This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Unions representing public sector employees routinely insist that their union officers, public employees themselves, be given time to do the union's partisan activism.
At the expense of taxpayers.
But that's ending in Arizona, after the state Supreme Court struck it down as an abuse of taxpayers.
The procedure commonly is called "release time" and allows union officers to continue getting their full pay and benefits from taxpayers while doing their partisan union chores.
But the state constitution bans that, the ruling said.
"Today's decision is the first time that a state high court has squarely struck down release time as unconstitutional. It came after the Goldwater Institute sued the city of Phoenix on behalf of two city employees and taxpayers who objected to being forced to pay for unions to engage in recruiting, political lobbying, and other practices that don't benefit the taxpaying public," explained the Goldwater Institute, which pursued the fight.
The court decision explained, "The costs and benefits here are so one-sided" making the procedure "an impermissible subsidy to a private entity."
The problem, the institute explained, is that, "government workers are released from the jobs they were hired to perform to work full-time for the union instead – yet are still paid their taxpayer-funded salaries and benefits. While on release time, these government employees engage in political and lobbying activities, attend union conferences and meetings, recruit new members to the union, and do other things that advance the union's own interests, not those of the public."
Goldwater's report explained, "In this case, the city signed a Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, with a local unit of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees union. Under that MOU, the city gave the union several release time benefits, including four full-time release positions. In other words, the city paid four employees to work exclusively for the union on the taxpayers' dime."
The contractual paperwork claimed that the four paid positions providing for union work was part of the "compensation" paid to all employees.
But Goldwatear noted that's a problem: "If release time was being paid as part of their 'total compensation,' then it violates the free expression and association rights of these employees to force them to give up their compensation to fund the political speech of union representatives with whom these employees disagree."
The institute explained that's the same message from the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2018 Janus ruling.
"On the other hand, if release time did not count as part of their compensation, and was instead paid for out of the city's own pocket, then it was a direct subsidy to the union, which violates the Gift Clause, the part of Arizona Constitution that forbids government from giving public resources to private entities," Goldwater reported.
The state's highest court determined, 7-0, that "the city pays for release time … and that means release time violates the Gift Clause. First, what the city pays is so disproportionate to what the city gets in return (which is effectively nothing), that paying for release time is effectively a handout, which is illegal. Second, the justices rejected the city's argument that as long as the MOU as a whole passes muster, any specific expenditure of public resources included within it must also be OK."
But the court found, "It would negate the purposes of the Gift Clause if scrutiny could be avoided merely because a gift is contained within a larger contract. …In all Gift Clause cases, courts must probe the reality of the transaction" and including release time provisions "as part of a larger contract does not insulate them from review."
The court also had doubts about any beneficial public purpose at all.
"The plain language of the Gift Clause aims to prevent subsidies to private individuals, associations, and corporations," the court said.
In this case, taxpayers were being forced to pay for employees to do private "union" work.
The institute said, "Today's ruling is a watershed decision that ensures taxpayer dollars will be spent to advance public interests, not private special interests, including the politically powerful special interests of government labor unions. And that will have nationwide ramifications, too. Just weeks ago, the Texas Supreme Court issued a lengthy decision making clear that the Lone Star State's Constitution also bars government from giving away taxpayer money to private interests. Government entities throughout Arizona—and the United States—should take notice when they seek to transfer taxpayer funds to their political cronies."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For those who have a problem with the overarching power of Google, a federal judge on Monday ruled the popular search engine acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search.
The 277-page decision by Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is being called a landmark ruling that could force tech giants to change their business protocols.
"After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly," Mehta wrote, finding that Google violated the Sherman Act, a major antitrust law.
"This landmark decision holds Google accountable," said Jonathan Kanter, antitrust chief at the U.S. Department of Justice. "It paves the path for innovation for generations to come and protects access to information for all Americans."
"This is the most important antitrust case of the century, and it's the first of a big slate of cases to come down against Big Tech," Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt University's law school told the New York Times. "It's a huge turning point."
The DOJ and a group of American states joined forces against Google four years ago over its practice of paying companies including Apple and Samsung billions of dollars annually for the search engine to automatically handle inquiries on their browsers and phones.
The Verge reported: "Mehta rejected Google's arguments that its contracts with phone and browser makers like Apple were not exclusionary and therefore shouldn't qualify it for liability under the Sherman Act. 'The prospect of losing tens of billions in guaranteed revenue from Google – which presently come at little to no cost to Apple – disincentivizes Apple from launching its own search engine when it otherwise has built the capacity to do so,' he wrote."
The New York Times reported: "The ruling is a harsh verdict on the rise of giant technology companies that have used their roots in the internet to influence the way we shop, consume information and search online – and indicates a potential limit of Big Tech's power.
"It is likely to influence other government antitrust lawsuits against Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The last significant antitrust ruling against a tech company targeted Microsoft more than two decades ago. …
"The decision is a major blow to Google, which was built on its search engine and has become so closely associated with online search that its name has become a verb. The ruling could have major ramifications for Google's success, especially as the company spends heavily to compete in the race over artificial intelligence. Google faces another federal antitrust case over ad technology that is scheduled to go to trial next month."
In April, "Google agreed to destroy billions of data records to settle a lawsuit claiming it secretly tracked the internet use of people who thought they were browsing privately," CNBC reported.
In March, a study by the Media Research Center confirmed Google has interfered in American elections an astonishing 41 times in recent years.
Dan Schneider, MRC's Free Speech America vice president, and Gabriela Pariseau, editor, said in a summary, "MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates – regardless of party – who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice."
Their report continued, "From the mouths of Google executives, the tech giant let slip what was never meant to be made public: That Google uses its 'great strength and resources and reach' to advance its leftist values. Google's outsized influence on information technology, the body politic and American elections became evident in 2008. After failing to prevent then-candidate for president Donald Trump from being inaugurated following the 2016 election, Google has since made clear to any discerning observer that it has been — and will continue — interfering in America's elections."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It apparently was triggered by a horrific jobs report just days ago under the economic practices being used by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in America.
Now the stock market is turning into a huge flop, and analysts are expressing concerns that there is a recession on the horizon – possibly even a depression.
American stocks were down by significant margins, sometimes up to 10% for Apple, for example, as the markets across the United States reacted to huge collapses in foreign stock markets overnight.
Market commentator Stuart Varney said the selloff involves several factors, including a housing market in trouble – the high interest rates under Biden's economy have cut many people out of the market entirely. And a growing economic slowdown. And inflation. And more.
"The consumer looks to be tapped out. Friday's very weak jobs report convinced investors that the slowdown is real," Varney's report on Fox explained. "It didn't help when Warren Buffett revealed he'd sold about half his stake in Apple, and that he had been a net seller of stocks for several quarters."
Then there's also the war campaigns around the world that have exploded under Biden's leadership in America. And there's politics and the election.
American measurements, the DOW Jones Industrial averages, NASDAQ, and S&P all were off between 2% and 3% on Monday.
Republicans wasted no time in highlighting that Biden and Harris have been making the nation's economic decisions of late, including spending packages of trillions of dollars.
On video, Harris she explains, "Bidenomics. Ha ha ha ha! That is called Bidenomics and we are very proud of Bidenopmics!"
President Donald Trump, the GOP nominee for the White House this year, said, "Of course there is a massive market downturn. Kamala is even worse than Crooked Joe. Markets will NEVER accept the Radical Left Lunatic that DESTROYED San Francisco and California, as a whole. Next move, THE GREAT DEPRESSION OF 2024! You can't play games with MARKETS. KAMALA CRASH!!!"
A report at the Gateway Pundit said it was Harris' words from only a year ago that are haunting her now.
"Biden and Harris have overseen soaring levels of inflation that have depleted ordinary Americans' savings and made everything more expensive since seizing power more than three years ago," the report said. "All of Wall Street's main indexes crashed Monday morning, with both the Dow Jones plunging and the Nasdaq Composite cratering, plunging more than 1,000 points after the Opening Bell. This news follows last week's disastrous jobs report, which showed a paltry 114,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate rising to a three-year high."
Earlier, markets in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan took nosedives.
The report noted Harris's boasts about Bidenomics were from only one year ago.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – Reports circulated in Hebrew media Monday of a preemptive Israeli strike to deter Iran from dealing a "heavy blow" to its regional nemesis in the wake of ratcheting tensions following the IDF's elimination last week of both senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut, and Hamas' political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran.
These reports appeared in tandem with the U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's remarks to G7 counterparts about the likelihood of an Iranian response in the "next 24 to 48 hours."
From the Israeli perspective, a preemptive strike would only be forthcoming if there were unimpeachable evidence of the kind of attack Tehran was planning – and was available to both Israel and the United States. This assessment followed Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convening a meeting of the country's security chiefs Sunday evening.
Also present at the meeting were Mossad chief David Barnea, Shin Bet head Ronen Bar, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant – with whom Netanyahu is again seemingly at odds and might even fire – and IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi.
Israeli preemptive strike?
While Israel took immediate credit for the strike which killed Shukr in Beirut – although the Iranian proxy delayed confirming his death until his corpse had been recovered from an apartment in the Lebanese capital's Dahiyeh neighborhood – it has kept entirely mum on the operation that accounted for the arch Palestinian terrorist and embezzler of billions of dollars.
In spite of this apparent Israeli reticence to take credit for the hit, Iran has decided Jerusalem carried it out, and has threatened – in its blind fury at the humiliation it suffered on its own territory of failing to protect an honored guest – to target civilian population centers as well as military installations.
Prior to Blinken's warning, Iran was expected to strike back – either directly and/or via its many proxies in the region over the weekend. The fact this – as of writing – has not occurred highlights the bind in which the Islamic Republic – and to a certain degree – Hezbollah – find themselves.
Tehran has reportedly shaken off every and all attempts to get it to modulate its response, apparently telling U.S. and Arab interlocutors "it doesn't care" if its response triggers a regional war. This is a complex stance to parse.
For the 45 years of its existence the Iranian theocracy has made it clear it sees the exporting of the Islamic revolution as its primary raison d'etre – and the inevitable showdown with the U.S. and Israel as a thing to be desired in and of itself.
However, it might not be in a position to achieve this goal at the moment; which would make the prospect of an all-out regional war, which could likely draw other actors – the United States, Russia, possibly China, and perhaps even North Korea – which has given technical expertise to Iran about manufacturing nuclear weapons – among them – as one in need of very careful deliberation.
Biden to hold security assessment
The seriousness with which the situation is being viewed in capitals across the world is evident by reports U.S. President Joe Biden – in the dwindling light of a largely failed presidency, which has lacked either urgency or direction on the Iranian question for nearly four long years – will convene his national security team Monday.
Ahead of the meeting, Biden is expected to speak with Jordan's King Abdullah, who announced he would not permit Iranian missiles to fly over Jordanian airspace. It is not clear if Biden will be able to array the same defensive configuration as was managed in April, when Iran launched more than 300 projectiles at Israel following the killing of an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) general in Damascus – almost all of which either fell short or were destroyed in the air.
Israel remains on the highest alert, and the direct Iranian threat in a way seems the least vexing, particularly with the U.S. stationing an aircraft carrier in the Eastern Mediterranean. Perhaps more concerning is the likely response from Iran's proxies – particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon, which could fire thousands of rockets designed to overwhelm Israel's defensive missile shield, including Iron Dome, and the Arrow and David's Sling systems, and the Houthi in Yemen.
Both of these groups have caused loss of life from missiles and drones fired into Israel – including the Iranian-made rocket which killed 12 Druze children playing soccer in Majdal Shams on July 27. Israeli intelligence assessments suggest the Iranian axis will likely target Israel – as well as potentially softer Israeli or Jewish targets overseas – over a number of days and the attacks will likely not simply resemble the one largely rebuffed in April.
On the home front, Israelis are remaining stoical, albeit grimly resigned to the almost certain inevitability of attacks from both Hezbollah and Iran.
Over the weekend some thought Iran and its proxies likely to attack Israel on Aug. 12/13, which this year coincides with the the most somber day in the Jewish calendar – namely Tisha B'Av or the Ninth of Av. It is a day much like Yom Kippur, where Jews are required to refrain from eating and drinking, and wearing leather shoes among other prohibitions.
Numerous calamities have befallen the Jewish people on this day, including the destruction of both the First and Second Holy Temples in Jerusalem, the decree for the expulsion from Spain during the Inquisition in 1492, and also the decision to liquidate the Warsaw Ghetto in 1942.
In biblical times, it was the date on which 10 of the 12 spies Moses sent to scout out the land, returned a report about the impregnability of its defenders. Judaism's sages wrote about the somber fast day being transformed into a day of rejoicing. Will it be prefaced, however, by a regional war of unimaginable pain and suffering?
Israelis' lives go on, but we wait and pray, trepidatious of what might come next.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden has been panned by many, including historians, as one of the worst, or the worst president of the United States.
High inflation, a loss of America's reputation around the world, a vast slide into transgenderism and abortion promotions. And they are the highlights of his tenure.
All this exacerbated by an obvious decline in mental faculties, so much so that it was cited by a prosecutor for a reason not to charge Biden with mishandling government records.
But not for ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who tried twice, and failed twice, on impeach-and-remove schemes against President Donald Trump.
She thinks Biden should be on Mt. Rushmore.
The interviewer, Lesley Stahl, looks stunned as Pelosi, discussing Biden's "accomplishments," cited a recent NATO summit and said, "He was in a good place to make whatever decisions. … Top of his game. … Such a consequential president of the United States of America. A Mt. Rushmore kind of president of the United States."
Stunned, Stahl, wonders if Biden really should be there with Abraham Lincoln.
Pelosi: "But you got Teddy Roosevelt up there and he's wonderful. I don't say take him down but you can add Biden."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden has been known to brag, to boast, to claim he's done things that just haven't happened.
Closing the border? He's claimed that's a done deal, yet it's anything but.
Now Biden has unleashed a real doozy.
He said he's "cured" the economy.
This claim came not even a week before a global financial meltdown heading into the weekend and continuing Monday essentially vaporized some $2 TRILLION.
It was, in fact, only days ago a reporter asked Biden, "What do you want your legacy for Gen Z to be?"
Biden's claim: "That I cured the economy. And the environment. And a few other small things."
The RNC Research team that posted the video said, "(His 'legacy' will be his obvious cognitive decline – which Kamala covered up. Scandal of the century!")
A commenter responded, "His legacy will be as a traitor to this country when it's all said and done."
And another, "He needs to cure his dementia."
The Gateway Pundit said Japan's Nikkei lost 4,451 points on Monday, its biggest single day loss since 1987.
And, "The DOW tumbled more than 1,000 points on Monday."
The Western Journal in a commentary said, "Sometimes events prove overwhelming, and otherwise capable presidents suffer unfairly at the hands of posterity. At other times, however, a lying swindler of a politician finds himself on the precipice of well-deserved infamy."
It continued, "For those watching in trepidation as global markets have plummeted on Monday, President Joe Biden's comments on the state of the economy as recently as six days ago should serve as a reminder that the calamitous 46th president belongs in latter category."
Biden's comments were only last Tuesday following a trip to Texas.
President Donald Trump said, "STOCK MARKETS ARE CRASHING, JOBS NUMBERS ARE TERRIBLE, WE ARE HEADING TO WORLD WAR III, AND WE HAVE TWO OF THE MOST INCOMPETENT 'LEADERS' IN HISTORY. THIS IS NOT GOOD!!!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Institute for Justice says it is helping Melisa Robinson go to court – AGAIN – to collect what the Oklahoma Supreme Court already has ruled a city owes her.
The problem is that an entity run by the city of Okay, its Public Works Authority, was ruled by the high court to owe Robinson $73,000 damages – now $200,000 including interest, for having its workers dig "a sewer line" on a small mobile home community owned by Robinson.
There was no permission, no authorization for that to have happened.
But the city says the Public Works division is a trust, and while it may owe Robison money, that division's assets all are owned by the city, and it claims no responsibility for the judgment.
"No one would sell their house if, at closing, the buyer showed up with an IOU instead of with money, but that's exactly what Okay is trying to get away with here," said IJ Attorney Brian Morris. "But constitutional rights aren't a shell game. Government officials nationwide have to obey the Fifth Amendment, full stop."
That constitutional provision forbids the government from taking property "without just compensation."
The IJ said in Robinson's case, Okay began digging a brand-new sewer line on her property—without obtaining permission and without giving notice.
The entity actually owned a sewer easement on the land next door. It didn't own anything on Melisa's land, but it dug anyway.
Besides the new, and nonfunctioning line, there was much damage to the property.
Robison demanded restitution and compensation and won at the state Supreme Court which said the city of Okay owed Robinson.
But she's back in court now, with a federal lawsuit, demanding payment.
"Okay needs to pay what the Oklahoma Supreme Court says it owes me," she said. "If the city can do this to me, there's nothing stopping any government from doing the same thing to others. I want to be paid and I want to put a stop to this before it catches on."
The IJ said, "Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions concerning the Fifth Amendment's takings clause have favored property owners. In an IJ case from the last term, DeVillier v. Texas, the court ruled that Texas could not use legal maneuvering to keep itself from being sued by a rancher whose land was flooded by a state project. IJ is also defending home and business owners fighting eminent domain in Missouri and Mississippi. In a case from the previous term in which IJ filed an amicus brief, Tyler v. Hennepin County, the Court ruled that the government could not seize property for failure to pay taxes and pocket money above what the taxpayer owed."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The revelation that Kamala Harris' husband, Doug Emhoff, cheated on his first wife and got the family nanny pregnant is igniting an "incendiary" new chapter in the 2024 race for the White House.
Emhoff acknowledged his adulterous affair Saturday, after Britain's Daily Mail broke the story.
"During my first marriage, Kerstin and I went through some tough times on account of my actions," Emhoff said in a statement provided to CNN.
"I took responsibility, and in the years since, we worked through things as a family and have come out stronger on the other side."
The nanny is identified as Najen Naylor, 47, who was a teacher at a a pricey private school for one of Emhoff's children.
"I'm kind of freaked out right now," Naylor told the Daily Mail when approached at her home in the Hamptons on Long Island, New York.
The British paper reported: "A close friend with direct knowledge of the affair and pregnancy told DailyMail.com that Naylor did not keep the child – though her social media shows a video of a mysterious baby girl named Brook in 2009, the year the baby would have been born.
"Another friend, Stacey Brooks, who mothered twin boys around the same time as Naylor was expecting, also did not deny any of the claims – but said she would not divulge further information without Naylor's permission.
"The incendiary news is said to be causing panic in Harris' campaign, just as she has overtaken Donald Trump in several polls and as she ramps up her final push to win over voters in November."
"Emhoff, 59, and movie producer ex-wife Kerstin, 57, ended their 16-year marriage in 2009 when she discovered the affair, the sources said. Their daughter Ella was 10 and son Cole was 15 at the time."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A court in the United Kingdom has affirmed the legality of a ban on chemical puberty blockers for children.
The chemicals are given to children by doctors and/or parents who say they want to delay the bodily development of their children so they can determine whether they want to be male or female.
It's a false argument, as being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level, and while bodies can be surgically "modified," sex cannot be changed.
A report from the Christian Institute explained the UK High Court has affirmed a government ban on prescribing those chemicals for gender-confused children.
"Activist group TransActual UK, in partnership with the crowdfunding group Good Law Project, failed to overturn the Conservative Government's emergency legislation, which protects under-18s from obtaining the drugs via private prescriptions from the UK or Europe," the report explained.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting also has confirmed he'll extend the ban, scheduled to expire in September.
"Mrs Justice Lang DBE dismissed the activists' challenge on all grounds, concluding that it was reasonable for the government to act swiftly based on the highly respected Cass Review without consulting the public," the report continued.
The Cass Review, recently made public, confirmed "very substantial risks and very narrow benefits associated with the use of puberty blockers."
The transgender ideology has been running wild over the last few years, especially in the United States where Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been repeatedly advocating for the dangerous procedures.
Author JK Rowling, a critic of transgenderism, on social media said, "We seem, at last, to be moving back to treatment for vulnerable youth based on evidence-based medicine, as opposed to the unevidenced claims of ideological lobby groups."
The BBC noted, "In March 2024, NHS England decided that puberty blockers would no longer be routine treatment for children with gender dysphoria. At that point, puberty blockers were only allowed to be used in NHS clinical trials."
The government then tightened the rules on the chemicals, allowing an emergency ban to prevent them from being used on children.
Chay Brown, of TransActual, said, "We are seriously concerned about the safety and welfare of young trans people in the UK."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In what George Washington University law professor and constitutional expert Jonathan Turley calls "the most dangerous movement in our history," Americans more and more are starting to believe in radical censorship of speech.
At this point, polling shows that more than half say the First Amendment goes too far in protecting free speech and there's even a movement afoot to change that constitutional protection so that people have the right to speak, but also have the right "to be shut up."
In an online column he notes he addresses the "global anti-free speech movement" in his book, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage."
"It is in my view the most dangerous movement in our history due to an unprecedented alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media forces. That fear was amplified this week with polling showing that years of attacking free speech as harmful has begun to change the views of citizens," he explained.
It's all the rage in academia, he said, so it now is "not surprising to see the new Knight Foundation-Ipsos study revealing a further a decline in students' views concerning the state of free speech on college campuses. The study shows that 70 percent of students 'believe that speech can be as damaging as physical violence.' It also shows the impact of speech codes and regulations with two out of three students reporting that they 'self-censor' during classroom discussions."
Nearly two out of three on campus say, "[t]he climate at my school or on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe, because others might find it offensive."
And worse, where it used to be 78% a few years ago, now only 54% of students say colleges should allow students to be exposed to speech even if its "offensive."
And, he noted, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression found 53% of Americans believe that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting rights."
Forebodingly, 40% now "trust" the government to censor speech.
"We have created a generation of speech phobics who are willing to turn their backs on centuries of struggle against censorship and speech codes," he noted.
Leaders of the movement include University of Michigan law professor Barbara McQuade who has called free speech the "Achilles Heel" of the nation, and Joe Biden, who has claimed corporations that don't censor are "killing people."
It is Mary Anne Franks, of George Washington University, who is pushing for a rewrite of the First Amendment, so that would demand speech conflicts "be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons."
But he explained Antifa has been one of the "most dangerous" censorship groups around.
"Antifa continues to attack those with opposing views and anti-free speech allies continue to 'deplatform' speakers on campuses and public forums. 'Your speech is violence' is now a common mantra heard around the country.
Faculty continue to lead students in attacking pro-life and other demonstrators."
In fact, he cited one Antifa activist whose ideology is: "You have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up."