Supreme Court arguments about campaign spending limits included open talk of a JD Vance 2028 presidential campaign, in a case first launched by the vice president when he was running for U.S. Senate.  In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Trump administration is not defending the current federal law, which prohibits political parties from coordinating with candidates on how they spend campaign funds. If the Supreme Court sides with the Republicans, it would mean candidates can accept funding directly from a political party and also discuss with party officials how to use the funds.   The case emerged in 2022, when plaintiffs including then-Ohio U.S. Senate candidate Vance, as well as then-Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, sued the Federal Election Commission, contending that coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment.  In lieu of the government’s defense, the Democratic National Committee has intervened to argue in favor of upholding the restriction, enlisting the party’s super lawyer Marc Elias. Elias said the DNC, the NRSC, and other political committees “are given a special privilege, to make millions of dollars of in-kind contributions to candidates.”  “These limits on income contributions are called coordinated expenditures, but they do not pose any meaningful burden on party speech,” Elias argued before the court. “In fact, the vast majority of them hardly involve speech at all. The practical effect of petitioners’ case would be to convert the political parties into mere paymasters, to set invoices on campaign vendors.”  When passing the law, members of Congress defended the restriction as necessary to prevent the potential laundering of bribes through a political party. Noel Francisco, the lawyer representing the Republican committee, said this would note be possible. He pointed out that contributions to parties are limited to $44,000, while contributions to political action committees are unlimited.  “A would-be briber would be better off just giving a massive donation to the candidate’s favorite super PAC,” Francisco said. “That’s why no one has identified a single case in which a donor has actually laundered it or bribed to a candidate.” Vance’s Future Plans? Proponents for keeping the law in place argued that the case is moot and plaintiffs lack standing because the Trump administration is unlikely to enforce it.   Francisco contended there is no reason Vance would take that chance.  “There’s no evidence that the vice president has abandoned his intention to run for federal office in 2028,” Francisco said. “At least 15 of the last 18 vice presidents have gone on to run for the presidency, and regardless of the current executive’s views of the First Amendment, it would be insane for Vance or the committees to knowingly violate this law, since it is a criminal statute with a five-year statute of limitations.”  However, Roman Martinez, whom the justices appointed to argue for upholding the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals‘ ruling to keep the law in place, stressed that the plaintiffs lacked standing because Vance is not a candidate.  “Vice President Vance has repeatedly denied having any concrete plan to run for office in 2028,” Martinez noted. Chief Justice John Roberts asked what happens if Vance did run for another office, and didn’t want to follow the law banning coordinated expenditures. “If the vice president came to you and said, ‘I want legal advice on whether or not I can violate these limits, because I’ve heard that somebody said, ‘Don’t worry about it, they’re not gonna be enforced,’’ would you tell him to ‘Go ahead?’” Roberts asked. “Maybe one thing would you tell him to do is, ‘We ought to be careful, because maybe somebody else will be in the White House next term. They may decide to prosecute this.’” Martinez said he would advise Vance to consult the FEC for an opinion.  “Any person can go to the FEC and request an advisory opinion about whether their conduct is lawful, and if the FEC says, ‘Yes, it’s lawful,’ as they obviously would here because they [the administration] think the conduct is lawful, then there is a statutory safe harbor that would provide total relief, total protection to the vice president,” Martinez said.  Evidence of Bribe Laundering? Justice Sonia Sotomayor said evidence of bribery inspired campaign finance laws in the 1970s. The dairy industry appeared to have laundered money to the 1972 Nixon campaign through the Republican National Committee. The dairy industry received a government bailout.  “Was that a quid pro quo? It appears,” Sotomayor said.  “If there’s no direct evidence, it’s because our umbrella is working,” Sotomayor added. “You now want to take that umbrella completely away.” Francisco responded that there are no state examples of bribes laundered through parties.  “We actually have 28 states in this country that impose no limits on a party’s ability to coordinate with its candidates, none. We don’t have any examples from those 28 states,” Francisco said.  Likely Verdict? The court did not appear inclined toward one side or the other, since justices on both sides had tough questions for lawyers, said former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky, now a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. But he said the NRSC has a 60% chance of prevailing, based on the arguments. “Noel Francisco made a strong case as to why the Supreme Court should throw out the restrictions on First Amendment and on associational rights,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.  “Marc Elias, despite the fact that he has huge amounts of money and organizations behind him, has gotten pretty much a losing record in court,” von Spakovsky added.  The post Vance 2028 Buzz in SCOTUS Arguments During Campaign Spending Limits Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In January 2026, the Federal Trade Commission plans to gather a small army of “experts” in Washington to discuss a topic that sounds technical but reads like a blueprint for a new kind of internet. Officially, the event is about protecting children. Unofficially, it’s about identifying everyone. The FTC says the January 28 workshop at the Constitution Center will bring together researchers, policy officials, tech companies, and “consumer representatives” to explore the role of age verification and its relationship to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA. It’s all about collecting and verifying age information, developing technical systems for estimation, and scaling those systems across digital environments. In government language, that means building tools that could determine who you are before you click anything. The FTC suggests this is about safeguarding minors. But once these systems exist, they rarely stop where they start. The design of a universal age-verification network could reach far beyond child safety, extending into how all users identify themselves across websites, platforms, and services. The agency’s agenda suggests a framework for what could become a credential-based web. If a website has to verify your age, it must verify you. And once verified, your information doesn’t evaporate after you log out. It’s stored somewhere, connected to something, waiting for the next access request. The federal effort comes after a wave of state-level enthusiasm for the same idea. Texas, Utah, Missouri, Virginia, and Ohio have each passed laws forcing websites to check the ages of users, often borrowing language directly from the European Union, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Those rules require identity documents, biometric scans, or certified third parties that act as digital hall monitors. In these states, “click to enter” has turned into “show your papers.” Many sites now require proof of age, while others test-drive digital ID programs linking personal credentials to online activity. The result is a slow creep toward a system where logging into a website looks a lot like crossing a border. This rush to verify everyone’s age destroys the privacy that once defined the web. If every click depends on presenting government-issued ID or biometric data, anonymity disappears. The internet begins to resemble a network of checkpoints, where access to information depends on identity verification. The bigger risk is the infrastructure built to hold it. Systems capable of verifying identities at scale are also systems capable of tracking behavior. Once governments or companies build massive databases of verified users, the temptation to use them for other purposes grows quickly. By organizing this workshop, the FTC signals it’s ready to explore embedding verification into the broader web ecosystem. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post This FTC Workshop Could Legitimize the Push for Online Digital ID Checks appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

POLITICO Names Trump 'Most Powerful Person in Europe'

Flipping the Rare Earth Script

Calling yourself a comedian does not give you the license to spread fake news under the guise of exaggeration or hyperbole, but once again NBC’s Saturday Night Live has done just that. This time the guilty party was Colin Jost, who played Pentagon Chief Pete Hegseth and claimed that the drug boats being hit in the Caribbean are actually just fishermen and that the name of the operation is Operation Kill Everybody. During the cold open about Hegseth taking questions from reporters, Jost played an exaggerated version of Hegseth that was frequently yelling, singing tonally inappropriate songs, or trying to do a tough guy shtick. As he opened it up for questions, Fake Hegseth urged, “Now, you got questions for me, fine, pretend I'm a random fishing boat and fire away.”     Mikey Day played the part of one reporter who wondered, “Okay. Is there any truth to the allegations that after an initial strike on a drug smuggling boat, you ordered a second strike to kill the survivors?” Jost acted offended that anyone would ask such a question before reverting to the “Hegseth likes alcohol” trope, “Uh, first of all, that kind of cruel, heartless act has no place in Operation Kill Everybody. Second, I wasn't even in the room when it happened, okay? I was so jacked up after the first strike, I had to make an emergency call to my sponsor—sorry, a guy I met in an anonymous meeting—so I don't drink something that I like, and I want, but I can't have, but I want it, and I need it, and I want it right now bup, bup, bupaba, it's booze. Next question?” After Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley briefed relevant lawmakers on Capitol Hill, it seemed as if Republicans and Democrats agreed on nothing except for that there was no “kill everybody” order. Ashley Padilla portrayed another reporter who asked, “Yes, what did you say to Senator Mark Kelly, who said you act like a 12-year-old playing Army?” After declaring Kelly is “a girl’s name” and that Padilla’s character should “get a husband,” Jost finally answered the question, “If I was just ‘playing Army,’ would there be 80 dead fishermen— narco-terrorists in Venezuela right now? Next question.” There is no evidence that the people onboard these boats are actually fishermen. On the controversial attack dominating the headlines, there is evidence drugs were onboard, and in other cases, foreign countries have prosecuted survivors.   Here is a transcript for the December 6 show: NBC Saturday Night Live 12/6/1014 11:31 PM ET COLIN JOST/PETE HEGSETH: Now, you got questions for me, fine, pretend I'm a random fishing boat and fire away. MIKEY DAY/REPORTER 1: Okay. Is there any truth to the allegations that after an initial strike on a drug smuggling boat, you ordered a second strike to kill the survivors? JOST: Uh, first of all, that kind of cruel, heartless act has no place in Operation Kill Everybody. Second, I wasn't even in the room when it happened, okay? I was so jacked up after the first strike, I had to make an emergency call to my sponsor—sorry, a guy I met in an anonymous meeting—so I don't drink something that I like, and I want, but I can't have, but I want it, and I need it, and I want it right now bup, bup, bupaba, it's booze. Next question? ASHLEY PADILLA/REPORTER 2: Yes, what did you say to Senator Mark Kelly, who said you act like a 12-year-old playing Army? JOST: First of all, “Kelly,” that's a girl's name. What's his first name, “Dress?” PADILLA: No. It's “Mark,” like I said. JOST: Oh, get a husband. PADILLA: I'm trying! JOST: To answer your question, if I was just “playing Army,” would there be 80 dead fishermen— narco-terrorists in Venezuela right now? Next question.

On Tuesday, a little over year since she made excuses for the assassination of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson and hyped the ghoulish reaction from her fellow leftist extremists, ABC’s Sunny Hostin used her platform on The View to take a crack at being the defense attorney for alleged assassin Luigi Mangione in the court of public opinion. In practice, the former federal prosecutor came off as needing to return to law school so she could learn about foundational concepts like probable cause. In a segment teased at the top of the show as a discussion of women writing love letters and more to Mangione, Hostin backed up her apparent love for him with action. At the top of her comments, Hostin tried to quell concerns from his supporters by personally vouching for his defense attorneys. She also hyped Mangione as “a young person with all the potential in the world”: And I do know these defense attorneys, I know Karen Agnifilo extremely well. She is the best of the best and she was a former prosecutor, and so I know for sure that he is getting the best defense. And don't we want that? I think we do want people who allegedly murdered a CEO, a young person with all the potential in the world to have a defense and so that if he is convicted, he is rightfully convicted. In an effort to get cheap applause for her argument, Hostin essentially suggested that thinking he was guilty at this point was something improper that only President Trump would want. “We're not this sort of banana republic or we shouldn't be that throws people out of this country without due process. Right?” she chided.   Sunny Hostin, who made excuses for the assassination of a healthcare CEO last year, now praises the attorneys for Luigi Mangione: "I do know these defense attorneys. Actually I know Karen Agnifilo extremely well. She is the best of the best and she was a former prosecutor. And so… pic.twitter.com/4YIKnYfiMC — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 9, 2025   As a former federal prosecutor, The View often leaned on Hostin as their in-house subject matter expert on legal matters. She tried to exploit that role and prey on the ignorant by playing dumb, suggesting Mangione was subject to an illegal search of his backpack upon arrest, and falsely claiming they needed a warrant: HOSTIN: But let me say this, you know, the evidence in question is sort of this backpack that he had on. And when they arrested him, they immediately searched the backpack and as a reason. They said it was because they thought it had a bomb. Now, the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution says you cannot be unreasonably searched, your body, your home, your effects - which would include a backpack - unless you have a warrant and they did not have a warrant. But they did have this reason, you know, ‘we think there was a bomb.’ But they didn't -- it was at a McDonald's and they didn't evacuate the McDonald's. So, if you really thought, Miss Police Officer, that there was a bomb, you would have evacuated. JOY BEHAR: So, that’s all grounds for appeal. HOSTIN: It could be.   Hostin (a former federal prosecutor) continues by taking on the role of being his defense attorney by trying to get him off on a purported technicality. She claims the police illegally searched his bag when they confronted him for the arrest: "But let me say this, you know, the… pic.twitter.com/c8cuaSWR9H — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 9, 2025   Co-host Sara Haines seemed to sense something was wrong with what Hostin was saying. In the face of simple questioning, Hostin’s claims buckled. In an attempt to swing things back in her favor, see returned to the cheap applause tactic she used earlier and suggested the cop lied about thinking Mangione was a danger: HAINES: So, a police officer can't check for the gun if they're arresting someone? HOSTIN: They can, if they say, ‘do you have anything pointy.’ Usually, during an arrest, they'll say, ‘do you have anything pointy or that can harm me, do you have a gun in the backpack.’ And then, if the person says yes or no, it doesn't matter. HAINES: Do you trust someone who says, ‘no, I’m good?’ HOSTIN: I’m saying it doesn't matter. You take that backpack and can search it. In this – in this -- this time in this instance she said, they were searching for a bomb, but that doesn't make sense because they would have evacuated the McDonald's. So, you can't use a lie to conduct a search because this country is not that kind of country. Contrary to Hostin’s claims, they didn’t need a warrant. They had probable cause. There was a nationwide manhunt for a guy wanted for a murder with a firearm whose description Mangione fit. There was also the not-insignificant fact that he had a manifesto against the healthcare system in his possession. And as co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin pointed out, his defense team was trying to get it thrown out as evidence: “And what I find is rich, and Sunny could speak about this. Right now, the defense team is doing what it should be doing, trying to get this critical evidence thrown out that includes his manifesto about the healthcare system.” Hostin never address the manifesto. She also never tried to dispute if the ballistics of the firearm in Mangione’s possession matched the bullets used in the assassination.   Sunny Hostin touts some of the heinous comments celebrating the assassination of Brian Thompson: "Isn't that something? I think it's reflective about how people are feeling about their healthcare." She then calls for universal healthcare. pic.twitter.com/FFQaf3lTnN — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 6, 2024   The transcript was below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View December 9, 2025 11:18:40 a.m. Eastern (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: The system is doing what it's supposed to do. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That is our system here, and I think that needs to be – WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Expected. HOSTIN: That needs to be expected. And I do know these defense attorneys, I know Karen Agnifilo extremely well. She is the best of the best and she was a former prosecutor, and so I know for sure that he is getting the best defense. And don't we want that? I think we do want people who allegedly murdered a CEO, a young person with all the potential in the world to have a defense and so that if he is convicted, he is rightfully convicted. Because that's not -- that's the type of country we are. We're not this sort of banana republic or we shouldn't be that throws people out of this country without due process. Right? [Applause] But let me say this, you know, the evidence in question is sort of this backpack that he had on. And when they arrested him, they immediately searched the backpack and as a reason. They said it was because they thought it had a bomb. Now, the Fourth Amendment to our constitution says you cannot be unreasonably searched, your body, your home, your effects - which would include a backpack - unless you have a warrant and they did not have a warrant. But they did have this reason, you know, ‘we think there was a bomb.’ But they didn't -- it was at a McDonald's and they didn't evacuate the McDonald's. So, if you really thought, Miss Police Officer, that there was a bomb, you would have evacuated. JOY BEHAR: So, that’s all grounds for appeal. HOSTIN: It could be. SARA HAINES: So, a police officer can't check for the gun if they're arresting someone? HOSTIN: They can, if they say, ‘do you have anything pointy.’ Usually, during an arrest, they'll say, ‘do you have anything pointy or that can harm me, do you have a gun in the backpack.’ And then, if the person says yes or no, it doesn't matter. HAINES: Do you trust someone who says, ‘no, I’m good?’ HOSTIN: I’m saying it doesn't matter. You take that backpack and can search it. In this – in this -- this time in this instance she said, they were searching for a bomb, but that doesn't make sense because they would have evacuated the McDonald's. So, you can't use a lie to conduct a search because this country is not that kind of country. [Applause] So, all that to say, I'm not saying that he didn't do a horrible thing. I'm not saying that's been found innocent. But I am saying that let's let the process work the way it's supposed to. (…)

On Friday night, Charlotte’s light rail system was again foisted into the national spotlight as a criminal illegal alien — 33-year-old Oscar Solarzano — allegedly stabbed an innocent fellow passenger and left them with serious injuries. Apprehended soon after, Solarzano was hit with a slew of charges, including attempted first degree murder. And, like we initially saw with the fatal September 5 stabbing of Ukrainian immigrant Iryna Zarutska, ABC, CBS, and NBC have shown no interest in covering this latest negative headline for the Queen City on their flagship morning and evening newscasts and Sunday political talk shows. NBC showed they were fully aware of the story, however. On Monday, the stabbing was covered four times (with one being a reairing) on their free, ad-supported television platform, NBC News NOW. Its early evening newscast Hallie Jackson NOW was one such show that brought it up. “Let’s take you to North Carolina now, where a man accused of stabbing someone on a train last week was denied bond during his first court appearance today. Prosecutors say he was drinking alcohol. He was yelling at people Friday while on the light rail in Charlotte, before allegedly grabbing a knife and stabbing somebody in the chest,” Jackson began. I know this won’t come as a shock to anyone, but Friday night’s Charlotte light rail stabbing allegedly by an illegal alien hasn’t received a single mention on the flagship morning or evening shows for ABC, CBS, and NBC. NBC’s FAST channel NBC News NOW covered it four times on… pic.twitter.com/G5VLp6EhxO — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 9, 2025   Along with the slew of charges he’s now facing, Jackson added the illegal “admitted to drinking and to stabbing the man and had actually been banned from riding the train even before the attack happened.” Instead of a brief or deploying a junior staffer, correspondent Aaron Gilchrist — who’s appeared on NBC Nightly News and Today — was on the case throughout the day and further displayed the fact that NBC was wholly aware of this. Gilchrist reiterated most of Jackson’s setup before adding “[a]s we understand it, this started with Solorzano having an interaction with one person on the train, yelling, cursing on the train” with the victim demanding Solorzano “back up, to quiet down, to not bother people, and that turned into a physical altercation...which ended with, according to prosecutors, Solorzano pulling out what they described as a large, fixed blade knife and stabbing the victim in the chest here.” Gilchrist continued: At this point, we know that prosecutors intend to have Lozano held in jail, obviously with such a serious charge. They also say that he had already been banned from the light rail system in Charlotte, something that we’re still looking into to try to figure out what prompted that and then how he was still able to get access to the train system. A lot of questions still remaining here, Hallie. Gilchrist went onto reiterate this happened despite “safety on the light rail system” having received a lot of “attention” after Zarutska’s death as the city and rail itself claimed to “have invested in trying to ramp up safety and security” with “more off duty officers,” “private security,” and “new technology and safety tools for riders.” “But Hallie, our station, our affiliate in Charlotte, talked to some folks who use the system who said that they are really concerned about their own safety, trying to do basic things like going to work on the train system there in Charlotte. They want to see more done,” he concluded. The bias by omission wasn’t the only similarity between the two attacks. Just as was the case then, Friday’s incident has received multiple mentions on cable news across the Fox News Channel, Newsmax, Newsmax2, and NewsNation. Even CNN mentioned it with five mentions on Sunday and an addition times on Monday. MS NOW — the artist formerly known as MSNBC — joined the broadcast networks in ignoring it. Instead of covering this, they covered a potpurri of weird stories such as ABC’s World News Tonight reporting Martha Stewart hopes to be composted when she dies, CBS Mornings airing new audio from the 2023 near-disaster of an off-duty pilot trying to crash a plane while high on mushrooms, and NBC’s Today sharing that more people are falling for celebrity AI scams. To see the relevant Hallie Jackson NOW transcript from December 8, click here.

“Hey @elonmusk! You were right again!” Concerned Women for America (CWA) CEO Penny Nance says, highlighting results of CWA’s new study documenting the streaming service’s attempts to indoctrinate its youngest viewers with LGBTQ+ propaganda. “Hey @elonmusk ! You were right again! Preschool Propaganda: Study Finds 41% of Netflix Kids Shows Include LGBT Themes,” Nance wrote Monday in a post on X.com introducing the study. “Cancel Netflix for the health of your kids,” visionary entrepreneur Elon Musk urged on Oct. 1, retweeting an image of a Netflix Trojan Horse being used to subtly groom impressionable young kids to embrace LGBTQ+ sexual ideology.   Cancel Netflix for the health of your kids https://t.co/uPcGiURaCp — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 1, 2025   In “LGBTQ Messaging Pervasive In Netflix Children’s Programming,” CWA presents the results of its study compiling and categorizing references to LGBTQ+ themes, characters, storylines, and messaging across 326 Netflix series (both licensed and original) rated for young audiences. Fully 41% of Netflix programs deemed suitable for seven year-olds (TV-Y7) contained LGBTQ+ characters, themes, storylines, or messaging. Likewise, 41% of series rated appropriate for all audiences (TV-G) contained LGBTQ+ propaganda. Across all the age categories traditionally presumed to be suitable for kids (TV-G, TV-Y, and TV-Y7), a third (33%) pushed the sexual ideology to young viewers. All Child Categories: TV-G: 41% TV-Y7: 41% (at least 7 years old) TV-Y: 21% (2-6 years old) All: 33% “Explicit” LGBTQ+ content was found in one of five of all three Netflix series, taken together (19%). Severity of LGBTQ+ Content: Explicit: 19% (characters clearly identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, or nonbinary) Implied: 10% (non-primary characters or “queer-coded” characters) Meta: 5% (gay families or participants in reality programming) None: 66% Explicit: TV-G: 18% TV-Y7: 24% TV-Y: 14% All: 19% Netflix is even rebooting popular older shows in order to insert LGBTQ+ propaganda where none existed before: The Magic School Bus Power Rangers The Baby-Sitter’s Club She-Ra The Fairly OddParents “Parents are being gaslit” by networks and companies rating themselves, Nance warns in an interview with The Daily Wire: “We have to go in a different direction because it’s absolutely insidious what they’re doing.” Instead of trusting the ratings systems, parents need to stick with programs and platforms that they know share their values, Nance advises.   YIKES. Ada Twist, Scientist, a show for 7-YEAR-OLDS on @Netflix, showcases young students coming together to set up and celebrate their teacher’s gay wedding. Oh, and Barack and Michelle Obama are the show's executive producers. pic.twitter.com/1LL2lkY8FH — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 30, 2025  

Don’t dismiss Milo Yiannopoulos.He may be provocative, but he’s right. In his recent two-and-a-half-hour conversation with Tucker Carlson, Yiannopoulos dares to speak the truth about homosexuality.Instead of a mechanical 'cause' such as genetics, it is more accurate to think of a set of factors that contribute to the development of persistent same-sex attraction.It is a truth many are afraid to acknowledge, despite its firm grounding in scientific research. In fact, I found myself wondering, “Have they been eavesdropping at the Ruth Institute?”'Born' fallacyAt the top of the list: Yiannopoulos explains that the “born gay” idea was invented as a marketing strategy. He accurately summarizes the strategy laid out in “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s.” Treat “sexual orientation” as if it were genetic, comparable to race.Yiannopoulos rejects the “sexual orientation paradigm” or “essentialist paradigm.” He does not believe “sexual orientation” is an inborn trait that is an “essential” feature of a person’s personality.And he is right.Gay is not the “new black.” There is no gay gene. The twin studies are inconsistent with the idea of a genetic “cause” of “gay.” I outlined the evidence against the “born gay” idea in my report Refuting the Top 5 Gay Myths.A trauma responseAlthough “gay” is a complex of thoughts, feelings, political commitments, and much more, when people say “gay,” they most likely mean “sexual arousal template.” We have been sold the idea that a “gay” man or a “lesbian” woman has an arousal template “oriented” exclusively toward people of the same sex.The gay activists are really saying two things combined. First, people are born with a sexual arousal template preloaded into their brains. Second, this template cannot be changed.Yiannopoulos takes direct aim at this package deal, when he says “[homosexuality] is a trauma response.” Trauma can shape the development of a person’s arousal pathways. He cited his own case. He had a mobster father, whom he did not want to emulate. As a teenager, he was sexually abused by a priest who was kind to him.People are born with the potential to develop a sexual arousal template that is oriented toward the opposite sex. But sometimes, something happens to derail that normal developmental process.People who self-describe as gay, lesbian, or bisexual typically have more difficult childhoods than others. They report more adverse childhood events, including a higher likelihood of childhood sexual abuse. Many in the psychology profession deny that there is a causal connection. But people who have lived the experience will tell you otherwise.Including Yiannopoulos.Must stay gay?Instead of a mechanical “cause” such as genetics, it is more accurate to think of a set of factors that contribute to the development of persistent same-sex attraction.Yiannopoulos listed some of those contributing causes: an absent or unattractive father figure, an overbearing mother, sexual abuse. No one factor always “causes” same-sex attraction in every person. At the Ruth Institute, we have interviewed numerous people who have Left Pride Behind who report some version of this story.Yiannopoulos and Carlson talked about the bans on so-called “conversion therapy.” They were shocked that anyone would try to regulate conversations between a client and a therapist. "Why are you keeping people gay against their will?"You can complain all day long about Yiannopoulos. But he is right. That is exactly what these laws are doing. We at the Ruth Institute ran a campaign in June called “Must Stay Gay Is NOT Okay!” Believe me: We did not run out of things to talk about!They discussed the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case that will decide whether these bans violated the U.S. Constitution. The Ruth Institute submitted an amicus brief to the court in this case, called Chiles v. Salazar.RELATED: A Christian looks back on Pride: 'I was in hell' Photo by: Godong/Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesFinding real hopeMost importantly, Yiannopoulos gives hope to people who want more for themselves than a life shaped by an LGBT identity. Therapy can help, especially if you focus on healing the part of you that was wounded. The sexual feelings change in the process.Finally, Yiannopoulos made no secret of his personal religious conversion. He has been touched by love, the ultimate love of Jesus Christ. Interviewees have told me some version of this story again and again. In fact, I experienced it myself. Same-sex attraction wasn’t my particular problem. But participation in the hookup culture, abortion, and contraception certainly were my problems. I needed the grace of the confessional, the Eucharist, and, no doubt, the prayers of many people who loved me more than I knew.Come to think of it, maybe Yiannopoulos and Carlson weren’t really listening in on our conversations at the Ruth Institute after all. Maybe it's just that when people go searching for the truth, they end up in roughly the same place.No one is born gay. No one has to stay gay. No matter what you have been through, gay is not the final word about your identity. Jesus has healed many people. He can heal you.Milo Yiannopoulos is right.

Minnesota is not the only state facing large-scale fraud allegations involving the Somali community. A multimillion-dollar health care scandal has been uncovered in another state after a whistleblower came forward to expose the alleged corruption. Christopher Bernardini, a whistleblower who worked at a health services contractor called Gateway Community Services from May 2018 to April 2025, told NewsNation about the alleged fraudulent billing practices he discovered during his time at the organization. 'When I was in the US, I contributed to the financial support for the Jubaland-Somali army. To help the troops buy weapons, bullets, and food.'“I just couldn’t fathom it — I thought we were helping people; I thought this was all on the up-and-up,” Bernardini told NewsNation in an interview. “I have a passion for helping people, and I thought that we were doing the right thing this whole time.” Bernardini said he became disillusioned “when I saw how they were swindling people. When I had clients calling me to tell me their staff hadn’t shown up and I was told to bill those hours anyway. It just got worse and worse until I started really putting up a stink.”RELATED: 'Send them back': Somalia First pitted against America First in Minnesota as Ilhan Omar attacks Trump over special status Staff photo by Derek Davis/Portland Portland Press Herald via Getty ImagesThe contractor worked through MaineCare, Maine's Medicaid program.Bernardini claimed that documents were falsified and an electronic monitoring system was manipulated to make it appear as though staff provided services to clients when in fact the clients were never visited. Another source familiar with the company told NewsNation that times and timecards were "being manipulated to show services being provided [when] they were not."Nonetheless, Gateway Community Services is accused of billing for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of taxpayer dollars.Maine Wire investigative journalist Steve Robinson appears to have uncovered where this money could have gone. Gateway Community Services' founder and CEO, Abdullahi Ali, is a Somalian who moved to Lewiston, Maine, as a refugee in 2009. According to the Maine Wire, Ali started several businesses including Gateway Community Services, which, in turn, apparently helped to raise money for his political aspirations in Somalia. In an interview he gave to Kenyan media, Ali bragged that he managed to raise money to fund a paramilitary force he hoped to lead as president in Jubaland, Somalia. “When I was in the U.S., I contributed to the financial support for the Jubaland-Somali army. To help the troops buy weapons, bullets, and food,” said Ali, according to the Maine Wire.“I helped pay my share of the fund.”Ali's 2024 presidential campaign in Somalia was unsuccessful.In a since-deleted response to news outlets covering this story last week, Ali reportedly wrote: “I make no apologies for building a successful business in Maine, working hard to earn a living, earning my PhD, giving back to my Maine community, and running for office in Jubaland. I am proud to contribute my hard-earned $ to support my people back home. America is a nation of laws — you cannot change facts by fabricating false stories. I am proud Somali-American.”Maine Republicans have called for a thorough investigation. “I demanded a full investigation when I heard initial reporting about this welfare fraud scandal last May,” state Senator Matt Harrington (R) told NewsNation.He criticized Democrat Governor Janet Mills’ administration over the issue. “The Mills administration has neglected obvious and credible reports of Somali-linked systemic fraud in the MaineCare system,” Harrington said. “This is an outrageous betrayal of Maine taxpayers.”Republican gubernatorial candidate Bobby Charles called the state, with its current Democrat leadership, a "bastion of public corruption."Maine Democratic Party Chair Charlie Dingman released a statement, which in part reads: "Bobby Charles' talk about burning down communities is unhinged. ... I'm confident Maine people do not share Bobby Charles's interest in demeaning or scapegoating our hardworking neighbors." While there does not seem to be any evidence of Charles calling for "burning down communities," he did call on President Trump to "TORCH the CORRUPT, RADICAL, FRAUD-SOAKED, CARTEL-STYLE, TAXPAYER-MILKING Somalia-First Democrat Machine in Maine" shortly after the story first broke on December 5. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!