Kaley Chiles is a licensed professional counselor in Colorado who works with clients who face a variety of mental health problems: trauma, personality disorders, eating disorders, and addiction. She is employed by Deeper Stories Counseling in Colorado Springs and is a Christian. Some of her clients are Christians and come to her having experienced same-sex attractions or dissatisfaction with their own biological bodies, termed gender dysphoria. In these cases, they want help to be freed “from what they see as harmful self-perceptions and sexual behaviors” which are not aligned with their religious beliefs. The therapy she provides is faith-informed counseling; that is, talking with the clients about how God’s Word establishes the foundation upon which persons should understand their personal identities and control their desires. Chiles’ therapy is grounded in the traditional view of human sexuality espoused by historic Christianity for generations. It teaches that one’s sex, either male or female, is set at conception and ordained by God. It is evident at birth according to one’s reproductive organs and biology. Normal sexual conduct, according to this traditional biblically based view, is a pairing of one male and one female; that is, it is heterosexual and monogamous. Desires for someone of the same sex or discontent with one’s natural sex is viewed as contrary to the moral guidance of scripture. In Colorado, however, Chiles found herself in conflict with an opposing view of human sexuality. This view served as the foundation for a state law prohibiting mental health care providers from engaging in counseling like hers with patients under 18. Since her faith-informed therapy with certain clients is meant to dissuade them from romantic attractions toward the same sex or guide them away from seeking to “transition” to a sex other than their birth sex, it is officially prohibited by the state’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL). (RELATED: When the State Polices Speech) The Colorado ban labels Chiles’ faith-informed therapeutic approach as “conversion therapy” and outlaws it. The Colorado ban labels Chiles’ faith-informed therapeutic approach as “conversion therapy” and outlaws it. To the contrary, the MCTL (and regulations based upon it) exempts counselors who practice “gender affirmation” therapy from being banned. “Gender affirmation” is a counseling approach that accepts, supports, and encourages decisions by clients who are minors to pursue same-sex attractions or make gender transitions. This view, in contrast to the traditional view, maintains that sexual identity is not biologically set. Instead, it is merely a matter of personal choice. Any effort by a professional, including a counseling therapist, to change a client’s self-determined sexual orientation is deemed harmful and, in its most radical version, proponents of this view seek to outlaw any counseling that is opposed to the “gender affirming” therapies. In other words, Colorado-licensed counselors are free to provide “gender affirming therapy” while fines, suspensions, or loss of license threaten Colorado therapists like Chiles. Therefore, to protect her right to use faith-informed content in giving guidance to her clients, Chiles filed a lawsuit in federal court in Colorado asking the court to halt the enforcement of the ban as an infringement of her right to freedom of speech. That court denied her request. She then appealed to the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, but it also denied her appeal, concluding that her spoken therapy was not “speech” at all. Instead, the appeals court devised a special category for regulated professional expression, calling it “conduct,” effectively taking it outside of the substantial constitutional protections usually accorded citizens where the government restricts their speech. Why does it matter if Chiles’ faith-informed counseling approach is determined to be “conduct” instead of “speech”? In her case, the state government’s regulatory administration would have to demonstrate only the feeblest “rational basis” for regulatory bans for it to pass constitutional muster. Lawyers refer to this “rational basis” requirement as a “low bar” requirement because it is the easiest and most lenient standard to meet. By contrast, had the 10th Circuit found Chiles’ counseling therapy was “speech,” the results would have been significantly different. Freedom of speech is a highly valued fundamental right, which, if infringed, triggers prior rulings that would require Colorado to show that it had weighty and convincing reasons — often called “compelling” — to continue to preserve the ban and save it from being unconstitutional. That compelling-interest requirement, because it places the highest proof burden on the government, is what lawyers call “strict scrutiny.” It is a high bar which Colorado would be unlikely to clear, given the facts of the case, consequently creating a high expectation of a win for Chiles. What is the U.S. Supreme Court going to do with the case? First, the Supreme Court should have no difficulty finding that this is a speech case. Fortunately for Chiles, the court has a long history of interpreting the scope of protected speech broadly, even ruling that flag burning, labor union picketing, and artistic expression constitute speech deserving protection of the most significant sort. Next, the court has made clear that “the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” The Colorado ban is targeting Chiles’ particular content. That is evident because the ban applies to Chiles only if her speech to clients contains specific content that shows an intent to change the client’s sexual orientation, alter the client’s gender expressions, or counsel away from gender transitioning. Speech that counsels the faith-informed reasons for those changes is precisely what Chiles wants to be able to convey to her clients. But it is those very words and content that promise to subject her to possible prosecution. In addition, Colorado’s ban also displays what the court has described in other cases as “viewpoint discrimination.” Viewpoint discrimination could hardly be more apparent than it is here. Chiles’ viewpoint is contrary to the state’s viewpoint about human sexuality. Her view is disfavored and therefore prohibited by law. Chiles’ traditional view of sexuality is deemed harmful by Colorado and thus barred. Colorado’s “gender affirming” view of sexuality is heralded as beneficial and enlightened. Therefore, the state’s view is permitted by a detailed exception that allows therapy speech that promotes “identity exploration,” affirms self-declared sexual identities, and helps clients accomplish gender change. It is obvious that Colorado’s ban was produced by state legislators and a governor who became so completely persuaded by this non-traditional version of human sexuality and its “gender affirming therapy” that they could not tolerate Chiles’ traditional mode of faith-informed therapy and, therefore, sought to and succeeded in outlawing it. Chiles not only has a strong case substantively, but the ruling against her by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals contributes to what is called a “circuit split.” A circuit split occurs when two or more circuit courts of appeals render conflicting opinions on the same issue. In this case, there was the 10th Circuit ruling, whereas the 9th Circuit found in another case that professional expression or conversation fell outside the speech protections of the First Amendment; in addition, the 3rd and 11th Circuits ruled that the professional expression was just another example of speech and should be fully protected as such. The “advantage” to Chiles is that when such splits occur, the U.S. Supreme Court generally seeks to restore uniformity of interpretation and therefore resolves the split. Elsewhere, in another related case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018), the Supreme Court made it clear that it is unwilling to recognize “professional speech” as a “separate category of speech” that receives diminished constitutional protection “merely because it is uttered by a ‘professional.’” Making a strong and unequivocal decision in favor of Kaley Chiles would be an important step toward ending the circuit split. Most importantly, it would allow faith-informed counselors like Chiles — in 24 states faced with similar bans — to have the legal means to oppose the bans and reestablish a broader and healthier spectrum of therapy choices for young clients struggling with sexual-identity problems. READ MORE from John A. Sparks: Elementary School Parents Fight Gay/Trans Books

Writing in the Washington Times, columnist Don Feder called the recent disturbances in sanctuary cities the first steps of a left-wing attempted American revolution. He likens them to the early stages of the French and Bolshevik Revolutions. Indeed, what is happening in Minnesota resembles a fledgling insurgency with organized crowds deliberately inciting ICE and other federal agents into overreaction. If this is in fact a low-level nascent insurgency, ICE should treat it as such and implement the kind of counterinsurgency doctrine that the British used to nip the Chinese communist-led revolt in Malaysia in the bud and that the Americans eventually adopted in Iraq. (RELATED: Minnesota and the New Nullification Crisis) Emerging British doctrine saw that the best way of disrupting a revolution early was by political and police action rather than going straight to military involvement, which might further inflame the situation. That is a lesson we might keep in mind before resorting to military intervention in Minneapolis. The problem we face in cities like Portland and Minneapolis is that the local police are forbidden to assist in addressing the situation. The worst of the worst are then safely submerged in the sea of the immigrant population. They are, in turn, abetted by outside agitators; in this case, by leftist organizers. This leaves ICE and other federal agencies alone to deal with the problem by themselves. This is contrary to the situation we faced early in Iraq when we stupidly disbanded the Iraqi police as being incurable Ba’athists. I would suggest that the feds adopt classic counterinsurgency tactics. How then should we proceed before committing federal troops? I would suggest that the feds adopt classic counterinsurgency tactics. Quite frankly, what they are doing now is exacerbating the problem. I have been involved in four insurgency situations. Some have been handled fairly well, and others poorly. Below, I will offer some suggestions on best practices I’ve seen employed. First, try community policing. This is what local cops should be doing, but are not allowed to in the case of immigration enforcement. A first principle of good counterinsurgency is to separate the bad guys from the law-abiding population. This means a 24/7 police presence in the target areas. ICE should rent places in the area to use as neighborhood bases of operation. Security in these outposts should be tight, but agents should be walking the streets in small groups without riot gear. ICE presence should be noticeable, but should not be patrolling in body armor, which should only be used in targeted raids where armed resistance is expected. A few agents at a time, in ICE windbreakers, talking to shopkeepers, locals, and police, and attending community meetings, makes it much safer to approach and pass on information about criminal elements. Eventually, the agents will find it much easier to target the real bad apples. By establishing patrol bases in a neighborhood backed up by reaction forces in 2007, the Americans learned not just the Iraqi lay of the land but to recognize when things were not right. Just as American soldiers learned to recognize Sunnis from Shiites, federal agents will eventually be able to differentiate the good citizens from the bad actors and outside agitators. Minneapolis is not Baghdad, and the threat level is not nearly so high, but urban neighborhoods all have their individual character. Becoming part of the community helped turn the situation around for U.S. forces. Where possible, ICE should help with day-to-day community exigencies. Helping residents shovel snow in places like Minneapolis may seem like a small thing, but it would assist in lowering the tension. It is hard to abuse someone who just helped get your car out of a snowbank or gave you help charging a dead battery. Attendance at community meetings, sporting events, and school presentations will eventually let the agents be seen as part of the landscape. Most residents do not want hardened criminals in their neighborhoods, but are afraid to be seen talking to squads of heavily armed federal agents. In most cases, this fear is warranted. They are likely to be targeted by leftist protesters or by criminal elements in the immigrant community. Mass arrests and sweeps are counterproductive. As reporter/historian Tom Ricks points out in his book The Generals, mass arrests and detentions in the early stages of the Iraq occupation made more enemies and created more insurgents than they eliminated. Not only did they lead to the debacle of Abu Ghraib, but the overwhelming amount of interrogations -even by torture- yielded no actionable intelligence. If ICE establishes an ongoing presence in urban neighborhoods, it will eventually pay off in a higher and better quality of detentions, arrests, convictions of actual criminal immigrants, as well as the deportation of naturalized American citizens who have abused the privilege of citizenship by engaging in criminal activities. Winning the information battle. The highly organized and media-savvy leftist opposition is winning the information battle by deliberately provoking ICE and other federal agents into overreaction and then portraying them as jackbooted thugs. Recent polls show a decreasing support for immigration enforcement and ICE as an organization. This is largely attributable to leftist manipulation of the optics, but like any big lie, it becomes truth if enough people believe it. A counterinsurgency approach could reverse this trend. A crowd of hecklers abusing two to three federal agents peacefully wandering the streets, talking to shopkeepers, cops, and passersby a much different optic than the same crowd harassing a squad of heavily armed and armored agents on the street. Better intelligence would allow targeted raids on the residences of real criminals by in-and-out raids at night. This would lower the opportunities for the left to foment incidents and public confrontations. In Iraq, it took four years for our military to adapt to a counterinsurgent strategy. The initial shift of approach by General Petraeus was riskier than the domestic immigrant situation, as the leftists had not yet begun to employ lethal violence as a policy. A counterinsurgency approach would make that shift on their part much less appealing. The long-term fly in the ointment here is that the Trump administration still maintains the ultimate objective of getting rid of all immigrants who entered the country illegally. It will be hard for ICE to square that circle. However, if President Trump and Secretary Noem can show real success in getting rid of the worst of the worst among the immigrants in a quantifiable manner, it might give the president top cover to modify current policy in a way more acceptable to the American public. A new approach would require patience. We did not turn Iraq around overnight, but the results justified the strategic change. Right now, ICE is using a hammer. What is needed is a scalpel. READ MORE from Gary Anderson: If We Want to Help the Iranians, We Should Disrupt the IRGC Regime Modification in Caracas Stop Building Battleships, Start Building Fear Gary Anderson observed counterinsurgency operations in Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Iran. He was the first to state publicly that there would be an Iraqi insurgency as Baghdad fell in 2003 in a Washington Post op-ed. Image licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

Redistricting measures in Texas and California have all eyes on the Nov. 3 midterm election. That contest also marks 30 years since the people of California won a victory for civil rights, now ignored by the ruling class in the Golden State and across the nation. California’s ballot initiative process gives the people “a way to propose laws and constitutional amendments without the support of the governor or the legislature.” The California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), Proposition 209 on the November 1996 ballot, was the project of California State Hayward (now Cal State East Bay) professors Glynn Custred and Thomas Wood, backed by University of California regent Ward Connerly. CCRI ended racial and ethnic preferences in state education, employment, and state contracting. Opponents of the measure included the Rev. Jesse Jackson, an associate of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and a former candidate for president. The disaster opponents predicted never occurred. The Rev. Jackson compared CCRI to “a radical revival of apartheid,” and called the African American Connerly a “house slave,” with others branding him a “race traitor,” or worse. Days before the Nov. 5 election, President Bill Clinton touted race and ethnic preferences at a rally in Oakland. Even so, California voters passed Proposition 209 by a margin of  54 to 46 percent. The disaster opponents predicted never occurred. There were declines in minority enrollment at UC Berkeley and UCLA, but as Thomas Sowell showed in Intellectuals and Race, minority enrollment increased at other University of California campuses. In addition, the number of African-American and Hispanic students graduating from the UC system went up, including a 55 percent increase in those graduating in four years with a GPA of 3.5 or higher. Despite those positive results, the preference forces charged that Proposition 209 harmed “diversity.” In bureaucratic parlance, “diversity” means that all institutions must reflect the racial or ethnic proportions of the population. If they don’t, the reason must be deliberate discrimination, and the only remedy is racial and ethnic preferences, enforced by the government. Long after the people approved CCRI, the University of California built a vast DEI bureaucracy, with UCLA paying a vice chancellor for “equity, diversity, and inclusion,” a salary of $440,000. California cities also employed “diversity officers” at high salaries, and in 2020, state officials put up Proposition 16 to repeal Proposition 209. Despite support by Gov. Gavin Newsom, California rejected the measure by a margin of 57.23 to 42.77, greater than the margin of victory in 1996. The voice of the people had no effect on the state education establishment. In 2024, the University of California at Santa Barbara sought to fill the position of “Vice Chancellor for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” with a salary of $250,000 to $430,000. The previous year, UCSB shelled out more than $400,000 to the “interim” official in that non-teaching position. Proposition 209 is not California’s first case of repressed memories. This November will mark 40 years since California voters passed Proposition 63, the Official Language of California Amendment. This measure directs the state legislature to “preserve the role of English as the state’s common language” and refrain from “passing laws which diminish or ignore the role of English as the state’s common language.” A full 73 percent of California voters approved the measure, but as Orange County Register columnist Gordon Dillow observed 20 years later, “state legislators and public officials acted as if Prop. 63 never existed.” That brand of denial would continue across the decades. In 1978, when some Californians were being taxed out of their homes, Californians passed the People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation, better known as Proposition 13. The measure capped property tax rates at 1 percent of assessed value, limited annual assessment increases to 2 percent, and required a two-thirds vote of the legislature to increase non-property taxes. Gov. Jerry Brown stridently opposed the measure, but after 65 percent of Californians approved it, the governor proclaimed himself a “born-again tax-cutter,” which was never true. After Brown’s four terms, California deployed some of the nation’s highest income and sales taxes. Once again, the people pushed back. In the style of Proposition 13, California’s Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act gave voters the final approval on future taxes and fees imposed by state and local governments. In 2024, the measure qualified for the ballot, but Brown and Newsom (who boasts about ties to the Brown, Pelosi, and Getty families) pressured a compliant state supreme court to have the measure taken off the ballot. If Californians thought Brown and Newsom feared the voice of the people, it would be hard to blame them, and there’s more about these governors that people across the country should know. Thomas Sowell, who long before “affirmative action” earned degrees at Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Chicago, turns 96 this year. The author of the landmark Basic Economics, The Economics and Politics of Race, and many other books, has been a fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution since the late 1970s. By all indications, governors Brown and Newsom never quoted Thomas Sowell or showed the slightest familiarity with his unmatched body of work. Californians could be forgiven for believing that willful ignorance, plus fear of the voters, spells bad news for the people. READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: White Coat Supremacy, Greenland Style Gridlocked by Ideology Is Minnesota or California the Fraud Capital of America? Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif.

from Liberty Sentinel by Alex Newman: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Ron Unz, The Unz Review: Just after New Year’s Day, President Donald Trump ordered a successful raid on Venezuela that abducted President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. Many of his angry critics denounced this as a return to the notorious Gunboat Diplomacy of President Theodore Roosevelt and others in the early years of the twentieth century. […]

by Pepe Escobar, Strategic Culture: The whole planet is somehow convulsed by neo-Caligula’s latest scam: because he did not get his “peace” Nobel from Norway, part of his megalomanic narcissist revenge is to bag Greenland from Denmark (in Empire-speak, who cares? These Scandinavians are al the same anyway). In neo-Caligula’s own words: “The World is […]

Melania Trump's Newest Project

Former NFL sideline reporter Michele Tafoya has filed paperwork to launch a U.S. Senate bid as a Republican for the seat currently held by Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN). Smith announced last year that she would not seek re-election. According to NBC News, three sources familiar with Tafoya’s decision confirmed her Senate run. An official announcement is expected on Wednesday. Former sports reporter Michele Tafoya has filed FEC paperwork to run as a Republican for US Senate in Minnesota. pic.twitter.com/DdIF2IiVbT — InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) January 20, 2026 NBC News shared further: While Republicans are looking to expand their four-seat Senate majority next year by targeting states Donald Trump won in 2024, including Michigan and Georgia, some in the party have been optimistic that Democratic Sen. Tina Smith’s retirement could put Minnesota in play. Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan and Rep. Angie Craig are both competing for the Democratic nod. Tafoya, a longtime reporter who worked for NBC Sports and currently hosts a podcast, had been seriously weighing a Senate run for months and met with the National Republican Senatorial Committee in December, according to a source familiar with the meeting. Last year’s GOP nominee for the Senate, former professional basketball player Royce White, is also in the race, along with former state GOP chairman David Hann and former Navy SEAL Adam Schwarze. Tafoya’s entering as a well-known reporter and relative political outsider could give her party a boost. A self-described “pro-choice” Republican, she could also have some bipartisan appeal. But Republicans have not won a statewide election there since 2006, and they have struggled to recruit candidates who can make the races close. “Here comes the Fox News UniParty to rally the right in Minnesota. We LOVE the UniParty in Minnesota. This is how Minnesota became the h***hole it is now. Michele Tafoya, milquetoast moderate, John Thune and Steve Daines type. Same donors, same verticals, same social media influencer supporters,” White commented. “Watch the people who come out to support her, it will tell you all you need to know,” he continued. Here comes the Fox News UniParty to rally the right in Minnesota. We LOVE the UniParty in Minnesota. This is how Minnesota became the hellhole it is now. Michele Tafoya, milquetoast moderate, John Thune and Steve Daines type. Same donors, same verticals, same social media… https://t.co/WT6lAbfCrg — Royce White (@Highway_30) January 21, 2026 CNN has more: She has been critical of Minnesota leaders who have objected to the immigration crackdown and ripped dozens of protesters who interrupted a Sunday church service because a pastor there appeared to be an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official. “In Minnesota, law enforcement has been demonized for years,” Tafoya posted on X recently, responding to a video from Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who is running in the Democratic primary for Senate against Rep. Angie Craig. “We are short on officers. Morale has plummeted. Career criminals are released to offend again. And radical leftists care more about them than they do about honest Minnesotans who simply want to see the chaos end.”

The Dodgers are projected to carry a payroll exceeding $413 million this season