This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The state of Kansas on Monday launched a civil lawsuit against Pfizer over its COVID shots, alleging that the lucrative corporation "misled the public that it has a 'safe and effective' COVID-19 vaccine" in violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

A report in the Kansas Reflector explains Attorney General Kris Kobach said he took the action to seek "civil monetary penalties, damages, and injunctive relief from misleading and deceptive statements made in marketing its COVID-19 vaccine."

In fact, as the pandemic that likely was released on the world through mishandling at a Chinese lab working on projects to make viruses worse surged, several corporations including Pfizer release their shots suggesting they were both safe and effective.

But what now has been documented is that the shots themselves, which were designated experimental when they were unleashed, have been linked to a wide range of side effects, including sometimes fatal heart ailments.

CNN Business reported that Pfizer's cash flow exploded when it started dispensing COVID shots, with revenue soaring to $24.1 billion, with the shots responsible for 60% of its revenue.

Kobach alleges the company "willfully concealed, suppressed and omitted material facts relating to the COVID-19 vaccine, the 'most egregious' ones regarding safety of the vaccine for pregnant people, in regard to heart conditions, its effectiveness against variants and its ability to stop transmission," the report said.

"Pfizer marketed its vaccine as safe for pregnant women. However, in February of 2021 (they) possessed reports of 458 pregnant women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. More than half of the pregnant women reported an adverse event, and more than 10% reported a miscarriage," Kobach explained.

Studies later showed the percentage of "adverse events" was higher for pregnant women than the general population. Preliminary study findings had claimed there was no "significant safety concerns."

Further, Albert Bourla, the company CEO, said in 2023, "We have not seen a single signal (that the shots cause myocarditis), although we have distributed billions of doses."

But Kobach charged, "As Pfizer knew, the United States government, the United States military, foreign governments and others have found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine caused myocarditis and pericarditis."

And Kobach noted information available at the time confirmed the shots were effective "less than half the time."

"Pfizer urged Americans to get vaccinated in order to protect their loved ones, clearly indicating a claim that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccination stopped transmission. Pfizer later admitted that they’ve never even studied transmission after the recipients receive the vaccine," Kobach said.

The company in a statement claimed it saved countless lives and it based its statements on science.

It said the state's case "has no merit."

Kobach explained that five other states will be joining, and will make their own announcements. Previously, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Pfizer for misrepresenting its shots and trying to censor public discussion of its product, a case also based on the CPA.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A conservative Italian leader, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, is being credited for blunting and blocking Joe Biden's agendas for abortion and LGBT ideology at a recent meeting of the G7.

report in the Washington Stand explains that Biden, bent on pushing his social agendas to the entire globe, was stymied by Meloni's actions, including her description of Biden's efforts to promote anti-family ideologies for political reasons as "profoundly wrong."

"I believe it is profoundly wrong, in difficult times like these, to campaign using a precious forum like the G7," she said.

Biden had demanded a promise that the nations would promote abortion-on-demand, part of what he claims is "sexual and reproductive health."

Such a commitment was in last year's statement that came out of meetings in Japan, which affirmed a commitment "to achieving comprehensive SRHR [Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights] for all, including by addressing access to safe and legal abortion and post-abortion care."

That was dropped from this year's statement, mentioning only support for universal access to adequate, affordable, and quality health services…."

The New York Times said Biden insisted on including a specific demand for "reproductive rights," but since G7 statements are by consensus, Meloni's opposition kept Biden's agenda promotion at a minimum.

The Stand explained, "Experts say the controversy reveals Western secular leaders’ myopic focus on promoting social issues. 'The very fact of tension over whether abortion was to be included in the G7 statement gives you a sense of the priorities of those Western nations pushing for it to be included,' Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. 'The G7 is supposed to be looking out for the good of the international order, not jamming social policy through international agreements to be imposed on unwilling nations with quasi-religious fervor. It’s a sign of the times that the West is now known for this, to our increasing shame.'"

Another report, from Bloomberg News, explained Meloni also removed a comment to "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" from the final release.

Meloni's office said there was no controversy, as such arguments didn't happen at the summit.

And her office also denied the Bloomberg claims.

Still, the Stand confirmed, "French President Emmanuel Macron complained openly of the abortion removal. 'France has a vision of equality between women and men, but it’s not a vision shared by all the political spectrum.'"

Meloni's pro-family reputation is based on several factors, including that her parliament adopted an amendment that lets trained pro-life advocates “with a qualified experience supporting motherhood” to counsel abortion-minded women inside Italian abortion facilities.

She also has tried to boost her nation's birth rate, denounced surrogacy, rejects gender ideology and has been watching her party gain legislative seats.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

LGBT promoters for years have been demanding "non-discrimination" laws and regulations across America, claiming, "All we want is equality."

Now, it seems, they want a little more than equality.

The Daily Mail reports a housing complex is being planned and promoted in Portland, Maine, that would allow LGBT residents exclusively.

It's called The Equality Community Center, which is expected to be a new five-story housing unit for members of the LGBT community who are 55 or older.

Plans are to open it in the spring of 2026.

There are plans for 54 studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units.

Funding is coming from MaineHousing's tax credits, federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits, a bank loan and an increment financing district set up the city.

But it's getting bashed online, over the discriminatory plan that is being used to pursue the project.

The social media account LibsofTikTok pointed out: "Maine is opening up new publicly funded affordable housing. The qualification is that you have to be LGBTQ. According to the Fair Housing Act, housing discrimination based on s*xual orientation or gender identity is illegal. How is this legal?"

Another comment joined, with, "This goes to show you that group movements like this were never about equal rights – it was always about politicians granting special rights to preferred groups who will vote for them. It's been a con the whole time."

Yet another, said, "Taxpayers will not be forced to pay for housing for the LGBTQ+ community. This is what Democratic-Socialism looks like – your taxes, their benefits."

Ed Gardner, a project developer, cited the benefits for the LGBT community.

There, residents will find "acceptance and services," he suggested, according to the report.

"I think we'll be able to see them come out and be more part of the community rather than be stuck in their homes and not have anybody to socialize with," Gardner said.

Another social media comment, from TheUnquirer, turned blunt, however.

"In Maine – some groups are more equal than others."

Other such housing projects already are in the works in Boston, Fort Lauderdale, San Diego, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The State Department's secret payments to organizations that "rate" American news sources – campaigns that have been used to stop companies from doing business with conservative publications – are the subject of a new congressional subpoena.

The Washington Examiner explains the action was triggered by State's refusal to turn over records on programs that are part of what Republicans charge is a "censorship-by-proxy" scheme that interferes with small businesses.

The subpoena is from the House Small Business Committee and is part of a year-long investigation into the Global Engagement Center in State, which gave $100,000 of tax money to the Global Disinformation Index, a London-based group that works in America to "pressure advertisers to boycott conservative media."

That funding triggered a new law just last year that bans some Pentagon money from being given to the London group. Also, the Federalist and Daily Wire have sued the Biden administration for its "egregious government operations to censor the American press."

The committee, headed by Rep. Roger Williams. R-Texas, has been trying to extract financial records from the Global Engagement Center over charges of censorship schemes.

Committee members want to see a list of recipients of GEC money.

But the State Department has refused.

The subpoena specifically asks for details on cash handed out to NewsGuard, the Global Disinformation Index, the Atlantic Council, Park Capital Investment Group, and Poynter Institute.

Williams told Anthony Blinken, Joe Biden's secretary of state, "The House Committee on Small Business is investigating the U.S. government’s censorship-by-proxy and revenue interference of American small businesses because of their lawful speech."

GEC, housed at State, was supposed to focus on propaganda abroad, but has been revealed as a leader in the domestic journalism censorship of what it calls "disinformation."

That would whatever facts do not support the leftist political and social agenda.

A key component has been GDI's insistence that mainstream news organizations are not credible if they are not leftist, and its pressure on advertisers to hurt them.

Williams said he is working on "legislative solutions to federal funds being used to demonetize, tarnish, or censor domestic small businesses on the basis of their lawful speech."

"Rather than comply with the committee’s investigation into and oversight of the GEC’s funding of third parties who engage in these activities, the State Department has, stunningly, provided only two documents totaling 12 pages, with heavy redactions, in the span of one year,” he charges.

One option the House Republicans could choose would be to defund GEC, the report said.

The legal case by the Wire, Federalist and the state of Texas charges that promoting companies that create lists of conservative news outlet targets is a violation of the First Amendment.

"All Americans deserve a fair shot to compete in the marketplace, and the government should not be tipping the scales against any business for their legal speech on the internet." Williams told the Washington Examiner. "The refusal to comply with repeated document requests is unacceptable, especially when the livelihoods of many small businesses are on the line."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new survey, the 2024 British Social Attitudes assessment, has discovered a stunning plunge in support by the public for the transgender ideology, those beliefs that claim that men can become women, or vice versa, by simply declaring the change.

The Christian Institute notes that the new results, compared to 2019, show "twice as many Brits say those who claim to be the opposite sex should not be allowed to change their sex on their birth certificate."

Further, the report said, "There has also been a 14-percentage point rise since 2021 in those who say trans rights have 'gone too far.'"

Asked, in 2019, whether "a person who is transgender should be able to have the sex recorded on their birth certificate changed if they want?' 24% said no. In the latest survey, that figure is 50%.

"When participants were asked about 'attempts to give equal opportunities' to those who claim to be the opposite sex, 47% said they had 'gone too far,' up from 33% in 2021," the report said.

The National Centre for Social Research said its report confirmed "substantial changes" in attitudes about the alternative social and sexual lifestyle choices.

Simon Calvert, of the institute, said, "The growing public disquiet over allowing those who claim to be the opposite sex to change their birth certificates has happened during a period when trans activism has become increasingly aggressive."

A poll from last year showed U.K. support for the pro-trans measures is among the lowest in the world, beaten to the bottom in the category only by the U.S.

The Daily Mail noted, Fiona McAnena, of women's rights group Sex Matters, praised the findings, with, "This huge swing in opinion is down to the fact that the more the public understand the real-world impact of pretending that people can change sex, the less they like it."

Under the U.K.'s Gender Recognition Act, people only can change their sex on their birth certificate if their doctor has confirmed they are trans and they have obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

For the third time in just recent weeks, Joe Biden's "sex" agenda has crashed and burned when it has faced a federal judge.

The newest rejection of his rewrite to the decades-old Title IX law that changes the definition of "sex" to "gender identity" or ideology, comes from a judge in Kentucky who, in his preliminary injunction, protected women in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Virginia and Weste Virginia.

Biden's Department of Education has redefined "sex" from the 1972 law to include all sorts of alternative sexual ideologies, insisting that's what Congress meant when it approved a ban on discrimination against men or women in school activities at the time.

Biden's rules would force biological women to share private spaces, like showers and locker rooms, with gender-confused biological males.

"The radical rewrite of Title IX regulations eradicates privacy, safety, and fairness for biological women and girls. The lawsuits against forcing gender ideology in education have merit and the Biden administration’s obsession with erasing women must stop," explained Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.

Just days ago, a Louisiana judge granted a similar injunction for the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho, and a Texas judge ruled for his state earlier.

According to Liberty Counsel's report, "These injunctions prevent the updated rules from taking effect in these 11 states while litigation continues in each case to determine permanent decisions. The move responsible for the multitude of lawsuits came April 29 when the DOE published the Title IX Final Rule on the Federal Register, which expanded the definition of 'sex' and 'sex discrimination' to include 'gender identity' and 'sexual orientation' as protected categories against discrimination."

That change in the law, without approval from Congress, is supposed to hit the books in August.

The ruling is from Judge Danny C. Reeves.

He found, "Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was intended to level the playing field between men and women in education. The statute tells us that no person shall be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance 'on the basis of sex.' However, the Department of Education seeks to derail deeply rooted law with a Final Rule that is set to go into effect on August 1, 2024. At bottom, the Department would turn Title IX on its head by redefining 'sex' to include 'gender identity.' But 'sex' and 'gender identity' do not mean the same thing. The Department’s interpretation conflicts with the plain language of Title IX and therefore exceeds its authority to promulgate regulations under that statute. This Court is not persuaded by the Department’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, —a case that was explicitly limited to the context of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act…:"

WND reported earlier when the Louisiana ruling was released that the judge pointed out, "Nothing in the statute expressly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or other unexpressed grounds. And where Title IX allows for differentiation based on sex due to biological differences—such as intimate facilities and athletic teams—recipients may treat persons in accordance with their biological sex without regard to subjective gender identity."

He said, "Title IX explicitly appreciates the innate biological variation between men and women that occasionally warrants differentiation—and even separation—to preserve educational opportunities and to promote respect for both sexes. Rather than promote the equal opportunity, dignity, and respect that Title IX demands for both biological sexes, Defendants’ Guidance Documents do the opposite in an effort to advance an agenda wholly divorced from the text, structure, and contemporary context of Title IX."

Further, he noted, "Not to mention, recipients of Title IX funding—including Texas schools—will face an impossible choice: revise policies in compliance with the Guidance Documents but in contravention of state law or face the loss of substantial funding. Thus, to allow Defendants’ unlawful action to stand would be to functionally rewrite Title IX in a way that shockingly transforms American education and usurps a major question from Congress. That is not how our democratic system functions."

That ruling said when the 1972 law was adopted, and refers to "sex," it "carried an unambiguously binary meaning."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

I am a Torah-observant Jew living in Katsrin, a small town of 9,000 residents in the eastern Golan located less than 10 miles from the Syrian border. On Oct. 7, I finished my Simchat Torah/ Shabbat prayers, and as I walked home, I was surprised to see the park full of people I did not recognize. As a Torah-observant Jew, I turn off my computer and cell phone on the Sabbath. When I inquired who the people were, I was immediately told about the attacks in the south and that Kiryat Shmona, about 25 miles to the northwest, was under heavy rocket attack by Hezbollah. Many of the residents came to take shelter in Katsrin.

All of Israel was traumatized, but being in a remote corner of our tiny country, I felt isolated and assured my wife that we were in the safest place in Israel. As the war in Gaza progressed, my statement seemed to be true. Horror stories were pouring out of the Gaza border towns as the southern region prepared for all-out war.

We packed a few "go-bags" as preparation. Early in the conflict, we had a Red Alert siren that proved to be a false alarm. Kiryat Shmona was targeted regularly, leading to its 20,000 residents being evacuated. I was embarrassed when people expressed concern for my family's safety. My quiet town remained blessedly quiet. The only signs of war were the nearly nonstop roar of warplanes flying low overhead on their way to pay a visit to Hezbollah.

I continued to assure my wife, but news reports warned that as the war in Gaza began to wind down, the focus would turn north. The Red Alert warnings were no longer benign. The now-almost weekly siren was accompanied by distant booms that arrived simultaneously, giving us no time to run to the nearby bomb shelters. When the town was first built soon after the 1967 Six-Day War, Syria was a significant threat, and bomb shelters were located every 50 yards. But there was no time to run to the bomb shelters. We were told by the civil authority to shelter in place. The first houses were built of thick reinforced concrete with this in mind. When the siren sounded, we ran for the center of the first floor as the first barrage hit.

And then, one Friday in April, the news was abuzz with warnings that Iran might attack Israel sometime in the next day or two. I was relieved when Shabbat passed without any alarms. But a friend called me late Saturday night and told me to check the news. Iran had launched 170 drones, over 30 cruise missiles, and more than 120 ballistic missiles toward Israel. We were told the attack would take several hours to cover the more than 1,000 miles. So my family slept in the living room, wearing heavy shoes and emergency supplies at hand. At 3:00 am, sirens woke us, but no rockets fell. We were told that the Golan had been targeted by drones which had all been shot down before approaching our city. We managed to fall asleep, but one hour later, another siren sounded, accompanied by nearby rockets. They began as distant booms but were walked in as the barrage continued. The last dozen or so rockets landed very close, rattling the windows violently. I later discovered that a few had landed inside the city. Thank God, no one was wounded and no houses were hit.

The weekly barrages were now targeting Katsrin. Despite the IDF’s Iron Dome, houses in Katsrin were being hit. The rockets began to zero in on our tiny city. About three weeks ago, Israel was hit by a countrywide heat wave. The Golan is lush, but the greenery turns brown in the summer. Hezbollah rocket attacks sparked massive brushfires, burning more than 13,000 acres in my area. Civilian volunteers joined firefighters, but the fires burned large swaths of the countryside. We were hard-pressed to extinguish them. Hezbollah continued to target Kiryat Shmona and Tsfat, setting off huge brushfires in those areas as well. It was unclear whether the fires were an intentional aspect of Hezbollah’s battle plan. Still, even if not, they were devastating and dangerous, perhaps even more so than the rockets themselves.

Like many of the residents of Katsrin, I shop for Shabbat on Thursday. The weekly visit to the local supermarket highlights my social life. I waited in line to pay at around three in the afternoon when the sirens sounded. The staff directed the people to a large shelter in the back of the store, but as I began to make my way, a young bearded man ran past me, shouting, "My kids are in the car." I ran after him, hoping to help. A large portable bomb shelter had been placed in the parking lot for such a circumstance. As the siren wailed, I ran around the parking lot, helping young mothers gather their small children. After 15 minutes, the staff announced the "all-clear." But as we began to breathe deeply and return to our shopping, the siren sounded again. More sirens followed. We remained in the shelter for almost two hours, listening to the rockets fall around us. We finally emerged to a city where the sky was full of smoke.

In total, Hezbollah fired more than 150 rockets and 30 explosive drones, with about 50 landing in the Golan. Two rockets made direct hits on houses in Katsrin, wounding two people with shrapnel. We could not open our windows for several days without filling the house with a smoky smell.

My kids took it all in stride, though I wonder what lasting effects the war will have on them. My wife puts on a brave face, but I can tell that below the surface, standing by while rockets fall on our home is difficult for her. And to be honest, it is more difficult for me than actual combat. In the IDF, I was armed and part of a fighting force. As a soldier, I did not feel helpless. And I did not have to watch as my family was targeted by rockets.

I acknowledge that my experiences are trite when compared to what the people of Gaza are experiencing. But the Palestinians have a zero-cost Iron Dome that is 100% effective: Don’t fire rockets into our cities or cross the border to murder and rape Jews. The Palestinians hate us because we believe in life. Oct. 7 happened because Israel was about to make peace with Saudi Arabia. Hamas was in charge of Gaza because Israel pulled out, forcibly expelling 10,000 Jews in the hope of peaceful coexistence. Hamas was able to attack because Israel allowed Gazans to enter for work and medical treatment.

I have been to Gaza. I was there in 1992 to consider moving there. Security was a major part of the life for the Jews in Gush Katif. However, the region had a thriving agri-economy that employed thousands of Arabs and several resorts in the Mediterranean. It was not an open-air prison for the Arabs, though Jews were confined and restricted. It became an open-air prison for the Palestinians when the Jews were expelled and Hamas took over.

The Palestinians are not the enemy. They are the knives in the hands of the enemy. They have been fed lies and told that the Jews are invaders even though the Quran specifically notes that Israel is the land of the Jews. The Palestinians have been told they are the historical rulers and that they can drive the Jews out.

These are all lies. But I am calm, knowing that Israel will win this war. We will win because it is not a war over land. The Palestinians do not want this land. And Jews have never stopped praying for this land.

We will win this war simply because we have nowhere else to go.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Connecticut Bar Association is warning lawyers against criticizing the politicized prosecutions of President Donald Trump because that could become "dangerous rhetoric."

The association recently dispatched to members a message signed by Maggie Castinado, its president, James T. Shearin, president-elect, and Emily Gianquinto, vice president.

They warn against "reckless words" that attack the integrity of the nation's judicial system.

They charged, "In the wake of the recent trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump, public officials have issued statements claiming that the trial was a 'sham,' a 'hoax,' and 'rigged'; our justice system is 'corrupt and rigged'; the judge was 'corrupt'' and highly unethical'; and, that the jury was 'partisan' and 'precooked.'"

There also have been comparisons to communist "show" trials, in which the defendant is guilty and the court hearings are simply to create the appearance of a judicial proceeding.

The bar missive claims, without documenting whether those charges are, in fact, true, those statements are "unsubstantiated and reckless."

And they can "provoke acts of violence against" members of the judiciary. Further, they 'sow distrust in the public for the courts … ."

Those comments, the association claims, "cross the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric."

The attempt to suppress speech with doesn't align with the politics of the association comes as several Democrat prosecutors continue their courtroom assaults on Trump.

Already, Arthur Engoron, a judge in New York, has demanded a punishment of nearly half a billion dollars for the way Trump negotiated loans for his corporation, practices that industry insiders described as routine. No one lost money or complained and the bankers involved wanted to do more business with Trump. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg took claims of business reporting misdemeanors that already had passed the statute of limitations and claimed they were felonies because they led to a further, unspecified, crime. A jury in the leftist enclave of New York convicted Trump in a decision that now is on appeal.

Several other cases, such as a prosecutor allegedly being appointed improperly and another with ethical clouds because the DA had hired her paramour, with tax money, to work her allegations against Trump, have significant obstacles looming.

Now Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at Geroge Washington University, an expert witness on the law before Congress and a popular commentator, said the message from the association is "chilling" for those lawyers who see the lawfare against Trump as "raw political prosecution."

He noted that the officials are demanding "members to speak publicly in support of the integrity of these legal proceedings."

He noted the reality is something else.

"For example, criticizing Judge Juan Merchan (who heard the business records case) for refusing to recuse from the case is considered beyond the pale."

But, he noted, "Many lawyers believe that his political (financial) contributions to Biden and his daughter's major role as a Democratic fundraiser and activist should have prompted Merchan to remove himself (and any appearance of a conflict)."

His own opinion is that Merchan's rulings were biased.

He said it's likely that the verdict will be overturned, and he blames not the jury "but rather the judge and the prosecutors for an unfounded and unfair trial."

He identified the problem with the bar demands as the "suggestion that lawyers are acting somehow unprofessionally in denouncing what many view as a two-tier system of justice and the politicization of our legal system."


"Notably, the bar officials did not write to denounce attacks on figures like Bill Barr or claims that the Justice Department was rigging justice during the Trump years." Further, those officials never published warnings about attacks on conservative justices and labeled them "insurrectionist sympathizers."

It didn't worry the bar when Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., threatened judges with "seismic changes" or Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., called the Supreme Court "corrupt."

"Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court 'I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,'" he continued.

He noted the letter actually "only reinforced the view of a legal system that is maintaining a political orthodoxy and agenda."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Journalism in America no longer is what it once was: A reporting of the facts on an issue, including opinions from experts and those with alternative views – basically covered in the traditional "Who, What, When, Where, Why and How?"

Now those practices are described as providing a "false balance," or "bothsideism," where, one leftist online site describes, "journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless." Some journalists openly have condemned including information that does not align with the politically correct position.

That ideology claims the global warming agenda has been handicapped by such thinking. Likewise the arguments that support a belief in evolution over creation. And vicious attacks on President Donald Trump when he charges that there was election misbehavior during the 2020 president race.

Leftist want Americans to believe, without hesitation, they are at fault for global warming, evolution explains everything and Joe Biden, the now feeble octogenarian who was declared "diminished" by a federal prosecutor, is as sharp as a tack and drew more votes that Trump, legally.

And it's hitting even the high-profile journalistic enterprises, like the Washington Post.

That organization, with a multiple of priority and standards changes since Amazon chief Jeff Bezos bought it years ago, now apparently has its reporters investigating their own bosses.

On top of a multitude of scandals already appearing at the publication, there's now a 3,000-word investigative story about new publisher William Lewis, and an incoming top editor.

It stunningly charges that Lewis "declined to comment through a Post spokesperson in response to a list of detailed questions" from his own reporters.

Axios reported the turmoil is atop his handling of several controversies in just the past few days.

One is a "phone-hacking scandal" that happened in Britain's Fleet Street in the 2000s, and apparently involved Lewis.

The New York Times was joining in with the Post's investigation of the Post. And it charges two decades ago Lewis "used fraudulently obtained phone and company records in newspaper articles," and the Post explores the ethics of Robert Winnett, a London editor who is moving to the Post's office.

The Post even conceded former senior managing editor Cameron Barr, who left last year, will oversee the paper's coverage of Lewis.

A report at Mediaite headlined its charges, "Scathing Washington Post Expose alleges incoming editor used 'thief' to aid reporting."

It described the work of the Post reporters as a "bombshell" that uncovered the past for Winnett.

"The exposé, which relies on unpublished book drafts and documents from self-proclaimed 'thief' John Ford, reportedly claims he used deceitful methods to aid Winnett’s reporting at the Sunday Times in London," the report explained.

It notes Ford was arrested in 2010 for trying to steal former Prime Minister Tony Blair's memoir.

Winnett now is at the Telegraph, and "allegedly reassured Ford during his arrest and arranged legal assistance, emphasizing the 'remarkable omerta' within British journalism."

The story charges Ford's drafts, seen by the Post, cover his "his involvement in obtaining confidential details about Britain’s elite through unethical means, with many stories seemingly aligning with Winnett’s published work."

The dispute is compounded by the information about Lewis, who at the Sunday Times in 2004 linked to stories allegedly based on hacked phones.

The Times explained the published account suggests Lewis and Winnett used fraudulently obtained phone and company records in their publication.

"The use of deception, hacking and fraud is at the heart of a long-running British newspaper scandal, one that toppled a major tabloid in 2010 and led to years of lawsuits by celebrities who said that reporters improperly obtained their personal documents and voice mail messages," the report noted.

The report charged articles published were from material obtained surreptitiously by a private detective.

Other Post upheavals have included Sally Buzbee's abrupt departure, and reports that Lewis had objected to coverage of a new story in which he was involved.

Further, according to the report, "Lewis repeatedly offered an exclusive interview to an NPR reporter if the reporter agreed not to write about allegations against him in a British phone-hacking scandal, according to an account by that reporter."

Explained NPR in its comments about the disputes.

"A vast chasm divides common practices in the fiercely competitive confines of British journalism, where Lewis and Winnett made their mark, and what passes muster in the American news media. In several instances, their alleged conduct would raise red flags at major U.S. outlets, including The Washington Post."

Those issues include "a six-figure payment for a major scoop; planting a junior reporter in a government job to secure secret documents; and relying on a private investigator who used subterfuge to secure private documents from their computers and phones. The investigator was later arrested."

It noted, "The stakes are high. Post journalists ask what values Lewis and Winnett will import to the paper, renowned for its coverage of the Nixon-era Watergate scandals and for holding the most powerful figures in American life to account in the generations since."

The Post lost $77 million last year and about half of its digital audience since 2020.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

There's a "silver lining" in a new U.S. Supreme Court decision that otherwise might be viewed as a temporary setback for the pro-life movement.

That ruling, just days ago, said doctors and medical associations don't have standing to sue over the Food and Drug Administration's massive expansion of the availability of the deadly chemicals used for that abortion procedure.

The decision on a technicality means the court never got to the point of considering whether that expansion of access to the deadly chemicals, including allowing them to be mailed out to women, was right or not.

It is Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council who interviewed Erin Hawley, of the legal team at the ADF which argued for a review of the FDA's political activism.

Perkins pointed out that part of the reasoning from the government against continuing the case is that physicians with faith objections to abortion already are protected from being ordered to perform abortions.

The plaintiffs had noted that part of Joe Biden's pro-abortion advocacy was to redefine various words, thus requiring emergency room physicians to perform abortions, even in violation of their faith, if it is an "emergency."

That change has been attempted in multiple redefinitions of words and the like by Biden.

During the arguments, Hawley explained, "The solicitor general was crystal clear that these protections apply in emergencies in every setting."

"And the Supreme Court said, and I’m quoting here, 'The federal law fully protects doctors against being required to provide abortions or other medical treatment against their consciences.' And as you identified, that’s a huge win for religious liberty and freedom of conscience, because the Biden administration has been continually cutting back on those conscience protections. But because of the lawsuit brought … the government was forced to concede that those conscience protections exist, and they are robust," she explained.

Perkins described that was "a silver lining" in the court ruling in a dispute that remains far from over.

Perkins pointed out, "There are other states — I believe Missouri is one of the states, Idaho is one of those states — that [have] a separate lawsuit regarding the FDA and the abortion drug. Can you give us an update on what is different about their case and where it stands?"

Hawley explained, "So those three states, Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas, actually intervened in the lawsuit, so they are part of the case back at the district court. And those proceedings will go forward. Presumably, the Department of Justice will file a motion to dismiss the states also on standing grounds. But the states have very different standing arguments than our doctors, and so we’d expect and hope the states will raise those standing arguments — and we hope and expect that the federal courts will get to look at the merits of FDA’s decision."

She explained, "When you look at the 2021 removal of that last remaining in-person visit [as a requirement of the drug]… the FDA could not say that women would be safe without that in-person visit, and yet, they still removed that safeguard. So we are hoping, again, that the courts do have an opportunity to look into those merits. The Supreme Court didn’t, based on a legal technicality, but as you said, that has the silver lining of ensuring that there are robust conscience protections throughout the country so quickly."

Hawley pointed out that Joe Biden's lawyers, during the Supreme Court arguments, "actually took the position that no one has standing."

Specifically those Christian doctors.

"I think this is important for viewers to understand, is they said that the pro-life doctors in this case are protected by federal conscience protections, and that’s why they can’t sue. Now, these federal conscience protections did not exist according to the federal government [in lower court arguments]. The government told the federal courts that these protections did not apply in emergencies. Then they got to the Supreme Court, and they told the Supreme Court the exact opposite," Hawley explained.

"And that’s why the Supreme Court didn’t find standing where every other court to address the issue had. The Supreme Court was really clear that doctors do have standing to raise conscience rights. The federal conscience protections in federal law are broad and protect medical professionals from performing or participating in abortions, even in emergencies."

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts