This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court has agreed to review Colorado's censorship of a licensed counselor.
In dispute is the leftist state's demand that only its messaging can be given to patients.
Colorado, which after years of swinging back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, suddenly some years ago took an abrupt left turn and has been an extremist ever since. And it has lost in multiple recent attempts to control residents' speech.
It tried to force a baker, at Masterpiece Cakeshop, to express a pro-LGBT message that violated his religious faith and ended up being scolded by the U.S. Supreme Court for its "hostility" to Christianity.
It tried the same scheme against a web designer, at 303 Creative, and took a major loss, again, from the Supreme Court.
The latest campaign by the state, under the leadership of homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, was to censor the information counselors are allowed to provide clients in private consultations, if the topic is sexual orientation and gender identity.
According to the ADF, which has been handling the case involving counselor Kaley Chiles, Colorado's censorship "violates licensed counselor Kaley Chiles' freedom of speech and infringes on her free exercise of religion and that of her clients by censoring and prohibiting certain private client-counselor conversations regarding sexual orientation and gender identity that the government disfavors while allowing – even encouraging – conversations the government favors."
"The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government's biased views on her clients," explained ADF spokeswoman Kristen Waggoner.
"There is a growing consensus around the world that adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria need love and an opportunity to talk through their struggles and feelings. Colorado's law prohibits what's best for these children and sends a clear message: the only option for children struggling with these issues is to give them dangerous and experimental drugs and surgery that will make them lifelong patients. We are eager to defend Kaley's First Amendment rights and ensure that government officials may not impose their ideology on private conversations between counselors and clients."
The high court confirmed Monday in will hear Chiles v. Salazar, where Chiles wants to help clients with various issues, including gender identity.
The ADF explained, "Many of Chiles's clients come to her because they share her Christian worldview and faith-based values. These clients believe their lives will be more fulfilling if they are aligned with the teachings of their faith. Yet Colorado law censors Chiles from speaking words her clients want to hear because the government does not like the view she expresses."
It was the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, an often overturned panel, that affirmed the Colorado scheme to censor Christian perspectives.
The ADF explained, Colorado's law violates Chiles's freedom of speech by prohibiting licensed counselors from having any conversation with clients under age 18 that 'attempts or purports to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity.'"
The law, however, only prohibits the Christian perspective. It allows counselors to promote the LGBT ideologies.
Punishment for violating the censorship agenda can include suspension or revocation of a license.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'Virtually any joke or off-putting remark could result in the speaker being forced to navigate the investigative process'
A leftist university's apparent campaign to suppress speech with which it disagrees has gotten it sued.
Student Zoe Johnson, a leader for Young Americans for Freedom, of the University of Colorado at Boulder has filed an action, through the Gessler Blue and Dhillon law firms, seeking a judgment that declares the institution's "Anti-discrimination policy" violates the First and 14th Amendments, a permanent injunction against it, monetary damages and lawyers' fees.
The fight is over Johnson's expression of her beliefs, and the school's "reporting" system for such comments that, the lawsuit charges, "chills expression."
"Because the university defines 'experiences of bias' to encompass behavior, speech, or expression that 'has a negative impact,' virtually any joke or off-putting remark could result in the speaker being forced to navigate the university's investigative process or 'an educational resolution process,'" Ross Marchand of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said, according to a report at the College Fix.
"While cutting jokes and demeaning comments can be hurtful, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and clearly held that meaningful freedom of speech must protect expression others find offensive or even hateful."
He explained the "complicated, bureaucratic processes explicitly intended to 'stop the behavior' flies in the face of the First Amendment by chilling protected speech."
"UC Boulder needs to make clear that, in order to be reportable, offenses need to violate the law or university policy," Marchand said.
The school's "equity and compliance" bureaucracy now is called the "Office of Collaboration," and it enforces the so-called "nondiscrimination" rules.
"The report said she has been "investigated" because of her criticism of identity politics, and a question about a piece of clothing.
She was not formally punished under the bureaucracy, but now "lives in constant fear that anything she says could be considered 'unwelcome conduct," the report said.
The legal action cites the school's decision to threaten her with investigation for her comments about protected classes.
She said, according to the report, "Why do we need two months of this? Didn't we do this back in June?" regarding a choir class about LGBT ideologies.
She also allegedly offended students by asking what a "do-rag" was, seeing one on a male student's head, the report said.
When confronted by a choir director, she explained, "I truly never meant to hurt anyone but I believe that students should have the emotional maturity to resolve any issues they have with me on their own."
The choir director had become part of the attack earlier by criticizing her comment about white privilege. She explained, "I don't care about your identity, I care more about what you have to say as a person, more than how you look."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'Some bullying governments insist on negotiations. But their goal is not to resolve issues; rather, it is to impose their demands'
In response to the letter from U.S. President Donald Trump to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei seeking to put the brakes on that nation's rapidly expanding nuclear program, Khamenei responded at a gathering held during Ramadan and attended by current and former officials, stating belligerently:
"Some bullying governments insist on negotiations. But their goal is not to resolve issues; rather, it is to impose their demands. For them, negotiations are a means to introduce new expectations. The issue is not just the nuclear program; they continue to put forward new demands that Iran will certainly not accept."
Khamenei elaborated on these "new demands," citing his country's "defensive capabilities" – that is, its missile program – and Iran's "international capabilities" – meaning its various proxy forces throughout the region. He added:
"They tell us: 'Do not do this, do not meet that person, do not go to that place, do not produce that item, and do not allow your missile range to exceed a certain limit.' Negotiations are about these matters."
Khamenei was never going to accept negotiations
From the outset, it was evident Khamenei would reject any negotiations. His regime has faced persistent resistance from the Iranian people for 45 years. In 1988 alone, 30,000 political prisoners were executed, yet these brutal suppressions failed to quell the opposition. To date, more than 100,000 political dissidents have been killed by this regime.
The Iranian regime has consistently pursued aggressive policies and used terrorism as a tool to mask its internal repression. Whenever it feigned interest in negotiations, it was merely a ploy to buy time – ensuring the survival of both its nuclear program and its regional proxy forces.
Unrelenting executions – a sign of desperation
The Iranian regime has resorted to mass executions to suppress growing public unrest. In 2024 alone, more than 1,000 people were executed, and in the first two months of the new year, over 100 additional executions were recorded. This brutal crackdown underscores both the regime's deep insecurity and the explosive state of Iranian society.
At the same time, the regime has accelerated its nuclear weapons program, using it as leverage to threaten and blackmail the international community. Meanwhile, the Iranian Resistance has uncovered the regime's secret nuclear sites and exposed their covert plans.
Looming nuclear threat
The alarming rate of executions clearly signals a society on the verge of uprising.
To further intimidate the world, the regime has escalated its nuclear weapons program. The Iranian Resistance has disclosed classified details about these activities, revealing the extent of the regime's ambitions.
The so-called "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action," the 2015 nuclear agreement with the so-called "P5+1 nations" (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) only enabled the regime to move closer to acquiring a nuclear bomb.
As Iranian Resistance leader Maryam Rajavi stated Saturday, addressing the great rally of the Iranian community in Washington, D.C., "The first urgent step to prevent this warmongering and terrorism-exporting regime from acquiring a nuclear bomb is to completely dismantle its nuclear program."
Failure to do so would pose an immense threat to regional and global stability.
The final and definitive solution
The most effective and least costly solution for both the Iranian people and the international community is an Iranian solution: supporting the country's organized resistance.
As stated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: " …[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends" – that is, of securing the "unalienable rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" for all – "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Today, over 150 lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives have publicly endorsed the Iranian people's right to overthrow the Supreme Leader's regime. Now, more than ever, there is a genuine opportunity to establish a free and democratic Iran. These lawmakers also support the Iranian Resistance's roadmap for change.
Iran's organized resistance movement, with thousands of active resistance units across the country, has the capacity to lead this transformation. The struggle of these resistance units to overthrow the regime must be supported – just as the French Resistance was backed in its fight against Nazi fascism.
Now, more than ever, a free and democratic Iran is within reach.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'Both sides need to come to an understanding'
WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday told reporters Ukraine will have to cede land as part of a peace deal with Russia.
Rubio's comments came just as he was preparing to travel to talks with Ukrainian officials taking place on Tuesday in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
"I think both sides need to come to an understanding that there's no military solution to this situation," he said.
The secretary explained America can't allow Russia to, "[…] conquer all of Ukraine. […] It'll be very difficult for Ukraine in any reasonable time period to force the Russians back all the way to where they were in 2014."
Rubio was referencing land that Russia had annexed 11 years ago. His statement seemed to indicate he will push for Ukraine to relinquish control of these territories that have been in dispute for years. Those areas are not part of the current conflict, which saw Russia invade in 2022 and attempt to take more land from the small country.
He emphasized the need for both sides to make concessions, saying, "There with is a strong sense that Ukraine is prepared to do difficult things, like the Russians are going to have to do difficult things to end this conflict or at least pause it in some way, shape or form."
The talks come just weeks after an explosive meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. Trump asked Zelensky to leave the White House after tensions boiled over in front of the media inside the Oval Office, and a planned press conference to sign a minerals deal was canceled. Zelensky later softened his stance on the negotiations and indicated he would sign the mineral agreement.
Rubio said he hopes talks in Saudi Arabia will go well. He indicated the United States may be willing to resume military assistance to Ukraine if the country's envoys convincingly demonstrate an eagerness to reach peace. Meanwhile, in an attempt to calm concerns that the administration is playing too far into Russia's hand, the president has threatened major sanctions if Moscow continues to bombard Ukraine.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'When will there be ARRESTS?'
Stacey Abrams, famous for running for governor of Georgia as a Democrat, losing and then turning into an election denier by rejecting the voters' results, has been involved in a long list of controversial programs.
Including one where, as she described it, taxpayers bought new appliances for residents of a Georgia town so their energy bills would go down.
Pretty neat deal if you can line it up: Taxpayers buys new appliances and gives them to you and they then save you money.
It was one of the egregious spending schemes that is being revealed that happened during the Joe Biden administration.
In an MSNBC interview, she said, the "program" was to lower costs for residents of De Soto, Georgia.
It was in 2023 and 2024, she said, "We worked in a tiny town in south Georgia to demonstrate that by replacing energy inefficient appliances with efficient appliances you can lower your costs," she said.
That's what happened when EPA-controlled tax funding went to that enterprise, she said. One woman's electricity bill was halved to $98 because she was given new appliances, by taxpayers.
The EPA then said such a program should be expanded.
That apparently was the $1.9 billion that President Donald Trump has criticized as being wasted.
"Stacey Abrams admits the $2 billion Joe Biden's EPA gave her was used to buy votes of people in Georgia by purchasing them new appliances. MSNBC does their best to whitewash this but can't hide the huge pile of fraudulent spending Abrams facilitated," social media commenters explained.
"When will there be ARRESTS?" said another.
Added another, "This is a ridiculous theft! Of course new appliances are more energy efficient! My household saved money for new washer, dryer, refrigerator, and our energy bills WERE less. BUT…the EPA has no business 'giving' my tax $ to others for this purchase. She needs be prosecuted."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Part of the years-long lawfare war waged by Democrats against Donald Trump, former and now current president, was aimed not just at keeping him from running for the Oval Office again, or putting him in jail, it was to cost him financially and dearly.
What else would explain a New York judge's claim that Trump owed nearly half a billion dollars in a "fraud" case brought against him in which there were no victims, and those who testified about doing business with him wanted to do more business with him.
But now a door has opened that might allow, if state lawmakers in Georgia approve, a path for him to recover some of the defense costs incurred by the multiple Democrat prosecutors' cases that were created against him.
A report at TownHall explains there's a proposal in the Georgia legislature that would allow him to seek compensation for the legal fees he incurred because of Willis' claims.
"The state's Senate unanimously passed the legislation, Senate Bill 244, by a vote of 55 to 0 on Thursday, paving the way for defendants in Georgia to recover attorney-related expenses and other court costs in proceedings where the DA is kicked off a criminal case due to prosecutorial misconduct," the report said.
Fees also could be recovered if a judge dismisses an indictment, and the county where the charges were filed would be liable.
The report noted records show Trump has paid his top attorneys about $2.7 million, and the Georgia GOP spent at least $2 million on the legal defense of other Trump allies.
Willis has been trying to convince the Georgia state Supreme Court to return her to her flailing case against Trump, but no ruling has come yet.
Steve Sadow, a lead lawyer for Trump, said the move, if adopted by the legislature and signed into law, would be a good start. But what he said really would provide an incentive for prosecutors to play by the rules is to hold them individually liable for those expenses.
Democrats also have tried arguing that Willis didn't really commit any misbehavior in her decision to hire her paramour for more than $700,000 to create allegations against Trump, then take exotic vacations with him.
Lawmakers in Georgia, who have tried repeatedly to summon Willis to answer questions, also voted to increase their own authority to issue subpoenas.
Willis repeatedly has blamed racism for her own failures in assembling the Trump case.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Top Democrats, including some prominent members of Joe Biden's administration, are now without security clearances after they were revoked Monday by Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump's director of National Intelligence.
In a post on X, Gabbard cited a directive on the matter from Trump, who became victim to lawfare against him over the past four years by some names on the list, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Gabbard's statement says: "Per @POTUS directive, I have revoked security clearances and barred access to classified information for Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, and Andrew Weissman, along with the 51 signers of the Hunter Biden "disinformation" letter. The President's Daily Brief is no longer being provided to former President Biden."
When Biden was in office, he famously said Trump, then a former president, should not have any intelligence briefings because of his "erratic behavior."
"There's no need for him to have that intelligence briefing," Biden told CBS News.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Department of Government Efficiency head Elon Musk have commented positively about each other in the wake of their reported Cabinet Room shouting match at the White House.
The pleasant exchange happened on X, which Musk owns. The comments came after Rubio said the State Department had found, "5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States."
Those contracts were part of the United States Agency for International Development.
Rubio thanked DOGE in the same X post. Musk then responded with, "Good working with you. The most important parts of USAID should have always been with the State Department."
Over the weekend, the pair shared similar criticism of Polish Prime Minister Radoslaw Sikorski.
Sikorski accused the U.S. of threatening to shut off Musk's Starlink Internet program, which Poland partly pays for Ukraine to use.
Rubio said Sikorski was "Making things up," and that "Ukraine would have lost the war a long time ago" without the crucial services of Starlink.
Both Secretary Rubio and Mr. Musk agreed that cutting off the service would gravely harm Ukraine's defenses. Musk, for his part, piled on by calling the prime minister "A small man" and that there is "no substitute for Starlink."
It appears that – for now – Mr. Musk and Mr. Rubio are back on the same page.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It's being described as a First Amendment victory and it involves a town in Ohio abandoning its censorship of political signs on private property.
A report from the American Center for Law and Justice explains the fight got its start when police officers in Carrollton, Ohio, showed up at a front door and ordered a resident to remove a political sign from his front yard.
It was because of an ordinance that read, "Political signs may be exhibited not more than thirty days before nor more than seven days after the date of any election."
The residents, confronted with the town's censorship plan, contacted the ACLJ, which has a long history of fighting for constitutional rights.
"On behalf of our clients, the ACLJ sent a demand letter to the village of Carrollton, demanding that it stop enforcing this unconstitutional ordinance and preventing our clients from displaying political signs in their yard. Only one day after receiving our letter, the village of Carrollton responded and agreed to meet our demands – a major victory for free speech," the legal team reported.
"We are also thankful because the village has now completely repealed the political sign prohibition. In a newly revised ordinance, the village explicitly acknowledged that 'governmental regulation of the posting of political signs implicates free speech rights under the First Amendment.' It stated the desire to 'avoid the threatened free speech litigation over the Village of Carrollton's current regulation and restriction of political signs,'" the report said.
The result was an amended ordinance that entirely eliminates a subsection that had banned political signs.
The report said the residents initially thought the police officers were joking, as their order to remove a political sign "was so egregious."
The political sign that prompted the fight, in fact, was one promoting now-President Donald Trump.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Video emerged Sunday of an emotional Mexican man who claims he is leaving the U.S. with his American wife because of his illegal status in country for two decades.
"Today is my last day right here in the United States after 20 years," the crying, unidentified man began.
"Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy, I'm going to my country. I'm going to Mexico. I'm bringing my wife with me."
The man's purported wife is featured in interspersed clips, saying: "The truth is, we basically just reelected Hitler. And I don't feel safe."
"I'm really hopeful that everything goes easily at the airport and that nothing scary happens."
"I think it's truly shocking that the United Sates of America feels like one of the least safe places in the world."
"I'm super annoyed that the things going on in the world are playing on any level in the plans of our future because I do think that it's just putting such a damper on something that we could be very positive and excited about.
"It's so weird I'm not going to be living here anymore."
Some comments online include:
"Had 20 years to get his paperwork squared away … Entirely his fault!"
"After 20 years,why isn't he a citizen? Most get it in 10. This is on them for not doing what should have been done 20 years ago. Are they really married or is it just a cover story?"
"Why didn't they work on making him legal in the last 20 years? She can also move to Mexico if she needs to be with him and loves him so much. I am not trying to be cold but good God. They need to play another card other than victim!"
"Emotions don't determine if a law was broken or should be enforced. I still have empathy, though."
"20 years is more than enough time to pay the fine for illegally entering the country and getting your paperwork in order. They rode the wave too long. Time to wash out."