This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The suspect in the assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, and the shooting of another lawmaker and his wife, is a political appointee of the state's governor and last year's Democratic vice presidential candidate, Tim Walz.
He is Vance Luther Boelter, 57, appointed by Walz in 2019 to serve on the governor's Workforce Development Board. Boelter reportedly also leads an international security firm.
State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were shot and killed in the attack at their home, which took place after 2 a.m. Saturday. State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife are alive after the attack at their home, but wounded. Both lawmakers were Democrats. According to reports, Boelter, who is still at large, was dressed as a police officer when he approached the homes.
In a statement, Walz called the assassinations and attempts acts of "targeted political violence."
The Gateway Pundit reports that Boelter's LinkedIn account lists him as the CEO of Red Lion Group.
Boelter apparently left a manifesto in his car, along with flyers for area "No Kings" rallies, meant to protest President Trump's immigration enforcement activities.
There are allegations that the attack involved a recent vote on Minnesota's health care program, MinnesotaCare.
Area residents have been told not to attend the local "No Kings" rally for fear of related violence.
Anyone with information about Boelter's whereabouts is asked to call the tipline at 877-996-6222 or email bca.tips@state.mn.us.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Denver, a progressive, leftist, Democrat enclave run by progressives, leftists and Democrats, demands that homebuilders build the structures the city prefers or pay an exorbitant extra fee.
And now it's being sued because its programs actually discourage what it purports to encourage: affordable housing.
It is the Pacific Legal Foundation that has brought the case on behalf of Denver homebuilder redT Homes, and CEO Nathan Adams.
The case challenges "Denver's permitting scheme, which forces builders to either set aside units to sell at below-market prices or pay huge fees to help create affordable housing."
A report at Complete Colorado explained, "At issue in this case is Denver's Linkage Fee ordinance, which was passed in 2022, that Adams' attorneys refer to as 'an exorbitant ransom for permission to build much-needed homes and exacerbates the problem the fee is trying to solve.'"
The report explains Denver's website demands that builders must be:
Those fees are moving, in just days, to $2.50 per square foot to $9 per square foot, depending on the type of construction.
The city claims the fees "support permanent housing and supportive services for at-risk residents, low- and moderate-income workforce rental housing and moderate-income for-sale housing.":
However, PLF said the company's expertise is in products ranging from "LiteHomes" to townhomes and apartments. And it explains Denver's agenda actually turns against solving the problem of a shortage of thousands of housing units.
"The City's regulations force home builders to pay for problems they do not create. The result: Developers have to increase the price of homes to cover the increased costs, making it harder for Denver families to buy homes," the PLF said.
"The excessive red tape has already priced redT out of some projects completely. Two of its upcoming projects may be headed down the same path: four single-family homes, which are subject to $25,000 in fees, and two duplexes, which are subject to $45,000 in fees," PLF said.
"Denver claims these fees are justified because new residents generate more housing demand. This rationale, however, misses the mark—the housing shortage stems from regulations that restrict supply by making it harder to build homes. Denver is punishing the very builders working to solve the housing crisis," according to the report.
"There's also a constitutional problem with these inclusionary zoning fees. The Supreme Court determined in a quartet of rulings that governments cannot burden homebuilders with costs for problems they do not create. Taken together, those cases established that permit conditions for new construction must be proportional and directly related to its impact. Anything above and beyond is an unconstitutional property taking," the PLF said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has responded to Israel's overnight strikes on Iran's nuclear weapons and military complex by calling for the rogue Islamic regime to make a deal "before there is nothing left."
"I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done. I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come – And they know how to use it." Trump wrote on social media.
"Certain Iranian hardliner's spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse! There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end."
He said, "Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. God Bless You All."
Israel launched coordinated strikes against Iranian nuclear complex targets and military sites early Friday, late Thursday, in Washington.
Trump continued, "Two months ago, I gave Iran a 60-day ultimatum to 'make a deal.' They should have done it! Today is day 61. I told them what to do, but they just couldn't get there. Now they have, perhaps, a second chance!"
Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that the U.S. had not been "involved" in the strikes.
"Our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel."
Iran's immediate losses included, according to reports, Hossein Salami, the chief commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and multiple nuclear scientists.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the offensive could continue for days or weeks.
The Daily Mail described Israel's attacks as "devastating."
"Explosions boomed across the Iranian capital as simultaneous raids targeted buildings believed to be the homes of senior military commanders and advisers," the report said.
It reported that more than 200 Israeli jets were involved.
It also reported, "The preemptive strikes came after Israel said Iran has made significant advances towards the creation of a nuclear weapon, including the enrichment of uranium."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver, a Democrat, has been indicted on charges of impeding police, interfering with federal law enforcement and more after she was seen on video apparently breaking into a federal immigration detention center.
The indictment was announced by U.S. Attorney Alina Habba, who promised to hold the Democrats involved in the episode accountable.
McIver pulled her stunt May 9 at Newark's Delaney Hall, a 1,000-bed, privately owned facility that Immigration and Customs Enforcement uses as a detention center.
McIver claims she was just doing her job at the time.
McIver is accused of obstructing Homeland Security agents during the May 9 incident. The indictment comes from a federal grand jury, which charged she was "forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement officers."
"During her continued attempts to thwart the arrest, McIver slammed her forearm into the body of one law enforcement officer and also reached out and tried to restrain that officer by forcibly grabbing him," the Department of Justice charged. "McIver also used each of her forearms to forcibly strike a second officer."
McIver claimed, "The charges against me are purely political — they mischaracterize and distort my actions, and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
American voters chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for president back in 2008. In 2016 they chose Donald Trump over Clinton.
Since then, she's repeatedly harped on how the election was stolen from her and even these days, sarcastic comments often target her for being "jealous" that Jill Biden was president, not her.
That, of course, plays on the evidence of Joe Biden's mental decline while he was in the White House, and questions about exactly who was making decisions.
But even those scenarios look to end up taking second place to the mockery of Clinton's insistence, in her newest episode, of continuing to tell other people what she thinks.
That's when she went on social media to call the Los Angeles riots, triggered by federal law enforcement warrants and arrests in a criminal cartel investigation of money laundering and more, to say they are "peaceful demonstrations."
Fox News noted it was the first and only comment from Clinton, as of Tuesday morning, about the riots.
"California Governor Newsom didn't request the National Guard be deployed to his state following peaceful demonstrations. Trump sent them anyway," she wrote. "It's the first time in 60 years a president has made that choice. Trump's goal isn't to keep Californians safe. His goal is to cause chaos, because chaos is good for Trump."
Social media watchers noted immediately that while Clinton wanted other people to hear her voice, she was uninterested in others' comments: She turned off that feature on her post.
"Ever notice that only leftists disable comments?" California Republican Liberty Caucus chair John Dennis posted.
And Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican, informed her, "'These are not peaceful Hillary."
Fox said the situation allowed Clinton to be "brutally mocked" for her "delusional" comment.
Because of Clinton's imposed limits on comments, "Social media users were able to respond to Clinton through quote engagements, but not through direct replies as of Tuesday morning," Fox reported.
Another commenter pointed out, "Accusing the National Guard of causing chaos is a serious allegation that requires serious proof. I see none."
Another, posting an image of fire raging as rioters waved a Mexican flag, said, "Hillary Clinton is delusional if nothing else."
When federal officers tried to deliver warrants and make arrests in their criminal investigation, rioters soon targeted them with thrown rocks, physical attacks and worse. Cars were torched.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Just as President Donald Trump is cracking down on criminal activity by illegal aliens in Los Angeles – there have been a couple days of riots opposing federal law enforcement raids on cartel operations there – one governor has gone the other direction.
He's signed a new law that expands his state's protections for illegal aliens, who under federal law actually have committed crimes by entering the United States without permission.
A report at Complete Colorado outlines what the new scheme adopted by a Democrat majority legislature and signed by Democrat Gov. Jared Polis means.
As of now, state judicial and legislative branches, and local governments, are barred from sharing personal immigration-related data with federal officials. Federal authorities now are denied access to childcare facilities, hospitals and schools, unless they have a warrant.
Also, local governments cannot work with federal law enforcement agencies to detain someone facing civil immigration proceedings, and any information on an enrolled child or patient cannot be shared with federal investigators.
Among other restrictions, the report explained.
The bill, signed recently, is the Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status, and was a top priority for leftists in the legislature.
The report explained state lawmakers are continuing to be "isolating Colorado from the Trump administration's deportation policies."
State practice in Colorado already had limited interaction and information sharing between local and federal officers.
Despite the facts embedded in state law, Polis still claimed that state and local agencies work with federal agents "identifying, apprehending, and prosecuting criminals, regardless of their immigration status."
Technically, all those who are in the United States illegally are in violation of the federal law, and are "criminals."
Violators of the law would face a $50,000 fine, the report said.
Further, the law prevents jails from delaying the release of a criminal illegal alien when requested by a federal immigration official. And it "allows the governor to deny entry into Colorado to another state's National Guard troops for immigration enforcement unless 'the military force from another state is acting on federal orders and acting as a part of the United States armed forces,'" the report said.
And illegal aliens no longer need to document that they've applied for lawful status before gaining the special privilege of in-state tuition.
The report noted Rob Natelson, senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Denver-based Independence Institute, cited the "constitutional absurdities" of the agenda.
For instance, the bill recites the 10th Amendment states' rights, but neglects to explain that immigration is not one of the powers "reserved to the states."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A promotional webpage published by the Chicago-based JLB Law Group titled "Legal Immigration from India: Your Complete Guide to U.S. Pathways" reveals more than just immigration options. It offers a blueprint for how foreign nationals, specifically from India, can exploit nearly every major U.S. immigration category, from student and work visas to green card waivers and domestic abuse protections, often in ways that undermine the integrity of the system and disadvantage American citizens.
The law firm openly markets its services not to immigrants broadly, but explicitly to Indian nationals, despite the fact that U.S. immigration law is nationality-neutral. This nationality-specific targeting raises serious ethical concerns. When American law firms promote immigration pathways tailored to one foreign country that already dominates visa issuance, such as India with over 70% of all H-1B visas, it reflects systemic bias and contributes to labor market distortion.
One of the most misleading elements of the guide is its treatment of the F-1 student visa. The firm highlights the F-1 not simply as a path to education but as an employment gateway, emphasizing that students can obtain Optional Practical Training (OPT) and STEM OPT extensions that allow up to three years of U.S. work authorization. What the firm fails to disclose is that OPT is not a guaranteed benefit, but a discretionary training program. Nor does it mention that OPT employees are exempt from payroll taxes, giving employers a financial incentive to hire foreign graduates over U.S. students.
By marketing the F-1 visa as a job opportunity rather than a study permit, JLB Law Group contributes to a growing trend of foreign nationals entering the U.S. with education as a pretext, then transitioning into the labor force through OPT. This practice not only displaces qualified American graduates but also undermines the intent of the visa.
The guide also promotes the H-1B visa, calling it one of the most popular options for Indian professionals. It fails to mention that the H-1B program has been repeatedly flagged by Congress and the Department of Labor for widespread abuse, wage suppression and outsourcing fraud. U.S. companies and foreign staffing firms often use the H-1B visa not to fill true talent shortages, but to replace American workers with lower-paid, visa-dependent labor, a process sometimes culminating in U.S. employees being forced to train their foreign replacements.
JLB Law Group also encourages the use of the L-1 visa, which allows multinational companies to transfer employees from foreign offices to the U.S. without labor market testing or wage requirements. This visa has been heavily exploited by Indian tech firms to rotate workers in and out of the U.S. while circumventing U.S. hiring standards. By advertising it as a seamless route for Indian professionals, the firm ignores the consequences for American IT workers whose jobs are being offshored or outsourced.
Even more concerning is the firm's promotion of the National Interest Waiver (NIW) under the EB-2 green card category. The NIW allows foreign nationals to bypass employer sponsorship if they can prove their work benefits the national interest. In the hands of researchers and highly skilled innovators, the NIW is a legitimate provision. But law firms like JLB are now encouraging ordinary professionals to apply under NIW by reframing their resumes to sound nationally significant. This trend has transformed a narrow exception into a broad loophole.
Between FY 2018 and FY 2023, the percentage of EB-2 green card petitions using the National Interest Waiver (NIW) route surged from 12% to 43%, a nearly fourfold increase. USCIS data shows that while total EB-2 petitions grew, non-NIW petitions dropped and NIW filings nearly doubled between FY 2022 and FY 2023 alone. This spike correlates with mass layoffs in the tech industry and a growing number of PERM labor certifications failing due to labor market test failures and PERM pauses, especially at companies like Google and Meta.
Internal posts reveal that major employers paused PERM filings due to their inability to meet DOL requirements, pushing foreign workers toward self-petitioned NIWs instead.
The NIW was designed for individuals whose work benefits the U.S. at a national level not as a backup for failed labor market tests. But AI-driven legal platforms and social media forums are now openly marketing NIW as a workaround to bypass PERM scrutiny, with one developer boasting an 80% approval rate using a DIY AI tool.
Despite this, employer-specific data shows mixed results. At Meta, for example, 63% of employees reported their NIWs were denied even when filed through company attorneys, raising concerns over the actual merit of many of these petitions. As NIW exploitation becomes a substitute for employer sponsorship and labor testing, it threatens the very foundation of U.S. worker protections under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
JLB describes the National Interest Waiver (NIW) as a pathway for those whose work "strengthens the U.S. economic system and national interests." But the firm provides no context about the highly subjective criteria used to evaluate such petitions, nor does it address the growing misuse of the waiver by foreign nationals coached to manipulate the language of "national benefit." As with the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, the real victims are American professionals, shut out of opportunities by visa schemes never meant for foreign workforce expansion.
But perhaps the most egregious section on the JLB site is its treatment of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Positioned casually alongside student and employment visa categories, VAWA is framed as a viable option for those "looking for legal immigration status in the U.S. without their abuser's involvement." The firm even offers a self-screening guide to help applicants assess their eligibility, without any warning about the serious consequences of filing a false claim or the humanitarian purpose of the law. VAWA petitions after entering sham marriages, fabricating abuse and submitting falsified documentation to secure green cards.
By marketing VAWA alongside job- and education-based immigration routes, the firm implies it can serve as a backup plan if marriage-based or employment petitions fail. This isn't just misleading, it's dangerous. It opens the door to fraud and exploitation of a law meant to protect true victims. And this concern is not hypothetical.
Indian nationals have already been prosecuted in federal court for precisely this kind of abuse. In United States v. Nasir Hussain, the defendant was convicted after submitting a VAWA petition built on fake medical reports, fabricated cohabitation records and a non-existent spouse. In United States v. Hiren Makwana, another Indian national pleaded guilty to entering a sham marriage and filing a false VAWA petition once the relationship collapsed.
In another disturbing case Indian Nationals pled guilty to staging armed robberies at more than nine stores across several states. Their goal? To create fake police reports so clerks could apply for U nonimmigrant status (U visas) by claiming to be victims of violent crimes.
Meanwhile, VAWA filings have exploded. In 2010, just over 8,200 petitions were filed. By 2023, that number had skyrocketed to over 50,000, with more than 104,000 petitions pending. As of mid-2024, VAWA filings exceeded 51,000, with a backlog approaching 150,000. Particularly troubling is the spike in parent-based VAWA claims, cases in which foreign-born parents allege abuse by their U.S. citizen children. These rare and difficult-to-substantiate claims are now being filed in the tens of thousands.
USCIS data confirms the trend. As reported in 2023 VAWA petitions increased by 46% and the numbers continue to rise. On November 11, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it would begin conducting more thorough interviews for VAWA self-petitioners. The change followed a string of high-profile fraud cases in New York, Massachusetts and Maryland, alongside the explosive growth in filings.
All of this is packaged on a single webpage like a menu, lawful, attainable and curated specifically for Indian nationals seeking U.S. residency. From F-1 to H-1B, from L-1 to NIW and ultimately to VAWA, the message is unmistakable: if one path fails, pivot to another. There is no concern for displaced American workers, no deterrent against fraud, no mention of integrity. Just a relentless pursuit of access, by any means necessary.
Behind the language of law and opportunity lies a sprawling pipeline fueled by desperation and greed. From immigration law firms, universities, shady consultancies, middlemen in India, recruiters in America, everyone wants a piece of the profit. And in their pursuit, they exploit loopholes, defraud the U.S. immigration system and trample over the livelihoods of American workers.
India's obsession with America is no secret. As one smuggler confessed, "They only want to go to America. America is a craze. And they only want to go to America at any cost. No matter what the cost is."
This isn't immigration. This is industrialized manipulation. A coordinated strategy to turn America into India's second homeland, at our expense. When humanitarian laws like VAWA are reduced to backup plans for failed employment or marriage visas, it's not just a loophole. It's a weapon.
The American people deserve a system that serves them, not one sold off to foreign agendas, one form at a time.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
House Republican leadership included a provision within Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill that prevents states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed concern on the issue: "We have to be careful not to have 50 different states hyper-regulating A.I. because it has national security implications."
But U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene offered a different perspective. Appearing on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel, MTG said: "The One Big Beautiful Bill delivers President Trump's campaign promises on taxes, energy, and border. And with what's happening in LA – Antifa and the uprisings with the cartels defending illegal aliens – and this is the Democrats' agenda?"
"We cannot have a poison pill that literally destroys federalism for 10 years, otherwise we are no different than China. And while I've been speaking with Speaker Johnson about this issue – as well as many other people – here's the issue: If we tie our states' hands for 10 years, we have no idea what A.I. will do."
She continued: "And the biggest fear is if you look at the economy, A.I. is going to replace jobs from all kinds of sectors. And if A.I. replaces these jobs and states are not able to regulate and make laws to protect their citizens … we're going to see poverty on a level we've never seen before. Unemployment will be out the roof, and it will destroy our economy."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Service members are understandably pleased with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's commitment to make America's military a strong and lethal force once again, but according to some, a few bad actors within the force are undermining his efforts.
WorldNetDaily spoke to Dr. Chase Spears, a retired U.S. Army public affairs officer, writer, and host of the Finding Your Spine podcast. "There have been some notable restorative changes in the Defense Department under Pete Hegseth's tenure," noted Spears. "But constitutionally minded friends and colleagues of mine still in the force tell me that fear of defending truth remains palpable in the ranks."
For example, said Spears: "One shared candidly that a left-wing supervisor is openly contemptuous toward the new secretary," noting that he could not remember observing a single similar instance during his 20-year career.
Then Spears widened his scope to describe the larger military "deep state" view of President Donald Trump, Hegseth, and the rest of the Trump team: "The defense complex views this as a war and is determined to wait the Trump Administration out." In fact, he added, "Many of the senior officers charged to carry out Hegseth's orders were promoted for their fidelity to leftist ideology." For Spears, "Trusting generals and colonels who created these problems to help clean them up is unwise at best. It's past time to send the majority of them on their way."
For one example, there's Navy Vice Admiral John B. Nowell Jr., who desired a "fully vaccinated force" and promised to separate those who refused the shot "at the earliest possible opportunity." As chief of Naval Personnel, Nowell essentially ignored the rights afforded to service members through both the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Working under Nowell was Rear Adm. James P. Waters III, under whose authority the Religious Accommodation Review team used a Standard Operating Procedure to unlawfully and preemptively deny religious accommodation requests regarding the COVID shot. While Nowell was clearly responsible for violating the rights of sailors,. Spears argues Waters was equally culpable for executing the religious accommodation denial process.
Waters now serves as commander of the Navy Recruiting Command. Once again violating federal law, the First Amendment, he blocked the X account of Navy Commander Robert A Green, Jr., from the Navy Recruiting Command's official X account in June 2024.
Although a formal complaint was filed, the incident has not been resolved.
Waters' actions apparently violate the Supreme Court's ruling in O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier on the unconstitutionality of blocking users from an official government account based on their viewpoints or for engaging in protected speech.
Spears responds to this by pointing out that "character matters," adding: "If you refuse to honor a rightful law, Americans have no reason to believe that you'll honor your oath to any other proper authority, Constitution included."
"Admiral Waters, and anyone else still openly violating the law, must be relieved and referred for court-martial charges," Spears suggested. "Anything less sets a dangerous precedent that military officials are above the law."
In addition, he said, "People who believe that, especially those who command well-armed combat formations, historically tend to become extraordinarily dangerous to the people they're charged to protect."
Glenn Neil, a former military officer of 13 years who was booted from service as a result of the shot mandate, also spoke to WND, using a pseudonym due to fear of reprisals. While he would like to return to service, he's concerned that those who harmed the nation's security by violating service members' rights will continue to walk scot-free.
"People keep throwing around this number of the 8,000-plus that were purged from the military for refusing the shot, but in reality," Neil said, "tens of thousands were forced to leave." While the latter group may have chosen to resign or retire from service on their own, it's because they refused to denounce their religious objection or risk their health over the "unlawful as implemented" mandate.
According to Neil, these two groups of service members had the ability to discern right from wrong, choosing to "stand up and do what was right." Many were also "highly skilled" and "highly trained," he added. "That's tens of thousands of them at millions of dollars each in experience, and you can't just simply replace that with new recruits." So it's inevitable, he said, that "national security will suffer."
Neil also pointed out that many service members survived the purge as a result of court injunctions that blocked the mandate or the rescission of the mandate in January 2023. He also affirmed that many took the shot under duress – and now they're "pissed." Finally, he added for completeness' sake, there's always one more category of "'yes men' who did, and will do, whatever they're told."
Some of those who took the shot are now suffering from adverse effects, like myocarditis, cancer, neurological problems, and more. "These people were once assets, and now many of them do not trust the government, so once again, national security suffers as a result."
Interestingly, said Neil, "I've worked with service members who used to ace their physical training tests before the 'vaccine' and now they can't run. They're physically unable to."
The above examples demand accountability, Neil declared. He recalls President Donald Trump previously stating, "Yeah … there would be accountability, is right. We'll fire their asses." But according to Neil, "hundreds, if not thousands, of the military leaders that forced the mandate and purged tens of thousands of troops from the service are still in positions of power."
To Hegseth, he would say, "You have to get these people out." Rules were clearly broken, and unlawful orders were given. "You have to make it a point to let them know we know this was wrong and there must be consequences. Saying 'I'm sorry' and offering to reinstate troops is not enough," he lamented. "If they're willing to do it once, what's going to stop them from doing it again and harming people in the future?" Accountability is a must, and therefore, "these are the people who need to be purged."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
First it was a cake baker, then a web designer and now it's a counselor
For the third time in just a handful of years, Colorado is at the U.S. Supreme Court over its demands that it control the faith, beliefs and speech of people in its state.
Specifically, people who do business. First it was a cake baker, then a web designer and now it's a counselor.
In the newest case, which is just developing at the high court, the state is demanding that Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor, share only the state-approved faith messages regarding the LGBT agenda.
According to a report from ADF, which is representing Chiles, "Many of Chiles' clients come to her because they share her Christian faith. These clients believe their lives will be more fulfilling if they grow comfortable with their bodies rather than pursuing a path of harmful drugs or surgeries. Yet Colorado law censors Chiles from speaking words her clients want to hear and insists that counselors can only help young people by encouraging them to identify inconsistent with their sex."
It's the state's adopted beliefs in the LGTB ideologies that are at issue.
"The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors," Jim Campbell, a lawyer for the ADF, said. "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 harms these young people by depriving them of caring and compassionate conversations with a counselor who helps them pursue the goals they desire."
Colorado officials have made it illegal to encourage, through counseling, that people, including young people, abandon the LGBT ideology and work to establish a comfort level being the sex they were born.
"We are eager to defend Kaley's First Amendment rights and ensure that government officials don't impose their ideology on private conversations between counselors and clients," Campbell said.
The ADF's noted, "Colorado's law violates Chiles' freedom of speech by prohibiting licensed counselors from engaging in counseling conversations with clients under age 18 who want to change some expression, behavior, identity, or feeling associated with their 'sexual orientation or gender identity.' The law threatens severe penalties, including suspension and even revocation of the counselor's license."
The ADF's opening brief in the case confirms "how the law only prohibits counseling conversations in one direction," stating, "When counseling young people with gender dysphoria, Colorado allows Chiles to speak if she helps them embrace a transgender identity. But if those clients choose to align their sense of identity with their sex by growing comfortable with their bodies, Chiles must remain silent or risk losing her license, her livelihood, and the career she loves."
The brief asks the Supreme Court to protect free speech for counselors.
"Counseling is vital speech that helps young people better understand themselves, their desires, their actions, and their identity. Colorado interjects itself into those conversations, silences views it dislikes, and tries to control what those kids believe about themselves and who they can become."
It was only weeks ago the high court agreed to review the case.
Twice before it has intervened in Colorado's attempts to dictate beliefs and ideologies.
It first tried to force a baker, Jack Phillips at Masterpiece Cakeshop, to express a pro-LGBT message that violated his religious faith. The high court ended up scolding the state for its "hostility" to Christianity, and the state ended up being sued by Phillips for its unconstitutional actions.
Colorado, led by homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat-majority legislature and an all-Democrat state Supreme Court, which is so leftist it blatantly tried to interfere with the 2024 presidential election by banning President Donald Trump from the ballot (it was overturned), tried the same scheme against a web designer, at 303 Creative, and took a major loss, again, from the Supreme Court.
It was the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, an often overturned panel, that affirmed the Colorado scheme to censor Christian perspectives.