This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden's energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, appeared before a congressional committee and got skewered by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., for misleading Congress during a previous appearance.
And illegally owning banned stock.
"Why did you mislead us and what were you hiding?" Hawley demanded. "Why did you wait so long? Why did you hide this?"
Granholm had told Hawley during a congressional appearance in early 2023 she did not own any individual stocks subject to bans because of her role supervising the energy industry.
But she did.
And she sold them a month later.
Then a full month after that, she issued a correction to her comments to Hawley.
Granholm claimed her earlier testimony was based on her mistaken belief "that I had sold all individual stocks."
Granholm claimed, despite the two-month delay, "I came back as soon as I found out that I had not sold all individual stocks."
She said she realized her "mistake" and brought it to the committee.
She violated the STOCK Act nine times in 2021 when she submitted reports to the Office of Government Ethics outlining stock trades.
All of those were outside the 45 days allowed by the STOCK Act for government officials to report their financial dealings.
Hawley pointed out that some 130 officials in Granholm's department reported more than 2,700 trades that appeared to violate rules, which the senator called institutionalized corruption.
A commentary at Twitchy explained Granholm reveals she "is so mad at him, not that he's caught her but that he has the nerve to question or call her out. The Biden administration has not been held accountable for much, doesn't Josh know who she is?"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The reputation for legacy media outlets, the wire services, networks, and old-school broadsheets, has plunged in recent years.
For one thing, they're no longer needed, what with instant news deliveries online.
And they've repeatedly brashly gone political, choosing to promote one political ideology and then call another "misinformation."
Or "disinformation."
Or "misinformation," which is true information, but just inconvenient to those in power.
One missive from the old-line AP even recently advised journalists that on some topics, like global warming, there's no need to include the "other side."
But now Catherine Herridge, the respected investigative journalist who used to work for CBS and documented the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, is charging the network with an offense even more extreme: "Journalistic rape."
The New York Post reports the claim came about because, she told the House Judiciary Committee, the network fired her, then seized her files.
"When my records were seized I felt it was a journalistic rape," she explained. "When the network of Walter Cronkite seizes your reporting files, including confidential source information, that is an attack on investigative journalism."
She has won an Emmy and is now in the middle of a First Amendment case.
And she charged that confiscating her files could have put her sources in jeopardy.
"CBS News’ decision to seize my reporting records crossed a red line that I believe should never be crossed by any media organization," she said. "Multiple sources said they were concerned that by working with me to expose government corruption and misconduct they would be identified and exposed."
Herridge previously had worked at Fox, the report said.
CBS officials have claimed that no one "rifled" through Herridge's files and they eventually were locked up, then returned.
The report noted, "The House Judiciary Committee also heard testimony from former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who quit the network in 2014 over claims that CBS killed stories that put then-President Barack Obama in a bad light."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
"Nondiscrimination" schemes under the Joe Biden regime in Washington often have been used to advocate for blatant discrimination against Christians and Christian organizations.
One such situation recently developed when Democrats in Colorado insisted they could force a web designer to promote same-sex weddings if she provided any services to couples getting married.
The Supreme Court slapped down the state for violating the Constitution in its leftist agenda.
But those issues have developed over and over, and now it involves the State Department, which is proposing a new "nondiscrimination" demand that could affect the employment decisions of Christian ministries.
So officials with Samaritan's Purse, the Christian Legal Society, the Accord Network and other ministries have written to the State Department protesting the agency's plans.
The new proposal would ban discrimination against beneficiaries of programs that are sometimes given grants by the government "on specified bases."
But then the State Department bureaucrats also want to demand that those organizations providing benefits on a nondiscriminatory basis also hire employees on a nondiscriminatory basis.
The ministries in a letter to State explain that they "affirm" the idea of not discriminating against any benefit "recipient."
But the problem is the rules as planned by State threaten their right to hire employees they choose, and possibly could force them to stop partnering with the government on aid programs.
It's not a small problem, they explain. "To illustrate the full extent of the potential loss of foreign assistance of USAID's top 50 largest foreign assistance recipients, religious organizations comprise $613 million in obligated agency funding in FY '23. They have worked in over 100 countries programming in water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), displaced persons and refugee support, countertrafficking, and strengthening of civil society structures like health care and justice systems."
The aid organizations explain that the rule needs to provide that their religious character, affiliation, practices, and expressions of religious beliefs "will not preclude" them from participating in various programs.
They cite the Constitution, the religion clauses of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and more to explain that the laws of the land require nondiscrimination rules to provide "overriding protection for religious freedom."
Without a provision for religious rights, the organizations told State, the proposed rules are "arbitrary and capricious" for failing "to consider a reasonable alternative, specifically, categorical exemption of religious organizations applying for foreign assistance grants and federal acquisition contracts…"
Without changes, the groups warn the Biden administration, "the regulations will infringe statutory and constitutional rights, frustrate the regulations' stated purpose, impede the delivery of foreign assistance, threaten the U.S. government's foreign policy objectives, foment expensive litigation and result in the unintended exclusion of religious organizations from being applicants and offerors for the department's grants and contracts."
Online, there's a petition procedure for people to sign up to agree with the comments: "I strongly oppose the U.S. State Department's consideration of new regulations that will cut off grants and contracts to Christian – and all faith-based – relief organizations that require their employees to share their faith and their religious values."
The charge to the government came from the Accord Network, Samaritan’s Purse, Christian Legal Society, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and others.
Specifically, the government is warned that there are such things as religious rights protected by the Constitution and the proposal would "not allow [faith-based organizations] to consider sexual orientation and gender identity or expression in the hiring process in order to remain eligible for foreign aid funding."
The ERLC explained, "Hiring staff members that reflect the religious beliefs of an organization is a long-standing pillar of religious liberty protections."
Franklin Graham, who heads Samaritan's Purse, added, "These proposed State Department regulations could be used to force faith-based organizations like Samaritan’s Purse to hire staff who disagree with our core biblical beliefs about God’s design for marriage, sexuality, and gender in order to be eligible for government grants."
He continued, "Samaritan’s Purse is a Christian organization and we will not compromise on the fundamental principle of hiring like-minded Christians who share our calling, our stand on the authority of God’s Word, and our statement of faith."
The groups explain in their letter to the government there needs to be a "categorical exemption" from religious belief requirements in the process.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There's a real danger coming for Americans should there be another pandemic, which in all probability will happen at some time.
And it's not necessarily from the actual health danger, it stems from the censorship and misinformation campaigns that the American government launched during the COVID-19 threat.
That's according to Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University.
Long considered a constitutional expert, he's testified before Congress on a variety of constitutional disputes and even represented members in court.
He cited the misinformation delivered by the government during COVID, its crackdown on alternative views about treatments, the mandatory shots, the masks, and much, much more.
That all has produced in the American public a distrust of government, as many of the views mandated by the government have since proven wrong, and many of the perspectives censored for being wrong have been documented as being right.
"The loss of public confidence in both the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) and the media could prove disastrous if we face another pandemic," he explained. "The years of barring and throttling opposing views (including many later vindicated by the science) has left many Americans deeply distrustful of both the government and the media.
"That is the real potential danger. If we want to prepare for the next pandemic, we need to repair that trust," he warned.
His comments were prompted by a federal judge's decision to hit out at the CDC for withholding data on adverse vaccine reports.
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to resist disclosing information on claimed side effects and problems with its COVID-19 vaccines, including from healthcare workers," he explained.
"Due to a January order by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in a Freedom of Information Act case, the CDC is being forced to turn over hundreds of thousands of 'free text' entries from V-safe. The court has scolded the CDC for its continuing efforts to withhold information on these complaints."
He said the dispute reminds us that "we still need to address the conduct of the government – and the reporting of the media – from the last pandemic. Once agency officials were told that they could censor those with opposing views, a culture of speech controls took hold at the CDC, and the government narrative was then amplified by the media."
He pointed out that the two entities, government, and media, combined to make even questioning their adopted talking points "a public health threat."
Turley added, "A lawsuit was filed by Missouri and Louisiana and joined by leading experts, including Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya (Stanford University) and Martin Kulldorff (Harvard University). Bhattacharya previously objected to the suspension of Dr. Clare Craig after she raised concerns about Pfizer trial documents. Those doctors were the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused COVID response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination. Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others."
He noted that even those who suggested the virus came out of a Chinese lab that was experimenting on those very diseases, which now is widely accepted as the source, "was denounced as a conspiracy theory."
California even tried to strip doctors of their medical licenses "for spreading dissenting views."
He said much remains to be done to create a culture of transparency at the CDC.
"The surest way to combat this culture of censorship is to pass legislation barring a single dime of taxpayer funds from being used to fund censorship efforts, including third-party groups on removing 'misinformation, disinformation, and misinformation,'" he said.
"We should get the government out of the business of controlling the speech of citizens and groups. It can rebut critics on its ample platforms without using third parties to silence them as surrogates."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Joe Biden Department of Justice is demanding jail time for another defendant who was caught up in a Biden family scandal – that of diary revelations about Joe Biden "showering" with his young daughter, in a "probably not appropriate" scenario.
It's just one of the many scandals embroiling the Biden family, from a scheme to peddle influence to foreign enemies to a failure to pay taxes to an apparent lie on a federal form required to purchase a handgun.
Congress is investigating a wide range of these allegations now, in hearings that could result in a recommendation to impeach Biden.
Now a report in Twitchy reveals Joe Biden's DOJ is sounding off in a case against a woman who took a diary that once belonged to Biden's daughter Ashley.
The diary, which the Biden administration purported was a fake for a long time, includes Ashley's references to being "sexualized" at a young age and showering with her father, Joe Biden, at the time. The diary expresses those actions as "probably not appropriate."
The Twitchy report openly challenges the Biden family stories on the topic, with, "Wait, we thought it wasn't real: DOJ wants prison time for a woman who 'stole' Ashley Biden's diary."
The diary was left behind in a rental when Ashley Biden departed, and it reached the level of yet another scandal for the Bidens when the woman sold it to an investigative news outlet.
It featured prominently, then, in a SWAT-style raid of the home belonging to James O'Keefe, now of the O'Keefe Media Group. He was working then with Project Veritas, and the organization had turned the diary over to authorities when it obtained access.
At issue is a case involving Aimee Harris, who sold the diary at the time.
The Twitchy report said "The media and leftist 'influencers' went out of their way to claim that the leaked diary pages were not real. And why wouldn't they? After all, it worked (for a while) with Hunter Biden's laptop, claiming that was all just 'Russian disinformation.'"
But the report noted the FBI "ruined those claims" by raiding O'Keefe's home.
"After all, why would the FBI be so invested in the diary if it was all fake 'right-wing propaganda'? Yesterday, Biden's Department of Justice further verified the diary's unseemly contents when they stepped into the sentencing of Harris (who has already pled guilty) to demand that she serve four to 10 months in prison for the theft. For the 'theft' of a diary that was abandoned. Let that sink in."
The New York Post had reported prosecutors originally wanted six months of home confinement, but Joe Biden's DOJ then demanded more.
A filing from U.S. Attorney Damian Williams to District Judge Laura Taylor Swain said "no incarceration" would be "wholly insufficient."
Twitchy confirmed, "For clarification, the 'abuse' the DOJ is referring to here is simply that Harris has tried to have her sentencing hearing rescheduled several times."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Advertisers are colluding – in violation of U.S. antitrust laws – to demonetize "disfavored" online content, mostly conservative views, according to charges leveled in a letter from U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
He wrote to officials of Diageo, which holds a key position on the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, one branch of the World Federation of Advertisers.
"Evidence the committee has obtained suggests that GARM members, led by Steer Team members, are colluding to demonetize conservative platforms and voices," the letter charges. "Further, this coordination does not always revolve around 'brand safety' and 'harmful' content as GARM publicly claims, but instead the desire to censor conservative and other views that GARM members disfavor."
"Communications the committee has reviewed directly connects Diageo with these efforts," the letter explains, "Under the Sherman Act, these types of agreements may be illegal, and they require considering the adequacy of current law. The actions are concerning and warrant oversight because the harm that GARM causes to consumers is severe."
The documents being sought include communications among WFA, GARM and group members "referring or relating to the categorization, demonetization or elimination of online speech" as well as communications referring to "conservative media outlets, including Fox News, Daily Wire, and Breitbart."
The Daily Wire, in fact, reported the investigation includes whether "major advertisers" broke the law by coordinating "about which news outlets to blackball."
Documents already obtained from WFA "show how it implemented a strategy to prevent major advertisers from doing business with disfavored news outlets," the report said.
The report explained, "The letters went to major corporations on GARM’s 'steering committee' — Unilever, Procter & Gamble, GroupM, Diageo, and Mars — saying the documents 'directly connect' the companies with such efforts."
Those documents have not been released to the public.
GARM was "created" in an announcement by WFA at the 2019 Cannes festival, at which global elites gathered to complain about "disinformation" and "fake news," topics that Joe Biden is using as a foundation for his 2024 presidential campaign.
That announcement, according to the Daily Wire, claimed that GARM "focuses on viewer safety for consumers, reducing risks for advertisers, developing credibility for digital platforms and, more broadly, ensuring a sustainable online ecosystem."
Partners announced then included LEGO Group, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, NBC Universal – MSNBC, Dentsu Group, WPP (through GroupM), Interpublic Group, Publicis Groupe, Omnicom Group, Facebook and Google."
Shortly later, GARM said it would be targeting "misinformation."
It suggested companies should turn to organizations with extreme left agendas, including Global Disinformation Index, Newsguard and Journalism Trust Initiative to coordinate their demonetization.
GARM boasted in 2022, "GARM’s launch was propelled forward by uncommon collaboration, a unique way of working recognizing that all sectors of the advertising industry and companies benefit from partnering to create new brand safety standards and solutions that could be accepted industry-wide, where there had been no established protocols."
It included 61 major corporations responsible for massive portions of the world's advertising market, along with 35 industry associations.
The problem with such ratings, and collaboration, is that the recommendations for "safety" often have nothing to do with "safety," but everything to do with a political agenda.
Actions that already have been treated as offensive include questioning COVID's origins as well as its experimental shots, undue influences on elections and revealing details of government and media "disinformation" campaigns that protect some politicians.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Taxpayers in the state of Colorado are getting burned by the leftist agenda, pursued by Democrat Gov. Jared Polis and a Democrat-run legislature, to attack Christians with a so-called "non-discrimination" agenda that actually discriminates against people of faith.
A judge has ruled that the plaintiffs in the 303 Creative lawsuit that was decided recently by the Supreme Court are entitled to costs and attorneys' fees, and they have 90 days to submit a motion to the court for approval.
Such cases, by the time they are all the way through the high court, can accumulate tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of dollars in lawyers' time and costs.
The leftist state's failed attack was on Lorie Smith and her 303 Creative company, through which she intended to create websites for couples being married.
However, the state demanded that should she begin that service, she also must provide the same services to same-sex duos, in violation of her Christian faith.
She sued for the First Amendment violation demanded by the state and won.
The ADF, which worked on her case, explained the case background: "Lorie Smith is an artist who runs her own design studio, 303 Creative. She specializes in graphic and website design and loves to visually convey messages in every site she creates. Lorie started her own small business in 2012 so she could promote causes consistent with her beliefs and close to her heart, such as supporting children with disabilities, the beauty of marriage, overseas missions, animal shelters, and veterans. She was excited to expand her portfolio to create custom websites that celebrate marriage between a man and a woman, but Colorado made clear she wasn’t welcome in that space. A Colorado law censored what Lorie wanted to say and required her to create designs that violate her beliefs about marriage. Lorie works with people from all walks of life, including those who identify as LGBT. Lorie’s decisions about which projects to design are always based on what message she’s being asked to express, never who requests it. After realizing that Colorado was censoring her—and seeing Colorado use this same law to punish Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips—Lorie challenged the law to protect free speech."
The state of Colorado lost that case against Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop, too. There, the Supreme Court based its decision on the state's "hostility" to Christianity.
Now a report from the Volokh Conspiracy explains that the case was moved down from the Supreme Court to the 10th Circuit Court, and from there down to Judge Philip Brimmer in district court.
His order ruled that the plaintiffs are "the prevailing parties" in the case and that means they "are entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses for work related to litigation before the district court."
He also ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the anti-Christian activists in the state from enforcing their "Accommodations Clause" of the state's discriminatory "Anti-Discrimination Act."
Brimmer also ruled that the First Amendment bans Colorado from enforcing that law's "Communications Clause," which banned Smith even from stating her Christian beliefs.
That means Smith has permission now to post online the statement:
"I firmly believe that God is calling me to this work. Why? I am personally convicted that He wants me – during these uncertain times for those who believe in biblical marriage – to shine His light and not stay silent. He is calling me to stand up for my faith, to explain His true story about marriage, and to use the talents and business He gave me to publicly proclaim and celebrate His design for marriage as a life-long union between one man and one woman.
"These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs. So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God's true story of marriage – the very story He is calling me to promote."
Brimmer's order also ruled that Colorado's "defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those acting in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order are permanently enjoined from enforcing" those discriminatory state provisions.
It was the Daily Caller News Foundation that pointed out the ruling was having a ripple effect immediately.
Because of the 303 Creative decision, a government attack on a Christian wedding photographer was dropped. And it is expected that the ruling will impace the case when the latest attack on Jack Phillips, from a lawyer demanding he violate his faith, reaches the Colorado Supreme Court.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A couple of state officials in New York are being sued for the formal discrimination – based on sex and race – that they use in a business licensing program.
Such discrimination, of course, is banned by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
It is the Pacific Legal Foundation that is representing a New York business operated by William Purcell and his brother, Emmet.
The PLF explains the state's "discriminatory" operation "favors some (cannabis business license) applicants more highly than others based on the race and sex of the owners."
The result is that the brothers' Valencia Ag is being prevented from being considered for a license "on equal terms."
The brothers filed all the applications and made all the arrangements for a business, but the state's "application review process prioritizes applications from women and minorities, leaving the Purcell brothers as non-preferred applicants while their expenses accumulate," the PLF said.
"The government cannot give preference to anyone based on immutable characteristics like race or sex. Doing so is unfair and unconstitutional," said David Hoffa, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. "The only criteria that should matter is whether an applicant can demonstrate that they will run a safe and legal business. Everyone deserves the right to try to earn a living regardless of their race or sex."
The report explains the brothers "met all of the eligibility requirements related to finances, residency, and the like. But they soon learned the process is rigged when their application was placed at a disadvantage simply because of their race and sex."
Lawmakers in the state adopted a formal plan of discrimination that requires half of the business licenses to go to "so-called social and economic equity applicants. These applicants also pay half as much as their non-priority counterparts in applications and annual renewal fees."
Special privileges are given to minority and women business owners.
Since the brothers don't qualify for those privileges, "They are concerned they won’t even get an application review, let alone have a license granted, simply because of their race and sex. As of now, they are sitting at the back of the current line for review and will almost certainly need to reapply in the future, where their race and gender can be used against their application in multiple ways."
The PLF explained that while the government is supposed to treat every citizen equally, regardless of race and sex, New York’s cannabis licensing scheme "does the exact opposite."
The complaint seeks a ruling that the discrimination plan violates the 14th Amendment as well as an injunction against its application.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
This could be a case for Joe Biden's attacks on "misinformation" or "disinformation" or "malinformation" or something.
Or it could just be a case of a politician trying so hard to pursue his agenda that the facts don't matter.
Case in point is the claim from Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison that Glock is failing to protect the public and might even have "broken to law" by knowing "for decades" of a modification to its handguns that would make them fire 1,200 rounds a minute.
That would mean the handguns would be firing a shot every 1/20th of a second.
That is the same official, according to a sarcastic report at Twitchy, who recently blamed a spate of auto thefts on auto manufacturers.
The report advised that Democrats who are going to attack the Second Amendment to first learn about guns.
"We've just about had it. We recently heard Supreme Court oral arguments on this subject. And we had actual, sitting Supreme Court justices -- plural -- believing that bump stocks could make guns fire 800 rounds per second. Yes, per second," the report warned.
The report cited excerpts from Ellison's letter, in which he was joined by other state officials.
We have followed the mounting reports about devastation and public terror caused by Glock handguns that became illegal machine guns when fitted with cheap, ubiquitous inserts known as 'switches' or 'auto-sears.'
These unfolding horror stories exemplify the extraordinary danger of automatic weapons on our streets, and demonstrate why they are so strictly prohibited.
In light of these grievous public safety issues, we were disturbed to read the City of Chicago’s recently filed allegations that you have known for decades that easy adaption into a machine gun is a natural feature of your handgun design.
The report explained an auto-switch is a device that exists but it's already illegal everywhere in the U.S. But even if a criminal installs it, a handgun likely could not achieve a firing rate of 1,200 rounds per minute.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Every election there are a few celebrities who try to interfere in the vote by threatening to their fans they will move out of the United States if a candidate, usually a Republican, wins.
They never follow through, despite social media volunteers who would help them pack.
But now that attitude has spread, and new polling shows that one in five Democrats would be "anxious" about their "qualify of life" if President Donald Trump wins in November and "would consider moving away."
The polling results were delivered early to Washington Secrets writer Paul Bedard.
He said this year Republicans, too, are ready to take action.
Citing the results from Greenback Expat Tax Services, he said some 85% of respondents told the accounting firm they feel "negatively" about the current political climate.
Republicans, too.
"Republicans are less reactive, but still, 1 in 12 would consider emigrating if President Joe Biden wins a second term, according to the analysis," Bedard reported.
He pointed out, "ironically," considering Biden's "blundering" on American border policies, "Mexico would be one of the first places Americans would flee to just like they did after the 2022 elections. Canada is No. 1."
In fact, Biden's decision to destroy the border security measures adopted by President Donald Trump has left millions of illegal aliens invading America across the open southern border.
It's meant billions of dollars of tax money being diverted to feed and house them, and even cities and states that previously considered themselves "sanctuaries" for illegals have been complaining about their burden.
"And in a sign that they mean it, the survey analysis found many would also throw away their U.S. citizenship. 'Over one in five Americans considering emigration due to the political climate would make a permanent move and be willing to revoke their U.S. citizenship,' the analysis said," the report explained.
The report notes that Americans emigrating to Mexico totaled 10,705 in 2020, but 19,620 in 2022. The three-year total was 46,347.
Also, Americans moving to the U.K., totaled 9,404 in 2020 but 21,936 in 2022. For Canada, the figures were 6,380 in 2020 and 10,415 in 2022.
Other destinations have included Spain, 27,849 over the three years, France, 26,821, Australia, 22,460, Italy, 17,434, Germany, 16,405, South Korea, 14,904, and Japan, 13,960.
For the three years, 45,955 Americans were moving to the U.K. and, 28,750 to Canada.
The report noted a party division of faith in democracy, with Democrats "far more eager to quit America if former President Donald Trump wins."