the source and summit of the Christian life.'"

The letter notes the segment has little relevance to the plot, so "it is clearly little more than a mean-spirited effort to mock Catholicism."

The organization said it speaks on behalf of the outrage of "millions of Catholics across the country and the world."

CatholicVote describes itself as the largest lay Catholic advocacy organization.

CatholicVote has also begun a petition effort that already has nearly 200,000 signatures from those telling Apple leaders they "won't stand for blasphemy."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Elon offers 'olive branch' as conversation being set up

The day-long word war between Tesla and X billionaire Elon Musk and President Donald Trump may be reaching a détente.

The two had worked together on the president's Department of Government Efficiency for months, and reportedly had found about$170 billion in spending to cut in their war on criminal activity, waste, fraud and corruption.

Then, when the House adopted a piece of legislation turning many of Trump's executive orders into law, Musk erupted in frustration that it didn't cut enough.

Trump, meanwhile, is working with a fractious Congress and even multiple factions within his own GOP.

The two exchanged hot words for hours. Musk said Trump was in the Epstein files and Musk called for Trump's impeachment.

White House aides tried to organize a call and Musk, late Thursday "tried to de-escalate," according to a report in the Daily Mail.

Trump even had called for Musk to be deported, and Musk's stock dropped billions in value as traders fled his companies.

"Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman stepped into the fray, posting a plea on X for the two men to reconcile 'for the benefit of our great country,' warning that 'we are much stronger together than apart,'" the report explained.

Musk responded, "You're not wrong."

The comment appeared to some as an olive branch, and reports said the two megawealthy men would speak Friday.

Trump, in a late-night interview, shrugged off the feud, explaining, "It's okay."

The rhetoric had escalated to the point Trump called for Musk's federal contracts to be canceled and his companies stripped of security clearances and Musk responded to a social media call for the issue to "Cool off" and the two to "step back for a couple of days," with "Good advice."

Social media comments suggested Musk was upset that federal subsidies for the purchases of electric cars – his Teslas – were being cut. Trump said Musk was familiar with the details of the plans.

The lawyer who represented Jeffrey Epstein, who was a convicted sex offender and was awaiting the processing of more charges when he died, apparently by suicide, in a jail, confirmed in a statement that he had asked Epstein before he died, and Epstein confirmed he had no damaging information on Trump, although the two knew each other.

Trump said he had asked Musk to leave, prompting Musk's response.

"Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files," he said.

Musk offered no evidence for his claim.

The two previously have been compatriots, and enemies, consecutively. Musk was on two of Trump's advisory councils during his first term, but later stepped down. They also were at odds off and on in 2022 in social media.

Leftists unleashed a flood of insults at both men, with one claiming, "so the girls are fighting."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Physicians tell lawmakers police should be contacted only when there's 'abuse'

In a stunning display of advocacy for extremism, the British Medical Association has claimed that doctors should not be forced to report to police when they discover an adult has been having sex, illegally, with a child.

The Telegraph reports that the BMA has "serious concerns" about the idea that doctors must report every case of underage sexual activities.

The plan is part of a new Crime and Policing Bill that would have physicians contact authorities if one of the partners is 18 or over, and the other is under 16.

"They would also have to report any case where at least one partner is under 13 years old," the report said.

The BMA said that would result in doctors violating the confidentiality of their patients, and they then would lose the trust of minors.

Legally, children under 16 being sexually active with people at least two years older is statutory rape.

In a written submission to parliament, the BMA said it supports the idea of reporting child abuse but insisted on its own qualifications.

"We are strongly of the view that a doctor should only inform the police or social services of underage sexual activity where they have concerns that the young person is being abused," the report said the physicians charged.

They continued, "It is common for young people under the age of 16 to be in consensual sexual relationships with people who are older (and frequently more than two years older) than themselves."

They argued for permission for doctors to decide whether to report or not.

A government spokesman said, "We will be taking forward the new mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse for individuals in England undertaking activity with children – and crucially, a new criminal offence of obstructing an individual from making a report under that duty."

The statement continued, "Mandatory reporting will create a culture of openness and honesty rather than cover-ups and secrecy. It will empower professionals and volunteers to take prompt, decisive action to report sexual abuse."

The director of the Christian Institute, Ciaran Kelly, explained, "The BMA's call for an exemption on reporting sexual activity between an adult and a child is highly irresponsible. The age of consent law exists because children under 16 are not capable of giving informed consent. It is reckless to act as if underage sex is normal and acceptable."

As a dramatic rift widens between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, one pundit is urging Trump to "fire, investigate, and prosecute" Musk's DOGE team.

CNN commentator Van Jones said Trump should go after what's left of DOGE "if he's smart," suggesting Trump needs to purge his administration of Musk's loyalists.  

"Those DOGE employees are very dangerous. If Donald Trump is smart, the first thing he’s going to do is fire, investigate and prosecute all of Elon’s people who are all throughout government with their laptops downloading data right now," Jones said.

Jones explained, "Listen, I don’t think that what they’re doing is legal... A lot of them don’t have the proper clearances. And I think that if you investigate, you’ll find they’ve uploaded data into servers that are that are the wrong, the wrong thing to do. So I think there should definitely be an investigation there."

"Go after DOGE"

The blowup between Trump and his former campaign benefactor has led to speculation about a potential divide emerging within the GOP.

Some have questioned whether Musk could use his fortune against Trump and his Republican allies in the midterms next year, although Musk's political influence has come into question after he bungled a Wisconsin Supreme Court race earlier this year.

In the meantime, Jones suggested that DOGE's continued presence in the White House gives Musk leverage over Trump.

"If Donald Trump is smart, the leverage that Elon has is he left, his kids didn’t. They’re still in there. So this fight, if it’s going to be a fight that Donald Trump prevails on in the short term, go after DOGE. Long term, he’s got to steal the Republican Party to deal with an Elon Musk that’s promising to spend money now in a decade from now,” Jones opined.

The drama erupted Tuesday when Musk, just days after departing the White House, called Trump's sweeping legislative agenda a "disgusting abomination" and urged Republicans to scuttle it.

Things escalated on Thursday as Musk, in a span of hours, called for Trump to be impeached, took credit for his re-election victory and all but called him a pedophile, claiming without any evidence that Trump is "in the Epstein files."

Trump stays restrained

For his part, Trump has handled the situation with restraint, although he was beginning to show signs of impatience as Musk spiraled on Thursday.

After admitting he was "disappointed" in Musk for trashing his "Big, Beautiful Bill," Trump threatened to terminate the tech billionaire's government contracts and confirmed that he asked Musk to leave the White House because he was "wearing thin."

“The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump wrote. “I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”

While Musk appeared to calm down by the end of the day on Thursday, his erratic behavior has clearly impacted Trump's view of him, and not for the better.

"You mean the man who has lost his mind?" Trump told ABC News on Friday, adding dismissively that he is "not particularly interested" in talking to him.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Federal judge rules state constitution provides protection for homeowner

The overall issue of liability for damages to private property when police SWAT teams launch attacks and weapons barrages that destroy homes remains pending at the U.S. Supreme Court.

That's the Martin v. United States case brought by a family who was refused compensation after a team from the FBI wrongly raided their home and left behind a long list of damages.

But in one similar case there appears to be a resolution for a Texas woman.

It is the Institute for Justice that confirms a federal judge has ruled that under the state constitution, Vicki Baker is entitled to be compensated for the nearly $60,000 in damages done to her home.

"It took five years, but Vicki is finally going to be made whole," explained IJ Lawyer Jeffrey Redfern. "She's fortunate that Texas has such strong protections for private property rights, but people in much of the rest of the country aren't so lucky. We will continue fighting to secure the same rights for all Americans under the U.S. Constitution, nationwide."

The ruling from the federal judge was that Baker is entitled to $59,656.59 in damages done by a SWAT team in McKinney, Texas, to her home.

Plus interest.

Police destroyed the structure in pursuit of a fleeing fugitive, the report said.

Then refused to compensate her for damages.

The scenario developed in July 2020 when a fugitive hid out in Baker's house while she was not home.

"When Vicki's daughter informed the police that the fugitive was in Vicki's home, they arrived on the scene and a standoff ensued. Vicki's fence was knocked down, doors were smashed and windows were shattered with tear gas canisters. Vicki's insurance company refused to pay for the damage caused by the government, and the city of McKinney refused to pay as well," the IJ confirmed.

The report noted the decision was based on the Texas Constitution, after the U.S. Supreme Court, which is considering another similar disaster, declined to accept Baker's case for review.

The IJ said, "The ruling likely cements a victory for Vicki, who joined forces with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit in March 2021, after the city refused to pay for the damage that had been caused."

"I've just learned that my battle with the city of McKinney, is coming to an end," Baker said in a statement released by the lawyers. "Judge Mazzant has, once again, ruled that I am due just compensation under the Texas Constitution."

The IJ confirmed it is fighting dissimilar disputes in California, Indiana and North Carolina now, cases that could be impacted by a Supreme Court ruling in the Martin case.

The IJ argued that while getting dangerous criminals off the streets is a legitimate government function, authorities cannot just walk away when "police destroy innocent people's property in the process."

The report noted that Baker's home was under contract to sell when the police destroyed it, and the incident caused the buyer to decline to follow through on the purchase.

Further, Baker has explained, "I lost so many family heirlooms, classic books, and clothing that were damaged by the tear gas. It was devastating to be told there was no way to receive compensation for all the destruction I came home to."

Her insurance did not cover "acts of the government," and the government simply refused to recognize its liability for the SWAT officers' actions.

A jury had decided that the city was liable, a decision overturned at the appellate level. But a significant number of the court's judges voted to reopen the case then.

The jury verdict followed the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant III that the SWAT team's destruction of the home was a "taking" under the U.S. Constitution that required the city to pay just compensation.

Mazzant rejected the city of McKinney's argument that police action should be categorically exempt from the general requirement that government pay for property it destroys, holding that the argument "rests on an untenable analysis of police power and eminent domain."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Contradicts claims that puberty blockers, surgeries needed for mental health

For years already, promoters of the transgender ideology, those pushing chemicals for kids to delay puberty and even body disfiguring surgeries, have claimed that those "treatments" are necessary for the mental health of the child.

Rather than counsel children for a period of time while they sort through their dysphoria, which mostly they do, that segment of the medical industry pushes hard for extreme actions.

Many parents even have been threatened that their confused son or daughter probably will attempt suicide if they don't agree to pursue that agenda.

A National Institutes of Health study essentially debunked that completely, but was suppressed. Until now.

A report from the Washington Examiner reveals that the NIH study "was unceremoniously posted online last month."

The author, Johanna Olson-Kennedy and others, posted online the document that confirmed "depression symptoms in adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria 'did not change significantly over 24 months' of being on puberty blockers."

Congress has begun investigating the circumstances of the suppression of the study's tax-funded results.

Olson-Kennedy had explained to the New York Times last year she and others deliberately withheld publication of the federally funded research, claiming they did "not want our work to be weaponized."

It got its start in 2015 with a $5.7 million NIH grant, which eventually totaled nearly $10 million.

The results were that there were essentially no changes in depression symptoms after children were on the so-called transgender drugs.

A Dutch study, from several years earlier, did claim that those drugs helped.

"Olson-Kennedy and her co-authors argue in the paper that, although the patients' mental health remained stable during the study period, 'it is likely that puberty blockers prevent the deterioration of mental health,'" the Examiner reported.

But that agenda-driven conclusion immediately was blasted for being more of a hypothesis than a study finding.

"A clear acknowledgment of their data would reveal that puberty blockers offer no mental health benefit. Despite this, the release of these results had been delayed for years," said Dr. Kurt Miceli. "The full study once again demonstrates a lack of high-quality evidence supporting the so-called 'affirming' model."

Because of Olson-Kennedy's political decision to withhold the tax-paid study, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and others launched an investigation.

Olson-Kennedy, the report revealed, "runs the Center for Transyouth Health and Development through Children's Hospital Los Angeles and is one of the most prominent youth gender physicians in the United States."

The operation has given dozens of children chemicals and even "cross-sex" surgical procedures, and one, Clementine Breen, weeks ago filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Olson-Kennedy.

The Department of Health and Human Services has cited the political influences involved in the issue.

It was reported earlier that then Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., now secretary of state, openly wondered if the NIH was "hiding" the dangers of sex-change treatments.

Rubio at the time accused the activists from "masquerad[ing] political ideology under a veil of scientific legitimacy."