This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Most Americans assume that when a company posts a job opening, it actually wants someone to apply. That's how the labor market is supposed to work.
But in the world of immigration sponsorship, job postings sometimes serve a very different purpose: checking a box for the government, while keeping American workers in the dark.
Under the Department of Labor's PERM process (Program Electronic Review Management), employers seeking to sponsor foreign workers for green cards must first prove they tried to hire Americans. The law requires them to place ads, review resumes and certify that no qualified U.S. worker was available before moving forward with sponsorship.
Yet most Americans have never seen these ads – because employers often place them where no one is likely to look. They thus satisfy the letter of the law while ensuring the jobs are already earmarked for someone else. That's where Jobs.Now, a U.S. worker advocacy group, stepped in. By republishing these hidden ads online, Jobs.Now gave them the visibility the law intended, visibility that many employers have quietly worked to avoid.
Instacart's heavy hand
When Jobs.Now reposted one of Instacart's PERM ads to make it visible to the public, the publicly traded San Francisco-based company didn't thank the website for the free advertising. Instead, Instacart sent a trademark complaint letter.
The letter, transmitted by a third-party enforcement firm, accused Jobs.Now of "infringing Instacart's intellectual property rights" and even suggested the group suspend their web domain. The company reserved the right to pursue monetary damages, all because an advocacy group had posted a job listing that Instacart itself was legally required to advertise.
The real issue – and what Instacart's ads expose
Why such a heavy-handed response? The answer may lie in Instacart's job advertisements and recruitment practices tied to the PERM program. Federal rules, written decades ago, force employers to place notices in old-school newspapers and state workforce sites. But the intent of the law is clear and companies must make a "good faith" effort to recruit Americans before turning to foreign workers. That means actually trying to reach U.S. applicants, not burying ads where no one will look, or setting up recruitment processes designed to avoid finding U.S. candidates.
How Instacart blocked Americans
Jobs.Now's reposting exposed the truth: Instacart's job ads were nowhere to be found on the company's career page, LinkedIn, or any platform where real applicants look for work. Instead, the posting was buried in a classified newspaper, directing candidates to mail paper resumes to "Global Mobility," a department that does not hire Americans but oversees visa processing for foreign workers.
That distinction is critical. In 2025, almost no one applies for a tech job by mailing in a paper resume. And even if an American did, his or her application would never reach a hiring manager. It would be funneled straight to the immigration team whose role is not to recruit talent, but to record why no U.S. worker was deemed "qualified."
The two-track system
The Department of Justice has already gone after companies for similar practices. Facebook paid $14 million and Apple paid $25 million in settlements for requiring mailed resumes and reserving jobs for foreign workers through the PERM process.
Like Facebook, Apple forced applicants for PERM positions to submit paper resumes by mail instead of through its online portal, and it left those jobs off its public-facing career site. Investigators found that Apple's practices weren't consistent with the way it usually hired, which was overwhelmingly through digital systems designed to attract a wide pool of candidates.
In both cases, the DOJ made clear the issue wasn't that companies were using the PERM process; that's allowed by law. The issue was that they intentionally set up a two-track system: one for normal jobs where Americans could apply easily and another for PERM jobs where the process itself made it virtually impossible for Americans to compete.
Why Instacart's response matters
The key question now is why Instacart chose to file a trademark complaint when Jobs.Now was, in effect, providing free visibility for a job posting Instacart was already legally required to advertise?
If the postings are legitimate, wider visibility should mean more qualified Americans applying. But the company's legal maneuver suggests something else: that these ads may not truly be about recruiting U.S. workers at all, but about protecting a visa pipeline while keeping the door closed to the very people the law was designed to protect.
Turning the tables on corporate abuse
At its core, the PERM system was designed to test the U.S. labor market. Sharing those job ads publicly and encouraging qualified Americans to apply isn't just lawful, it's exactly what the process requires. When companies or their attorneys try to suppress that visibility with trademark claims or intimidation tactics, they may be crossing a legal line of their own.
Federal law, under INA §1324b, makes it an unfair immigration-related employment practice to intimidate, threaten, coerce or retaliate against anyone for exercising or helping others exercise their rights under the statute. That protection extends to advocates who assist U.S. workers in seeing or applying for jobs. Trying to prevent circulation of these ads could be interpreted as obstruction of compliance evidence. And suppressing access to recruitment ads could make the labor market test fraudulent, since U.S. workers cannot reasonably find and apply.
What began as a trademark threat could end up flipping the script on Instacart. By trying to muzzle the lawful sharing of job ads, it may have invited even sharper scrutiny, not only of how the company recruits, but of how it responds when Americans shine a light on the very system meant to protect them.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Television show entertainer Jimmy Kimmel returned to some of the stations that used to carry his show Tuesday might but offered no apology, only an "explanation" for his false claim that MAGA members were trying to "score political points" over the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
The co-founder of Turning Point USA was gunned down by a sniper during a free speech event at a Utah college. The suspect, Tyler Robinson, is known to have been radicalized by leftist ideologies in recent months. He was living with a roommate who was a male who claimed to be female, and the shooter had engraved radical slogans on the bullets he loaded into the rifle that was used.
Kimmel's jokes about the Kirk murder included his statement, "The MAGA gang is desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it."
He was suspended by ABC and other station ownership organizations, only to be allowed back on the air on Tuesday by ABC. The other ownership groups, Sinclair and Nexstar, still have him banned.
A report at Washington Examiner revealed that after Kimmel's return, Andrew Kolvet, who worked as a producer for Kirk, said Kimmel's refusal to offer an apology, just a claim that "it was never my intention to blame any specific group," failed.
"Not good enough," Kolvet wrote on social media.
He explained, "Jimmy, it's simple. Here's what you need to say: 'I'm sorry for saying the shooter was MAGA. He was not. He was of the left. I apologize to the Kirk family for lying. Please accept my sincere apology. I will do better. I was wrong.'"
Kimmel's claim that it was "important to me as a human" that people believed his claim that it never was intention "to make light of the murder of a young man," was met with loads of skepticism.
From online social media commenters: "It was precisely his intention to make light of it, which explains his recklessly inaccurate depiction of the killer's ideology and then cutting away to that edited South Lawn clip, which was designed EXCLUSIVELY for comedic effect. And no apology, inflaming it all further."
And, "He didn't just make light of the murder of a young man he and his staff mulled it over first. Someone said 'hey, let's make a joke about Trumps response to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, while implying he was MAGA'. No one said it's too soon or disrespectful, they ran with it"
And, "Sounded to me like a lot of dancing around the subject. Half hearted, and weak at best. In the end, it doesn't really matter. 70 affiliates aren't airing his show, and his ratings will probably continue to tank. Good luck Jimmy. Maybe it's time to bring back the trampoline"
The Washington Examiner also cited other criticisms of Kimmel, whose show ratings have been plunging.
Piers Morgan said, of Kimmel's call for understanding of his lack of intent to "make light of the murder," "Yet that is exactly what he did."
Morgan added, "Hard to feel sympathy for Jimmy Kimmel and his crocodile tears given how gleefully he has always gorged on the career entrails of conservative stars who lost their jobs like Tucker, Roseanne etc. He's become a partisan political activist, not a comedic host."
Kimmel also, the Washington Examiner reported, brought in religion as his defense, citing a statement from Erika Kirk, Charlie's widow, who publicly forgave her husband's accused killer, recalling the example of Jesus.
Kimmel claimed, "That is an example we should follow. If you believe in the teachings of Jesus as I do, there it was. That's it. A selfless act of grace, forgiveness from a grieving widow. It touched me deeply, and I hope it touches many, and if there's anything we should take from this tragedy to carry forward, I hope it can be that and not this."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
After a bilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky in New York Tuesday, President Trump posted that the embattled nation "is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form" and "maybe even go further than that!"
Trump also endorsed the ongoing arrangement whereby the U.S. sells weaponry for the war to NATO, which then sells it Ukraine.
Posted Trump on Truth Social:
"After getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine/Russia Military and Economic situation and, after seeing the Economic trouble it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.
"With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option. Why not? Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win. This is not distinguishing Russia. In fact, it is very much making them look like 'a paper tiger.'
"When the people living in Moscow, and all of the Great Cities, Towns, and Districts all throughout Russia, find out what is really going on with this War, the fact that it's almost impossible for them to get Gasoline through the long lines that are being formed, and all of the other things that are taking place in their War Economy, where most of their money is being spent on fighting Ukraine, which has Great Spirit, and only getting better, Ukraine would be able to take back their Country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that!
"Putin and Russia are in BIG Economic trouble, and this is the time for Ukraine to act. In any event, I wish both Countries well. We will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them. Good luck to all!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Erika Kirk, the widow of Christian martyr Charlie Kirk, delivered a tearful, powerful message Sunday for the assassin who executed her husband, expressing her personal forgiveness.
"My husband Charlie, he wanted to save young men. Just like the one who took his life," Mrs. Kirk said through tears at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.
"That young man. That young man. On the cross our Savior said, 'Father forgive them for they not know what they do.' That man, that young man, I forgive him."
"I forgive him because it was what Christ did, and is what Charlie would do.
"The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love and always love. Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us."
Dressed in white before a crowd of more than 70,000 inside and an estimated 130,000 more outside, Erika explained: "Eleven days ago, God accepted that total surrender from my husband and then called him to his side."
"On the afternoon of Sept. 10, I arrived at a Utah hospital to do the unthinkable: To look directly at my husband's murdered body. I saw the wound that ended his life, I felt everything you would expect to feel. I felt shock, I felt horror and a level of heartache that I didn't even know existed."
"But there was something else, too. Even in death I could see the man that I love. I could see the single gray hair on the side of his head, which I never told him about – now he knows. Sorry, baby."
Erika said Charlie, the founder of Turning Point USA, was "ready to die" and that "he named his organization well. He knew things were not right with America, especially with young people, and that they needed a new direction."
"Charlie passionately wanted to reach and save the lost boys of the West. The young men who feel like they have no direction, no purpose, no faith and no reason to live. The men wasting their lives on distractions and the men consumed with anger and hate."
"When he went onto campus, he was looking to show them a better path and a better life that was right there for the taking."
President Donald Trump spoke after Erika, and publicly comforted her on stage to conclude the memorial service.
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.
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.
An ABC News reporter on Wednesday expressed "deep regret" for the way he portrayed "very touching" and "intimate" text messages between Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin Tyler Robinson and his transgender lover Lance Twiggs, but the journalist is still being shredded by media colleagues and Americans at large.
On Tuesday, ABC's Matt Gutman reported he was not sure "if we have seen an alleged murder with such specific text messages" that were "very touching, in a way, that I think many of us didn't expect – a very intimate portrait into this relationship between the suspect's roommate and the suspect himself, with him repeatedly calling his roommate, who is transitioning, calling him 'my love.' And 'I want to protect you, my love.'"
"So, it was this duality of someone who the attorney said not only jeopardized the life of Charlie Kirk and the crowd, but was doing it in front of children, which is one of the aggravating circumstances of this case. And then, on the other hand, he was, you know, speaking so lovingly about his partner. So a very interesting and, as Pierre said, riveting press conference."
Curtis Houck, managing editor of NewsBusters, noted Gutman "doubled down" ten minutes later after after his initial report on ABC News Live, as Gutman said: "It's heartbreaking on so many levels, Kyra. Obviously, Charlie Kirk was murdered brutally in front of a crowd of thousands … [O]n the other hand, there is this duality of a very a portrait of a very human person, a very human experience from this entire family … the kid who had got a 34 out of 36 on the ACT, who had a 4.0 …
"I don't think I've ever experienced a press conference in which we've read text messages that are A, so fulsome, so robust, so apparently, allegedly self-incriminating and yet, on the other hand, so touching – right – with the suspect reaching out to his roommate, who was allegedly his boyfriend, who we understand, you know, identified as male at birth, now identifies as female.
"And the terminology he used, he was trying to protect him. He kept calling him 'my love.' 'My reason for doing this is to protect you,' you know, but also asking him to delete the messages and not speak to law enforcement. So there's this, this heartbreaking duality that we're seeing very tragically playing out here."
Wednesday morning, Gutman expressed regret on X, stating: "Yesterday I tried to underscore the jarring contrast between this cold blooded assassination of Charlie Kirk – a man who dedicated his life to public dialogue – and the personal, disturbing texts read aloud by the Utah County Attorney at the press conference.
"I deeply regret that my words did not make that clear. But let there be zero doubt here: I unequivocally condemn this horrific crime and the pain it caused Charlie Kirk's family, those who were forced to witness it at UVU, and the millions of people he inspired."
Charlie Hurt of Fox News was not buying Gutman's comments Wednesday, explaining on the air: "When you're covering a very serious event like a murder trial or a hearing for a murder trial of an assassination, you go with a certain mindset. And the mindset is one that is very serious, it's very factual based, and you are aware of the human casualty that is going on here and you are respectful of what you're covering.
"And the idea that this guy is going to walk into cover this story and have sort of these fantasies, these fairy-tale fantasies, play out in his mind, I think goes to the heart of the lack of seriousness, the lack of gravity that these people approach a story like this. It boggles my mind. I don't understand it."
Hurt concluded: "I don't know how you get from the point from where you should be to where this guy ended up. It is appalling, it's disgusting. I guess the only maybe saving grace to it all is that I think that the media has so befouled themselves, they've so lost all credibility that I think a lot of people just sort of may have heard that and … shrugged and thought: 'Well, good thing I don't listen to them anymore.'"
Other comments from X users directly responding to Gutman's expression of regret include:
"'Touching' was the word you used to describe the messages of someone that just assassinated a father. You're also a father of 2 children, Libby & Ben. Your children aren't safe with someone who thinks a public assassination is 'touching.' You should be fired."
"Matt, you attempted to write a love story for a murderous monster in order to appease your left-leaning brain. There's nothing 'touching' about any of it. If you can't see how disgusting that was, then you really need to reevaluate your life."
"You twisted the assassination of Charlie Kirk into a gay man 'defending' his gay lover. You made it seem like a bitter love story you freak. You're not going to worm out of this."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, in India worshippers are flocking to the Chilkur Balaji Temple, better known as the "Visa Temple," to seek divine help in securing a U.S. work visa.
Priests bless passports, applicants walk 108 circles around an altar – and thousands believe the ritual offers a holy shortcut to Silicon Valley.
It would all sound like a satire piece, except it isn't. What's unfolding is a ritual economy wherein visas have become a kind of currency of faith.
As the Journal article puts it, "Indian place of worship touts its power to summon divine assistance for people who want to study or work abroad," quoting one participant as saying, "If we come here and pray, we get a visa."
As bizarre as it might seem to picture a deity distributing H-1B approvals, it's no more bizarre than the ways many American companies treat U.S. workers. The H-1B is a temporary work visa intended for highly skilled roles where no qualified U.S. worker is available. Employers must attest that hiring the foreign worker will not harm American wages nor working conditions, applications go through a lottery system and are capped by law. In theory, these safeguards are meant to prevent abuse. In practice, however, the system is routinely gamed, with companies using it as a massive pipeline for cheaper, visa-dependent labor.
So while families in Hyderabad burn incense to improve their immigration odds, Fortune 500 firms in the U.S. are constructing shrines of their own – shrines to outsourcing, offshoring and resumes stamped "foreign worker."
The Visa Temple's premise could just as easily serve as corporate America's HR policy: "If we pray hard enough, maybe we won't have to hire an American."
So laugh, if you like, at the marble floors of India's Visa God. But the real spectacle is how easily U.S. companies avoid hiring Americans and, unlike the temple worshippers, they don't need to walk 108 circles.
They just need to file another visa petition.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump's Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is urging major U.S. commercial airlines to fire pilots and other employees who openly celebrated last week's assassination of civil-rights leader Charlie Kirk.
In a series of posts over the weekend, Duffy thanked American Airlines, United, Delta and SkyWest for suspending the viciously vocal pilots, but also pushed for their termination.
"Thank you @united for doing what's right by placing pilots celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk out of service," Duffy wrote. "They must be fired. There's no room for political violence in America and anyone applauding it will face the consequences. ESPECIALLY those we count on to ensure the safety of the flying public."
"Anyone entrusted with the safety of American souls on a plane must have good judgment and compassion," Duffy indicated.
"As our world heals from the devastating loss of Charlie Kirk, we must continue condemning political violence for the greater good of our country."
"This behavior is disgusting and they should be fired," Duffy also stated. "Any company responsible for the safety of the traveling public cannot tolerate that behavior.
"We heal as a country when we send the message that glorifying political violence is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!"
Duffy was responding to messages by Milo Yiannopoulos, a self proclaimed civil-rights icon, who noted:
"Steve Holmes, a pilot for @AmericanAir, says he is sorry Charlie Kirk got shot 'in your fat f***ing face,' mocking his death as 'the cost of our liberty.' Is this normal, American? Passengers will be concerned that yet another pilot of yours is so shameless, hateful and reckless."
Milo also noted: "Andrew Schweizer, a pilot for @united and @SkyWestAirlines, says he is glad Charlie Kirk is dead, because he was a 'f***ing Nazi,' stressing that he 'chose those words deliberately.' Would you put your life in Andrew's hands?"
American Airlines released a statement about behavior by employees, explaining: "American Airlines condemns violence of any kind. Furthermore, hate-related or hostile behavior runs contrary to our purpose, which is to care for people on life's journey. Any such behavior is unacceptable, and we have already initiated action to address this with our team."
A leaked internal memo from Delta was published by AviationA2Z, detailing the airline's recent actions. The memo stated:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It seems there may have been an active agenda under the Joe Biden administration to accelerate prosecutions over the Jan. 6, 2021, protest-turned-riot at the Capitol after President Donald Trump was elected in 2024 and it was clear Biden soon would be out of power.
It was under the Biden administration that judges uniformly held people suspected of offenses like trespassing for months, even years, in prison.
The cases were brought up as if there were serious charges like treason or insurrection involved, when there weren't.
Sentencing by the judiciary in the leftist enclave of Washington was harsh, and judges routinely refused permission for cases to be moved to other jurisdictions because of the obvious bias that existed.
Now it appears there may have even been a concerted campaign by the Biden administration to hurry up prosecutions and sentencings after Trump was elected last November, and it was clear Biden soon would be out of power and Trump even would have a free hand to pardon those J6ers, which he eventually did.
It is Judicial Watch, a government watchdog organization, that has confirmed it has filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records on accelerated Jan. 6 prosecutions.
Those happened after Trump's election last November.
"The Biden administration, anticipating President-elect Donald Trump's promise to issue pardons for January 6, 2021, defendants, is believed to have accelerated prosecutions in the final months of Biden's term," Judicial Watch reported.
Its case in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia came after the Justice Department failed to respond to a November 2024 FOIA request for the records of then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, then-Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco, then-Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, and then-Special Counsel Jack Smith "regarding a) pardons of any person(s) incarcerated due convictions in federal court in the District of Columbia related to crimes committed at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C, on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021 b) directives or orders to focus on arresting additional suspects by type of offense allegedly committed. The timeframe of the request is from January – November 2024," Judicial Watch reported.
"On January 6, 2025, the Justice Department reportedly considered charging up to 200 additional people for their alleged involvement at the U.S. Capitol disturbance. About 1,583 people already had been facing federal charges. On January 17, 2025, it was reported that the FBI and federal prosecutors continued to make arrests and 'pursue hefty sentences for those who breached the U.S. Capitol grounds.' Authorities made four arrests just days before Trump's inauguration," the watchdog confirmed.
"The corrupt Biden Justice Department tried to undermine the Trump administration by maliciously prosecuting American citizens tied to January 6. Judicial Watch's lawsuit aims to get to the truth about this last-minute abuse of power," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
The organization previously has sued over "lawfare" targeting Trump and his supporters several times.
One fight it handled was for the benefit of the family of Ashli Babbitt, the unarmed Air Force veteran shot at point blank range and killed during that Jan. 6, disturbance. The government reached a $5 million settlement with her family and granted her military honors.
Another case involved the lawfare against Trump, a created organized crime allegation, brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who later was ordered off the case because of her conflict in that she hired a paramour to do investigative work for her.
Judicial Watch also has been investigating how much Willis, Smith and others doing lawfare for the Democrats coordinated with Nancy Pelosi's partisan commission investigating J6.
It also has sued over IRS records suggesting targeting of Capitol protesters and their supporters, two conference calls involving Biden officials about the election certification that year, and a meeting in which Biden officials pressured each other to target "far right" Americans.