SURPRISE: Justice Jackson Gets NUKED by Fellow Leftist Justice Kagan For Writing This Insane Dissent in Case Regarding Conversion Therapy Ban for LGBTQ Minors

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has become such an embarrassing spectacle on the Supreme Court that even her fellow leftists appear to be tiring of her.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled 8-1 against Colorado’s conversion therapy ban for LGBTQ minors. Jackson was the lone dissenter.

The lawsuit was filed by Christian talk therapist Kaley Chiles, who argued that Colorado’s ban on her talk therapy methods violated her First Amendment rights.

In an insane 35-page dissent, Jackson essentially said that therapists like Chiles should not have the same free speech rights as other Americans.

“Professional medical speech does not intersect with the marketplace of ideas: ‘In the context of medical practice, we insist upon competence, not debate,’” she wrote. “Treatment standards exist in America.”

“It threatens to impair States’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect,” she added. “It extends the Constitution into uncharted territory in an utterly irrational fashion. And it ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and well-being.”

She also attacked the Court for ‘playing with fire’, which could ‘burn Americans.’

Keep reading

Rhode Island Democrat Rep. Says Mural for Murder Victim Iryna Zarutska ‘Does Not Reflect Our Values’ 

Last night, the Gateway Pundit reported that the mayor of Providence, Rhode Island was caving to left wing activists in the city who wanted him to stop the creation of a mural honoring murder victim Iryna Zarutska, the legal immigrant from Ukraine who was killed by a repeat offender.

Now we have a clip of Rhode Island Democrat Rep. David Morales who said on camera that the mural doesn’t reflect the values of the people of the city.

Who exactly does reflect their values? Zarutska’s killer? This is just stunning.

FOX News reported:

Dem lawmaker sparks online firestorm after saying Iryna Zarutska mural doesn’t align with city’s values

A Rhode Island Democratic state representative is facing blowback on social media after claiming that a mural of Iryna Zarutska, the Ukrainian woman whose brutal murder while riding a North Carolina train sparked national outrage, doesn’t reflect the “values” of the city of Providence.

“Ultimately, we want to make sure that every community member who calls Providence home feels safe,” Rep. David Morales told local media about a mural of Zarutska facing calls to be removed from the exterior of an LGBTQ+ club in downtown Providence.

“We can both agree that this mural behind us does not reflect Providence’s values nor does it reflect the creativity that we would want to see in our city.”

The lawmaker’s comments immediately sparked negative reactions from conservatives on social media after they were posted by the conservative influencer account End Wokeness in a post that has been viewed over 1 million times.

“What are his values?” Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who is reportedly involved in the mural project, posted on X.

“He cites people wanting to be ‘safe’ as a reason to destroy a mural on a private building meant to honor a murdered woman,” Red State writer Bonchie posted on X. “You can’t imagine how crazy Democrats are in these blue bastions. You think what you see on MSNBC is nuts? It’s even worse in their bubble cities.”

Keep reading

OneTaste Founder Nicole Daedone Gets 9-Year Prison Sentence

Nine years in prison for preaching unpopular ideas about sexuality? That’s the sentence that a judge imposed today on Nicole Daedone of OneTaste, a company built on orgasmic meditation (OM) and other unconventional wellness practices. Daedone has also been ordered to forfeit $12 million—which is how much she got for selling the company in 2017—and to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution.

The government will say that this is about human trafficking. But that’s just a sign of how “human trafficking” has become a catchall term for sex-tinged antics that prosecutors want to punish.

In this case, no one has accused Daedone and her colleague/co-defendant Rachel Cherwitz of violence. No one has accused them of confining victims, or of withholding identity documents or other items that employees might have needed to get away.

The alleged victims in this case could come and go as they pleased. They were adult women. They had college degrees, outside professional opportunities, and sometimes even independent wealth. They testified in court that they remained affiliated with OneTaste—some as employees, some as volunteers, some simply as people who took classes from the company or lived in group houses that it maintained—because they believed in its mission, believed in Daedone and Cherwitz, or wanted to maintain social status within the OneTaste community.

The government’s assertions about how Daedone and Cherwitz employed “coercion” in this case are a huge affront to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. Prosecutors suggested that the ideas Daedone and Cherwitz spread served as a form of brainwashing. These supposedly dangerous ideas include such things as being open to new sexual experiences and the notion that engaging in daily OM—a 15-minute, partnered, clitoral stroking session—could focus the mind and help empower practitioners, especially women. Daedone and Cherwitz appear to sincerely believe these ideas, which they saw as rooted in both Buddhism and feminism.

The government’s case was also a huge affront to the idea that women are fully agentic people capable of consent, sexual and otherwise. Prosecutors suggested that anxiety about being shunned by the OneTaste community was a harm so powerful that grown women were effectively “trafficked” by it. They argued that these women’s consent—to OM, to participate in sexual fantasy scenes, to enter into and out of relationships, to engage in sex acts with OneTaste members or donors, or to pay for OneTaste classes—was rendered null by the force of fear of social exclusion and/or fear that stopping OM and other OneTaste practices would have a negative impact on their lives.

Ultimately, the case portends a dangerous new standard for what counts as forced labor and what counts as harm under federal trafficking statutes.

Sentencing for Daedone started this morning, following a June 2025 conviction on one count of conspiracy to commit human trafficking. Cherwitz, convicted of the same, is scheduled to be sentenced this afternoon.

The government sought 20 years in prison for Daedone and more than 15 for Cherwitz—basing calculations in part on alleged conduct for which they were not even charged, let alone convicted. Judge Diane Gujarati denied the government’s request for a sexual abuse enhancement based on untried conduct.

The government’s star witness was to be a woman named Ayries Blanck, whose journals were a big part of the prosecutors’ case (and, also, of a Netflix documentary). Prosecutors would eventually disclose that Blanck had fabricated evidence, producing journals she said she had handwritten in 2015 but had actually composed much later. After heavily featuring Blanck and her journals in their arguments leading up to the trial, prosecutors declined to call Blanck as a trial witness and said they no longer believed in the authenticity of portions of her journals. The case nevertheless proceeded, and now a woman is heading to prison for nearly a decade.

Keep reading

FTC Warns PayPal, Stripe, Visa, Mastercard Against Debanking

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson sent letters on Thursday to the CEOs of PayPal, Stripe, Visa and Mastercard, warning them against debanking practices — including denying access to services due to a customer’s lawful business activities.

“It is inconsistent with American values to deny law-abiding individuals the ability to run their legitimate businesses and feed their families because they attracted the ire of rogue American officials, overzealous activists, or, more worryingly, foreign governments seeking to control public discourse,” the letters read. “That is why President Trump’s August 7, 2025, Executive Order on debanking makes clear that it is unacceptable to debank law-abiding citizens due to ‘political affiliations, religious beliefs, or lawful business activities.’”

As XBIZ reported last year, that executive order prohibits banks, savings associations, credit unions or other financial service providers from restricting access to accounts, loans or other services on the basis of a customer’s lawful business activities “that the financial service provider disagrees with or disfavors for political reasons.”

Following Trump’s executive order, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a report on debanking, in which it named adult entertainment as one of several sectors facing discrimination for engaging in activities contrary to banks’ “values.”

Ferguson’s letters inform the targeted companies that deplatforming such customers, or denying them access to financial products or services, could lead to an FTC investigation and potential enforcement action.

Keep reading

Finland’s Supreme Court Convicts Parliamentarian for 2004 Church Pamphlet “Insulting” Gay People

Finland’s Supreme Court has found parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen guilty of “hate speech” for “insulting” gay people by expressing her beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a church pamphlet from 2004. ADF International, which is supporting Räsänen, has more.

In a narrow 3-2 decision, the Finnish Supreme Court has found parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen guilty of “hate speech” on one charge relating to the expression of her beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a 20 year-old church pamphlet. Räsänen has been criminally convicted for publishing the 2004 pamphlet for her church, alongside Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola. The conviction is for “making and keeping available to the public a text that insults a group”. The Supreme Court unanimously acquitted Räsänen for her 2019 Bible verse tweet.  

Räsänen was previously unanimously acquitted on all charges by two lower courts. 

The long serving parliamentarian and former Minister of the Interior has been convicted for “hate speech” under a section of the Finnish criminal code titled “war crimes and crimes against humanity”. The medical doctor and grandmother of 12 was tried in early 2022 and again in 2023 for expressing her beliefs in a 2019 tweet, which included a Bible verse, in addition to a 2019 radio debate and 2004 church booklet.  

After the prosecutor appealed for a third time, the Supreme Court, which heard the case in October 2025, has now ruled on two of the three original charges: concerning the tweet and the church booklet. The Supreme Court was not asked to rule on the radio debate as the prosecution did not appeal it, so Räsänen’s acquittal for the debate stands. 

“I am shocked and profoundly disappointed that the court has failed to recognise my basic human right to freedom of expression. I stand by the teachings of my Christian faith, and will continue to defend my and every person’s right to share their convictions in the public square,” stated Päivi Räsänen after receiving the judgment.

“I am taking legal advice on a possible appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. This is not about my free speech alone, but that of every person in Finland. A positive ruling would help to prevent other innocent people from experiencing the same ordeal for simply sharing their beliefs,” added Räsänen.  

The Court found Räsänen and the Bishop guilty for having “made available to the public and kept available to the public opinions that insult homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation”. It held that: “It must be taken into account that the text forming the basis for the conviction did not contain incitement to violence or comparable threat-like fomenting of hatred. The conduct is therefore not particularly serious in terms of the nature of the offence.”

The pamphlet was authored by Räsänen in 2004. The Court convicted her on the basis that: “After a preliminary investigation into the matter was launched in 2019, Räsänen continued to share the article on her own internet and social media pages in 2019 and 2020.”

Keep reading

Blackburn’s TRUMP AMERICA AI Act Repeals Section 230, Expands AI Liability, and Mandates Age Verification

Senator Marsha Blackburn has introduced a 291-page legislative discussion draft that would reshape how information is allowed to exist online.

The TRUMP AMERICA AI Act, officially titled the “The Republic Unifying Meritocratic Performance Advancing Machine intelligence by Eliminating Regulatory Interstate Chaos Across American Industry” Act, bundles together Section 230 repeal, expanded AI liability, age verification mandates, and a stack of additional bills that have been circulating separately for years.

All of it is wrapped in a national AI framework that claims it is tied to President Trump’s December Executive Order. The bill is framed as pro-innovation, pro-safety, designed to “protect children, creators, conservatives, and communities” while positioning the US to win the global AI race.

What the actual 291 pages describe is a system that centralizes regulatory authority, removes the legal protections platforms currently rely on, and hands new enforcement tools to federal agencies, state attorneys general, and private litigants simultaneously.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The legal foundation of the modern internet is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It shields platforms from being sued for the content that users post. Without Section 230, platforms could become legally responsible for what their users post, which could mean anything controversial, contested, or legally ambiguous becomes a liability they’ll quietly remove rather than defend.

Blackburn’s bill repeals it entirely, after a two-year transition period.

Platforms and AI developers could face lawsuits for “defective design,” “failure to warn,” or deploying systems deemed “unreasonably dangerous.”

AI platforms would be incentivized to heavily monitor users.

Keep reading

Israel seeking ‘significant change’ in how Canada tackles antisemitism

Israel is pursuing a sweeping diplomatic and public relations campaign to convince Canada to change the way it tackles acts of antisemitism.

From the office of Israel’s president down to its ambassador in Ottawa, the message is the same: Canada must do more to curb threats against Jews.

But while the country’s ambassador is suggesting Ottawa should limit certain “freedoms” in order to deal with threats his government links to Iran, he hasn’t said which freedoms should be limited.

“We have a very clear objective this year, and that is to create a significant change in the way antisemitism is being dealt with here in Canada,” Israeli Ambassador Iddo Moed told a virtual forum last week.

“It is hard for a liberal person to think that we have to limit other people’s freedoms, so that our freedom will be protected. But that’s where we are right now.”

Carleton University political scientist Mira Sucharov, who researches Israeli-Palestinian relations and Jewish politics, said there “are two things happening” — Israel is trying both to improve protection for Jews worldwide and to generate support for the war it has launched with the U.S. against Iran.

Moed spoke after Israel issued a series of high-level statements following shootings at three Toronto-area synagogues.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog convened a call with Toronto-area Jewish community leaders on March 9 — a rare move by a country whose head of government, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has refused to speak with Prime Minister Mark Carney.

“We must learn the lessons of previous antisemitic attacks, including the horrific Bondi Beach terror attack,” Herzog wrote on social media, citing the mass shooting last December at a Hanukkah event in Australia.

“All eyes are on Canada: it’s time to halt the unprecedented wave of Jew-hatred that has erupted ever since Oct. 7,” Herzog added, referencing the 2023 attack by Hamas and its allies against Israel which started the war in Gaza.

Keep reading

Court Backs First-Grader in Suit Over School Reaction to ‘Any Life’ Matters Drawing

Can a “schoolyard dispute” warrant federal court intervention? Do first-graders have First Amendment rights? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit just gave a resounding yes to both questions.

The case centers on a first-grader identified in court documents as B.B. After her teacher read a story about Martin Luther King Jr., B.B. drew a picture of her and her multiracial friend group. “Black Lives Mater [sic] any life,” it said. Sweet, right?

Apparently not to the administrators at Viejo Elementary School in California’s Capistrano Unified School District. The school’s principal, Jesus Becerra, spoke with B.B. about her drawing, allegedly telling her that it was inappropriate. According to B.B., she was also barred from recess for two weeks.

B.B.’s mother, Chelsea Boyle, sued, alleging that her daughter’s First Amendment rights had been violated.

A federal district court sided with the school and Becerra, holding that B.B.’s drawing was not protected by the First Amendment. “This schoolyard dispute—like most—does not warrant federal court intervention,” wrote U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in the court’s 2024 opinion.

Now, the 9th Circuit has weighed in and reversed course. “We hold that elementary students’ speech is protected by the First Amendment,” the appeals court ruled, vacating the lower court’s decision and sending the case back for reconsideration.

“Schools may restrict students’ speech only when the restriction is reasonably necessary to protect the safety and well-being of its students,” the 9th Circuit judges wrote.

Keep reading

UK Teacher BANNED For Saying Migrants Should ‘Respect Our Laws Or Leave’ 

A British Physical Education teacher has been indefinitely banned from the classroom after daring to state that migrants should respect Britain’s laws, culture, and way of life — or leave.

Sam Everett taught at Haughton Academy in Darlington for two years. Someone identified his X account, reported him to the school, and triggered an investigation into his political views. 

The independent Teaching Regulation Agency panel that heard the case cleared him of racism and sexism, praised his unblemished teaching record, noted colleague endorsements, and recommended he keep his job. Publication of the findings alone would suffice as punishment, they ruled.

However, the Department for Education stepped in anyway and overruled the panel, claiming it had “failed to give sufficient weight” to the seriousness of his conduct. 

Everett is now banned from teaching for life — or at least two years before he can even apply to be reinstated, with no guarantee of success. He lost his job at the academy in June 2024.

The posts that sparked the witch hunt were hardly fringe. In one, Everett wrote: “Completely agree, if you don’t respect our laws, culture and way of life you should leave, nobody is forcing you to stay. We don’t go to other peoples countries and tell them they’re wrong for how they go about things.”

Responding to a claim that “The law of Allah is superior to your laws,” he replied: “Sick of hearing rubbish being spouted by these idiots. They can live in societies where their values are accepted, it isn’t here. Leave. You won’t be missed.”

Keep reading

Young NASCAR Driver Indefinitely Suspended for Using “Gay Voice” to Mock Driver During Livestream 

A young NASCAR driver was indefinitely suspended for using a “gay voice” to mock another driver during a livestream.

22-year-old Daniel Dye was forced to apologize for ‘homophobic’ and ‘disparaging’ comments.

On Tuesday evening, Daniel Dye was penalized for ridiculing fellow driver David Malukas.

NASCAR.com reported:

Daniel Dye has been indefinitely suspended from NASCAR after insensitive comments made during a recent livestream, officials announced Tuesday evening.

Dye, driver of the No. 10 Kaulig Racing Ram in the NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series, was penalized under Section 4.3.C in the NASCAR Rule Book, which states in part, “NASCAR Members shall not make … a public statement or communication that criticizes, ridicules, or otherwise disparages another person based upon that person’s race, color, creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, age, or handicapping condition.”

Dye was discussing his experience around NTT IndyCar Series driver David Malukas while opening trading cards on a recent livestream, during which the 22-year-old Dye used language that officials deemed unacceptable, resulting in Tuesday’s suspension. Dye must complete sensitivity training before he may return to competition.

Kaulig Racing also announced in a statement that the team has suspended Dye effective immediately “after becoming aware (Tuesday) of comments he made on social media.”

AJ Allmendinger was later announced as the fill-in driver for Friday’s race at Darlington Raceway (7:30 p.m. ET, FS1, NRN, SiriusXM NASCAR Radio). Allmendinger, who drives full-time for Kaulig in the Cup Series, has 14 career starts in the Truck Series, with his last coming in 2021 at Watkins Glen International for GMS Racing.

Daniel Dye was later forced to apologize to the LGBTQ community.

Keep reading