This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

WASHINGTON – With Donald Trump promising to pardon some, if not all, of those convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, logic would suggest that the Justice Department might slow down or halt its ongoing prosecution of J6 defendants, and that the FBI would terminate its ongoing orders to surveil, raid and apprehend new suspects who demonstrated in Washington, D.C. that fateful day.

In just a few weeks, on Jan. 20, 2025, President-elect Donald Trump will make his return to the Oval Office, something long awaited by the men and women who have been politically prosecuted by the Biden DOJ for protesting the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election results at the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump has vowed repeatedly over the years to pardon the Jan. 6 prisoners. And in his first interview after his historic Nov. 5 victory, the president-elect, who himself faced an unprecedented 92 politically motivated felony counts while on the campaign trail, doubled down on his promise to free the political prisoners.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The justices on the Supreme Court are being asked to rein in a scheme for police searches of homes – without warrants – that uses the "suspicion" that a person on probation or parole lives there.

Officials with the Rutherford Institute are warning that if the decision from the Arkansas Supreme Court in Bailey v. Arkansas is allowed to stand, the results would be "a slippery slope that allows police to carry out warrantless searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment when police merely suspect but do not know or have probable cause to believe that a probationer lives on the premises."

John W. Whitehead, chief of the institute, explained, "This case isn't just about one search in Arkansas. It's about a creeping erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights that threatens every homeowner in America.

"We're on a slippery slope towards a society where police can invade any home based on nothing more than a hunch. It's an affront to the Constitution and a danger to us all," he said.

The institute explained that under state law in Arkansas, people on supervised probation or parole must accept a waiver that allows "any law enforcement officer to conduct a warrantless search of their person, residence, electronic device, or motor vehicle at any time, day or night, whenever requested by the law enforcement officer, and the search does not need to be based on an articulable suspicion that the person is committing or has committed a new criminal offense."

The institute noted millions of people across the nation are subject to similar state requirements.

Problems arise, however, when "police officers mistakenly suspect that a probationer who has waived his Fourth Amendment rights is living at another's residence, and then use that waiver as justification to search the home without a warrant or any indication of criminal activity."

That means that the law imposes the loss of constitutional rights to be protected from unwarranted searches on those individuals, even if the probationer is not living there and may not have even been there.

The institute said it is warning the high court that "relatives and friends will then lose their right to security in their homes."

Highlighted for the court are cases in which police shot and killed a homeowner's dog, when officers drew their guns in front of children, and traumatized a parolee's mother who was hospitalized.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

As the U.S. government remains coy about mysterious drones sighted over numerous states, new reports are suggesting the devices are part of a massive counter-terror operation hunting for a dirty bomb or another possible weapon of mass destruction on American soil.

"It's potentially the most significant national security threat we've faced since 9/11," said Gary Franchi in his Raw Feed broadcast Saturday on the Next News Network.

"The Office of Global Access [a division of the CIA] has deployed these advanced surveillance assets for one purpose: hunting for a dirty bomb that's believed to be hidden somewhere on U.S. soil.

"But here's what should keep you up at night. The reason the intel is leaking now, well, because time may be running out."

"These are our drones," Franchi stressed. "They are tracking gamma rays linked to possible WMDs in a massive counter-terror operation."

He noted the purported WMD could be hidden in a cargo container or vehicle.

"The stakes are high, and of course, the government's silence does speak volumes because they don't want people to panic. And people already are panicked because there hasn't been disclosure, clear disclosure."

"People are taking up arms and they're shooting at anything they see in the sky, which should NOT be happening. You should not be taking up any arms. You should not be aiming for anything in the sky. That is very, very dangerous because a lot of these videos that are surfacing, a lot of them are being identified as passenger airliners or small passenger jets."

Franchi cited a viral video posted by John Ferguson, the CEO of Wichita-based Saxon Aerospace which makes unmanned aircraft for the U.S. military, who gave his stunning "opinion" linking the drone sightings to the disappearance of more than 80 nuclear warheads from Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

He said there's never been a full accounting of these weapons, and at least one of them may have been headed toward America.

Ferguson recalled a discussion with a government insider who handled one of the missing warheads, only to have his concerns ignored by U.S. officials.

"Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan had dismantled the nuclear program," Ferguson explained. "With Russia, there were countless nuclear missiles that were disarmed and disposed of. Well, there were over 80, I believe. There were over 80 nuclear warheads that were in Ukraine that came up missing.

"We don't know where they are. Maybe somebody does, but nobody knows where these are. I speak with some pretty high-level government officials on this stuff. It seems as though that is the case.

"I spoke to a gentleman a few months ago who was trying to raise an alarm to the highest levels of our government, which they had their ears closed, about this one particular nuclear warhead that he physically put his hands on.

"He physically touched this warhead that was left over from Ukraine. And he knew that that thing was headed towards the United States. That is a very serious deal. And everyone knows that the United States government, this administration, is pushing to get into a war with Russia. We all know that. We all feel it. We all see it."

Ferguson believes the flying devices are most likely trying to sense hidden targets, which may contain radioactive material.

"Now, drones have no reason to be in the air at night unless you're doing some type of ISR work, intelligence surveillance reconnaissance, looking for bad guys or looking for a victim, a search and rescue victim, or law enforcement, or some type of military project," he said.

"There's no reason for a drone to be flying at night because they don't see sh**. Unless you have thermal optics, drones don't see stuff. You need to do mapping during the day. If you're going to do farming stuff, mostly do it during the day.

"The only reason why you would ever fly an unmanned aircraft at night is if you're looking for something, whether it be a person or trying to smell gas.

"We have methane-gas-detection systems that can detect gas leaks and pipelines. You really wouldn't use thermal optics for trying to find gas leaks just simply because the only way you're going to find a gas leak with thermal optics is if the gas leak is aggressive enough that it has a temperature difference. Radio thermal imaging creates a digital image based on the temperature of variance.

"So whatever is different in temperature, it creates an image. Gas, usually gas leaks so slow that it goes quickly into athe mbient before you can even see it. So we have special sensors that can detect gas leaks.

"We also have special sensors that can detect radioactive material. So with this gentleman that I had spoken with who was trying to raise the alarm to try to get somebody in the government to say, 'Hey, we need to work together to go try to find this nuclear warhead.' None of that ever happened. They knew that warhead was on its way to the United States.

"That's all that ever came of it. Nothing ever happened. This government did not do anything at all to help this gentleman raise the alarm and raise awareness that there is a very deadly weapon on its way to the United States. It's out there.

"Nobody knows where it's at now. It left Europe, now it's gone. My guess, my own guess, is that these drones are not nefarious in intent. If they are, they are, but I doubt it. But if they are our drones, the only reason why they would be flying, and flying that low, is because they're trying to smell something on the ground."

"My belief is they're trying to smell something on the ground, gas, leaks, radioactive material, whatever. Do I think that If they're coming up out of the ocean, no, I don't think so.

"Drones that are multi-copter type drones, not the fixed wing aircraft that look like regular airplanes, but the multi-copters, they only have so much battery life. They have hybrid versions that are gas-powered with electric, but those can still only fly for a short period of time.

"There's no way in hell that any drone is going to go miles off the coast as a multi-copter and fly into the interior of the United States and do a bunch of work and then turn around and fly back. It's just physics will not allow that to happen.

"So these drones, I believe, are launched from a location that nobody knows. But I do believe that they're flying low enough that they're just trying to sniff the ground and try to find something. So again, I hate to be a pessimist or a guy that thinks directly to the negative.

"However, I know as a professional, we build professional stuff for the military. I believe that they're actually out there trying to smell something that's very important."

Popular podcaster Joe Rogan shared Ferguson's video online, noting: "This is the first video about these drones that has got me genuinely concerned."

As WorldNetDaily reported Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., dropped his own bombshell concerning the source of the drones, asserting they're being launched from an Iranian "mother ship" off the eastern seaboard of the United States, a claim firmly denied by the Pentagon.

On a more humorous note, President-elect Donald Trump posted an image Saturday about the drone mystery, linking it to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie receiving drone-delivered meals from McDonald's.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

For a number of years already, state and local governments that abide by the leftist ideology found in the LGBT movement have tried to promote their beliefs by censoring ideas that contradict.

Specifically, they've labeled ordinary talk therapy delivered by counselors to patients who want to rid themselves of various LGBT ideologies as "conversion" therapy and banned it, despite the fact that infringes on the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

They demand that pro-LGBT counseling is acceptable, but anything that contradicts the ideology must be banned.

Multiple court cases have been filed over the fight, and the decisions have been inconsistent. Some leftist judges have ruled that such speech can be banned; others have said it's protected.

What's been missing so far is a definitive ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that protects the speech rights of those who don't support LGBT indoctrination.

There's now an opportunity for that to happen.

It is Liberty Counsel, which successfully has defeated a number of those speech restrictions in court, that has filed a brief with the high court urging a review of the Chiles v. Salazar case, which involves "a Colorado law that violates the free speech of licensed counselors who help clients deal with unwanted gender confusion or same-sex attractions," Liberty Counsel's report said.

That leftist state's law bans "any counseling that might help minors change their behaviors, sexual orientation, or gender expressions even when the client wishes to do so," the report said.

The case at issue involves professional counselor Kaley Chiles who is subject to the state's First Amendment-violating ban on certain words during counseling sessions.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, an often-overturned court reflecting the leftism common in Colorado and Denver, claimed in a recent decision that talk counseling is "professional conduct," subject to being banned, and not "speech."

That's even though talk therapy in a counseling session is "made up entirely of speech."

Liberty Counsel noted the fight has been brewing "for more than 10 years with four different appeals courts currently divided 2-2 over whether counseling bans are valid."

The Ninth circuit affirmed California's speech ban, while rulings from the Third and Eleventh Circuits simply said speech is speech and speech counseling is protected by the First Amendment.

The high court so far has not taken up any of those cases, but, Liberty Counsel pointed out, "Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh all indicated that they would have heard a similar challenge."

Thomas called the censorship schemes viewpoint "discrimination in its purest form."

Liberty Counsel's brief explains talk therapy is protected by the First Amendment, "unlike invasive medical procedures involving drugs and surgeries."

The case at hand charges that the state is violating Chiles' constitutional rights by "by preventing her from helping those who are struggling with gender confusion, same-sex attractions and unwanted behaviors."

Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver said, "Talk therapy is speech, and the government has no authority to restrict that speech down to just one viewpoint. The U.S. Supreme Court can take this case and render Colorado's ban on therapeutic counseling unconstitutional. In doing so, all counseling bans nationwide can then be struck down and people can get the counseling they need. Counselors and clients should have the freedom to choose the counsel of their choice and be free of government censorship."

In a previous report by the Daily Signal, it was documented in a study by Father Paul Sullins, a Roman Catholic priest, senior research associate at The Ruth Institute, and former sociology professor at Catholic University, that such censorship is dangerous.

The report explained he found, "Not only is there no evidence that efforts to change sexual orientation, which Sullins refers to by the acronym SOCE, increase the risk of suicide among those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. There also is evidence that such efforts actually decrease the risk of suicide or thoughts of suicide among them."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The ink was hardly dry on the resignation letter of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad before he put on his running shoes to depart Damascus for the safety of Russia and before a coalition army of revolutionaries captured the capital city Dec. 8. In 2000, al-Assad replaced his father, Hafez, who had brutally ruled Syria for 29 years. A civil war – triggered in 2011 under the son's rule – may now be drawing to an end.

It is the son who now bears responsibility for the deaths of over 600,000 of his countrymen as he opted to prolong the civil war by turning to both Iran and Russia to help him maintain power. While the U.S. and Turkey have supported certain combatants during the conflict, it is clear the big losers due to the rebels' capture of Damascus are Iran and Russia.

The religious makeup of Syria consists of numerous minority groups. The largest minority among these are the Alawites, which is the third-largest sect within Islam. It is a sect that identifies closely with Islam's second-largest sect – the Shiites. As Iran is one of the few countries with a Shiite majority, al-Assad embraced a relationship with Tehran. Iran's help was quickly needed as al-Assad's Syrian army was folding. By early 2012, tens of thousands of Iranian troops were in Syria to assist. As the civil war continued, Iran's commitment steadily increased in personnel, training and technology. It even brought in Hezbollah – an Iranian terrorist proxy – to assist the Syrian dictator.

The opportunity to support al-Assad was an ideal one for the mullahs as it contributed to their religious mandate of creating a caliphate – initially regional but ultimately global – by which the world would be ruled. The incorporation of Syria, which centuries earlier had been part of an Islamic caliphate, would provide another step in that direction. As a result, for decades, Tehran had been investing its money, sweat and blood in molding Syria into a caliphate.

Yet, when the revolutionaries began knocking at the door to Damascus and al-Assad needed Iran most, the mullahs opted to cut their losses and run out on their only consistent ally since they had come to power in 1979. Similar to the embarrassing 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, for Iran, its withdrawal from Syria became its 2024 equivalent.

Even with Iran's help, al-Assad had needed assistance from the Russians who launched a military intervention into Syria in September 2015. The Russians undertook to attack the mixed bag of anti-al-Assad revolutionaries initially with air support. Any group fighting al-Assad was designated as terrorist, enabling Russia to claim that was what it was fighting. Russia then introduced ground troops, including the infamous Wagner Group of mercenaries, into Syria. By early 2017, the Russians claimed their air force had conducted over 19,000 combat missions and delivered 71,000 strikes on "the infrastructure of terrorists."

In 2016, Russia ratified a treaty with Syria giving the former its first permanent air base in the Middle East – although it had been operating out of it for over a year. Ever since 1971, Russia (then the Soviet Union) has had a naval base in Syria at Tartus. Unwilling to leave billions of dollars of military equipment behind at either location, days ago Russia began withdrawing its ships, planes and war materials. While withdrawing, Russia at least was not going to endure the humility the U.S. did in leaving billions of dollars of equipment behind.

The civil war against al-Assad has been fought by numerous revolutionary factions having varying interests. While the main groups to oppose him were an alliance of pro-democratic nationalists, others joining the war were the Syrian Salvation Government, represented by a coalition of Sunni militias led by a terrorist al-Qaida derivative group known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS); the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a multi-ethnic, Arab-majority force led by the Kurdish People's Defense Units (YPG); and jihadist factions of the Islamic State.

Interestingly, while the HTS leader – Abu Mohammad al-Jawlani, 42 – has been involved in the fighting for years without attracting too much international media attention, it is he who finally organized and spearheaded what has been a lightning assault against al-Assad's army and his foreign-state supporters, forcing his resignation. As a senior International Crisis Group analyst, Jerome Drevon, notes, "By far, he's the most important player on the ground in Syria." HTS was affiliated with al-Qaida until breaking with it in 2016 "because of strategic disagreements," and in 2017 the U.S. offered a $10 million bounty for information leading to al-Jawlani's arrest. Unsurprisingly, Turkey has been supporting HTS.

As Iran blames the U.S. and Israel for al-Assad's ouster despite the Islamic makeup of the rebels, Syria's transitional prime minister encourages refugees to return home. He suggests a break with Iran may be in order as the country is weary of war and its people want to "enjoy stability and calm." It is nice to hear, but the region has not been known for its stability and calm.

Al-Jawlani orchestrated a blitzkreig-like strike that, in just over a week, resulted in capturing the city of Aleppo in the north before quickly moving south to capture Hama, Homs and Damascus. Al-Assad reportedly escaped by plane from Damascus just prior to rebel forces entering the capital city and after his plea to the U.S. for help went unanswered.

One country to take immediate advantage of al-Assad's fall is Israel. Between Dec. 8-9, it attacked over 300 Syrian targets, destroying the country's entire MiG-29 fighter jet fleet as well as its navy. Also destroyed were numerous advanced air defense and radar systems, weapons caches, army warehouses, a chemical weapons and missile technology research center and a center for electronic warfare.

While Israel is obviously unsure how things will play out in Syria when the dust finally settles, Syria's past anti-Israel history and al-Jawlani's extremist roots are sufficient reasons for Israel to destroy much of the country's military capabilities, at least for the near future, in what is a blow to Iran as well.

There was clear rejoicing by Syrians around the world over al-Assad's ouster. What will be interesting to observe, however, is how long the rejoicing lasts. The victorious revolutionaries still represent a wide range of interests. As they consolidate their power in the weeks and months ahead, how they will sort out their differing interests remains to be seen, with the biggest issue being whether they can do so in a way that gives the Syrian people reason to rejoice.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In a move that is being mocked online over its obvious points of failure, leftist food workers in the Washington, D.C., region are promising to punish Republicans in the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

Fox News caught the announcement, that "TAKING OUR POWER BACK: Food workers in Washington, D.C., are pledging to refuse service and cause other inconveniences for members of the incoming Trump administration when they dine out over the next four years."

A report at Twitchy warns, "These Kamala-loving food workers say they will do nasty things like making members of his administration have to wait 20 extra minutes for their food or providing even worse service than they normally do."

But it pointed out a gap in the logic of the agenda: "We don't have problems with Democrats self-sabotaging themselves, but their employers may not care too much for it. If these whiny workers' ignorance starts costing them money and losing customers, these service-slackers will be fired."

Among social media comments were:

"Seems that now might be a good time for some conservatives to open restaurants in the DC area."

"It will be a pleasure to see you go out of business."

And, "Then they won't have jobs when nobody visits these establishments."

A member of the community pointed out another failing: That Republicans are better tippers, and are lower maintenance customers, too.

And not that it would impact a leftist agenda, but it's actually illegal in D.C. to discriminate on the basis of political party, commenters pointed out.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

We now know the number of FBI assets the Department of Justice admits were in the crowd on that Jan. 6, 2021, day when there was a riot at the U.S. Capitol.

That would be 26, according to a report from DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz.

But the real question is what did they do?

It is Washington Examiner columnist Byron York who focused Friday on that specific issue.

He pointed out that of the 26, "17 went into the Capitol or the restricted area around the Capitol. Of them, four went inside the Capitol, while 13 were on the restricted grounds. Beyond that number, nine CHSs did not enter the Capitol or the restricted area. We don't know where they were," he said.

Of course, some 1,500 other Americans have been arrested and prosecuted for charges that sometimes include no more than going into the Capitol.

York continued, "The FBI told Horowitz that most of the CHSs came to Washington on their own and not at the orders of or request of the FBI. But several of them, 13 in all, informed their FBI handlers that they were traveling to Washington. Three of the CHSs had been assigned by FBI field offices to go to Washington. Of that group, one entered the Capitol, while the other two entered the restricted area. The report says that none of them were authorized by the FBI to enter those areas. Of the 23 other CHSs who were not assigned to go to Washington and instead came on their initiative, three entered the Capitol, and 11 entered the restricted area."

None has been prosecuted. And none was identified.

He explains, "On many occasions, the report states that this or that CHS, whether in Washington on FBI directions or not, 'was not authorized to enter the Capitol or a restricted area, or to otherwise break the law on January 6, 2021.' There is a tone of defensive repetition throughout the report: The FBI wants you to know, over and over and over, that it didn't authorize anyone to do anything bad."

But missing is "what the FBI confidential sources did, authorized or not."

There are a couple of "bare-bones" sketches. And, the report said, there is confirmation some of the "sources" were reimbursed for their travel expenses. And some even were given further assignments.

He continued, "The Justice Department, which has been hyperaggressive in pursuing Jan. 6 participants, knows who they are and knows they went inside the Capitol."

Maybe, he wondered, "the FBI did not want a messy prosecution that would inevitably reveal a lot about the FBI's activities."

"Whatever the case, it still means the FBI, which stonewalled Republicans in Congress on all sorts of issues during the first Trump administration, is being far less than transparent about what some of its secret informants did on Jan. 6. We know enough, for example, to know that the bureau was very happy with the work of Field Office 4 CHS, but we don't know things like: How did he get into the Capitol? How long was he there? Who was he with? What did he do?"

Further, the DOJ IG report doesn't address any issues with the Capitol Police or Washington Metropolitan Police.

He noted it's good to know the number of FBI sources there.

"But that's not the whole story."

Because of the years it took for that confirmation to be revealed, speculation suggested that law enforcement agents were part of the riot, or even organized and abetted it.

President Donald Trump repeatedly had offered to authorize National Guard troops to be at the Capitol that day to make sure there wasn't any significant violence, but his offer was rejected by Democrats in Washington, including both at the city and federal levels.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In a media world that has moved well into the make-believe with its promotion of the transgender ideology, a watchdog organization in the United Kingdom has been offended by a journalist's use of the phrase "a man who claims to be a woman."

That watchdog, the Independent Press Standards Organization, immediately condemned the words as "pejorative and prejudicial."

The words follow the science in that a transgender male can "claim" to be a woman, but being male or female is embedded in the body down to the DNA level and cannot be changed.

It is the Christian Institute that noted the publication is the Spectator, and officials there defended the freedom of speech of journalist Gareth Roberts, who used the phrase to refer to transgender author Juno Dawson, who filed a complaint.

"The Spectator published the judgment, as required of the magazine by IPSO, but criticized the decision as an attack on free speech," the institute reported.

Michael Gove, editor, explained, "We publish what Ipso requires of us here. But I am in no doubt this is an outrageous decision, offensive to the principle of free speech and chilling in its effect on free expression."

He said, "When Gareth Roberts wrote that Juno Dawson is a man who claims to be a woman, he was exercising his right to free speech and indeed expressing a view that many would consider a straightforward truth. For The Spectator, free speech is not a cause among many others which we may champion – it is the essence of our existence."

He pointed out the scientific reality of the agenda on which politics has had a heavy influence.

"Dawson may have a Gender Recognition Certificate but no piece of paper, whatever it may say, can alter biological reality. Parliament may pass laws, but they cannot abolish Dawson's Y chromosome."

Toby Young, director of the Free Speech Union, told the institute when a press regulator penalizes a publication "because it doesn't like its politics," the regulator then "is no longer fit for purpose."

The Christian Institute's James Kennedy stated: "Journalists are right to say what everyone knows – that a man cannot become a woman, no matter what a piece of paper from the government says."

He called for courtesy to all, but "no one should be punished for stating the truth."

Gove wrote that his publication's first duty "is not to any committee, no matter how well-intentioned – it is to you, our readers. We are here to report honestly, uphold freedom of speech, and defend the right of our writers to express themselves, within the boundaries of the law, as they see fit."

He said Robert's view is one "that many would consider a straightforward truth."

"Society has, understandably, sought to accommodate and make changes to ensure people who wish to live as trans women, even though they were born biological males, have every opportunity to find the happiness they seek in their assumed identity. Juno Dawson is no exception. But Dawson cannot dictate how others think, nor decide what language others use when they describe the reality they see," he said.

He cited the work of journalists who investigated the body mutilations advocated by the Tavistock Clinic's National Health Service clinicians, and the fact that was shut down.

"The testimony of victims of these practices, such as Keira Bell, is heart-breaking. Subsequent work by the distinguished pediatrician Hilary Cass laid bare the unethical, unscientific, and unsupportable nature of what had been going on," he said.

For his publication, "We trust our readers to make up their minds on vital and sensitive questions of moral and ethical importance. We believe that individuals are better able to do so if they can read and hear from writers and thinkers who ask uncomfortable questions. We will continue to give free thinkers and brilliant writers such as Gareth Roberts a platform. And we will resist any effort to pressure them into conformity with another's morality."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Interview on the Elizabeth Farah Show with Dr. Robert Malone discussing 'the terrifying reality of modern psyops and manipulation,' including a long list of topics

Here is the video content that TikTok decided you should not be allowed to see.

It's an interview on the Elizabeth Farah Show when Dr. Robert Malone discusses "the terrifying reality of modern psyops and manipulation."

The interview was filmed on Wednesday and posted to several sites, including TikTok on Thursday.

The result was an immediate takedown.

TikTok claimed the videos violated its "community guidelines" because they reference COVID issues and disputes from the 2020 election.

The jargon used by TikTok included: "Civic and Election Integrity. Elections are important moments of community conversation and promote the values of an open society. We do not allow misinformation about civic and electoral processes, regardless of intent. This includes misinformation about how to vote, registering to vote, eligibility requirements of candidates, the processes to count ballots and certify elections, and the outcome of an election."

And, "In a global community, it is natural for people to have different opinions, but we seek to operate on a shared set of facts and reality. We do not allow inaccurate, misleading, or false content that may cause significant harm to individuals or society, regardless of intent. Significant harm includes physical, psychological, or societal harm and property damage."

The claim that Malone's information was inaccurate was not supported by any evidence.

Meanwhile, TikTok is experiencing difficulties, with a court ruling that its parent company must divest its U.S. operations.

The CEOs of Alphabet and Apple have been warned they must be ready to remove TikTok from their U.S. app stores on Jan. 19.

A federal appeals court just days ago upheld a law requiring China-based ByteDance to divest TikTok in the United States or face a ban. Rep. John Moolenaar and others have urged TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew to sell the short video app used by 170 million Americans.

The problem with TikTok is its links to the Chinese Communist Party.

Without an intervention by someone, as of Jan. 19, the app no longer will be available, and those who already have it will see it become unsupported.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Colorado officials chose the route of exhibiting hostility to Christianity when they attacked baker Jack Phillips and tried to demand he produce messages on his products that violated his Christian faith.

The Supreme Court delivered a victory to Phillips in that fight, scolding the state.

Officials in that extreme leftist state then decided the Supreme Court wasn't really serious, and attacked a website designer over the same dispute. They tried to order her to promote projects and ideologies that violated her faith.