This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The shooting death of Kevin Mullins, a district judge in Kentucky, in his office in the courthouse – allegedly by his friend Sheriff Shawn Stines, has been in the headlines for months already.
But the case has taken a new turn as a woman now has charged that the judge was running a "depraved sex ring" from his government office.
The Daily Mail has documented the twist in the case involving the death of Mullins, 54, killed in a shooting in September 2024.
One witness has told police Mullins ran his chambers "like a brothel" and was seen having sex with a girl inside his office in Whitesburg.
"Tya Adams – another alleged victim – has now come forward with her account, saying she first knew Judge Mullins through his former role as an assistant commonwealth's attorney," the report explained.
Adams confirmed the judge introduced her to "his friends."
"And we would do sex parties and perform shows and have sex with them for money, things like that," she charged.
The judge's power came from her fear, and the fear of others, of the powerful legal system and the threat of Child Protective Services.
"They would make sure to make you feel as small and degraded and belittled as possible to take your power away," Adams charged, adding "It was consensual. But it was the thing that we were so young, and then they used it against us to destroy our lives later.
"He's the one with the power; he holds my entire life in his hands. He's the one who makes the decisions over whether I get to keep my children or not. He's the one who makes the decisions on whether I go to jail."
She confirmed she was warned to stay silent.
"And, who would believe it anyway? Because the whole town was doing it. Nobody cares. They're all swingers. It's all a big party to them. It was just normal," she charged.
Further, the Daily Mail said Sarah Davis, a former deputy jailer at Letcher County Jail, said she didn't witness such misconduct firsthand, but said the rumors that reached her were "nasty and sickening," according to a report from NewsNation about the case.
The Daily Mail said Adams' interview "marks the third time a woman has come forward alleging that Mullins' alleged abuse of power extended far beyond just what happened inside his chambers. She claimed it wasn't just her – that hundreds of women, along with men and even children in trouble with the law, were sent to visit him for the same reason."
A further allegation was from Sabrina Adkins, who was raped by Ben Fields – one of Stines' deputies.
News Nation reported she said, "I seen Judge Mullins having sex with a girl… in his office, in the judge's chambers."
The report said Fields later served six months in jail for coercing Adkins into sexual favors within Mullins' chambers.
Stines has pleaded not guilty to murder, charging that the shooting happened in the heat of passion and should be considered manslaughter at most.
The report revealed, "Detectives have been investigating possible motives, with one theory suggesting that Stines may have discovered his daughter's phone number in Mullins' phone – allegedly after Mullins called her just moments before the shooting."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Federal officials say an Indiana woman has been arrested after traveling from New York to Washington, D.C., to "sacrificially kill" President Donald Trump.
Nathalie Rose Jones, 50, of Lafayette, Indiana, was taken into custody Saturday after allegedly making disturbing threats against the president on Facebook and Instagram.
"I literally told the FBI in five states today that I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all The Affirmation present," Jones is accused of writing in an Aug. 6 Facebook post.
In an Aug. 14 Facebook post, Jones allegedly urged U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to "please arrange the arrest and removal ceremony of POTUS Trump as a terrorist on the American People from 10-2pm at the White House on Saturday, August 16th, 2025."
The Secret Service reportedly arranged to interview Jones on Aug. 15, during which she indicated if she had the opportunity, she would "carry out her mission of killing" the president at "the compound" with a "bladed object."
The suspect told agents she was looking to "avenge all the lives lost during the COVID-19 pandemic," referring to Trump as a "nazi" and a "terrorist."
U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C, Jeanine Pirro said Jones is "charged with two federal crimes for knowingly and willfully threatening to take the life of the president of the United States."
"She did come from New York to Washington, D.C., and she has been threatening and calling for the removal of the president and even worse as she got to D.C."
"Her threats were on Facebook and Instagram and she continues to call the president a terrorist and was working to have him eliminated. She is now in custody, she will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Make no mistake about that," Pirro added.
"Threatening the life of the president is one of the most serious crimes and one that will be met with swift and unwavering prosecution."
In one of her photos online, Jones is shown wearing an image of Bob Avakian, founder and chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A constitutional expert has cited the results of research by Northwestern University to warn that American academia, the colleges, universities, their teachers and administration, have become so corrupted that they are hurting even "liberal" students.
The trend for those elite communities to become more and more leftist long has been documented, but the new findings by researchers Forest Romm and Kevin Waldman released the stunning confirmation that "an astounding 88%" of undergraduates at surveyed schools confirmed they "pretended to hold more progressive views than [they] truly endorse to succeed socially or academically."
Jonathan Turley, the prominent George Washington University law professor and regular commentator on all things constitutional who has not only testified before Congress as a constitutional expert but as represented members in court, delivered the warning.
He explained that the fact that leftists are an overwhelming majority in academia "has been a long-standing problem in higher education."
Now, he said, "The current generation of faculty and administrators has destroyed the sense of free thought and expression on our campuses. Faced with consistent polling showing that students feel compelled to mimic liberal ideology and viewpoints, faculty shrug or even attack students for being weak. In a debate that I had at Harvard Law School, a Harvard professor called such students conservative snowflakes.'
However, they are not conservative. Take Harvard. A recent survey of the graduating class by the Classroom Social Compact Committee found that, despite an overwhelmingly liberal faculty and student body, even liberal Harvard students found a chilling environment for free expression at the school. And it is getting worse."
The survey authors concluded that the students were not cynical, but "adaptive," meaning they were reciting back to professors what professors clearly demanded they be told.
"Faced with the intolerance and rigidity of liberal faculty, they pretend to be liberal to avoid being penalized for their real views or values," Turley noted.
The study itself said, "In a campus environment where grades, leadership, and peer belonging often hinge on fluency in performative morality, young adults quickly learn to rehearse what is safe. The result is not conviction but compliance. And beneath that compliance, something vital is lost."
Turley pointed out Harvard is "dead last among 251 universities and colleges on the annual ranking from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
"What is most striking is the fact that Harvard has created this hostile environment while maintaining an overwhelmingly liberal student body and faculty. Only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative," Turley said. "Yet, even liberals feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so."
Harvard faculty, he explained, "does not tolerate opposing voices except for a handful of conservative academics. The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school's departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as 'liberal' or 'very liberal.'"
He said, "The virtual purging of conservative faculty members across the country sends a message to students that such ideas are not favored or acceptable. The result is that the vast majority of students — liberal and conservative — self-censor in an environment of intolerance."
That's documented by the new study, which found, "Seventy-eight percent of students told us they self-censor on their beliefs surrounding gender identity; 72 percent on politics; 68 percent on family values. More than 80 percent said they had submitted classwork that misrepresented their views in order to align with professors. For many, this has become second nature — an instinct for academic and professional self-preservation."
The evidence, Turley said, explains some things, as "on some issues, such as the nature of gender and gender identity, students' actual beliefs are quite different from what appears to be the prevailing orthodoxy on campus."
He said, "It also reflects why the last election shocked so many in the media and establishment, as young people voted Republican" while they simply "mouth liberal orthodoxy in class … ."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A family in Ireland is working through the shock notification, on social media, that their mother is dead – by "assisted suicide," in a situation about which they knew nothing.
According to the Christian Institute, Maureen Slough, 58, from County Cavan, left, telling family members she was going on holiday to Lithuania.
Instead, she went to the death-dealing Pegasos clinic in Switzerland.
Her family was notified shortly later, via social media platform WhatsApp, that she was dead.
The institute reported, "She had struggled with mental health and previously tried to commit suicide after the death of her two sisters."
Pegasos officials claimed her daughter, Megan Royal, had confirmed her mother's intentions, Megan said the "acknowledgment letter" probably was forged.
Writing in the Sunday Independent, columnist David Quinn stated: "It is a sad part of the human condition that nearly all of us will face very significant struggles at various points in our lives. Maureen Slough clearly did, but she had a loving daughter willing to help her," the institute explained.
He added, "If deliberately ending someone's life in a clinic, be it here or overseas, is all we can offer people in serious need, we have taken a very sinister turn indeed."
Explained Nick Park, of the Evangelical Alliance Ireland, "Advocates for Assisted Suicide talk about dying with dignity, but there is little dignity on display in this sorry tale. … Creating a suicide industry may now be legal in some jurisdictions, but such practices cheapen the value of human life, and deny our wonderful identity as human beings made in the image of God."
A report from Care.org said the family got "handwritten goodbye letters" later.
Further, the report said, "Her brother Philip, a UK solicitor, said Maureen had provided the clinic with 'letters of complaint to medical authorities in Éire in respect of bogus medical conditions,' which Pegasos allegedly used to support her application. She reportedly paid £13,000 for the procedure."
Family members now are calling for a governmental investigation of Pegasos.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump, the billionaire whose love before he moved into the White House was business in America, notes that Russian President Vladimir Putin is bringing a contingent of business people with him to the summit in Alaska.
And he likes that.
But he also says there will be no business connections between the U.S. and Russia until the killing in its war with Ukraine ends.
Trump told reporters in advance of the summit that Putin wants in on the U.S. economy, but that is dependent on the peace progress the two powers make.
The Washington Examiner cited Trump's comments: "I noticed he's bringing a lot of business people from Russia, and that's good. I like that because they want to do business, but they're not doing business until we get the war settled."
The report said the Kremlin's summit team includes Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Andrei Belousov, the former economic development minister, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, and presidential aide and former Ambassador to the United States Yuri Ushakov.
Trump explained he would discuss business options "if things go well," the report said.
"If we make progress, I'd like to discuss it because that's one of the things that they would like. They'd like to get a piece of what I've built in terms of the economy."
Joining Trump in representing the United States are Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick; CIA Director John Ratcliffe; special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff; White House chief of staff Susie Wiles; deputy chiefs of staff James Blair, Beau Harrison, Nick Luna, and Dan Scavino; White House communications director Steven Cheung; deputy national security adviser Robert Gabriel; White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt; White House staff secretary Will Scharf; White House director of speechwriting Ross Worthington; and chief of protocol Monica Crowley, the report listed.
Trump also noted the downside: that if there's not progress, the "very severe" economic consequences for Russia.
As of Friday afternoon, the two leaders and their staffs are meeting face-to-face in Anchorage.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge in Alabama has shot down demands by extremists in academia for the "right" to continue to push their DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion, ideologies on students.
Those agendas often include lessons that are racist or sexist, or both.
It is U.S. District Judge David Proctor that concluded the plaintiffs failed to prove enough of their case to qualify for a preliminary injunction while the arguments develop in court, a decision that allows the state legislature's new limits on specifically teaching students to be divisive to stand.
The law bars publicly funded schools from hosting or funding DEI programs that promote radical agendas. It also condemns "divisive concepts," like forcing kids to feel guilty or complicit in historical wrongs based on their race or ethnicity.
An example would be the ideology that blames all white people for slavery. Such agendas frequently have moved to extremes, in some cases demanding that whites who never were slave owners to pay billions of dollars in "reparations" to blacks who never were slaves.
Such programs are purely based on race.
The judge concluded the law doesn't cause a problem for speech or academic freedoms, and teachers still are allowed to discuss, and students are allowed to hear, about such issues as long as the teaching is "in an objective manner without endorsement."
If a teacher teaches "that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129," the judge said.
The law provides a list of common-sense guidelines so that teaching focuses on facts, not the individual beliefs of a teacher, or his or her political agenda.
It defines "divisive concepts" to include teaching that any "race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior," or that "individuals should be discriminated against or adversely treated because of their race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin."
Teachers, under the law, cannot force students to agree that "the moral character of an individual is determined by his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin" or "by virtue of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin, the individual is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously."
Further, students cannot be ordered to adhere to the faith that individuals, because of their race or color "are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin."
Nor can students be ordered to "assent to a sense of guilt, complicity, or a need to apologize on the basis of his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin."
State money cannot be used to sponsor "any diversity, equity, and inclusion program or maintain any office, physical location, or department that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion programs," or "direct or compel a student, employee, or contractor to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to a divisive concept."
Other free speech points include that state-funded schools cannot require students or employees to participate in "any diversity, equity, and inclusion program or any training, orientation, or course work that advocates for or requires assent to a divisive concept"
Significantly, students cannot be required to "participate, as part of any required curriculum or mandatory professional training, in an activity that involves lobbying at the state or local level for legislation related to a divisive concept."
Punishments for disagreeing with a teacher's ideology also is barred.
Teachers were recommended to implement a disclaimer in their courses, explaining classes "may present difficult, objectionable, or controversial topics for consideration, but will do so through an objective scholarly lens designed to encourage critical thinking."
One professor, a plaintiff, however, insisted that she be allowed to indoctrinate students with her beliefs about "[w]hite privilege, implicit bias, structural racism, mental health disparities, homophobia, racism, sexism, and systemic oppression of minority communities."
She apparently believes "racism and sexism are deeply embedded in American society" and she wants to train students about the "impact of systemic racism."
The judge's ruling triggered a flood of outrage from leftists, who have supported the plaintiffs claims that the law protecting students is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.
The case, Simon v. Ivey, challenges the law implemented in the state just months ago.
They claim "harms" from the ruling will include "censorship of teachings and discussions involving race-based and sex-based inequalities."
Plaintiff Cassanda Simon said the law already "has upended the lives of Alabama students and educators, who should have the right to receive and provide the high-quality of education that all Alabamian learners deserve."
She demanded an "inclusive curriculum."
Another like-minded plaintiff, Sydney Testman, said, "I've seen firsthand how SB 129 has transformed my college campus for the worst (sic). Voices have been silenced, opportunities have been revoked, and meaningful community engagement has faded. This decision undermines the need for students to properly feel a sense of belonging and inclusion on campus."
Yet another plaintiff, Ja'Kobe Bibbs, said the "detrimental effects" of the law are obvious.
Bibbs wants a campus "where people across identities and walks of life can come to learn, build community, and grow together."
Dana Patton, a teacher and another in the long list of plaintiffs, added that the decision is "yet another step backwards for the University of Alabama system and fails to address the harms that Alabama students and professors have faced on account of this law."
Patton complains that professors now much live in a "culture of fear."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge in Baltimore decided, effectively, to overrule a jury's verdict of guilty for a man who brutally attacked and permanently injured two senior citizens advocating for life, and gave him a pass to go home as his trial ended.
That's despite the fact that Patrick Brice, a "pro-abortion zealot," was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree assault and two counts of reckless endangerment, and the possible sentence ranged up to 10 years in prison.
After all, he was on video, without provocation, slamming Richard Schaefer, 84 at the time of the attack, into a concrete planter, knocking him to the sidewalk unconscious, suffering cuts, bruises and head trauma, and then attacking Mark Crosby, 73 at the time, who rushed to help Schaefer.
Brice turned on him, punching him in the face, knocking him to the ground and kicking him in the head.
Both men suffered grave injuries, with Crosby sustaining facial fractures, broken fingers, head and neck injuries and permanent vision loss in one eye.
According to the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented Schaefer, the assaults were "a calculated act of violence by a younger man against two elderly citizens exercising their constitutional rights."
So charges were brought and the jury convicted.
Then, however, Yvette M. Bryant, the Baltimore judge in the case, stepped in.
In a move that prompted outraged headlines, she gave him a pass to go home, a "slap on the wrist."
She actually ordered him to a year of home detention, three years of probation and anger management lessons.
"No prison time. No real deterrent. Brice left the courthouse and went home the same day," the ACLJ reported.
It's a reminder, the legal team explained, "We must continue the work of defending pro-life advocates."
The report said, "We witnessed a stunning example of how violent attacks on peaceful pro-life advocates are too often minimized or excused."
Explained the ACLJ, "The leniency in Brice's case is even more jarring when compared to how peaceful pro-life advocates have been treated under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Just months ago, 23 pro-life activists – many elderly, some grandparents – were serving lengthy federal prison sentences for non-violent demonstrations before being pardoned by President Trump. Their 'crimes' consisted of peaceful protest and prayer in defense of unborn life. No violence, yet they were sentenced to hard jail time."
But here, "a man brutally beat two elderly pro-lifers and will serve his 'sentence' from the comfort of his own home. The double standard is unmistakable: Peaceful pro-life expression is met with the full weight of federal prosecution, while pro-abortion violence is downplayed and excused."
The reason?
"This is the abortion distortion in action – the bending of rules, the selective application of justice, and the diminished seriousness assigned to crimes committed against those who speak up for life. If the roles were reversed – if two elderly abortion supporters had been beaten unconscious outside a pro-life pregnancy center – would the outcome have been the same? Experience suggests otherwise," the ACLJ said.
A lawyer for Crosby said the judge "was plainly wrong" and "should have known better."
Multiple reports noted that the judge gave the convict nothing more than a "slap on the wrist."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For the graduates who cannot find jobs and the laid-off tech workers still searching for work, it can feel demeaning to hear Big Tech companies continue to claim there is a labor shortage when, in reality, there are more than enough willing and able Americans ready to step in. The repeated message that there are "no qualified Americans" does more than insult them: It leaves lasting damage that cannot be undone by simply finding new employment.
However, Big Tech's claims do not stand up to actual documented evidence. In fact, Amazon's own filings with the U.S. Department of Labor comprise a comprehensive record of the company's immigration submissions. And that data dismantles the "shortage" narrative, revealing a system in which loopholes are used, recruitment requirements minimized and federal certifications freely obtained for foreign labor – even as qualified Americans are sidelined.
Between 2009 and 2024, Amazon filed more than 111,000 petitions for H-1B visas, a program intended for positions requiring "specialized knowledge" that cannot be filled by any qualified U.S. workers. Of these filings, 39,012 were new H-1B visa applications, while 72,726 were renewal applications for existing foreign workers.
In addition to its H-1B activity, Amazon also made extensive use of the Department of Labor's Program Electronic Review Management, or PERM, process. Between 2020 and 2024, the company filed
21,012 labor certification applications through PERM, an essential step for sponsoring foreign workers for permanent residency in the United States.
How does the PERM process work?
The PERM program is the first step in sponsoring a foreign worker for a U.S. green card (permanent residence). Before applying, an employer must test the labor market to determine if there are any qualified, willing and available U.S. workers for the job. That is the U.S. Department of Labor's process for requiring employers to show they made a genuine effort to hire an American before receiving approval to sponsor a foreign worker.
Yes, despite Amazon tech jobs being highly sought after by Americans, the company claimed that for all 21,012 roles, no qualified U.S. workers applied – essentially asserting that only the foreign workers they hired were interested in, or qualified for, those positions.
Regulation on Qualifications for the Job:
The batch advantage: Circumventing the law and regulations to avoid hiring Americans
Wage-level "batching" is when a company reuses the same government-issued prevailing wage determination for multiple green card applications instead of getting a fresh wage review for each job. In Amazon's case, the company obtained only 3,875 wage determinations but used them to file 21,012 applications, allowing Amazon to lock in older, lower wage rates, keep salaries down and push applications through faster while doing less recruitment for each role. About 82% of Amazon's green card applications reused wage determinations, meaning the vast majority did not have a wage rate specific to that job.
How much could Amazon save by paying below-market wages? It's all about cheaper labor, not skilled labor
This estimate is calculated by comparing the true median wages for these roles, sourced from multiple independent wage datasets, to the prevailing wage rates Amazon used when sponsoring green cards. The methodology assumes that for each job level, the difference between the market median and the prevailing wage represents the per-position savings, multiplied by the number of positions at that level.
Level 1 wages: $285 million saved
Level 2 wages: $434 million saved
Level 3 wages: $20 million saved
Total estimated savings: Over $739 million
These figures are conservative estimates, while the real savings could be significantly higher. Under the prevailing wage system, the "or similarly employed" provision requires employers to use whichever is higher: the local average wage for the occupation or the wage paid to workers in similar roles. In Big Tech, market rates are typically far above local averages. If Amazon had followed this rule as intended, many roles would have been pegged to the higher Big Tech pay scale, not the lower local rate Amazon appears to have used.
This suggests Amazon did not apply the provision as required, allowing it to lock in far lower wages than the market rate for similar work in their industry.
Department of Labor: Prevailing Wage Information and Resources:
While Amazon claims there were no qualified Americans for these roles and that the foreign workers sponsored were on "high-skilled" visas, the overwhelming use of Prevailing Wage Levels 1 and 2 tells a different story. These wage levels are typically reserved for entry-level workers with little or no experience, such as recent college graduates. This means Amazon is either abusing the prevailing wage system or abusing the visa program itself. By sponsoring these workers at entry-level rates, Amazon not only undercuts wages for equivalent American jobs, but also eliminates opportunities for U.S. graduates and early-career professionals. Once these foreign workers obtain permanent residency, they remain permanently in an already oversaturated labor market, further reducing opportunities for Americans.
Amazon's recruitment tactics: Can't find qualified Americans … or not looking?
The lawis clear: When sponsoring a foreign worker for a green card, an employer must recruit in good faith and advertise the job in a way that gives qualified U.S. workers a real, fair chance to apply. The regulations require open, accessible recruitment that mirrors how the company normally hires.
Amazon's approach has undermined that requirement. For example, the company ran vague newspaper ads in the The Seattle Times' Sunday print edition, sometimes saying the job could be done "anywhere in the U.S.," but requiring applicants to mail in paper resumes, rather than applying online through Amazon's own career site.
Is this legal? The Department of Justice previously sued Facebook for using similar tactics, resulting in a $14.25 million settlement in 2021.
According to the DOJ's press release about the case: "Facebook routinely reserved jobs for temporary visa holders through the PERM process. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that, in contrast to its standard recruitment practices, Facebook used recruiting methods designed to deter U.S. workers from applying to certain positions, such as requiring applications to be submitted by mail only."
How 1 little ad was used to give 585 American jobs to foreign workers
Recruitment batching is a tactic whereby a company uses a single, minimal recruitment effort, such as one newspaper ad, to satisfy the Department of Labor's PERM recruitment requirement for hundreds of different jobs at once. Instead of advertising and recruiting separately for each open position, the company "batches" them together under one generic posting, often with vague descriptions and outdated application methods that discourage real applicants. This allows the employer to claim it "tested the labor market" without ever giving qualified Americans a meaningful opportunity to apply.
Amazon has used this strategy repeatedly. In one case, the company ran a single ad in the Seattle Times for "multiple positions," listed no clear skills or experience requirements, claimed the jobs could be done "anywhere in the U.S.," and required resumes to be postal mailed in, completely bypassing Amazon's own career website. That single ad was used to justify 585 PERM filings for Software Development Engineer II roles. Similar examples show the scale of batching:
This approach violates both the spirit and potentially the letter of the law, both in terms of 20 CFR § 656.10(c) (bona fide job requirements) and 20 CFR § 656.17(e) (good faith recruitment), as well as the BALCA precedent, which has repeatedly held that mail-only applications, generic ads and recycled prevailing wage determinations undermine recruitment integrity.
In plain terms, Amazon's "batching" is not legitimate recruitment, but it has been very successful in avoiding hiring Americans.
Finding that employers placed unjustified hurdles in the path of U.S. applicants in an apparent attempt to discourage their pursuit of the jobs.
Out with the Americans. In with the foreign labor
During Amazon's largest reported layoff on Nov. 16, 2022, which affected approximately 10,000 employees, the company submitted 2,341 PERM labor certification applications within the federally protected period designed to prevent the displacement of U.S. workers.
On each application, Amazon certified that no qualified U.S. workers were available or considered for the roles, as required by law. Despite the mass layoffs, the Department of Labor approved 2,217 of these applications, authorizing foreign labor for positions that may have been recently held by American workers who had just been terminated.
Amazon layoff graphs provided by Red Line Project (Data Source: Department of Labor):
Amazon's long-term use of U.S. visa and green card programs reveals a systemic strategy that leverages regulatory gaps to replace American workers with lower-cost foreign labor. Through wage-level manipulation, minimal recruitment efforts and large-scale filings timed alongside layoffs, the company has embedded a foreign labor pipeline deep into its operations while reducing domestic opportunities.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Citing threats to the life of Jeffrey Epstein's incarcerated paramour Ghislaine Maxwell, federal officials with the Bureau of Prisons have deployed special operations and counterterrorism forces to the Texas jail housing her.
"There have been death threats received," a source close to the investigation told the New York Sun.
"They are focused on the outside looking in, as opposed to the happenings inside the camp."
The paper reports: "Members of the BOP's Special Operations Response Team have been working around the Federal Prison Camp Bryan's entrance and perimeter to monitor outside threats against Maxwell. The French and British socialite is serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking and is trying to negotiate a commutation of her sentence amid enormous, renewed public interest in the Epstein case that has put pressure on President Trump.
"The BOP has also deployed its Counter Terrorism Unit, typically used to monitor the communications and activities for 'terrorist offenders' incarcerated in its system, to monitor threats inside Camp Bryan. Both teams have been working inside Camp Bryan since Maxwell's transfer there last week."
While Maxwell's attorney David Oscar Markus did not respond to questions from the Sun, a Bureau of Prisons spokesman said it does "not comment on the conditions of confinement for any incarcerated individual, nor do we elaborate on specific security procedures."
"We take seriously our duty to protect the individuals entrusted in our custody, as well as maintaining the safety of our employees and the community."
The BOP houses a large number of infamous inmates at some of America's most secure facilities, including the ignominious supermax prison in Colorado.
"But it is highly unusual for the bureau to need to protect an inmate at a minimum-security prison camp whose most prominent current inmates, prior to Maxwell's arrival, are a 'Real Housewife,' Jen Shah, and the Theranos fraudster, Elizabeth Holmes," the Sun reports.
Maxwell was transported out of Tallahassee, Florida, to her current facility in Texas after agreeing to help the government with ongoing probes into Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking ring.
Annie Farmer, an Epstein survivor, said Maxwell's transfer is "really worrying" to herself and fellow victims of sexual abuse.
"With this prison transfer, I think it again feels like she is getting preferential treatment," Farmer told CNN.
"That sounds like something that is unprecedented, and it's really worrying to us about what might be coming next."
Another survivor, Virginia Giuffre, who has since purportedly committed suicide, told media in Australia: "I was instructed to get undressed and have sex with Jeffrey Epstein while Ghislaine Maxwell was participating as well."
"Both of them," she stressed. "I was abused by Ghislaine and Epstein."
Meanwhile, appearing on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel, Vice President JD Vance said of the Epstein case: "I laugh at the Democrats who are now all of a sudden so interested in the Epstein files. For four years Joe Biden and the Democrats did absolutely nothing about this story."
"We know that Jeffrey Epstein had a lot of connections with left-wing politicians and billionaires, and now President Trump has demanded full transparency from this, and yet somehow the Democrats are attacking him and not the Biden administration which did nothing for four years."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For Iran, now is the first time in over a century – since the 1907 Constitutional Revolution, inspired by the French Revolution – the dream of freedom feels truly within reach. The vision ahead is bold and clear: a secular republic founded on the separation of religion and state, gender equality, the elimination of nuclear weapons, an end to executions, no compulsory hijab or forced religion, and no authoritarian rule. This vision includes ethnic autonomy, peace with neighboring countries, and peaceful coexistence with the world.
But this path has been anything but easy. The cost has been staggering – over 100,000 lives lost in the pursuit of freedom. The Iranian people's resistance has been crushed repeatedly, at times coming close to complete destruction. It has indeed been a perilous journey, where patriots continually walk a fine line between liberty and death. Yet, like a phoenix rising from the ashes, the movement has once again soared toward the peaks of freedom.
The radical Islamic dictatorship sees its survival as tied to the destruction of Iran's resistance – especially the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), which forms the backbone of this struggle. But today, thanks to the unwavering persistence of the resistance, the tide is turning. The theocratic regime is on the brink of collapse, faced with a decentralized resistance movement built on thousands of grassroots cells across the country – ready to pay any price for a brighter future. A future that belongs to the people, with no return to the terrible past.
Despite all the suffering, executions and even acts of genocide endured by the Iranian people, remnants of the monarchy remain trapped in delusion. They imagine that time has somehow reversed, and that the fall of religious tyranny will simply make way for the return of royal dictatorship. Perhaps this explains why Reza Pahlavi, son of the former Shah, is now seeking support from factions within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
On July 26, Reza Pahlavi hosted a gathering in Munich. In an interview with Politico, he claimed that more than 50,000 regime officials and military personnel had registered on a "secure platform" aimed at supporting the overthrow of the clerical regime. He also stated that he was in discussions with regime security and military forces about their potential role in toppling the religious dictator Ali Khamenei and forming a secular government.
From Shah to Mullah – and now from Mullah back to Shah?
Is this the cruel irony of history? The answer is clear: No. History does not move backward. The Pahlavi dictatorship cannot reclaim power on the blood of hundreds of thousands of freedom fighters – this time repackaged in the name of modernism.
On July 31, Maryam Rajavi, leader of the Iranian opposition, spoke at a conference in Rome attended by numerous European and American officials and lawmakers. She firmly stated that the religious dictatorship must be fully rejected in all its forms and factions. From the beginning, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) has drawn a clear boundary excluding both the Mullahs and the Shah – because neither represents democracy.
She emphasized that the NCRI, whose legitimacy is rooted in four decades of resistance, views freedom as the sole measure of progress. It offers no privileges and allows no discrimination based on belief. Every citizen – whether religious or not – must enjoy equal rights under the law.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, also present at the Rome conference, commented on Reza Pahlavi:
"This man has done nothing. He shouldn't even be allowed to run a health company. Given his ties to the IRGC – a designated terrorist organization – this could be considered criminal. Reza Pahlavi is a traitor to the Iranian people. A free Iran is within reach because the MEK is the only group with the courage to make it possible."
Pahlavi's claims of contact with segments of the regime and the IRGC, supposedly to help lead a transition to democracy, are nothing more than a bitter and grotesque farce. In truth, such actions serve only to prolong the life of a theocratic regime on the verge of collapse. Just as he helped derail the 2022 uprising, he now seeks to prevent the next one – by sowing confusion and doubt within the ranks of the opposition.