This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Only weeks ago, Fox News reported that as the genocide by Muslims against Christians in Nigeria was continuing, there was concern the nation's Christians "are being wiped out."

The report said the Islamists are intent "on creating a Muslim caliphate" and have been killing Christians wantonly for years already.

"Nigeria's Christians are being wiped out; we need to call it what it is — genocide," explained Jeff King of International Christian Concern.

In one slaughter just weeks ago, a Muslim attack on Christians in the Plateau State's Bokkos County left more than 60 Christians dead.

And 383 homes belonging to Christians were torched.

King said, "Families were burned alive, and kids were left homeless. It's gut-wrenching. The worst thing is that there's nothing truly 'special' about this attack. This has gone on for 20 years and has only expanded."

Then it was Christian News that confirmed that Muslim Fulani herdsmen still are killing Christians, with two deaths over the weekend and 10 other victims in recent weeks.

Among the most recent victims of the Muslim extremists was Tony Adejoh, village head of predominantly Christian Odugbeho community, and Jerry John.

"Both were working on their farms in the Otobi-Akpa when they were ambushed and killed by armed herdsmen," explained Marvis Ejeh, a member of the Agatu Local Government Council.

Nigeria, in fact, remains among the most dangerous places on earth for Christians, according to Open Doors' 2025 World Watch List of the countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian. Of the 4,476 Christians killed for their faith worldwide during the reporting period, 3,100 (69 percent) were in Nigeria, according to the WWL.

Why is the outrage level no higher for the indiscriminate slaughter of men, women and children who are Christian?

International Christian Concern suggests part of the reason is that media outlets have suppressed the identities of the perpetrators and victims of the atrocities.

"You would think it's hard to overlook the religious motivation of a massacre when the victims are all Christian and the massacre takes place on Christmas, Palm Sunday, or Easter," the organization reported. "But many people who work in media have proven themselves almost uncannily adept at avoiding the religious motivation behind such violence."

For example, the report said, "When more than 50 Nigerian Christians were murdered in one attack on Palm Sunday, April 13. France's leading newspaper, Le Monde, soon after ran an article mentioning that the attack took place on a Sunday, but neglected to mention that it was Palm Sunday. This factual detail would show a clear religious motivation. Is that why it was omitted?"

Then there was the attack on Christmas Day 2024.

Dozens of Nigerian Christians were slaughtered, as a follow up to Christmas 2023, when hundreds were killed and maimed.

"CNN ran an article on the subject, but did not mention Christmas or the religion of the victims," the report said.

Deutsche Welle, a German media conglomerate, noted the deaths of Christmas 2023, but "also failed to mention anything about Christmas or how the victims were Christians."

"The Guardian, a major U.K.-based media company, also ran an article on Dec. 25 but neglected to mention Christmas or the religion of the victims. Instead, the article mentioned 'competition for natural resources' aggravated by 'climate pressures' — also known as climate change or global warming."

And following a 2022 massacre in a church, "the local Catholic bishop remarked, '40 of my people were not killed because of global warming, but because they were Christians.'"

NPR covered the real issue by calling it a "pastoral conflict."

The report explained, "It might be worth pointing out that if basically all the violence is perpetrated by one side, then it's not so much a 'conflict' as it is an ongoing violation."

Frustrated by the media's deceptions, one Nigerian priest charged, "It's not a clash, it is a slow genocide."

And the BBC talked about the deaths, but blamed only "armed groups," without identifying the Muslim marauders or Christian victims.

The report noted, "Nigeria's current president, Bola Tinubu, is a Muslim, as is the current vice president, Kashim Shettima. The previous president, Muhammadu Buhari, is the son of a Fulani chieftain. This made him a rather unlikely candidate to crack down on persistent Fulani violence that has reportedly become the most severe threat to Nigerian Christians.
For decades now, wealthy Fulanis have supplied their fellow militant tribesmen with AK-47 assault rifles and other weaponry. Many Nigerian Christians view this continued endeavor as part of an overall effort to expand Islamist rule across Nigeria."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The economic earthquake that is known as President Donald Trump on Monday hit the pharmaceutical industry worldwide, and the end result will be that Americans soon will be paying the same for drugs as the best deal being offered to any customers worldwide.

No longer will Americans be paying four, five or even 10 times the price for the same drug that others around the world pay, he said.

It's coming through an executive order and Trump plans for Congress to put it into the law.

It essentially will look at the best price paid for a drug by any customers around the world, and will make that same drug available at that same price to Americans.

For decades, Americans actually have been paying for literally all of the development, research and other costs of drugs.

Trump cited a friend who had pointed out that his treatment was costing him $88 while he was in London. But in New York, the same prescription cost him $1,300.

"We've been subsidizing countries around the world," Trump said. He said the drug pricing now will have "fairness" for Americans.

He said some drug prices would be dropping almost immediately. At the close of an hour-long news conference, Trump signed the order.

The fairness comes after the Joe Biden administration left Americans paying some 70% higher prescription costs than they were paying in 2000.

Pharmaceutical companies have been getting two-thirds of their profits from Americans, which make up 4% of the world's population.

Those companies should have no great loss, as the prices that are reduced for Americans will be made up by slightly higher prices for others around the globe.

"Basically what we're doing is equalizing … we're all going to pay the same," Trump said. "Whoever is paying the lowest price, that's the price we're going to get."

He continued, "Democrats could have done this a long time ago. They have fought like hell for the drug companies."

Trump noted he'd begun addressing drug prices during his first term.

"Joe Biden without any knowledge of what he was doing terminated the policy. Then he negotiated a new system… five of the drugs he negotiated now are much more expensive than when he got involved."

HHS chief Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pointed out this was a goal he's held for years.

"This is an extraordinary day," he said. "This was an issue people talked about … but wouldn't do anything."

He said the topic was "radioactive," as there are many more pharmaceutical industry lobbyists in Washington than members of Congress.

He called Trump a "man of his word,"

"There has never been a president more willing to stand up to the oligarchs than Donald Trump."

Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said, "This is the most powerful executive order on pharmaceutical prices in our nation. It only happened because we have a president still to stand up…"

At that time, he said, on social media, "For many years the World has wondered why Prescription Drugs and Pharmaceuticals in the United States States of America were SO MUCH HIGHER IN PRICE THAN THEY WERE IN ANY OTHER NATION, SOMETIMES BEING FIVE TO TEN TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE SAME DRUG, MANUFACTURED IN THE EXACT SAME LABORATORY OR PLANT, BY THE SAME COMPANY???" Trump began, having made people wait nearly four hours for his post.

"It was always difficult to explain and very embarrassing because, in fact, there was no correct or rightful answer. The Pharmaceutical/Drug Companies would say, for years, that it was Research and Development Costs, and that all of these costs were, and would be, for no reason whatsoever, borne by the 'suckers' of America, ALONE.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

At a time in an age when legacy media corporations are uniformly pro-liberal, pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, pro-Democrat, it just got worse.

But this time, Americans are noticing.

The results of a new Rasmussen polling confirm that a plurality of voters, 44%, agree with the idea that it's not possible to hate the media "enough."

It is the Washington Examiner that was given the poll results.

It explained, "Forty-nine percent believe news bias is getting worse, while, by a margin of 44% to 29%, likely voters agree with the statement: 'No matter how much you hate the media, it's not enough.'"

"Younger voters, older people, Hispanics, Republicans, independents, and even Democrats cited pro-Democratic bias in agreeing that they just can't hate the media enough," the Examiner reported.

Actually, the report confirmed, "Bias in the media has been around forever, and political bias has exploded since President Donald Trump hit the presidential stage. Recent presidents have tried to fight it, but with little luck. Former President Barack Obama, for example, tried to skip over the media and use social media as his direct outreach to voters. Trump's team, which often criticizes the legacy liberal media, has moved to add center-right outlets to the White House press pool for balance."

Even so, consumers still believe, by large numbers, that the media still favors Democrats.

Democrats, by a 43% to 24% margin, agreed that media organizations favor their party over Republicans.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

One of the fights leftists have brought against President Donald Trump is over his decision to sanction those law firms that actively engaged as players in fabricated agendas that were launched against him.

Specifically, during the 2016 race law firms abandoned their role as legal advisers and actively coordinated with Hillary Clinton's campaign to falsify claims against Trump to try to derail his political campaign, specifically the lies created for the Russia collusion campaign.

Now an organization serving some of those firms, and the firms themselves, may be in trouble for discriminating based on race.

A report in the Federalist describes how the group Americans for Equal Opportunity has filed a race discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The complaint, on behalf of three white members, accuses the group called Sponsors for Educational Opportunity and some of the legal giants in Washington of illegally discriminating against white Americans "in the name of diversity," the report said.

SEO places interns with "some of the nation's largest law firms," and the charge alleges misbehavior by the SEO and its 44 partners, "some of the country's most well-heeled law firms."

The accusation charges the suspected organizations violated Title VII.

"Title VII is the federal statute which prohibits employers, as well as employment agencies, from discriminating in employment on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, or religion. And the EEOC charge filed by Americans for Equal Opportunity, a recently formed membership organization dedicated to 'promot[ing] and protect[ing] the right of the public to be free from discrimination on the basis of race,' details how SEO allegedly violated Title VII through its discriminatory law fellowship program," the report explains.

Some of the evidence comes from SEO's own boasting, where it talks about being "the nation's premier summer internship and training program targeting talented African American, Hispanic and Native college students."

Previously, it talked about being the "nation's only summer internship program for pre-law students of color."

The report cited the sponsoring firms as "a veritable 'who's who,' of the nation's top law firms."

Involved were extraordinarily high compensation levels, up to $4,000 a week, as well as offers not available to many others.

Further, the SEO suddenly became "coy" about its discrimination in recent years, abruptly changing its web language "to conceal its discriminatory practices, replacing the term 'diverse' with 'underserved,' and describing programs as open to 'all,'" the report said.

The topic isn't entirely new. The EEOC's acting chair, Andrea Lucas, wrote a couple dozen law firms in March asking for information about their DEI agendas, including the SEO work, but critics of President Trump claimed it was a targeting of the law firms that were politically opposed to the president.

At that time, the leftists in the American Bar Association said the letters meant nothing.

The report continued, "The AEO's charge of discrimination, brought on behalf of its members, cannot be so glibly dismissed. And with an official charge of discrimination filed against SEO and the law firms, the EEOC now has a statutory duty to investigate."

The report noted a finding of race discrimination, which evidence suggests could be obvious, "will vindicate Trump against charges his administration is targeting political enemies."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Sonia Sotomayor has a well-established reputation for being a leftist on the Supreme Court, supporting all manner of Democrat causes and opposing President Donald Trump.

But her comments now have moved into new territory, territory in which she is advocating for lawyers to stand up and fight.

Carefully, she did not identify Trump by name, but during a recent address, she left no doubt in the minds of many against whom she advocates opposition.

"Right now we can't lose the battles we are facing," she told a meeting of the leftist American Bar Association.

She was talking to the ABA's Tort, Trial and Insurance Practice Section, and NBC said she considered her appearance there an "act of solidarity."

Trump, meanwhile, has opposed liberal activists in the judiciary and even has advocated that there be another endorsement organization specified so that law schools would not have to work through the ABA for their graduates' authorizations.

She said, without identifying specific "battles," said, "In all of the uncertainty that exists at this moment, this is our time to stand up and be heard."

"If you're not used to fighting losing battles, don't become a lawyer. Our job is to stand for people who can't do it themselves," she said.

The comment comes amid an extended war against Trump that is being assembled by district court judges across the nation, many of whom have issued nationwide injunctions halting the president's executive actions and imposing restrictions on his executive branch agenda.

The topics on which judges have bashed back have included deporting illegal aliens, limiting American citizenship for babies born to foreigners in the U.S. illegally, a long list of environmental rules, his plans to cut waste, fraud and corruption from the government, his plans to eliminate federal bureaucracies and jobs, and much more.

Actually, according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution but has represented members in court in constitutional disputes, Sotomayor previously has been scorched for "making public comments that some viewed as overly political or partisan."

That topic included her demands that law students organize to support abortion rights, a subject that has been before the court many times, and undoubtedly will appear there again.

Turley noted Sotomayor's blasts "presumably" targeted President Trump.

"Sotomayor made a number of inspiring comments to encourage lawyers to pursue justice despite the odds or challenges," Turley explained.

And they "appeared to veer into more partisan territory."

Her reference to "we" was a surprise, he said, and many viewed it as a rallying call for "the left."

He explained, "Clearly, such comments are subject to different interpretations. Newspapers like the New York Times made the obvious connection, stating that it was made 'against the backdrop of immense stress on lawyers and the legal system from the Trump administration,'"

Leftist lawyer Marc Elias, a key part of the fabricated 2016 conspiracy theory assembled by Democrats that alleged "Russia collusion" against Trump's campaign, then credited Sotomayor with "solidarity" to leftist ideals.

"She understands that while we must bring difficult cases and be willing to lose, we must always fight to win. And by lending her voice in 'solidarity,' she affirmed that it is 'our time to stand up and be heard,' he said.

Turley noted that Sotomayor previously lobbied publicly for abortion, telling students, "You know, I can't change Texas' law, but you can and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don't like. I am pointing out to that when I shouldn't, because they tell me I shouldn't. But my point is that there are going to be a lot of things you don't like," and require public action.

Turley admits he's often been critical of members of the high court for appearing before "ideologically supportive groups."

And he calls this circumstance the "rise of the celebrity justice."

He said her calls to "fight this fight" were injudicious.

"The court is set to hear a number of key cases on the Trump policies, including a key argument next week on the rapidly expanding number of national injunctions imposed by district courts. This is not the time to be seen as speaking in 'solidarity' with one side," he said.

Brianna Lynn explained at The Federalist the dangers of Sotomayor's argument for the benefit of one side.

"The fact that you have a sitting Supreme Court justice [Sonia Sotomayor] saying we have to 'Stand up' and 'Fight this fight' … is reinforcing the criticism that judicial overreach is occurring and that the judiciary is being used as a political weapon rather than the judiciary being used as a neutral arbiter of the law."

She continued, "And the fact that [Justice Sotomayor] said that we have to fight for 'lost causes' — the role of a lawyer is to zealously advocate for a client, of course. But the role of a judge is to zealously advocate for the Constitution, and those aren't always the same thing."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump unleashed his disdain on a top network reporter Monday who asked him about Qatar gifting America with a $400 million 747 aircraft that may be used as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office.

"What do you say to people who view that luxury jet as a personal gift to you?" ABC News senior political correspondent Rachel Scott asked Trump during a signing ceremony for an executive order designed to slash prices for prescription drugs. "Why not leave it behind?"

Trump instantly responded with an attack on Scott and her network, saying: "You're ABC Fake News right? Because only ABC – well, a few of you would. Let me tell you. You should be embarrassed asking that question.

"They're giving us a free jet. I could say no, no, no, don't give us … I want to pay you $1 billion or $400 million or whatever it is or I could say thank you very much."

He then discussed an anecdote concerning pro golfer Sam Snead.

"He had a motto, when they give you a putt, you say, thank you very much. You pick up your ball and you walk to the next hole," Trump recounted.

"A lot of people are stupid. They say, no, no, I insist on putting it. And then they put it, they miss it, and their partner gets angry at them. You know what? Remember that Sam Snead, when they give you a putt, you pick it up and you walk to the next hole and you say, thank you very much."

Scott continued to press the matter, but was cut off by Trump as she asked: "Respectfully, sir, as a businessman, some people may look at this and say, have you ever been given a gift worth millions of dollars and then not …"

"It's not a gift to me," Trump replied. "It's a gift to the Department of Defense and you should know better because you've been embarrassed enough and so has your network. Your network is a disaster. ABC is a disaster."

Regarding the offer of the aircraft, Trump said: "I think it's a great gesture from Qatar. Appreciate it very much. I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer."

"I mean, I could be a stupid person and say, No, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane. But it was, I thought it was a great gesture."

"I think it was a gesture because of the fact that we help, have helped, and continue to, we will continue to all of those countries, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and others," he continued.

 

House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked by ABC about the gift, to which he responded: "I'm not going to comment on it."

"I haven't seen all the details about it."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The major Iranian opposition group known as the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, or PMOI/MEK, on May 8 exposed a secret nuclear facility in Semnan Province. Known as "Ranginkaman" (Rainbow), the site operates under the guise of Diba Energy Sina, a company claiming to produce chemicals for the oil and petrochemical industries. In truth, however, it is part of the SPND – an Iranian organization tasked with building nuclear weapons.

The facility's primary objective is to design warheads for missiles with a range exceeding 3,000 kilometers. Its use of tritium, a radioactive isotope, raises serious concerns for global security.

Rumors of a deal

Recent reports in regime-aligned media suggest Iran and the U.S. may be exploring nuclear cooperation, including joint uranium enrichment in a third-party country. Some sources even speculate about a potential meeting between Iran's president and U.S. President Donald Trump.

Regardless of their accuracy, these rumors must be approached with skepticism. The Islamic Republic has repeatedly violated its nuclear commitments – such as breaching the 3.67% enrichment cap set by the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA (the "Iran nuclear deal") and enriching uranium to 60%.

The revelation of yet another hidden nuclear site serves as a clear warning: Complacency in confronting Tehran's nuclear ambitions could once again plunge the region into crisis, as history has already shown.

With so much therefore at stake for Iran, the Mideast and indeed the entire world, it may be ironic that the youth of Iran are serving as a primary force for exposing the ruling regime and protesting its tyrannical rule.

Looking to the recent past, the fearless and determined presence of Generation Z, those born between approximately 1995 and 2008, in Iran's 2021 street protests was nothing short of extraordinary. Their influence is being similarly felt today.

Raised in a digital world, this generation is deeply influenced by the internet. With over 70% internet access, they are exposed to global cultures, which has significantly weakened the impact of the regime's outdated, theocratic ideology – propagated through textbooks, state television, cinema and more. These youths are bold, resistant to control and uninterested in self-censorship. They speak their minds freely and refuse to let their dreams be buried by repression.

Technologically savvy and independent, they seek solutions not from traditional institutions but through the online world. As one social researcher noted, a growing number within this generation not only reject the status quo but are actively shaping a vision to replace it.

90,000 protest-related cases

Iran's judiciary chief, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Ejei, recently admitted that in 2021, over 90,000 protest-related criminal cases were opened – many involving students, university youth and teachers. According to the Iranian Resistance, more than 20,000 people were arrested in just the first two weeks of the uprising.

This surge in youth-led unrest deeply alarmed the regime, prompting it to escalate repression, particularly within schools. A striking example is a new agreement between the Ministry of Education and the national police, allowing law enforcement officers to be deployed to schools – an unprecedented move that reveals the regime's deep fear of Generation Z.

The same generation the regime once tried to keep in ignorance has now risen to openly challenge its very legitimacy.

The 'poisoned chalice' of nuclear talks

The term "poisoned chalice" was first used by Ayatollah Khomeini when he was forced to accept a ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq war. Khomeini, who vowed to fight "until the last house in Tehran," had linked the war to the regime's very survival – making the ceasefire a bitter, humiliating retreat.

Today, for his current successor, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, nuclear negotiations with the West likewise represent a similar "poisoned chalice." Having built the regime's defiance and survival around its nuclear ambitions, he is now cornered by internal resistance and external pressure.

Courage has surpassed fear

Despite the regime's rising use of executions since 2021, it has failed to intimidate the population into silence. The courage of Iran's youth now outweighs their fear, pushing Khamenei to the negotiating table.

Thousands of resistance units – young activists operating in small mobile teams conducting anti-repression operations – have become a nightmare for the regime. Khamenei knows that heightened foreign pressure or a military clash could trigger a national uprising, this time with the coordination and resolve to bring about regime change

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Episcopal Migration Ministries, which took in $53 million in tax funding to resettle 3,600 people in 2023 alone, is abandoning the next round of refugees, refusing to resettle them.

They are white.

The refugee branch of the church organization has worked for decades, on taxpayer funding, to settle refugees from various sources around the world.

But in a letter obtained by the Gateway Pundit, officials announced they are quitting.

"Just over two weeks ago, the federal government informed Episcopal Migration Ministries that under the terms of our federal grant, we are expected to resettle white Afrikaners from South Africa whom the U.S. government has classified as refugees," the organization informed the government.

"In light of our church's steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step. Accordingly, we have determined that, by the end of the federal fiscal year, we will conclude our refugee resettlement grant agreements with the U.S. federal government," it said.

The church group claimed, "As Christians, we must be guided not by political vagaries, but by the sure and certain knowledge that the kingdom of God is revealed to us in the struggles of those on the margins. Jesus tells us to care for the poor and vulnerable as we would care for him, and we must follow that command.

"Right now, what that means is ending our participation in the federal government's refugee resettlement program and investing our resources in serving migrants in other ways."

That means the organization will refuse further federal money, and refuse to assist the refugees who are white.

In an announcement posted online, Sean, W. Rowe, the church's presiding bishop, claimed that it was "painful" to see " one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over many others who have been waiting in refugee camps or dangerous conditions."

The letter said for nearly 40 years the EMM "has put hands and feet to our church's commitment to seek and serve Christ in migrants and refugees."

Its past sources of refugees have included Ukraine, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Myanmar.

And the letter sought replacement cash for the "more than $50 million" it has been getting annually in federal tax money.

"This is not a loss that can be bridged with donor funds or proceeds from investments. However, we will raise funds for new and expanded migration ministries across the church and for our partners in this ministry."

The Gateway Pundit report said the decision to end a program helping refugees was "all because the Trump administration dared to classify white South African Afrikaners as refugees in need of protection."

"The same Episcopal Church that prided itself on aiding persecuted people from war-torn regions is now walking away from its commitments simply because the next wave of refugees are white Christian farmers — victims of violent racial targeting in post-apartheid South Africa," the report said.

Helping this group, the church announced, would violate its "moral line."

Afrikaner families for years have faced deadly violence, arbitrary land seizures, a weaponized government and military, brutal attacks on them and their farms, and race-based discrimination.

The violence in South Africa is so bad, in fact, the crimes have prompted human rights organizations to raise an alarm.

Helping this group, the church announced, would violate its "moral line."

Afrikaner families for years have faced deadly violence, arbitrary land seizures, a weaponized government and military, brutal attacks on them and their farms, and race-based discrimination.

The violence in South Africa is so bad, in fact, the crimes have prompted human rights organizations to raise an alarm.

It's not the first deep dive into politics for the church. The report explained it was Mariann Budde, of the Episcopal hierarchy, who famously criticized Trump during a politicized inaugural prayer service in Washington.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A fight to protect children in Florida from an "obscene LGBTQ performance" in a public location that is only feet away from a children's playground is ramping up.

Liberty Counsel earlier filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case Naples Pride V. City of Naples, in which the LGBT organization demanded the right to impose its ideology on children in a public park.

Now Liberty Counsel says the city has neglected to raise a legitimate defense to the attack by the LGBT organization, and it wants to join the case.

It is representing concerned Collier County parents against the planned "sexually explicit drag show" at the children's play area.

The legal team has addressed the court, explaining the city did not raise the defense that Florida's "Protection of Children Act" of 2023 expressly outlaws public drag shows held in view of minors. "Allowing a drag performance in open air and in full view of a busy children's playground would violate Florida law," Liberty Counsel reported.

A federal judge narrowly blocked that law for a single Florida agency, but that's under appeal and does not erase the law itself.

"The state of Florida recognizes that children – and their parents, by extension – have a legally protectible interest in the material they are exposed to as well as having safe parks and playgrounds," the legal team explained.

Naples Pride calls its drag show "family friendly," but photographic evidence of similar events confirm that the show involves "male performers in obscene drag performing lewd poses and simulating sexual acts that are unsuitable for minors. The drag performers also invited children to place money in their waist bands like strippers in a bar as the men shook their over-stuffed brazier tops and 'twerked' their fish net covered hind ends mimicking sexual activities no child should ever see."

Liberty Counsel said, "The scenes are revolting and totally inappropriate for children."

"The city of Naples has demonstrated an aversion to broaching the issue of obscenity, lewdness, or harm to minors posed by the proposed drag performance in view of children altogether," wrote Liberty Counsel. "For some inexplicable reason, the city has refused to even suggest, much less forcefully defend itself on the constitutional grounds that [Naples Pride's] grossly inappropriate sexualized performances are only afforded limited (if any) protection under the First Amendment, and whatever protection may exist is eviscerated when considered in the context of exposure to children."

Even though it filed a brief in the case earlier, Liberty Counsel now is seeking to be granted "party status" in the fight.

The city council earlier ordered that the event be held indoors and away from children, but the LGBT crowd demanded that it be allowed to put on its display near the children's park.

The city previously argued the park is subject to location and age restrictions for events.

Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver explained, "Liberty Counsel is intervening in this case to give parents who wish to protect their children from obscene drag performances a fuller defense on the legal and constitutional issues left unspoken by the city of Naples. The First Amendment does not protect an obscene drag performance in full view of a children's playground, and Florida law outright bans it. Restricting speech for children that is otherwise protected for adults passes constitutional muster in the interest of protecting their well-being. Citizens do not have to tolerate obscene drag shows in view of their children."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The leader of political opposition to Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro says Americans now have "a business opportunity of $1.7 trillion" in her country if the dictator is ousted from power, and she predicts communist regimes in Cuba and Nicaragua will soon fall once he's gone.

"We will turn Venezuela from the criminal hub of the Americas into energy hub of the Americas," Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado said on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel.

"I'm talking about a business opportunity of $1.7 trillion. This is unique. … This is a win-win partnership when we are all free."

"I want to be very clear," continued Machado, who has been in hiding for nine months. "Maduro is weaker than ever, totally rejected by 90% of the people, internationally isolated and now with fractures within the regime."

Machado praised the leadership of U.S. President Donald Trump, and said: "Venezuela will be free. Venezuela will be a reliable partner of the U.S."

"We will kick out Iranian forces and agents, the Hezbollah that have turned Venezuela into a base, an operational base of the Iranian regime. And we will build a partnership to create a security shield for the Americas for the stability of the region and also for the national security of the U.S."

Regarding economic matters, Machado said: "Under Maduro, Venezeulans' oil and energy has collapsed. These companies operating in Venezuela are forced to partner with a criminal structure, with a drug cartel. They are giving to Maduro and that means giving money for the drug cartels for the operations and enforcing the criminal gangs like Tren de Aragua that are operating all across the continent."

"President Trump's position is the right one. We need to move forward cut these sources going to the criminals. … Remember Maduro is the head of the Tren de Aragua."

She predicted that once "Maduro's out, believe me, the Cuban and Nicaraguan regime will follow, and for the first time in history, we will have a continent free of communism and dictatorship. This is historic."

Machado described the harsh conditions living under Maduro's dictatorship, noting, "Minimum wages in Venezuela are $1.5 dollars a month. Our children go to school only twice a week.

"No journalist is able to speak. Young people have been put in prison just for putting a post on X or Instagram or of they have my picture in their phones. So that is why people leave. They're forced to leave to save their lives."

"Once we have free Venezuela, we will not only dismantle all those criminal gangs … we will turn Venezuela into open markets and greatest opportunities for all."

When asked if she and her cohorts were afraid, Machado replied, "Of course we are."

"We have more than 900 political prisoners right now that have been tortured, women that have been sexually assaulted. It's brutal but the fact is that we're moving forward. And the fact that we have this unwavering support from President Trump makes things move ahead."

© 2025 - Patriot News Alerts