This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been involved in some of the biggest health scandals in years.
It's been involved in recommending the controversial HPV shots, as well as promoting LGBT ideology. And then it was caught up in the maelstrom of the COVID shots, which actually injured tens of thousands of Americans.
And now its reputation has taken another major hit, with a judge's determination it was breaking the law by deleting information that should have been kept for government records.
Politico reported the ruling from U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras found that the agency probably has been violating the law for years by deleting employees' emails after they quit their jobs.
The decision came in a lawsuit brought by America First Legal Foundation, which pursued a Freedom of Information Act request for records about an LGBT-promoting publication by the CDC.
"After months of wrangling, the CDC identified three employees who worked on the document but indicated that two of them had departed the agency and their emails had likely been destroyed," the report noted.
The judge ordered the agency to halt such erasures immediately.
The ruling, by the judge appointed by Barack Obama, said, "The court concludes that CDC's policy and practice of disposing of former employees' emails ninety days after the end of their employment is likely unlawful."
He said the agency's practice of destroying emails was not approved by the National Archives.
Government records normally must be kept for periods ranging from three to seven years.
"The available evidence suggests that CDC did indeed commit to manage and dispose of its employees' emails pursuant to the [Capstone] schedule," Contreras wrote. "Because CDC disposed of former employees' email records pursuant to a schedule that was not approved by the Archivist, it is likely that … records removed or deleted under the CDC's unapproved policy were removed or deleted unlawfully."
"The Biden-Harris Administration was actively destroying the records of federal employees at the CDC in blatant violation of the law — and we are pleased that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ordered a stop to their illegal conduct," said America First Legal's executive director Gene Hamilton.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the world's bigger speech influence schemes that has been operating now is calling it quits – after an antitrust lawsuit was filed against it by Elon Musk and X.
It is the World Federal of Advertisers that announced the end of its "Global Alliance for Responsible Media."
A report at the Post-Millennial said the group that orchestrated boycotts of various targets based on their beliefs and messages was facing the legal action for its use of monopoly power.
The House Judiciary Committee, which had been looking into the manipulations being used by GARM said it was a "Big win for the First Amendment" and "for oversight."
The advertisers' special campaign would target those carrying messages the group did not like.
Rumble CEO Chris Pavlosvki still wondered, however, "What are they hiding?"
The WFA set up GARM specifically to help "police speech online using ad placement and the withholding of same," the report said. That means those web organizations that failed to carry the correct political messaging, or carried something that was politically incorrect, might not get advertising revenue.
The Post-Millennial report noted WFA members were told of the decision Thursday in an email.
Pavloski explained what was going on. "They created a monopoly to basically tell all these advertisers how they should spend money based on certain speech."
CEO Linda Yaccarino of X said, 'I was shocked by the evidence uncovered by the House Judiciary Committee that a group of companies organized a systematic illegal boycott against X. It is just wrong. And that is why we are taking action."
GARM had boasted of working with advertisers, "media agencies, media platforms and industry associations" to target what it determined was "harmful" content online.
But it didn't define 'harmful" meaning whatever it said was bad was bad.
Business Insider explained the lawsuit by X charged GARM "illegally colluded to 'collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue' from Twitter, now known as X."
GARM claimed over its tenure that it was working on "hate speech, brand safety and misinformation."
Online commenters said those trying to censor speech simply would re-emerge under another name and format.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Sports hall of fame induction ceremonies largely copy each other. The honored veteran player is announced as a member, a statue is unveiled and the player then thanks coaches, family, teammates and the like.
Which is what famed Denver Broncos "Orange Crush" linebacker Randy Gradishar did recently while being added to the National Football League Hall of Fame.
His thanks included longtime friend and two-time Heisman Trophy winner Archie Griffin.
But what Gradishar thanked Griffin for is what stunned: For inviting Gradishar to a meeting of a campus Fellowship of Christian Athletes meeting at which Gradishar became a Christian, back in the 1970s.
"Best invitation I've ever had," Gradishar explained.
Gradishar's comments on his faith are at about 6:30.
Samaritan's Purse chief Franklin Graham went online to thank Gradishar: "Congratulations to Denver Broncos legend Randy Gradishar who was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Saturday! I appreciate that he used his speech to clearly share the Gospel. Watch as he tells how the invitation of a teammate led to his acceptance of Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior…"
As Gradishar explained, while citing those who made a difference in his life, "Archie years ago invited me to an on campus Fellowship of Christian Athletes meeting Bible study during my senior year."
He said he'd attended church, but hadn't before heard the gospel of salvation.
"That evening the gospel was explained in four simple truths. Truth one. God create man in in his image, and that comes from Gen. 1:27. God loves us and offers a plan for our life. Truth two. Mankind's problems are from Romans 3:23. 'That we've all sinned and fallen short of God's glory.'"
He continued, "Therefore we cannot know and experience God's plan for our lives. Romans 6;23. 'For the wages of sin are death.'
"Truth No. 3. God made a way. John 3;16. 'God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish. but have eternal life.' His death on the cross and resurrection gave him the right to proclaim. 'I am the way, the truth and the life.'
"Fourth, salvation requires turning to God, repenting and asking forgiveness. This is the only way to be right with God."
Highlights of Gradishar's career:
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.
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.
Nearly two million dollars spent by one of the nation's Army recruiting brigades could not overcome the alienation of potential service members caused by the military's embrace of radical "diversity, equity and inclusion" policies under the Biden-Harris administration.
After more than two decades of service, Col. Nicholas Braun (a pseudonym) recently retired from the U.S. Army. He spoke to WorldNetDaily on the condition of anonymity, concerned over likely reprisals he would face from the U.S. government for the information he shared with WND.
In 2023, said Braun, as recruiting numbers continued to dwindle through the Biden administration, every corps in the Army was tasked to support Recruiting Command. For example, operations and maintenance funds were diverted to recruiting, he told WND, revealing that over $1 million was so redirected in just the first quarter of last year.
"Do you know how many contracts we got signed?" he asked. "One. After four months, we spent a million dollars to get one kid in the Army."
In the following quarter, Braun said, six individuals signed contracts after $800,000 of the operations and maintenance budget was redirected toward recruiting. "We used nearly $1.8 million to get seven people in the Army," he told WND.
Yet, throwing money at recruiting did not solve the problem. Plans to "shrink excess" and reduce its number of personnel from 494,000 to 470,000 by 2029 followed. "In the Pentagon's infinite wisdom to fix the recruiting problem," Braun said, in February 2024, "they began another round of restructuring to make the on-hand quantity [of Army personnel] the authorized quantity to be able to say they're at 100 percent or at least above 90 percent," he said.
In the restructuring, Braun revealed, "they removed reconnaissance formations from infantry and Stryker brigade combat teams to get the numbers down." Out of 31 armored brigades, he said, only 13 brigades in the Army with a reconnaissance formation remained.
"When these brigades need reconnaissance, they're going to pull from formation that don't have nearly enough training to do the mission," he told WND, warning that "any real war is going to look like a meat grinder with a whole bunch of under-resourced and undertrained soldiers getting completely chewed up."
"Why? Because political decisions have been made on force structure instead of capability decisions based on force structure – and it all ties back to the diversity, equity and inclusion stuff," Braun argued.
"The level of politics in the Army's general officer corps has elevated to a really unhealthy level," he added. "Most three-star and four-star generals circle the wagons and throw whoever they need to under the bus to save their own skin."
"Likeminded one-stars and two-stars get in the club by embracing uniformity of thought at the most senior levels," he said. "And at this level, they want DEI at the forefront. They want skin color and sexual orientation to be the top priority."
"If you're a white male, you're not really a welcome person in the Army right now," Braun said, recounting the mandatory Department of Defense stand down and subsequent briefings on the topic in 2021. In one of the briefings, he was told about "the problem of extremism in the ranks." The focus was primarily on "white domestic terrorists," he told WND.
Braun said he could not sit quiet at the time, interrupting the briefing to inquire: "How many people have been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for white extremism in the Army?" To that, the presenter said he did not know. However, he told WND, the answer was "five."
"Out of 525,000 people, there were five, and they were trying to teach me that white extremism is our biggest problem."
He pinpointed this moment in history as "the time you begin to see a precipitous drop in Army recruiting numbers." Which begs the question: "With 70 percent of recruits being white kids from the south and southeast, why would you want to join an organization that's preaching you're an extremist or terrorist because you're white and conservative?"
"The problem is that nobody will acknowledge this is a problem or that we've screwed up putting this kind of rhetoric in place," Braun said. "If Lloyd Austin would come out today, take an in-depth look at the impact [DEI ideology is having] on recruiting and retention, and do something about it, numbers would start looking better almost overnight."
In the same vein, Braun said, today's selection of senior military leaders would also need to be addressed. While the Army might be selecting some qualified leaders, they are not selecting the most qualified, he explained: "The overarching feeling in the Army is that DEI is way more important than lethality. Formations are going to have to deploy somewhere, and when they do, many are going to be bringing a lot of kids home in body bags because we're more focused on this garbage [DEI] than we are actually being able to perform a job at the highest level possible."
U.S. Army Recruiting Command did not respond to WorldNetDaily's requests for comment.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Georgia was one of the swing states in the 2020 presidential election where there were concerns about massive fraud: Tens of thousands of probably illegal ballots.
Those concerns never were fully investigated.
And now a report in the Federalist is warning that because of that failure, the 2024 vote in Georgia is setting up to be a catastrophe.
The report explains there were charges that some 35,000 possibly illegal votes were counted that election. That was the election when Joe Biden was declared the winner by only 11,779 votes.
The issue is being pushed by Mark Davis, the president of Data Productions Inc. "and an expert in voter data analytics and residency issues," according to the report. He filed documents with the Georgia secretary of state and the state election board seeking an investigation of some 25,794 possibly illegal votes subsequently cast in the 2022 midterms.
The issue is a state requirement that residents must vote in the county in which they reside unless they have changed their residence within 30 days of the election.
"And now, with just four months until the November 2024 general election, the state's refusal to address the problem ensures chaos will ensue unless there is a complete blowout by one of the candidates," the report explained.
The evidence includes that National Change of Address processing Davis performed showed nearly 25,800 Georgia residents filed such a notice with the U.S. Postal Service, documenting they were moving from one Georgia county to another.at the time of the 2022 midterms. The issue was the same as during 2020.
"Those notices of a permanent address change all fell outside the 30-day grace period that allows Georgia residents to cast a ballot in the county in which they previously lived. None of the 25,000-plus voters updated their address and instead all appear to have voted in the county in which they previously resided," the report charged.
The Federalist reported it reviewed the data, and found "strong evidence that those Georgia residents had, in fact, permanently moved to a new county, as their NCOA notices suggested. If so, and they also moved at the date specified, they voted illegally in the 2022 midterm election."
Further, those voters would have violated another state statute by "providing false information about their name or address" when they voted, the report notes.
Violating the state law would be a felony, but there could be additional charges under the Voting Rights Act if they voted improperly in a federal election.
Davis notes that "no substantive action has been taken to address these issues" so the state undoubtedly will "see tens of thousands more of these residency issues in the upcoming 2024 General Election…"
The problem that reared up in 2020 was that under state law, "if there are more illegal votes cast than the margin of victory, or if a judge sees evidence of 'systemic irregularities,'" the election could be ordered held again.
Actually, at the time, President Donald Trump challenged the outcome in Georgia based on evidence, but a judge in Fulton County ordered his case delayed until after the state results were certified.
The Federalist noted, "If the closeness of the 2020 general election repeats itself this November, the problem of Georgians voting illegally in counties in which they don't reside could threaten the validity of the election results. That remains true no matter which candidate prevails because, for all their deriding of Trump for contesting the 2020 election, Democrats, when on the losing end, bring their own legal challenges."
It warns Georgia could "face a disaster in deciding whether and for whom to certify the vote," this November because of officials' own failure to investigate problems that were evident.
Davis actually filed his first complaint about the potentially illegal votes in 2021, but he now affirms that while Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger agreed to investigate, that never was done.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Now that Kamala Harris has been installed as the top of the Democratic Party's ballot this fall by leftist elites who pushed Joe Biden under the bus, so to speak, because of his declining mental abilities, some of her views are making the headlines.
Including that she has worked hard to force taxpayers to pay for transgender "health care," apparently to include body-altering chemicals and surgical mutilations.
It is in a video that she explains how she "worked behind the scenes" to make sure taxpayers were billed for such treatments for prison inmates in California, where she served as attorney general for a time.
In the video interview, Harris states, "I learned that the California Department of Corrections, a client of mine, a client of the attorney general … they were standing in the way of surgeries for prisoners. There was a specific case. When I learned I worked behind the scenes to make sure not only that woman got the services … they changed the policy in the state of California so that every transgender inmate in the state would have access to the medical care they desired and need."
While promoters of the ideology call it "medical care," it's actually the administration of drugs that alter a body's function, as well as cosmetic surgeries that sometimes remove healthy body parts.
There was a theme among social media commenters:
"This VP is bat**** crazy."
"She's dumber that goose ****."
And, "As a tax payer I do not want my taxes going to this. I work hard for my money to go to nonsense like this. Fix bridges, roads, pay off U.S. debt, help people with necessities like food and housing, etc. Things that actually matter."
Yet another was looking for help for his own perceived issue.
"You can get the medical care you desire in California prison? I identify as having a full set of hair but I'm bald. Will they pay for a hair transplant? Who I got to rob?"
Yet another used only one word: "Creepy."
Those who track such procedures note that surgeries often cost tens of thousands of dollars.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An undercover video from James O'Keefe and his O'Keefe Media Group reveals a top Democrat working for the Kamala Harris campaign and the Democratic National Committee explaining that Harris really can't win this year's presidential election.
Democrat worker Joyce DeCerce, who identifies with "he/him" identifiers under Joe Biden's campaign to normalize transgenderism, said, " I don't think Kamala Harris would win this year."
Why not?
She's "weirdly unpopular" and then too, "She doesn't have any accomplishments to speak of."
DeCerce is the "compliance manager" with the DNC and in that position reports to the federal government on the campaign's fundraising and expenditures.
"DeCerce admits that the DNC's engagement with donors is little more than a façade," the OMG report explains.
"You just put on a performance for them, a little show, right?" implying that the DNC merely tells donors what they want to hear in order to receive donations, DeCerce charges.
And DeCerce said the DNC knowingly fuels donors' "fantasies."
OMG reported that it tried to obtain comment from Kristin Hetherington, the CFO for the DNC, but "she hung up the phone in frustration after questioned if the DNC tells donors 'what they want to hear' and if they play to donors' 'fantasies,'" the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Kamala Harris' work as Joe Biden's designated "border czar," to deal with the root problems of the massive flood of illegal aliens their administration's policies triggered at America's southern border, undoubtedly will be one of the subjects of the developing presidential contest, with her as Biden's probable replacement on the Democrat ticket.
But even her own party is developing doubts.
That's as a handful of Democrats joined the majority GOP in the House to approve a resolution condemning Harris' handling of those "border czar" responsibilities.
A report from Fox News highlights the fact that Democrat Reps. Jared Golden, Maine, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Washington, Mary Peltola, Alaska, Henry Cuellar, Texas, Don Davis, North Carolina, and Yadira Caraveo, Colorado, joined the GOP in condemning Harris' handling of the border crisis.
The resolution was adopted 220-196.
Fox explained, "Republicans have for years accused Harris of failing her job as 'border czar' after President Biden handed her the task of mitigating the 'root causes' of illegal immigration in 2021. It's quickly becoming the cornerstone of GOP-led attacks against Harris as she gears up for an expected head-to-head race with former President Trump. But the six moderate Democrats who voted to condemn Harris amount to a scathing rebuke of their party's likely presidential candidate – despite dozens of left-wing lawmakers rushing to endorse her."
A Twitchy commentary said, "Maybe there's hope for the Democratic Party yet? And that's a heavy influence on the MAYBE."
The commentary noted it was evidence of "how unpopular Kamala really is, even with her own party."