This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new case report published at Science Direct reveals that three veterans of America's military, all men who decided they were women, got cancer, and that may have been the result of the chemicals they ingested as part of their "transition."

The transgender agenda, one of two major ideologies being pushed onto America by the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, the other being abortion for all, is misleading at best, as scientifically transgenderism cannot happen.

The fact of being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level, and no chemicals or surgical mutilations actually change that.

It continued, "Gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) with estradiol is a cornerstone of treatment of transgender women, but thyroid cancer has been associated with estrogens. Clinicians should be aware of this and discuss it with transgender women—in the context of limited data on thyroid cancer in this population—to eliminate health disparities."

It confirmed, "Estrogens may be associated with an increased risk; the implications for transgender women, who use estrogen for gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT), are unclear."

The report was based on case studies of "3 transgender female veterans."

The report said, "Thyroid cancer prevalence in the transgender female population is not yet well-established. These 3 transgender female veterans each had risk factors associated with cancer development. Based on limited existing data, it is conceivable but not clear that GAHT treatment could have impacted their course."

It warned, "Clinicians should also be aware that patients may be receiving hormonal therapy from nontraditional sources with unforeseen and unknown associated risks."

A report in the Daily Mail explained, "The experts suggested that the estrogen in the gender-affirming drugs may have led to malignant cells in the thyroid growing, which could lead to cancerous tumors or benign masses becoming cancerous."

It reported, "Figures from Defense Health Agency show that in the past three years, $17.5 million in taxpayer money was spent on psychotherapy for trans service people and $1.5 million went towards hormone drugs. A further $7.6 million funded gender-affirming surgeries, including facial tweaks to make a recruit more masculine or feminine, and the removal or creation of breasts and genitals."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Israel/Middle East Morning Brief

U.S. President Joe Biden was said to be becalmed after Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intimated Israel's retaliation against Iran for its ballistic missile attack would not include strikes on non-military sites – including nuclear and energy targets.

Israel running low on interceptor missiles

The Financial Times reported Israel is facing a potential shortage of interceptor missiles as it bolsters air defenses against possible attacks from Iran and its proxies.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A major scandal that enveloped Colorado's social services industry for years already – Robin Niceta's criminal actions – had not even fully died down when another hit – this time a social worker who handled cases for years but was indicted for fraudulently claiming she was qualified for the work.

The Niceta case still is reverberating, as she recently was sentenced to prison for four years for her guilty pleas to faking cancer to try to get out of her case, as she was found guilty of felony attempt to influence a public service and false reporting of child abuse.

Her case got its start when she reported, falsely, a city councilwoman for child abuse. The councilwoman's offense had been to criticize Niceta's then-lesbian partner, a police officer, publicly.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Well, that didn't go as planned for a Lycra-clad millionaire bicyclist who raged to police about a driver who got too close to him on the road and demanded police give him a ticket.

They did, but it was dropped later, and the bicyclist was fined $160 for disorderly conduct over the episode.

The case developed in Utah, but multiple Western states have laws requiring drivers to give bicyclists a clearance when they are on the road. The concept is safety, but it also allows, on narrow and winding mountain roads, for a bicyclist to insist on maintaining his or her travel, while long lines of vehicles are slowed to a bicycle pace, unable to get around because of oncoming traffic.

This latest dispute is explained on video (Please be forewarned for offensive language):

The Daily Mail explained Gary Peacock, 73, was triggered when Pierce Kempton, 22, passed him on a road near Park City, Utah.

Peacock, "who lives in a $3.5 million Park City home," confronted Kempton, repeatedly threatened the driver while he called police, and insisted, "I'm riding a bike. I have more rights than you!"

He later threatens, "If I have it my way, you're going to jail. I'll press charges against you."

Kempton was fined $130 for passing too closely, but that citation was dropped shortly later when he gained access to video from his car's video camera, and provided it to prosecutors, revealing that he indeed moved over for the biker.

The report confirmed, "Dashcam footage posted to Kempton's TikTok page shows him driving along a narrow two-way road and veering slightly to the left to give the cyclist a wider berth."

And, the report noted, at one point Peacock physically put his hand on the younger man, even while calling him a "very aggressive teenager."

The report noted Peacock already had paid a fine, and Kempton reports if he wants to pursue further action against Peacock, his only option is a civil case.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A self-identified transgender "pastor" is explaining that her transgender lifestyle may not be in sync with the Bible, but that's all right for her as a pastor, as the Bible wasn't written for 2024.

The stunning conclusion comes from an individual, a woman representing herself as a man, who appeared on a CBS show talking about faith in transition.

Asked about the Bible's clear definition of male and female and explanation of how God made them, "male and female," she simply went to the next level.

"It's hard to relate it to modern-day times because it wasn't written for 2024. It was written for then. When we read in the scripture that God created man and woman, yes, and God created everyone else, as well," the pastor said.

Actually, the concept of a Bible that can be edited quickly to make room for any theology that has appeared since the 7 a.m. newscast today isn't new to this interviewee.

Back in 1990, then cable television billionaire Ted Turner came up with what instantly became known as the "Ten Suggestions."

He tossed out the Ten Commandments, the standards on which Western morality is based, and insisted on a green ideology where the planet, "all living things" and "all persons" are prioritized and military force, weapons and more than two children are outlawed.

A report at Not the Bee said "SHE claimed that the Bible is just a little outdated so we shouldn't believe what it says anymore."

"And 'pastor' is in quotes (1) because this person doesn't believe in Christianity and (2) because she's a lady. Even if she's hiding it well," the report charged.

"For this rebellious woman, the word of God is insufficient because she thought she was born in the wrong body. So why not just add on to God's word, huh? Sorry, bud, God didn't 'create' any sex beyond male and female. It is not a biological category, it is not an ontological category, it is not a theological category. God is God, and you are not."

In a column for Harbingers Daily, Ark Encounter creator Kenneth Ham explained, "The Bible is crystal clear when it comes to gender: 'Male and female he created them' (Genesis 1:27). So what can you do when God's clear truth clashes with your desires? Well, you have two choices: Conform your thinking to God's Word (we can overcome every temptation in Christ) or ignore God's Word. And here's how one transgender 'pastor' decided to ignore God's Word so she could continue to hold to her transgender identity."

Ham pointed out that the Bible itself states its claim that God's Word stands forever. And, he noted, "In claiming that the Bible wasn't written for 2024, this woman is incredibly dismissive of the very words of God. She's putting her own wisdom, her own desires, her own thinking, above God's Word. Really, she's trying to be her own god, buying into the lie from the garden…"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Apparently it's not a good idea to announce, during a college course you teach, that you believe men who don't support a woman for president should be lined up and "shot."

This conclusion comes from the case of a teacher, apparently in a University of Kansas classroom.

Apparently, university officials weren't pleased with the advocacy for violence, on the state taxpayers' dime and in a public university setting.

"The university is aware of a classroom video in which an instructor made an inappropriate reference to violence," the school announced. "The instructor is being placed on administrative leave, pending further investigation.

"The instructor offers his sincerest apologies and deeply regrets the situation. His intent was to emphasize his advocacy for women's rights and equality, and he recognizes he did a very poor job of doing so. The university has an established process for situations like this and will follow that process."

At a Twitchy commentary was the note, "We love the excuse. He intended to advocate for 'women's rights' and 'equality' but did a 'poor job' of it. No. He said exactly what he meant — there are a million different ways to talk about women's rights and equality that don't involve the mass murder of one's political opponents. The University locked replies (we're not shocked), but the quotes told them exactly how people feel about the professor and his 'apology.'"

It appears the university won't be alone in "investigating."

And one commenter suggested the odd situation that has the university admitting it has "an established process" for "when a professor suggests men who don't vote for Kamala should be 'lined up and shot."'

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A sharply divided Colorado Supreme Court, a body known for its left-leaning activism, has thrown out a transgender's complaint against a Christian baker for refusing to use his artistry to endorse a transgender "coming-out" by a man who now represents himself as a woman.

The fight involves the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which previously was scolded by the U.S. Supreme Court for its "intolerance" of Christianity, and Masterpiece Cakeshop baker Jack Phillips.

It's also part of a nationwide agenda by leftists promoting the LGBT ideology to force Christian photographers, bakers, florists and others to violate their faith and promote the agenda under the canopy of "nondiscrimination."

Phillips previously won a battle before the U.S. Supreme Court after two homosexuals sued him, before the state-run commission, for refusing to use his talents to promote a same-sex wedding.

At the time that case developed, a lawyer contacted Phillips to attack him as a "hypocrite and bigot," according to the ADF, which has represented Phillips in multiple attacks on his faith over 12 years.

That lawyer, a man, then contacted Phillip's business to demand a pink cake with blue frosting, and specifically bragged it was to celebrate transgenderism.

Phillips again declined to be forced to violate his faith and celebrate a perspective deviant to Christianity.

So the lawyer, now identifying as Autumn Scardino, filed a complaint with the commission, which ruled against Phillips.

However, Phillips, already with the experience of the charges from the homosexual duo, and the Supreme Court's decision to affirm his religious rights over Colorado's "intolerance" of Christianity, brought a First Amendment lawsuit against the commission and state.

Quickly, a confidential settlement was reached and the commission, at an emergency meeting, shut down Scardina's case.

He then went to court to file the same charges, but the state court's majority said the process for discrimination complaints in Colorado doesn't allow that, and tossed the case entirely on the technicality.

"Enough is enough. Jack has been dragged through courts for over a decade. It's time to leave him alone," said ADF lawyer Jake Warner. "Free speech is for everyone. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in 303 Creative, the government cannot force artists to express messages they don't believe. In this case, an attorney demanded that Jack create a custom cake that would celebrate and symbolize a transition from male to female. Because that cake admittedly expresses a message, and because Jack cannot express that message for anyone, the government cannot punish Jack for declining to express it. The First Amendment protects that decision."

The 303 Creative decision also came from the U.S. Supreme Court, and also was a loss for Colorado's official position of discriminating against Christians. There, a web designer challenged the state's demand that she promote same-sex weddings in her business, and won at the high court.

The ADF noted, "Phillips won his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, when the court found that Colorado officials who punished Phillips acted with hostility toward his faith. That ruling did not address Phillips's free-speech rights to decline to create custom cakes expressing messages that violate his faith. Now, the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling has ended the most recent lawsuit against Phillips, dismissing the case because the attorney who filed it did not follow the right process. Like the prior win, this ruling does not address Phillips' free-speech rights."

But those speech rights were addressed in 303 Creative.

That decision "upheld free speech for creative professionals like Phillips."

"We granted review to determine, among other issues, whether [the attorney] properly filed [this] case," the Colorado Supreme Court wrote in its opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina. "We conclude that [the attorney] did not."

Scardina, in fact, not only had demanded a custom cake to celebrate transgenderism, but also demanded Phillips provide a custom cake, "one depicting Satan smoking marijuana, to 'correct the errors of [Phillips] thinking.'"

Phillips repeatedly has made clear he will decline to provide cakes that express messages in violation of Christian beliefs, and the one making the request makes no difference.

Columnist Thomas Jipping at Real Clear Wire had described the attacks on Phillis.

"Phillips and his wife, Debra, are Christian co-owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. In business since 1993, Masterpiece sells pre-made goodies in the store, and custom cakes that Jack designs and creates. Phillips has said that he strives to be obedient to Jesus Christ 'in all aspects of his life,' including in his business and in exercising his personal skill in creating designer cakes. To that end, the Masterpiece website states that Phillips 'cannot create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events that conflict with his religious beliefs.'"

Colorado, meanwhile, created special protections for members of various "sexual orientation" classes and gives them the power of the state government to punish those it considers have committed offenses against its ideology.

He explained, "Here's a recap of Phillips' first round. In 2012, a same-sex couple asked him to create a cake for their wedding. When he declined, they filed a discrimination complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC). The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled in Phillips' favor, but on factual grounds unique to that case. Statements and actions by CCRC members, the Court held, 'cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission's adjudication of Phillips' case.'"

He explained, "That's a polite way of saying that the CCRC's overt and ugly anti-religious bigotry fell far short of 'the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.' The Court stopped there, however, and did not address more generally how to handle these conflicts between civil rights statutes and the First Amendment right to freely exercise one's religion."

That was the situation when Scardina, "a biological male who identifies as a woman," demanded a promotion of transgenderism.

"Scardina could have purchased a pink cake with blue frosting almost anywhere, but chose Masterpiece. Scardina specifically sought a custom cake that Phillips would personally create, asking for one without an explicit message and withholding the information certain to elicit a refusal. This gambit was so that Phillips' religious exercise objection would be based on how the cake was used rather than its objective appearance. One way or another, Scardina was determined to deprive Phillips of any room for exercising his faith while staying in business," Jipping explained.

He explained the lower courts simply were wrong.

"Phillips has no problem making a custom pink cake with blue frosting for a man who identifies as a woman and, had that been the request, would have done so for Scardina. The disclosure of 'what the cake was for,' however, turned that generic request into one that would require Phillips to knowingly contribute to celebrating something that violated his religious beliefs. That, no doubt, was exactly what Scardina had in mind."

He continued, "In other words, Phillips made his decision about making this custom cake not based on anything related to Scardina, but on something very important to him: his exercise of religion. This is what courts, like the one in this case, don't seem to grasp."

Ironically, the state commission put its anti-Christian bias on the record. During the original dispute with Phillips, a publication contacted a number of Denver bakeries run by homosexuals, and asked for a cake quoting the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality.

All refused, and the commission exonerated them on the basis that such a message violated their beliefs.

The Colorado court decision, in fact, specifically said it was not ruling on any free speech rights, or nondiscrimination issues. It said that the case had to be dismissed because none of the paths allowed in Colorado law included Scardina filing the complaint in district court.

The only option open for him, would have been to appeal the dismissal that happened after Phillips sued the state for First Amendment violations, but he did not do that.

Three dissenting justices in the 4-3 ruling, still advocating for state control of religious beliefs, complained that the majority wouldn't "reach the merits of this case"

The dissenters complained, "Substantively, the majority's ruling throws Scardina completely out of court and deprives her (sic) of the opportunity to seek a remedy for alleged discriminatory conduct based on a novel interpretation of law that no party asserted and, to my knowledge, no court has adopted. Moreover, although the majority rules solely on procedural grounds, I am concerned that Masterpiece and Phillips will construe today's ruling as a vindication of their refusal to sell non-expressive products with no intrinsic meaning to customers who are members of a protected class (here, the LGBTQ+ community) if Phillips opposes the purpose for which the customers will use the products."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A team of animal rights activists has filed a lawsuit in the state of Colorado seeking an order that a highly respected zoo free its elephants.

And the state Supreme Court actually is going to consider it.

A report from Channel 7 in Denver explains the high court is planning to hear arguments in the fight over the rights of the elephants at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado to be free,

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The People's Republic of China is accused of continuing its bully tactics in the South China Sea after it allegedly crashed government-owned vessels into a Vietnamese fishing boat. Seven of the 10 fishermen onboard were assaulted and injured, while three sustained severe injuries, resulting in broken limbs.

A pair of Chinese ships more than 300 feet long from the Hainan-based Sansha City Comprehensive Law Enforcement Bureau pursued and attacked the fishing vessels, with those on board saying they were assaulted by approximately 40 people over a three-hour period. The attackers stole more than six tons of the vessel's catch, according to VOA.

Vietnam slammed China in a statement issued by the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry calling the act, which took place on Sunday in the highly disputed Paracel Islands, "brutal."

Spokesperson Pham Thu Hang said Hanoi opposes the brutal behavior of Chinese law enforcement forces towards Vietnamese fishermen and fishing vessels.

"Vietnam is extremely concerned about, discontented with, and resolutely opposes the Chinese law enforcement force's brutal behaviors towards the Vietnamese fishermen," Hang said.

Hang further demanded China respect Vietnam's sovereignty over the Hoàng Sa archipelago, the Vietnamese name for the Paracel Islands.

"The Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sternly communicated with the Chinese Embassy in Hanoi, strongly opposed the above mentioned acts by the Chinese law enforcement force and demanded China to fully respect Vietnam's0 sovereignty over the Hoàng Sa archipelago, quickly investigate and announce results to the Vietnamese side, and not repeat similar acts," Hang said.

Chinese officials denied they had attacked the Vietnamese fishing vessels, and in a statement sent to Reuters, said the vessels had not gained permission from Beijing to fish in that area, and the Chinese vessels had simply taken measures to stop them, citing the measures were "professional and restrained" and further stated "no injuries were found."

According to China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the relationship between China and Vietnam, officially, has steadily increased after the nations signed a strategic partnership of cooperation in 2013.

"Positive progress was made in boundary negotiations. The heads of boundary negotiation teams of the two governments met several times for in-depth exchange of views on ways to appropriately address the disputes over the South China Sea … The two sides also agreed to continue to advance cooperation in areas such as marine environmental protection, marine scientific research, maritime search and rescue, disaster prevention and mitigation and maritime connectivity," the ministry said.

Despite this positive spin, the "positive progress" between China and Vietnam has continued to deteriorate, as China increasingly becomes more aggressive and violent toward any non-Chinese vessels in the South China Sea. China claims the majority of the region through its "dashed line" which overlaps the sovereign borders of not only Vietnam, but also several other countries bordering the South China Sea, including the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Indonesia, and Taiwan.

The Paracel Islands, which are surrounded by rich fishing grounds and potential oil and gas reserves, are approximately 250 miles off the coast of Vietnam and 220 miles off the coast of mainland China. While both nations claim ownership of the islands, China has been rapidly expanding its occupation, which began in 1956, over the past 10 years.

According to high-resolution satellite images published by the Diplomat in 2015, China was expanding runways and airport facilities only two years after signing a cooperation agreement with Vietnam, and has added new land through reclamation on Woody Island. The Paracel Islands is home to a Chinese military garrison which was built on top of a landfill, and reinforced with a concrete seawall.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A Democrat-run lawfare campaign against President Donald Trump, which largely has been endorsed by a federal judge through her one-sided rulings, is being condemned as "bad detective fiction."

An expert on constitutional disputes explained, "A lot of it is irrelevant and inadmissible. … It seems like deliberate election interference."

WND has reported a federal judge in Washington, who has established her own bias by repeatedly and publicly criticizing and condemning Trump, has taken Jack Smith's edited claims against Trump regarding the 2020 election and shoved them at voters just in time for Democrats to use them in their campaign against him.

The players here, Chutkan and Smith, apparently have abandoned that level of nonpartisanship.

The motion came about because Chutkan, in a hurry to try make the most of the attack on Trump, ruled earlier that Trump had no immunity for his actions as president. But she didn't establish any sort of evidence on the dispute. The Supreme Court pointed that out when it confirmed Trump does have various levels of immunity at different times, and it sent the case back to Chutkan.

Smith, appointed by Merrick Garland's Department of Justice to carry out this arm of the lawfare that has been assembled against Trump, submitted his claims now that Trump was a "private" individual for all regards concerning his re-election.

"The point of this was to try to get this information, which has been hashed out again and again before the American people. None of this is new, but the idea was to get the evidence out in as spectacular a way as possible. And by Smith's light, hopefully get Trump convicted in the run-up to the election in hopes of influencing the outcome of the election. And now we have the release of this book-length size recitation of Smith's case under circumstances where there is no possibility of having this trial before November and there was no reason to have it brought out in public now," McCarthy said.

He continued, "In fact, in most cases, a judge would be concerned about, for example, poisoning or prejudicing against the defendant a jury pool. In most cases a judge would be very concerned that evidence not be broadcast in public without the usual due process cautions that go on in a trial that the defendant be presumed innocent, the fact that allegations are not evidence of anything.

"The point of releasing this now can only be to affect the election. There is no legal need for it."

The Daily Caller News Foundation also noted that it was Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett who likened Smith's filing to "bad detective fiction" and using it to influence the election.