This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Although President Joe Biden has called his 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal an "extraordinary success," most others have expressed a diametrically opposite view ever since. For many, the events that unfolded paint a picture of abject failure, including one that places Taliban terrorists on U.S. soil.
But then there are the good guys, including the thousands of Afghan interpreters and guides who helped U.S. forces for years. One of them, Ahmad Ehsan, accompanied the U.S. Army in its fight against the Taliban starting in 2018, serving as an interpreter and cultural adviser in Kabul until January 2021. WND is using a pseudonym to protect his identity.
Ehsan told WND, regarding Biden’s catastrophic exit from Afghanistan: "It was not an evacuation or withdrawal" at all, adding that a real military evacuation "would have been well-planned [and] with good management if it were," instead of the "shameful chaos" that unfolded.
While it was negotiating with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, Ehsan said, the United States had "more than enough time" to ensure a clean withdrawal and evacuation. Instead, he said, "the withdrawal and evacuation became a big shame in the history of the United States."
Near the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul on Aug. 15, 2021, Ehsan witnessed the "chaos and shame" firsthand. "I tried to get inside the airport but couldn’t because the crowds around the airport were too congested." He recorded videos showing unvetted Afghans scaling the wall around the airport and attempting to board aircraft.
As he watched the large crowds of people, Ehsan saw Taliban fighters giving their weapons to other members of the Taliban before entering the airport’s main gate.
"I saw women and children fainting in the crowds with little room to breathe," Ehsan told WND. "Some of them were beaten or injured by Taliban fighters as they made their way to the airport." He also witnessed a mother give birth to her child in front of thousands of people.
"It was a very painful day for me," Ehsan recalled. "So many Taliban were able to enter the Kabul airport gate and were able to evacuate from Afghanistan to Qatar and other countries," he disclosed. "Many were also bribing people with money to let them inside the airport."
"Even though I served in the U.S. Army," Ehsan lamented, "I was left behind in a dire situation with an unknown future."
Ehsan is one of more than an estimated 62,000 Afghan interpreters and others who, by the end of 2021, had worked alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan and should be eligible for the Special Immigrant Visa program.
Yet, after two attempts, Ehsan has been denied entry into the U.S. by the State Department after being unjustly terminated from his duties as an interpreter. Records reviewed by WND indicate Ehsan provided "faithful and valuable" service to the U.S. military, according to his former battalion commander and other colleagues.
"I don’t know what will happen to me, I face torture and death if I am found by the Taliban," he said. "I also have no income and not enough food for me and my family."
While hiding from the Taliban, Ehsan said, "I've watched them for three years, celebrating their victory against the United States." For this reason, he told WND, "I feel very disappointed and betrayed, still fighting for my own life after losing family members in a war to bring peace, security, and freedom to my people."
He feels betrayed by the United States because, according to Ehsan, "the evacuation was not for U.S. allies." Rather, he said, "It was an evacuation for the Taliban, barbers, shopkeepers, tailors, street boys, or anyone that didn’t have an affiliation to the USG [United States government] like me."
Meanwhile, there are thousands of people, added Ehsan, including members of the Taliban, who have made it to the U.S. without proper documentation. Yet, he said, "For those truly eligible to come, we were left behind to be killed by the Taliban," who now control Afghanistan.
Ehsan’s story raises the inevitable question: How many Taliban fighters, who hosted and enabled al-Qaeda, which attacked America so viciously on Sept. 11, 2001, made it into the U.S., while U.S. allies like Ehsan have not?
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Comments by members of Congress, even stupid and irrational, mostly are protected by the "speech and debate" clause of the Constitution – as long as the comments are part of the legislative process.
But now a letter from a legal team representing congressional witness Tony Bobulinski is charging that U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, the Democrat from Maryland most famous for leading the impeachment case against former President Trump, stepped outside of that authority when he publicly slammed the witness, who has provided key evidence to Congress in its investigation into the evidence for impeaching Joe Biden.
In fact, according to the letter from lawyers Jesse Binnall and John C. Sullivan, representing Bobulinski, Raskin "mocked" various witnesses to Congress and posted a "freeze frame" that shows Bobulinski, with the chyron, "A disgruntled Wannabe Business Partner Turned Trump World Hype man."
Raskin further publicly described Bobulinski as "a bitterly frustrated would-be business partner who collaborated with the Trump campaign" and a "dubious" witness. And he called Bobulinski a "political pawn" and accused him of lying.
The letter warns Raskin, "You are not entitled to any immunity for your defamatory statements. The Speech and Debate Clause comes from Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, and it includes, in relevant part: 'for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.'"
But that only protects activities "undertaken in the House and Senate," and provides no immunity "beyond its carefully defined scope," the lawyers warn. "Anything that is not a legislative activity will not be protected."
The lawyers explain that they will file litigation over Raskin's public and social media statements "if you fail to delete and publicly retract recent defamatory statements and publications you made about Mr. Bobulinski, including on X (formerly Twitter). Be further advised that you should identify and preserve all hard copy and electronically stored documents, information, and data that relate, in any way, to the subject matter of your incessantly malicious defamatory conduct. It was a mistake to believe that your publications were made without consequence. It must, and will, stop immediately."
The lawyers also cite "evidence" of Raskin's "malice," in that he's following a "blind adherence to a preconceived narrative."
Bobulinski, a onetime business associate of Hunter Biden, has provided testimony to Congress that confirms the influence-peddling operations run by the Biden family, which generated millions for family members, was focused on access to Joe Biden, who was, in fact, party to those operations.
Bobulinski, during his appearance in Congress, called leftists in the body liars, and a ruling from the committee found that he was not out of order in doing so.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A writer in the leftist Salon publication is claiming that recent attacks on women in New York City are the fault of men.
Men who are fans of President Donald Trump.
Which would make them "Make America Great Again" supporters.
Which means it's all Trump's fault.
And the publication is getting scorched online for the theory.
A report at the Blaze explains it was in an article by Amanda Marcotte that she claims the recent attacks, sometimes blindside punches that have injured women in New York, "were animated by the same misogyny behind support for former President Donald Trump."
The Salon piece claimed: "These stories resonate, as well, because the nation is having a moment of increasingly unhinged male fury at women for daring to have lives that are centered around something other than catering to a man's every whim. Unleashed by Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, there's an upswell of loud male entitlement shouting at us from every corner."
It cited six cases of women being victimized, although dozens of such cases have been documented.
Multiple suspects have been caught, and others are being sought.
But the article might not have generated the sympathetic comments it sought. At the Blaze one reader explained, "Rule number one of the democratic playbook; blame the republicans for the crimes you are currently committing."
And another said, "Black men randomly punching white women, in one of the most liberal cities in America = male MAGA-fueled rage."
And, "The crazy left doesn't want attacks on just ANY white people... they want these attacks to be directed toward Trump supporters. If they skew the narrative to make anyone have an excuse to be violent towards MAGA then they have done their job. Meanwhile, they are protecting their own. This is such a Gaslight."
Charles C.W. Cooke of the National Review noted the situation was "Beyond parody."
"Drug-crazed and violent criminals target people who can’t fight back, and that’s usually unarmed women. We can fix the problem by locking these men in prison or psych wards. It’s really that simple, and doesn’t require a ninth-grade feminist think piece in Salon," noted New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino."
Marcotte, online, explained she feels the criticism proves her right.
"Man, I knew this article was super true when I wrote it, but the hateful emails MAGA men are sending doubly prove it. Hit dogs, as they say, holler."
A column at Daily Fetched pointed out how the Salon writer was "roasted."
"The leftist website published bizarre and unfounded claims in an article authored by Amanda Marcotte that the same misogyny behind Trump supporters animated the brutal attacks."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
"Nondiscrimination" schemes under the Joe Biden regime in Washington often have been used to advocate for blatant discrimination against Christians and Christian organizations.
One such situation recently developed when Democrats in Colorado insisted they could force a web designer to promote same-sex weddings if she provided any services to couples getting married.
The Supreme Court slapped down the state for violating the Constitution in its leftist agenda.
But those issues have developed over and over, and now it involves the State Department, which is proposing a new "nondiscrimination" demand that could affect the employment decisions of Christian ministries.
So officials with Samaritan's Purse, the Christian Legal Society, the Accord Network and other ministries have written to the State Department protesting the agency's plans.
The new proposal would ban discrimination against beneficiaries of programs that are sometimes given grants by the government "on specified bases."
But then the State Department bureaucrats also want to demand that those organizations providing benefits on a nondiscriminatory basis also hire employees on a nondiscriminatory basis.
The ministries in a letter to State explain that they "affirm" the idea of not discriminating against any benefit "recipient."
But the problem is the rules as planned by State threaten their right to hire employees they choose, and possibly could force them to stop partnering with the government on aid programs.
It's not a small problem, they explain. "To illustrate the full extent of the potential loss of foreign assistance of USAID's top 50 largest foreign assistance recipients, religious organizations comprise $613 million in obligated agency funding in FY '23. They have worked in over 100 countries programming in water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), displaced persons and refugee support, countertrafficking, and strengthening of civil society structures like health care and justice systems."
The aid organizations explain that the rule needs to provide that their religious character, affiliation, practices, and expressions of religious beliefs "will not preclude" them from participating in various programs.
They cite the Constitution, the religion clauses of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and more to explain that the laws of the land require nondiscrimination rules to provide "overriding protection for religious freedom."
Without a provision for religious rights, the organizations told State, the proposed rules are "arbitrary and capricious" for failing "to consider a reasonable alternative, specifically, categorical exemption of religious organizations applying for foreign assistance grants and federal acquisition contracts…"
Without changes, the groups warn the Biden administration, "the regulations will infringe statutory and constitutional rights, frustrate the regulations' stated purpose, impede the delivery of foreign assistance, threaten the U.S. government's foreign policy objectives, foment expensive litigation and result in the unintended exclusion of religious organizations from being applicants and offerors for the department's grants and contracts."
Online, there's a petition procedure for people to sign up to agree with the comments: "I strongly oppose the U.S. State Department's consideration of new regulations that will cut off grants and contracts to Christian – and all faith-based – relief organizations that require their employees to share their faith and their religious values."
The charge to the government came from the Accord Network, Samaritan’s Purse, Christian Legal Society, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and others.
Specifically, the government is warned that there are such things as religious rights protected by the Constitution and the proposal would "not allow [faith-based organizations] to consider sexual orientation and gender identity or expression in the hiring process in order to remain eligible for foreign aid funding."
The ERLC explained, "Hiring staff members that reflect the religious beliefs of an organization is a long-standing pillar of religious liberty protections."
Franklin Graham, who heads Samaritan's Purse, added, "These proposed State Department regulations could be used to force faith-based organizations like Samaritan’s Purse to hire staff who disagree with our core biblical beliefs about God’s design for marriage, sexuality, and gender in order to be eligible for government grants."
He continued, "Samaritan’s Purse is a Christian organization and we will not compromise on the fundamental principle of hiring like-minded Christians who share our calling, our stand on the authority of God’s Word, and our statement of faith."
The groups explain in their letter to the government there needs to be a "categorical exemption" from religious belief requirements in the process.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that a state right to abortion is invalid because it was based on the federal rights claimed by the now-defunct Roe v. Wade abortion ruling, which has since been tossed out by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The effect is that a Civil War-era abortion ban in the state can be enforced, after a district court takes further action in the dispute.
"We celebrate this enormous victory for unborn children and their mothers. Reinstating Arizona’s pro-life law will protect more than 11,000 babies annually at all stages of pregnancy while providing an exception for the life of the mother. This includes babies who have heartbeats, babies who can feel pain, and babies who can smile and suck their thumbs. Today’s state Supreme Court decision is a major advancement in the fight for life in Arizona," she explained.
"The compassion of the pro-life movement won in court today, but we must continue to fight. While Republicans have passed bills to ensure that babies born alive after failed abortions receive medical care and stepped up their support for programs that provide life-affirming help for pregnant moms facing homelessness, pro-abortion Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed born-alive protections and her administration has attacked and defunded pro-life safety net providers."
She added, "Governor Hobbs and her pro-abortion allies will pour millions into deceiving the voters about the upcoming amendment that permits abortion on demand when babies can feel pain and survive outside the womb. We must defeat this extreme measure that would force Arizonans to pay for abortions and eliminate health protections for women."
She warned the pro-abortion ballot proposal would allow "unrestricted, unregulated abortion at any time in pregnancy."
It also would kill longstanding health and safety standards including parental consent, informed consent and abortion business inspections, and force Arizonans to pay abortionists for their services.
The ADF explained the state Supreme Court ruling found a lower court had misinterpreted the law.
The organization represented Dr. Eric Hazelrigg, an obstetrician and medical director of Choices Pregnancy Center in Arizona, who filed a petition last March asking the state’s high court to review an Arizona Court of Appeals decision.
"Life is a human right, and today’s decision allows the state to respect that right and fully protect life again—just as the legislature intended," said ADF spokesman Jake Warner. "Life begins at conception. At just six weeks, unborn babies’ hearts begin to beat. At eight weeks, they have fingers and toes. And at 10 weeks, their unique fingerprints begin to form. Arizona’s pro-life law has protected unborn children for over 100 years, and the people of Arizona, through their elected representatives, have repeatedly affirmed that law, including as recently as 2022. We celebrate the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision that allows the state’s pro-life law to again protect the lives of countless, innocent unborn children."
The court's ruling said, "We conclude that [Arizona's law] does not create a right to, or otherwise provide independent statutory authority for, an abortion that repeals or restricts [the law], but rather is predicated entirely on the existence of a federal constitutional right to an abortion since disclaimed by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
"Absent the federal constitutional abortion right, and because [the law] does not independently authorize abortion, there is no provision in federal or state law prohibiting [the law’s] operation. Accordingly, [Arizona’s law] is now enforceable."
The court continued, "For the reasons discussed, the legislature has demonstrated its consistent design to restrict elective abortion to the degree permitted by the Supremacy Clause and an unwavering intent since 1864 to proscribe elective abortions absent a federal constitutional right—precisely what it intended and accomplished in § 36-2322. To date, our legislature has never affirmatively created a right to, or independently authorized, elective abortion. We defer, as we are constitutionally obligated to do, to the legislature’s judgment, which is accountable to, and thus reflects, the mutable will of our citizens."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There has been a significant effort by the Joe Biden administration to bring the United States under the authority of outsiders.
Some may consider them well-meaning outsiders, but the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and the World Economic Forum nonetheless are run by those who are not Americans.
The arguments for submitting to those groups follows the logic that America must agree to do what the world considers best for all, not just what's best for the United States.
But the campaign has not been without its opponents, including members of Congress who say Biden cannot constitutionally bring America under an outside organization without an approving vote from the Senate, which is assigned to authorize all treaties, even if Biden just calls them "agreements."
But now one state-based organization has launched a resistance movement.
It is the Louisiana state Senate that has adopted Senate Bill 133.
It reads, "The World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction or power within the state of Louisiana."
And it specifically bars every political and municipal authority in the state from enforcing the policies of these global organizations.
Liberty Counsel Action chairman Mat Staver said, "Freedom should never be traded for security. Louisiana lawmakers have sent a clear message that they will not tolerate the Biden administration ceding American sovereignty or foreign entities governing its citizens."
The senators' statement said, "No rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind of the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or implemented by the state of Louisiana or any agency, department, board, commission, political subdivision, governmental entity of the state, parish, municipality, or any other political entity."
The statement comes just as Joe Biden is trying to bind the U.S. under the WHO's "Pandemic Agreement" scheme, in which the international group would, during its version of a pandemic, take control of decision-making.
It could order people to be quarantined, take shots whether they wanted them or not, and more.
That agreement will be discussed in May at the 77th World Health Assembly in Geneva.
It is the Tenth Amendment Center, Liberty Counsel reported, that explains the Constitution's 10th Amendment "limits the federal government only to the powers listed in the Constitution and vests all other power and authority to the states."
"We’re a sovereign state and we want to make sure that’s known in this legislation," said Louisiana State Rep. Kathy Edmonston.
The U.S. Supreme Court already has concluded that the Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from dictating direct orders to the states due to that power not being listed in the Constitution.
The plan now is before the state House Governmental Affairs Committee.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court already has taken up one of the biggest cases in years – the Joe Biden administration's collusion with Big Tech to censor Americans whose ideas he dislikes.
The trial court judge originally described his schemes as Orwellian, and the ruling will impact much of American life whenever it is decided.
And they are.
And that means, according to House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, that records of those communications need to be given to Congress.
Jordan confirmed on Tuesday that he sent letters to the chiefs of Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft as well as Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI chief Chris Wray.
He wants documents of Biden's "recent interactions with social media and technology companies."
"Given the FITF's improper role in communicating with social media and technology companies during the 2020 presidential election, the resumption of meetings between the FITF and Big Tech before the 2024 presidential election is deeply troubling. These meetings stopped after the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction against the FBI that prohibited it from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to censor content, which was largely affirmed by a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. But following the Supreme Court’s recent stay of the injunction, the FITF 'resumed outreach' with social media companies. According to an FBI spokesperson, the purpose of this outreach is 'to facilitate sharing information about foreign malign influence with social media companies,'" charged the letter to Mark Zuckerberg of Meta.
Jordan's announcement explained his committee "is conducting oversight of how and to what extent the executive branch has coerced or colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor lawful speech. In February 2023, the committee issued subpoenas for documents related to Big Tech's communications with the executive branch, including the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) and San Francisco field office."
It continued, "A federal court enjoined the executive branch's collusion with Big Tech in July 2023; but the injunction was stayed. On March 20, 2024, an FBI spokesperson confirmed that the FITF has recently resumed communicating with major social media and technology companies."
The letter to Zuckerberg notes, "The communications and documentation pertaining to Meta's ongoing communications with the FBI are covered by the February 15, 2023, subpoena. The subpoena is 'continuing in nature.' Therefore, all documents and communications relating to the FBI's new outreach efforts to Meta and FITF meetings are responsive to the committee's subpoena as they refer or relate to how the FBI is communicating with Meta regarding content moderation."
WND has reported on the fight that is before the Supreme Court already.
It recently heard arguments that Biden, using the influence of the federal government, pushed social media companies to censor ideas and comments that the administration dislikes.
And Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which brought the dispute to the court system, said it's just not allowed under the Constitution for politicians to pick "disfavored" statements and order them suppressed.
"Our clients, who include top doctors and scientists, were censored for social media posts that turned out to be factually accurate, depriving the public of valuable perspectives during a public health crisis. We’re optimistic that the majority will look at the record and recognize that this was a sprawling government censorship enterprise without precedent in this country, and that this cannot be permitted to continue if the First Amendment is to survive," Younes said.
A ruling in the case isn't expected from the court for some time, but it likely will have a massive impact of the concept of free speech and the First Amendment across America.
The trial court judge likened the government's scheming in the case to the Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" that propagated nothing but lies.
Many of the details of that ruling were affirmed by an appeals court, but the government, insisting on the right to determine the information to which people have access, took it to the Supreme Court.
Much of the censorship at the time concerned the COVID-19 pandemic and the experimental shots that were developed and given to millions of people at the time, shots that evidence shows now actually injured many.
A report from NCLA said the case is Murthy v. Missouri, and the high court considered whether to affirm a historic preliminary injunction granted by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
It originally was U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty who blasted the government for its program to blacklist, shadow-ban, de-boost, throttle and suspend social media activity by those who disagreed with the Biden administration's chosen, and sometimes faulty, opinions on COVID.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It was all over the headlines only months ago when the Joe Biden administration sued Grand Canyon University, the largest Christian school in the nation, as part of what school officials described as a coordinated attack by Biden.
It was the Federal Trade Commission that filed a lawsuit against the school, making allegations that it didn't reveal how long it would take for doctoral students to finish its accelerated program and marketed itself as a nonprofit.
The Department of Education, earlier claiming misinformation about the doctoral program, announced a fine of $37.7 million against the school.
Now a report from the Georgia Star News confirms that a state investigation has confirmed there's no proof of any wrongdoing by the school.
So the federal agencies decided to continue their agenda against the Christian organization anyway.
The report revealed a review from the state auditor, through the Arizona State Approving Agency, found that risks identified by Biden's allegations "could not be substantiated, which means the private nonprofit's students can still use GI bill funding to pay tuition."
The report said University President Brian Mueller told KSTAR, "They said, 'Zero findings. Not a single one. Not one.'"
School spokesman Bob Romantic said in an interview with The College Fix that the audit covered all three allegations charged by the Biden regulators.
But he said the school still is being "targeted" by "systemic attacks … against GCU that we believe are retaliation for filing our lawsuit against the DOE."
The school sued after the Department of Education brought out a list of its complaints and announced that $37.7 million fine.
Then the FTC sued, claiming telemarketing and marketing violations, concerns that now have been addressed by the state investigation.
Mueller suggested Biden is "maliciously targeting" the school, the report explained.
While the FTC claims the school misrepresented its cost, the report said "A degree calculator function on their website currently states the average number of continuation courses required for past students for each doctoral degree program in clear, red font above the program’s price listings."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A commentary from The Daily Signal's Tyler O'Neil blasts AP, the legacy wire service launched in those historic days when telegraph wires linked cities, for its climate agenda that now includes having reporters refuse to include the "other side" in stories on its ideologies.
O'Neil is managing editor at the Signal and explained the newest leftism comes from the AP's "style guide," which for years has been used by reporters across the industry to standardize grammar, spelling, and more.
But it long has been pushing leftist ideas and agendas.
He noted the "latest round of updates" include "guidance on how to avoid 'stigmatizing' obese people, admonitions to avoid calling people 'homeless' as it might be 'dehumanizing,' and warnings to avoid the term 'female' since 'some people object to its use as a descriptor for women because it can be seen as emphasizing biology and reproductive capacity over gender identity.'"
AP also for years has taken to side of the abortion lobby, suggesting pro-lifers be slammed with the negative label "anti-abortion" while promoting the other side as pursuing "abortion rights."
It tells reporters to avoid "pro-life" and "pro-choice."
Now it has delivered to reporters updates on its political agenda on climate change, or what used to be called global warming until the warming stopped.
"Climate change, resulting in the climate crisis, is largely caused by human activities that emit carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, according to the vast majority of peer-reviewed studies, science organizations, and climate scientists," AP claims. "This happens from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, and other activities. Greenhouse gases are the main driver of climate change."
O'Neil explains "AP insists that this is true, with a capital T. When 'telling the climate story,' the style guide urges journalists to 'avoid false balance—giving a platform to unfounded claims or unqualified sources in the guise of balancing a story by including all views. For example, coverage of a study describing the effects of climate change need not seek the 'other side' comment that humans do not influence the climate."
But the commentary points out the facts appear to be that the impact of humans on global warming, or now climate change, isn't clear.
"In the 1970s, alarmists warned of a coming ice age. In the 1990s, the form of the destroyer would be global warming. Now, the alarmists have adopted the catch-all term 'climate change,' so they can retroactively assign human agency to any disaster that strikes us at the moment," he noted.
He did point out that AP "tacitly admits that the climate alarmists have no smoking-gun evidence that human activities are bringing about Armageddon," when it states, "Avoid attributing single occurrences to climate change unless scientists have established a connection."
The AP then continues, "The climate story goes beyond extreme weather and science. It also is about politics, human rights, inequality, international law, biodiversity, society and culture, and many other issues."
The commentary condemns the "one-side-ism" that AP is pursuing now as "rot" and openly questions whether other issues that are the subject of reporting these days can be documented.
"The prognosis is not good. AP has repeatedly put its thumb on the scale to silence criticism of abortion and gender ideology—even going so far as telling journalists to avoid the term 'transgenderism' because it 'frames transgender identity as an ideology,'" he explained.
Then it claims that the "mainstream science" says "the climate is changing."
"AP doesn’t admit that the supposed unanimity of scientists on man-made catastrophic climate change is based on a lie—that 97% of scientists don’t believe the world is going to end because we burn fossil fuels," he explained.
So why would AP put its thumb on the scale again?
"AP has received large grants from left-wing foundations, particularly for its climate reporting. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation spent $2.5 million on AP’s climate and education reporting, the Washington Free Beacon reported. That foundation also funds Planned Parenthood," he explained.
Further cash came to AP from the Rockefeller Foundation for Climate Change, and the KR Foundation, for climate alarmism, he documented.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden initially announced a few years back he was going to "forgive" $400 billion in student loans, in a move that largely was seen as an attempt to buy votes from younger Americans.
The Supreme Court said he couldn't. So he reached into his bag of tools and pulled out a different law that might allow that to happen, although there is a court challenge.
Since then, he's shifted some $144 billion of student loan debt from the backs of borrowers to the backs of taxpayers, many of whom did not enjoy their younger years at an Ivy League school.
What he's shifted now amounts to between $400 and $500 per man, woman, and child in America.
On Monday, he announced he's going to go further with his defiance of the Supreme Court, with plans to "cancel" student loans for millions of people more.
And that prompted one commenter on social media to ridicule Christians who don’t support the transfer of debt from borrowers to taxpayers.
Being J. Wood said, "Why is every Christian I talk to vehemently against loan forgiveness? I mean, isn't forgiveness supposed to be what Christianity is all about?
And that presumptive declaration hit a gusher of response, none of it endorsing that concept.
A commentary from Twitchy compiled the responses, including, "It is not 'forgiveness' when you are forcing someone to pay for debt incurred by someone else," and "I've seen some real winners in the non-Christians lecturing Christians on what their religion tells them about what their political position should be on an issue department, but this one is a real doozy."
Further, if individuals are to be "equal under the law," what about those who have already paid their loans? Should they be reimbursed?
It could provide some level of discomfort for those advocating for loan transference, as a person approaching retirement now who paid off a relatively modest $20,000 in loans in his or her day could be owned in the range of $150,000 now, based on the original payments and compound interest.