This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The chief law enforcement officer of one state in Australia is warning that under a new law, some prayers all of a sudden are illegal.
That word comes from Michael Daley, the attorney general for New South Wales.
The details were released by the Australian Christian Lobby, which warned, "Have you ever been asked to pray for someone who is questioning their sexual desires or biological sex, but is seeking to be obedient to God's word?
"According to the Attorney General, Michael Daley, the NSW Conversion Practices Ban Act makes some prayers with, or over, someone about these matters illegal regardless of consent.
"We thank the Hon. Susan Carter for advocating for clarity on the legislation. Thank you for asking the questions no one else will. We will continue to advocate for clear answers on this legislation and work to ensure that everyone has the right to pray without limitations.
"As we live with this new legislation, let us reflect on the prayer for boldness in Acts 4:23-31, specifically verse 29 – 'Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness.' Pray our churches and Christian leaders remain bold and uncompromising in their commitment to God's Word in their ministry."
According to the Christian Institute, Daley was responding to a question from politician Susan Carter, who raised concerns over the Conversion Practices Ban Act.
"Daley implied that this could even include silent prayer, when Carter raised it as an example," the report explained.
The organization Anti-Discrimination NSW said "conversion practices" could resemble "prayer or pastoral conversation that is intended to change or suppress someone's gender or sexuality."
Carter raised the question about whether the government was prohibiting prayer.
Daley confirmed, "If it's an unlawful prayer, then it's not a lawful prayer."
Lyle Shelton, of the Family First Australia organization, turned blunt: "Prayer has always been about change – change in circumstances, change in hearts, change in lives. To criminalize a prayer that someone requests is a staggering overreach of state power into the private and spiritual lives of citizens."
He continued, "It is chilling to think that a mum or dad, pastor, or friend could face sanction for praying with someone who explicitly asked for prayer to help them follow God's word."
Simon Calvert, of the Christian Institute and spokesman for the Institute's Let Us Pray campaign, which opposes new legislation, said in March: "A ban is not necessary, because everyone is already legally protected from abuse, and not possible, because banning harmless speech about sex and sexuality is tyrannical."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A widely recognized and honored constitutional expert has delivered a "Bravo" to a judge who has ruled that a lawsuit by parents against a school where officials allegedly deceived them, withholding the truth about the school's gender ideology and officials' manipulation of a student, can go forward.
"There is a major ruling, Mead v. Rockford Public School Dist., a potentially precedent-setting case on parental rights in our public schools. Judge Paul Maloney (W.D. Mich.) ruled that Plaintiffs Dan and Jennifer Mead could move forward with their claims that the Rockford Public School district concealed changes to the gender identification of their biological daughter, identified as G.M. As I have previously written, parental rights are shaping up as a major battleground for the Supreme Court after years of decisions in the lower court undermining parental controls and disclosures," explained expert Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution but has represented members in court on constitutional issues.
He pointed out, "A century ago, the nation's highest court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that 'the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.'"
Further, in 2000, he said, in its Troxel v. Granville decision, "the court recognized 'the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.'"
He said, "There is no greater natural right than the right to control the upbringing of our children. This right was not granted to us by the grace of the state. It rests with us as human beings. It is part of a panoply of natural rights embraced by the framers − a commitment made nearly 250 years ago in our Declaration of Independence."
The Michigan court, under Judge Paul Maloney, now has recognized a "viable" claim by the parents.
"The court noted that the parents were alleging a key element in the case that the District intentionally deceived them and found that these "allegations show some amount of coercion or interference from the District, which implicates Plaintiffs' right to make fundamental decisions for [daughter] G.M,'" he said.
"Bravo, Judge Maloney."
At Reason, columnist Eugene Volokh said the district started treating the girl as a boy, with a name change and more, "but did not inform G.M.'s parents."
The court now has allowed the parent's 14th Amendment claim to go forward.
"The right of parents to direct their children's upbringing originated from three Supreme Court cases: Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), and Farrington v. Tokushige (1927)…. The Court affirmed the life of this right in Troxel v. Granville (2000). There, the Court held that 'the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children [] is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interest recognized by this Court,'" the column said.
In this case, the plaintiffs charge "the District intentionally deceived them. Plaintiffs claim that the District went beyond failing to notify them of their child's gender transition. According to the complaint, the District 'took affirmative steps to deceive the Meads.' Taking complaint in its entirety, Plaintiffs' allegations show some amount of coercion or interference from the District, which implicates Plaintiffs' right to make fundamental decisions for G.M…."
Further, Reason charged, "Plaintiffs also allege that the District's actions amount to medical health treatment. They plead that the District engaged G.M. in a 'psychosocial intervention for gender dysphoria.'"
And, "The District's policy and practice allowed school officials to deceive the child's parents, which undermined their ability to choose appropriate medical treatment for their child (a third-party therapist or psychologist). The District's policy and practice 'undermines a meaningful role for parents if the child decides his or her biological gender is not preferential,'" the column said.
A report from the ADF, which brought the case on behalf of the parents, explained the school even "had altered the girl's official records to remove references to the district's actions before sending the records home."
"The Meads only discovered the district's actions when an employee unintentionally failed to completely alter a report about their daughter before sharing it with them. By concealing this important information, the district violated the Meads' fundamental parental rights. The U.S. Constitution protects their right as parents to make decisions about the upbringing, education, and health care of their children," ADF reported.
"Parents, not the government, have the right to direct the upbringing, education, and health care of their children," said ADF lawyer Kate Anderson. "Schools should never deliberately hide vital information from parents, yet that's exactly what the Rockford Public School District did. District employees didn't even notify Dan and Jennifer—let alone seek their consent—before beginning to call their young daughter by a masculine name and male pronouns."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Leftists largely have erupted in rage and ridicule over the assassination death of conservative icon Charlie Kirk, and the statements of prayers and sympathy for the family.
Now there's a school board member in Florida who claims to have heard of Kirk only last week, but he's already solidified his opinion that the Turning Point USA co-founder was a "racist bigot."
Palm Beach County board member Edwin Ferguson was responding to an advisory from state officials that teachers should not be celebrating the assassination, and should be mocking those who express support for Kirk's widow, Erika, and the couple's two small children.
Ferguson lashed out, "Comments that they mad ein regard to a gentleman by the name of Charlie Kirk, who, until the last week I knew nothing of. … Unless you, as a parent or you as a teacher feel bad because I as a teacher don't miss a racist – a racist bigot at that – I don't see how you're going to be at risk of losing your teaching certificate."
The advisory came about because some teachers were mocking Kirk and comparing him to Adolf Hitler.
Social media responded, with one writer explaining, "I live in this county and as a taxpayer I do not approve or appreciate my money being used to fund his salary. I've already sent emails to @SenRickScott, @SenAshleyMoody and tweeted @RepFine (even though I'm not in his district) to look into this matter immediately."
Another said, "Sounds like another firing is in order. The unemployment line awaits!"
In fact, employers all across America have been removing from their payrolls workers who openly celebrate and mock the criminal assassination, for which a suspect now is charged with capital murder and could face the death penalty.
That suspect is identified as Tyler Robinson, who reports confirm had turned radically left over recent months, being immersed in the transgender ideology.
A report at the Gateway Pundit said, "Ferguson criticized the letter from the DOE warning teachers against mocking Charlie Kirk and compared Kirk to Adolf Hitler."
"I have [yet] to hear a person of the Jewish faith say that, 'I miss Adolf Hitler,'" the report said he complained.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Americans often hear the mind-numbing statistic that fentanyl poisoning is the No. 1 cause of death for Americans aged 18-45.
Most do not comprehend how this can be, not understanding that the powerful narcotic – unlike almost any other drug – is not just addicting, but is frequently added to other illicit drugs for the express purpose of poisoning/killing Americans.
Thus there is a significant deficit in education and awareness among the American public regarding the battle against lethal synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.
WorldNetDaily recently interviewed Lisa Carole Cude, a mother who has experienced the devastating effects of fentanyl firsthand.
Cude's firstborn son, Jordan, was in active recovery for substance use addiction, having moved from a restrictive residential treatment center for eight months to a less-restrictive sober living home in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Three weeks after Jordan moved into the sober living house with five men in active recovery for substance use, Lisa Cude invited her sons for lunch to "share some time together" and "celebrate life." Jordan was "doing extremely well, getting his life back together," she said, adding that her son was committed not only to his own recovery but also to helping others. "He was healthy and happy, moving forward, doing all of the necessary hard-work and dedication towards a better life," she said, noting he was "free from all substances."
Then, on the night of that very day, March 20, 2021, he lost his life. The mother of three was "blindsided" the next day when three uniformed officers knocked on her door to inform her of losing Jordan.
"I thought those knocks were him arriving early for dinner," she told WND, as she was preparing for a Sunday family get-together. "Instead of a happy occasion, and through the shock, I had to inform my other sons and their father the devastating news." She lamented, "The enormity of the pain is indescribable for all who loved him," adding, "I wish it on no one."
Later, revealed Lisa Cude, "a toxicology report came back full of a deadly dose of fentanyl cut with cocaine." With much regret, she said her son relapsed with his roommate. "They purchased cocaine, and it was full of fentanyl." As she explained, "You don't die from cocaine. I know for a fact that he did not want to die, and he was poisoned, unknowingly, sold cocaine cut with 28ngs of pure fentanyl – enough to kill 14 men."
Sadly, not only did Jordan make an unsuccessful attempt to save his friend by notifying 911, but he also succumbed to the poison himself. "They both lost their lives to this deadly drug," his mother told WND, "along with the hundreds of thousands of others dying in our country each year. You can fill easily up a football stadium with the number of lives lost to this poison."
"I can't even describe the pain and heartache and shock that I went into," Lisa Cude shared, admitting "it's something that you live with every moment of every day." Since that tragic day, she has sought to "channel" her sorrow and raise awareness about the dangers of fentanyl, "to spare other families this grief towards positive changes in hope of saving lives." She added, "Education is key [and] knowledge is power."
"Never believe that it can't be your son or daughter, or in your wonderful community," she said. "The media often tries to depict addiction as something those living on the streets are dealing with, and while those people truly matter, the truth is that addiction affects the lives of anyone, regardless of their socioeconomic status." For her, it's imperative that everyone understands that addiction "has no boundaries, [affecting] every socio-economic background, in every workplace, in every profession, in every school, in every church, and in every community no matter how small or big."
For her son Jordan, the addiction that spiraled out of control began "innocently with a pain prescription of Percocet for the removal of wisdom teeth." He moved from liking the way the pills made him feel on to "party pills" with his friends, to include drugs prescribed by doctors, like highly addictive OxyContin.
Describing how they inevitably moved on to "street heroin," she noted that "prescription OxyContin is synthetic heroin," adding that both are highly addictive and potent opioids.
"Never in his medical and therapy records or in his journals was fentanyl ever mentioned," Lisa Cude said. "When in active addiction, his drugs of choice were heroin, cocaine and Xanax." For others, the cycle could begin with something as simple as taking a pill to manage anxiety or boost energy. In any of the situations, she cautioned, even a small amount of fentanyl mixed into any drug, including a fake pill, could prove fatal for the user.
"None of the media or our government is doing enough to save the lives of those who didn't want to die," she lamented. What is needed, she said, is "a major media blitz and public service announcements with factual information and mandatory education in all levels of education systems throughout our country."
"Treat this travesty like the Covid pandemic," she said. "Scare people straight with the facts."
Lisa Cude praises people like Derek Maltz, a former head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's Special Operations Division and former acting administrator of the DEA, for bringing this issue to the forefront. As Maltz frequently emphasizes, she likewise believes there is a significant need for extensive public service announcements, engagement from celebrities to connect with younger audiences on the dangers of fentanyl, and enhanced bipartisan government initiatives that not only continue to halt the influx of fentanyl into the nation, but also boost awareness and education for both children and adults.
Equally important to Lisa Cude, she told WND, is her "belief in Jesus Christ. If it wasn't for my faith in Christ, I would not be here, as it is only this faith that has pulled me through this and has been constant through it all."
She wants to offer this hard-won wisdom to others, too, and has created a blog, a podcast and devotionals for healing, directed toward grieving parents, people battling addiction and "the people who love them through it" – sharing her faith throughout.
"There are so many terrible stories out there, but there is also hope," she told WND. "No matter what comes our way, we can't lose focus of our faith."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Conservative icon Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated at a free speech event at a Utah school only a week ago, co-founded Turning Point USA, an organization that specifically confronted radical leftists on college campuses and challenged them to speak their minds, listen and then consider their extremist attitudes.
The organization, which had several thousand chapters before the assassination, allegedly carried out by a leftist under the influence of the transgender ideology, has had interest expressed in starting not just hundreds or thousands, but tens of thousands more, and now has confirmed it will continue.
Under the leadership of Kirk's widow, Erika.
The group announced:
"In Ecclesiastes, King Solomon wrote that mankind is to be tested by God. Today we are facing such a test, yet we also know that God has prepared us with everything we need to overcome this ordeal.
"It was the honor of our lives to serve as board members at Charlie's side. Charlie prepared all of us for a moment like this one. He worked tirelessly to ensure Turning Point USA was built to survive even the greatest tests. And now it is our great pride to announce Erika Kirk as the new CEO and Chair of the Board for Turning Point USA."
The statement continued, "All of us at Turning Point USA have a special role in carrying Charlie Kirk's mantle and completing his vision of bringing us all closer to our Lord and fostering a prosperous country for generations to come. As Charlie always said, 'We have a country to save.' We will not surrender or kneel before evil. We will carry on. The attempt to destroy Charlie's work will become our chance to make it more powerful and enduring than ever before.
"May God Bleses Erika, the Kirk family, and the entire team at Turning Point USA.
Signed by Doug De Groote, Mike Miller, Tom Sodeika and David Engelhardt.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
While news feeds are filled with stories of U.S. graduates locked out of careers, some applying for hundreds of jobs with little to show for it, San Jose State University is celebrating a very different outcome.
The school recently announced it was ranked No. 1 in the nation for international student employment outcomes by FrogHire.ai, boasting data that shows its foreign alumni outperforming peers in post-graduation success.
But for domestic students struggling to find work, the numbers tell a far different story.
A bleak job market for Americans
The broader job market for American grads remains bleak. The unemployment rate for recent college graduates has risen to an average of 5.3% this year, compared with about 4% for the overall labor force. That makes it one of the toughest job markets for new graduates since 2015, according to an analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as reported by NBC News in August.
The Federal Reserve Bank underscored the implications, noting that "the concentration of unemployment increases among recent college graduates and white-collar workers suggests that traditional assumptions about education and career security may need significant revision. The data indicate that even highly educated workers in previously stable fields are not immune to economic disruption."
This reality collides with universities like San Jose State touting international student job placement as a badge of honor.
The OPT advantage
At the root of this disparity is the OPT (Optional Practical Training) program, provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. OPT authorizes international graduates to have up to three years of U.S. work authorization in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics).
For employers, the incentives to hire foreigners under this program are big: They are exempt from paying payroll taxes for OPT workers, saving as much as 8.25% per hire. That discount makes foreign graduates artificially cheaper than Americans, thereby creating a structural bias that boosts international alumni outcomes in employment rankings.
No wonder San Jose State's foreign graduates shine so brightly on FrogHire's lists.
Following the money
For universities, prioritizing international students makes financial sense under the current system. They often pay out-of-state tuition, which in some cases can be three times more than what in-state students pay.
Supporting strong employment outcomes for these foreign students enhances rankings, strengthens institutional reputation and appeals to future international applicants.
Meanwhile, however, many domestic graduates face fewer opportunities, heavier debt burdens and a job market that grows more competitive by the year.
When education becomes a backdoor to immigration
Even the employment statistics suggest universities are playing a different game for different students. FrogHire.ai's ranking openly highlights strong PERM filings and green card sponsorships for San Jose State's foreign alumni, pipelines that transform temporary student visas into permanent residency.
To understand why this matters, it's important to consider how the F-1 visa is supposed to function. The F-1 visa is a non-immigrant student visa. Applicants must prove they are enrolled full-time in an approved program, have financial means to support themselves and – most critically – intend to return to their home country after completing their studies. By law, the F-1 cannot be used as an immigration pathway.
Yet, by rewarding schools for the number of graduates who transition from F-1 status into green cards through OPT work authorization, long-term employment outcomes and PERM filings – the first step toward an employment-based green card – the rankings normalize a practice that directly undermines the legal requirements of the F-1 visa. Since this has been a known survey criterion for years, universities are not only aware of it, but actively compete in a system that measures success by converting temporary student visas into permanent residency. That makes it more than an incidental outcome; it demonstrates institutional participation in a system that knowingly converts temporary student visas into permanent residency pipelines, directly violating the statutory purpose of the F-1 visa and possibly facilitating visa fraud.
According to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's SEVIS Database, San Jose State University reported 5,250 active F-1 student records in 2024. That places it at #59 nationwide on the ICE Top 500 list of higher education schools hosting F-1 students.
The American dream – outsourced for tuition dollars
Universities, intent on sustaining the inflow of international students and boosting their standing in outcome-based rankings, appear willing to assume the risks of fines and penalties associated with visa fraud. That very willingness exposes the lack of any comparable effort to support American students, at a time when U.S. graduates face some of the highest rates of unemployment and underemployment. The contrast is undeniable: Institutions will assume legal risks to advance international pipelines while failing to prioritize the success of their own country's citizens.
For American graduates, there is no OPT pathway, no payroll tax breaks for employers and no special incentives to make them more attractive hires than foreign workers. Instead, they graduate with rising debt and enter a job market where opportunities are shrinking, tilted against them by design. The outcome is a higher education system where tuition revenue and international recruitment take precedence, while American students bear the burden of diminished returns on their investment in education.
Where is the return on investment for American graduates? If universities are praised and ranked on international student outcomes, then the same scrutiny should be applied to U.S. students. Rankings should measure how many American graduates are unemployed, underemployed or pushed into jobs unrelated to their degrees at the very institutions collecting their tuition. If the comparison shows outcomes tilted heavily toward international students, then what justification exists for Americans to keep paying for degrees that leave them at a disadvantage?
The issue is compounded by the fact that many of these universities are publicly funded, meaning American tax dollars are being used to subsidize institutions that promote the careers of foreign students while sidelining Americans. Not only are universities giving international students special advantages and employment pipelines, they are also actively facilitating permanent residency through PERM filings. This does not just shape short-term job competition; it permanently reshapes the labor pool and reduces long-term opportunities for American alumni. Americans are thus being forced to bankroll their own replacement.
An even bigger question revolves around what this says about the actual mission of today's higher education. American universities were founded to serve American citizens, yet they now channel their resources into global rankings, foreign tuition dollars and visa pipelines that displace the very students they were meant to uplift.
If American graduates cannot count on their own universities to protect their futures, then the system is not simply broken; it is complicit in outsourcing the American dream.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Now it's Starbuck that has been caught in a fight over baristas' refusal to label a drink favored by assassinated Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk with the words "Charlie Kirk" as customers requested.
In its coffee shops, servers are taught to ask for a name, so they can let a customer know when his or her drink is ready.
Apparently, the company tries to discourage political slogans, so that Starbucks shops are not filled with anti-anyone slogans like "Let's Go Brandon" being shouted out multiple times a day.
But when some baristas refused to write on cups "Charlie Kirk," based on the presumption that the name is "political," Starbucks intervened.
On one video, a barista claims, "We can't do political names, but it [the register] didn't even ask for a name to begin with so it's going to be $3.75."
Asked to write Charlie Kirk's name on the cup, the barista affirmed she could write "Charlie."
A Starbucks statement said, "There are no restrictions on customers using Charlie Kirk's name on their order, and we are following up with our team."
It soon elaborated, "Starbucks is a company built on human connection. Having a name, rather than a number, attached to a customer order has been a core part of the Starbucks coffeehouse experience for decades. Most customers use their own name. And when a customer wants to use a different name — including the name Charlie Kirk — when ordering their drink in our café, we aim to respect their preference."
It added, "Over the years, we have had instances where some people have tried to abuse the system. For example, they've provided something that isn't a name at all, but rather a political slogan with the aim of having our barista shout it out as they hand off the finished drink. And in some cases, as their 'name,' they have provided words that are sexually explicit or otherwise offensive. We aim to be a community coffeehouse where everyone feels welcome, so we have previously provided guidance to our partners to respectfully ask the customer to use a different name when attempting to use political slogans or phrases in place of their name. We are clarifying with our team now that names, on their own, can be used by customers on their café order, as they wish."
The company already has been lobbied to formally name a drink, tea and honey, after Kirk, who once talked about drinking many of those daily.
A published report explained, "The murder of 31-year-old Kirk … on September 10 has further polarized an already divided nation and sparked fierce debate about free speech across the country. In a now-viral TikTok video, a woman claimed that 'Starbucks refused to write or say Charlie Kirk's name. I never went in talking about politics, just mentioned his name to have it written on my cup to honor him.'"
Reports confirm that customers have been ordering Mint Majesty tea with two honeys, as that was Kirk's favorite.
According to the Independent, Kirk's alleged assassin, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson of Utah, has been officially charged with aggravated murder and six other counts, including obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Utah prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Robinson.
Reports confirm the suspect was radicalized into the transgender and other leftist ideologies.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In the shadow of a weaponized deep state that devours its own patriots like so many discarded ballot stubs, Tina Peters – grandmother, Gold Star mom and election watchdog – languishes in a Colorado prison hellhole, her iron bars a monument to the radical left's unquenchable thirst for vengeance.
Rather than justice, most see it as the result of a Stalinist show trial, scripted by election-denying Democrats who fear the sunlight she dared to shine on their rigged machines.
And now, from the bully pulpit of the White House, President Donald J. Trump has roared his defiance of the corrupt system, branding Peters a "brave and innocent Patriot" tortured by "Crooked Colorado politicians" and demanding her chains be shattered immediately.
Trump, the unbowed warrior who survived impeachments, indictments and an assassin's bullet, sees in Peters the mirror of his own crusade: a lone truth-teller crushed under the boot of a fraudulent regime that stole 2020 and now silences anyone who exposes the crime.
Thus it is that, in a chilling tale of justice gone awry, a small-town election official currently sits behind bars, her life upended by a system that seems determined to silence her.
Tina Peters, once the trusted Mesa County clerk, now faces a staggering nine-year prison sentence, convicted of crimes her own prosecutors essentially admit she didn't commit.
Her "crime"? Daring to protect election records in the wake of the contentious 2020 presidential election, a fight that has left her career and life in tatters, her freedom stolen and her name smeared by a corporate press eager to paint her as a villain.
Yet, buried within the prosecution's own words lies a stunning admission: Tina Peters may be innocent, a patriot punished simply for upholding the law.
As her appeal fights its way through a Colorado court, the real question is whether truth will prevail, or will a rigged system keep her caged?
Tina Peters' appeal challenges conviction, alleges prosecutorial contradictions
Peters is appealing her October 2024 conviction on seven charges, including three felonies for "attempting to influence a public servant," "conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation" and "first-degree official misconduct."
Her appeal, filed May 30 in the Colorado Court of Appeals, argues that the district court erred in denying her immunity under the Supremacy and Privileges or Immunities Clauses, claiming her actions were lawful efforts to preserve federal election records. Peters' attorneys assert the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions, that she was denied due process and that her nine-year sentence for alleged nonviolent crimes violates her First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The appeal highlights prosecutorial statements that appear to undermine their own case, suggesting Peters had the authority to act as she did and lacked the intent required for the criminal charges.
Prosecutors' statements undermine their case
Peters' appeal brief cites trial testimony that appears to exonerate her. David Underwood, a prosecution witness, testified that Peters, as the county's chief election official, had the sole authority to decide who could access the voting system for a software upgrade known as the "Trusted Build."
When asked if Peters made the decision to allow an observer, Underwood confirmed, "Yeah – she made the request. … She made the decision, correct? Not you." (Trial Transcript, 8/5/24, 92:22-25).
Similarly, Danny Casias, another witness, could not identify any decision he was influenced to make due to alleged deceit by Peters (Trial Transcript, 8/5/24, 167:24-168:4).
Regarding Jessi Romero, a third witness, evidence showed Peters was not involved in communications that could have influenced Romero's decisions (Exhibit 18, R. p. 26).
These statements, Peters' attorneys argue, prove she acted within her authority and lacked the intent to deceive, a critical element of the felony charges.
Alleged voter fraud in Mesa County
Peters' actions stemmed from concerns about voter fraud in Mesa County following the 2020 election. Her appeal notes that forensic reports revealed "shocking vulnerabilities and defects" in the county's voting systems, raising major questions about their reliability.
These findings prompted Peters to preserve election data, as federal law (52 U.S.C. §20701) mandates retaining election records for 22 months, and Colorado law (C.R.S. §1-1-110(3)) extends this to 25 months.
Reports of irregularities, such as unexplained vote-count discrepancies and potential software manipulations, fueled her investigation.
Peters sent letters to the county board of commissioners, district attorney and county attorney, warning that the voting systems were "fundamentally flawed, illegal and inherently unreliable," placing her office in legal jeopardy if data was destroyed.
Tina Peters' path to prison
Elected as Mesa County clerk in 2018, Peters served as the county's chief election official, responsible for ensuring compliance with federal and state election laws.
In April 2021, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold ordered all counties to install a software update for voting machines, which Peters learned would delete 2020 election data – a violation of federal law.
When Mesa County's IT department declined to oversee the update due to lack of expertise, Peters engaged Conan Hayes, an IT consultant with a federal security clearance, to observe the "Trusted Build" and create forensic images of the election management system (EMS) hard drive.
On May 23, 2021, under Peters' supervision, Hayes made these backups, preserving data that would otherwise have been lost. The prosecution alleged that Peters misrepresented Hayes as her employee, Gerald Wood, to gain access to the update process, accusing her of sneaking him into the facility.
However, the indictment itself acknowledges that county clerks were instructed to "back up any election projects on your voting system to removable media before our arrival" (Indictment, March 8, 2022, p. 10, ¶ 4).
Peters' actions aligned with this directive, performed after hours to avoid system interference.
Despite this, she was indicted on March 8, 2022, and convicted after a trial in August 2024.
On Oct. 3, 2024, Judge Matthew D. Barrett sentenced her to nine years in prison, a term her attorneys call disproportionate for alleged nonviolent offenses.
The corporate press vs. Tina Peters' defense
The corporate press and Wikipedia have portrayed Peters as a conspiracy theorist linked to figures like Mike Lindell, alleging that she orchestrated a security breach to undermine election integrity.
Wikipedia's entry on Peters claims she "allowed unauthorized access" to voting systems, a narrative echoed by outlets like CNN and the New York Times.
In contrast, her appeal brief argues that she acted lawfully to fulfill her duty under federal law. Her attorneys emphasize that Peters first sought qualified government experts, only turning to Hayes when they declined.
The brief also refutes claims of a security breach, noting that prosecutors admitted in court that Peters' actions caused no actual harm, and that the data preservation was consistent with legal requirements.
What Peters did – explained simply
Tina Peters, as Mesa County's election official, was responsible for keeping election records safe. Federal law says she had to keep 2020 election data for 22 months. Thus, when she learned a software update would erase this data, she hired Conan Hayes, an IT expert, to watch the update and make a backup of the data.
She let him into her office to do this, which as the official in charge she was allowed to do. The prosecution said she lied about Hayes being her employee, yet their own witnesses admitted Peters had the power to decide who could be there.
Peters didn't trick anyone, and her actions followed the law to protect election records.
Prosecutors' admissions of Peters' innocence
The prosecution's case hinges on Peters allegedly deceiving officials to allow Hayes access, but their own evidence contradicts this.
The appeal brief highlights that Underwood, Casias and Romero – the subjects of the felony counts – either confirmed Peters' authority or failed to show that she influenced their decisions through deceit.
The indictment's own acknowledgment that clerks were indeed advised to back up data further supports Peters' actions as lawful.
Her attorneys argue that the prosecution's failure to prove criminal intent, coupled with their own witnesses' testimony, amounts to an admission that Peters did not commit the crimes charged.
Trump's fiery stand for a fallen patriot
Enter President Trump, the indomitable force who has made liberating political prisoners like Peters a cornerstone of his second-term agenda, wielding the full might of the executive branch against the deep state's election-fraud enablers.
On Aug. 21, Trump unleashed a blistering Truth Social missive that cut through the fog of leftist rhetoric like a red-hot branding iron: "FREE TINA PETERS, a brave and innocent Patriot who has been tortured by Crooked Colorado politicians, including the big Mail-In Ballot supporting the governor of the State. Let Tina Peters out of jail, RIGHT NOW. She did nothing wrong, except catching the Democrats cheat in the Election. She is an old woman, and very sick. If she is not released, I am going to take harsh measures!!!"
This wasn't mere rhetoric from the man who exposed the 2020 "steal" and reclaimed the White House. It's a battle cry, echoing his earlier May directive to the Department of Justice to "take all necessary action" to spring Peters from what he called a "Communist persecution" dungeon.
With Peters having just turned 70 this month and her open letter to Trump pleading for deliverance as a Gold Star mom stripped of her dignity, the president's vow signals the storm to come: Federal habeas challenges, DOJ interventions and perhaps even the thunder of executive clemency if Colorado's corrupt overlords – led by the sneering Jena Griswold – refuse to yield.
Trump, who knows the sting of lawfare all too well, isn't just amplifying Peters' cry; he's weaponizing it, turning her plight into a rallying fire for every American weary of the two-tiered justice system where election truthers rot while the real crooks walk free.
As the Colorado sun sets over Mesa County, Tina Peters sits in a cell, her fate hanging in the balance.
A woman who courageously stood for transparency – but branded a criminal by a corrupt system.
While prosecutors' own words betray their case, and Trump's unyielding voice shakes the prison gates, the question remains: Will the courts now see through the fog of accusations?
Or will Peters, like so many patriots before her, pay a terrible price for daring to challenge a broken system?
The appeal moves forward, but time is running out.
For Tina Peters, it's not just about her freedom. It's about the truth, and whether that still matters in America today.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Most professions and blue collar jobs work like this: The more experienced a person is at work, the better the pay. And with more experience and better pay, they produce better results.
Seems that doesn't necessarily apply to teaching.
A report in the Washington Stand, citing Open the Books evidence, found that in more than 12,000 school districts, there's "a negative correlation between overhead and student performance."
"In other words, districts that spent more on teacher and administrative pay saw their students' standardized test scores drop," the research organization reported.
Open the Books works with freedom of information and other procedures to access details. It boasts it provides public access to "every dime, online, in real time."
"Using the Open the Books proprietary database of government salaries across America, we calculated how much each U.S. state increased its public-school payrolls from 2019 to 2023. We compared that number to the change in each state's ranking on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which measures reading and math skills for 4th and 8th graders," the foundation said.
"By plotting the percentage change in payroll, state by state, versus the percentage change in the national rankings of its districts, a surprising picture emerges. Growing payrolls are not closely correlated with improved performance among districts in a given state. In fact, the opposite correlation appears. There is a mild inverse relationship between these two data sets. Higher overhead costs are associated with lower test scores," the group said.
There was a word of caution in the analysis: Just because there is a correlation doesn't necessarily mean that higher wages cause lower test scores, and Open the Books said that raises another question.
"Is the negative correlation more likely the result of increased teacher pay or is higher pay for administrators a factor?" it said.
The report cited earlier studies, dating back some 40 years, that suggested higher pay for administrators was more likely a cause of lower student stores.
That means, Open the Books explained, "administrative bloat in public schools is not new."
An economics professor at Kennesaw State University, in fact, found that non-teaching staff at U.S. public schools exploded 702% from 1950 to 2009, while teaching staff rose 252%. And during that time, student scores fell, the report said.
The report noted that in Maine, educator pay rose 19% from 2019 to 2024. But student scores dropped a startling 16 positions in the ranking of 50 statse.
The report said, "Maryland is making historic investments in education through its 10-year, $30 billion Blueprint for Maryland's Future plan. However, the plan has put such a strain on city and county finances that local legislator Joseph Stonko recently called it the 'Blueprint to Bankrupt Maryland's Future.' In Maryland, student performance has yet to improve. In fact, since the Blueprint bill was first discussed in 2019, Maryland's ranking on NAEP exams has dropped eight spots."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Things haven't been going well for Democrats in recent months. President Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris in a landslide, and he was given, by voters, GOP majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate.
Those "leading" the Democrat Party are aging seriously.
New blood is tainted with extremism, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom's radicalism that doesn't even earn the appreciation of all Democrats, much less a cross-section of all voters.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is at the pandemic level.
Fundraising is off, and the issues all have lined up against them.
Under Trump inflation is declining, jobs are working toward a growth curve, America is respected around the world again, borders are being secured, criminal illegal aliens are being deported, the transgenderism wackiness is being turned back and much more.
So just when they didn't need it, a leftist allegedly assassinates conservative icon Charlie Kirk – and a long list of Democrats laugh about it. Or ridicule him online. Or say he deserved it. Or worse.
All of which has left Democrats, sometimes lifelong party faithful, finished.
At PJMedia was a report that the assassination was "celebrated" by the left, triggering what is appearing to be a tsunami.
Across states like Florida and New Mexico, "Voter registration offices are reporting unprecedented surges in people switching from Democrat to Republican. These are Americans who watched the left's reaction to Kirk's murder and decided they'd seen enough," the report said.
Sheilfer Zepeda, avocado farmer and software entrepreneur, said, "I'm switching parties to protest. I understand that the right also has certain character flaws, but it doesn't culminate in sympathy for political violence. Attempted assassinations of presidential candidates, public executions of healthcare CEOs and political influencers seems to be in line with what leftists want."
Pennsylvania restaurant manager Christopher Elton said, "There's more peace on the right compared to the left. And I'm almost embarrassed for voting left in my life."
The report explained, "The rate of Republican registrations in Florida tripled in the days immediately following Kirk's slaying."
Florida's GOP chief Evan Power told the New York Post, "Since Charlie was killed we've been seeing about 600 new Republican voters a day. We [usually] average about 200 a day, so 600 is a much bigger number—it's a big deal."
In Pennsylvania, there were 2,148 new GOP registrations the week ending Sept 13, up from 1,018 the week before.
The New York Post noted, "Freshly emancipated former Dems told The Post they were horrified by the assassination of the 31-year-old podcaster last week — who they thought of as kind and reasonable — and further disgusted by the ghoulish celebration of his killing by many lefties."
Kirk's organization, TPUSA, also saw a flood of requests for new chapters after his assassination, and if all are established, would make his organization at least 15 times the size it was previously, the Post said.
"Turning Point was flooded with over 32,000 inquiries to start new chapters in the 48 hours following Kirk's murder, where the group had roughly 2,100 chapters before Kirk's death," the Post said.
It was the attitude of extremists like Rep. Ilhan Omar, R-Minn., that was triggering the freefall in Democrat voters.
She said, "There are a lot of people who are talking about [Kirk] just wanting to have a civil debate … These people are full of s—t and it's important for us to call them out."
A woman the Post identified only as Jeanie, from North Carolina, switched her registration to Republican, explaining, "I had to unfriend, like, 15 people on different platforms because they said Charlie Kirk had it coming to him. And I just thought, my God, evil is walking amongst us."