A California man who threatened to physically harm former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), as well as Homeland Security Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas, has now been dealt with by the nation's federal justice system.
David Allen Carrier, 44, was ordered by a judge on Wednesday to serve 11 months in prison for the threatening voicemails he left for the two federal officials, according to The Hill.
Once that prison sentence has been completed, Carrier will also be required to serve three years of supervised release and abide by certain other conditions imposed by the court during that time.
According to a Justice Department press release, Carrier first called then-Speaker Pelosi's office on Jan. 21, 2021, just two weeks after the Capitol riot, and left a voicemail threatening physical assault against the congresswoman.
More than a year and a half later, the man similarly called a special hotline for the Department of Homeland Security and again left a voicemail message that threatened physical assault against Sec. Mayorkas.
Carrier was eventually indicted by a federal grand jury in September 2023 and was charged with two counts of violating the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B).
That statute reads: "Whoever --threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section, with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b)."
Subsection (b) of the statute specifies in the relevant part that "A threat made in violation of this section shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, or both, except that imprisonment for a threatened assault shall not exceed 6 years."
Likely because Carrier pleaded guilty to the two charges against him in December, not to mention his admission that his threats were intended to interfere with the "official duties" of the two threatened officials, he appears to have received a far more lenient sentence from Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup than the statute allowed for.
The judge chose not to impose any fine on the defendant and only ordered him to serve 11 months in prison when the maximum sentence could have been as many as six years behind bars.
As for the three years of supervised release after the prison sentence was completed, that included a requirement that Carrier receive treatment for mental health and substance abuse, as well as to have no contact whatsoever with former Speaker Pelosi or Sec. Mayorkas, among other conditions.
"Participating in the public political conversation is an important right for all citizens," U.S. Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey said in the DOJ release. "Nevertheless, threatening our public servants is not protected by the First Amendment and corrodes our ability to engage in peaceful and important public discourse. This Office will not tolerate behavior that crosses the line to criminal threats."
FBI Special Agent in Charge Robert Tripp said in a statement, "Violent threats targeting elected officials also threaten our democratic system," and added, "Today's sentence demonstrates that anyone who sends politically motivated threats of violence to government officials will be investigated by the FBI and held accountable."
The U.S. Secret Service was also involved in investigating Carrier's threats, and Special Agent in Charge Shawn Bradstreet stated in the press release, "We take threats against a U.S. Secret Service protectee very seriously. This is a great example of the coordination and partnership between the U.S. Secret Service, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California to investigate and prosecute threats against our nation’s leaders."
When critics of President Joe Biden's economic policies derisively dubbed them as "Bidenomics" early on in his tenure, the White House eventually attempted to appropriate the term and attach a positive connotation to it in a concerted effort to bolster Biden's standing on the issue throughout the second half of 2023.
That effort has now largely been abandoned by Biden's White House and his Democratic allies in a sort of quiet admission of defeat that the "Bidenomics" term still holds a predominately negative connotation for most Americans, according to Breitbart.
A recent analytical report revealed that after an initial surge in positive usage of the term last summer, including dozens of times by Biden himself and hundreds of times by his Democratic allies, there was a substantial dropoff in usage beginning in the fall, and now the term is rarely uttered at all -- at least not in a positive context.
Axios reported this week that President Biden used the "Bidenomics" term during an event on Tuesday for the first time since January, marking only the third time so far this year that the word has crossed his lips.
Compare that to the 100 times he employed the "Bidenomics" term throughout the second half of 2023, predominately between June and October, when the White House push to repurpose the term first coined by media and Republican critics was in full swing.
The same significant decline in usage of the term was also evident among the president's Democratic allies in Congress, who at the peak used it nearly 500 times last July but have said it only 10 times this month.
"It's a shift that amounted to an acknowledgment that the White House's messaging effort was falling flat with many voters," the outlet observed.
However, even as Biden and Democrats tried to impart positivity in the "Bidenomics" term, Republicans in Congress continued to use it mockingly, including as many as 800 to 900 times per month in August and November of last year, and they are still using it to negatively describe Biden's economic policies nearly 500 times per month now.
The fact that Team Biden's hijacking of the "Bidenomics" term last summer had failed to catch on with voters began to become evident by the fall months, according to an NBC News report in November.
The attempted rebranding of the word was described by one focus group participant as a "jumbled mess," in that nobody -- including President Biden himself -- could fully define what it actually meant and it was instead employed as a sort of catch-all term to encompass virtually anything that was even remotely connected to the economy.
Furthermore, focus groups and polling consistently showed that the "Bidenomics" term, when used positively by the president and his allies, rang hollow with Americans who are still dealing with the negative effects of high-interest rates, inflationary prices for groceries and consumer goods, and elevated costs for gasoline and other forms of energy.
"Whoever came up with the slogan Bidenomics should be fired," one anonymous Democratic strategist told NBC News at the time. "It’s probably the worst messaging you could ever imagine."
The decision to largely ditch the "Bidenomics" term -- though that process began last fall -- was likely finalized last month when multiple polls left little doubt that the rebranding effort had backfired dismally on President Biden and his Democratic allies.
Fox News reported in early February on polls that showed former President Donald Trump with a substantial lead over Biden on economics-related issues, while The Hill reported in late February on other polling which showed that, despite the constant hype from the White House, most Americans felt that they hadn't benefited at all, or were even worse off than before, thanks to Biden's economic policies.
In 2021, the Republican-led Montana Legislature passed several election law reform bills that were subsequently challenged by lawsuits from Democrats and Native American groups, with four of those new reform laws being ruled unconstitutional by a district court judge in 2022.
Montana's Republican Secretary of State appealed the lower court's ruling, but the Montana Supreme Court just affirmed that the district court was correct in declaring the challenged election reform laws as unconstitutional, The Hill reported.
Of the four challenged election reform laws, according to the Montana Supreme Court's 125-page ruling on Wednesday, one in particular was swiftly dispensed as unconstitutional via a summary judgment from the district court judge before the trial even began.
HB 506 changed existing law to now prohibit the provision of an absentee ballot to a minor who would turn 18 and become eligible to vote before an election day, an alteration that the high court agreed "interfered with the fundamental right to vote" of otherwise eligible voters.
Also challenged was HB 176, which eliminated same-day voter registration and moved the registration deadline up to noon of the day before an election day, which the courts determined violated the right to vote and equal protection under the U.S. and state constitutions.
The Supreme Court further noted that "Election day registration has become wildly popular, with over 70,000 Montanans utilizing it since 2006," as well as that "In a 2014 referendum, Montana voters rejected eliminating election day registration by a 14-point margin."
The Hill reported that the Democratic and Native American plaintiff groups also challenged as unconstitutional a section of HB 530 that outlawed the paid collection and submission of ballots by a third-party individual or group, also known as ballot harvesting.
However, the courts found that the provision violated "the right to vote, equal protection, freedom of speech, due process," and was "an improper delegation of legislative power." The courts further observed the existence of "evidence that many groups, including Native Americans, people with disabilities, and other voters, rely on organized groups to help them deliver their voted ballots to election officials."
Finally, there was SB 169, which made changes to Montana's voter ID law and demoted student IDs from a "primary" to a "secondary" form of identification, meaning some additional proof that voters "are who they say they are" would still be required before casting a ballot -- a change that was deemed an unconstitutional violation of equal protection rights.
According to The Hill, Montana's Republican Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen, who was the sole defendant in the consolidated lawsuits brought by Democratic and Native American groups, asserted in a statement that "Well-funded groups deceived the court and the media in a sad way."
Through a spokesperson, Jacobsen's office told the Montana Free Press in a statement, "The secretary is devastated by this decision but assures Montanans that her commitment to election integrity will not waver by this narrow adoption of judicial activism that is certain to fall on the wrong side of history."
"State and county election officials have been punched in the gut," the spokesperson added on the secretary's behalf.
The Free Press reported that while all of the Montana Supreme Court justices concurred on the unconstitutionality of the law that disallowed absentee ballots for minors who would turn 18 before election day, there were some dissents from the majority's judgment on the unconstitutionality of the other three laws, especially from Justice Dirk Sandefur.
At one point in his lengthy dissent, Sandefur wrote, "In an unprecedented exercise of unrestrained judicial power overriding public policy determinations made by the Legislature in the exercise of its constitutional discretion, however ill-advised to some, the majority today strikes down three distinct legislative enactments on the most dubiously transparent of constitutional grounds."
The United States has lost one of its most dedicated public servants, Joe Lieberman, at the age of 82. Joe Lieberman, a figure celebrated for his bipartisan efforts and historical vice-presidential candidacy, passed away due to complications following a fall.
Conservative commentator Mark Levin remarked on X that Lieberman was the "last moderate" upon his death on Wednesday.
Born on February 24, 1942, in Stamford, Connecticut, Lieberman's journey in public service commenced after graduating from Yale Law School. His early career saw him serve as Connecticut's attorney general, setting the stage for a lifetime of dedication to public service. Lieberman's national political prominence began with his election to the U.S. Senate in 1988, where he unseated Lowell Weicker, signaling a new era of bipartisan and moderate politics.
Lieberman's 24 years in the Senate were marked by a commitment to bipartisanship and a moderate stance on various issues. His approach to governance was evident in his collaboration with members across the aisle, particularly on foreign policy and national security matters. This commitment to cooperation was further highlighted when he became the first Jewish American to run for vice president on a major party ticket in 2000 alongside Al Gore, a nomination that challenged and changed perceptions of Jewish candidates in American politics.
In the 2000 election, despite the Gore-Lieberman ticket's narrow loss, Lieberman's vice-presidential run left an indelible mark on the political landscape. His candidacy was not just a personal milestone but also a symbol of America's evolving political inclusivity. Following this, Lieberman sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, although his bid was unsuccessful. However, his influence within the political sphere only continued to grow, particularly through his foreign policy initiatives.
Lieberman's tenure in the Senate was notably marked by his hawkish stance on foreign policy, contributing significantly to the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security after the 9/11 attacks. His cooperative efforts with Republicans, especially on military policy in Iraq, demonstrated his prioritization of national security over party lines. This dedication to bipartisanship, however, led to challenges within his own party, resulting in his loss of the Democratic Senate nomination in 2006. Despite this setback, Lieberman was reelected as an independent, affirming his commitment to his principles and the constituents of Connecticut.
Throughout his career, Lieberman collaborated with senators such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham on various international issues, underscoring his belief in the importance of bipartisan governance. McCain, who had considered Lieberman as a vice-presidential running mate in 2008, later expressed that such a ticket would have symbolized a genuine effort to unite the country.
After retiring from the Senate in 2012, Lieberman continued to influence American politics through his association with the American Enterprise Institute and his support for specific policies of Donald Trump, such as the relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. His later involvement with No Labels, an organization aimed at providing a third-party option to voters, reflected his enduring commitment to transcending partisan divides for the betterment of the country.
Lieberman's personal life, particularly his observance of the Sabbath, played a significant role in shaping his public and private personas. His dedication to his faith and principles was admired by colleagues and constituents alike. Hadassah Lieberman, his wife, highlighted how his Sabbath observance was a "centering factor" in his life, bringing balance to his demanding public service career.
At the time of his death, Lieberman was surrounded by his family, including his wife, Hadassah, showcasing the importance of family throughout his life. Tributes from former colleagues and friends, including Al Gore, who described Lieberman as "a man of deep integrity dedicated to serving his country," underscored the broad respect and admiration he commanded.
The impact of Joe Lieberman's career extends beyond the legislation he helped pass or the positions he held. His pioneering vice-presidential candidacy and his steadfast commitment to bipartisanship and national security have left a lasting legacy. Authors of "Jews in American Politics" noted the significance of his candidacy, stating it changed the perception of what is possible for Jewish candidates in America.
John McCain's reflections on his relationship with Lieberman, describing their shared travels and bipartisan efforts, highlight the deep personal and professional bonds formed across party lines. Lieberman's own words on his election night victory in 1988 and his advocacy for progressive ideas and stronger national security reflect a career dedicated to public service and the betterment of the nation.
Lieberman's involvement in significant policy decisions, from the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security to advocating for the end of restrictions on gays in the U.S. military, demonstrates a commitment to forward-thinking and inclusive policies. His work with No Labels in his later years continued to emphasize his belief in the need for a political middle ground in an increasingly polarized environment.
In conclusion, Joe Lieberman's life was a testament to dedicated public service, characterized by his bipartisan approach, his historic vice-presidential run, and his commitment to national security. From his early days in Connecticut politics to his influential role on the national stage, Lieberman navigated the complexities of governance with a principled commitment to what he believed was in the best interest of the country. His legacy, marked by significant legislative achievements and a steadfast dedication to bipartisan cooperation, will continue to inspire future generations of American politicians. Joe Lieberman's passing is a poignant reminder of the impact one individual can have on the nation's political landscape and the importance of service above self.
Former President Donald Trump's critics piled on when it was revealed that he valued his properties more than what they were likely worth in a case brought against him by New York AG Letitia James.
However, some of those critics, including Jon Stewart, have been exposed as supreme hypocrites, as it turns out that overvaluing properties is not exclusive to Trump.
According to Breitbart, Stewart, who accused Trump of "lying" about his property values, reportedly overvalued his own New York home during a sale.
The liberal comedian is taking an absolute beating across social media in the wake of the report that he overvalued his home, and rightfully so.
Making matters even more embarrassing for Stewart is the fact that he dedicated an entire episode of Comedy Central’s "The Daily Show" to ridiculing Trump in his New York civil case brought by AG James, including taking specific shots at Trump for allegedly overvaluing his properties.
Breitbart noted:
On Monday’s show, Jon Stewart accused Trump of “lying” about the valuation of some of his properties, claiming Trump’s “shenanigans cost the city of New York.”
Shortly after the program, a report emerged that revealed Stewart had once overvalued his previous New York-based residence by a staggering $16 million, or by 829%.
Jon Stewart was just caught overvaluing his home by 829% — ironic considering he falsely attacked President Trump for his valuation of property.@jonstewart sold his penthouse for many times higher than the value he used when paying taxes.
When will @TishJames sue Stewart? pic.twitter.com/uOd12696EE
— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) March 27, 2024
Breitbart added:
In 2014, the comedian reportedly sold his 6,280-square-foot Tribeca duplex to financier Parag Pande for $17.5 million. But, according to 2013-2014 assessor records obtained by The Post, the property had the estimated market value of only $1.882 million. The actual assessor valuation for property tax purposes was $847,174.
Even worse, Stewart paid taxes based on the assessor's valuation, which is exactly what he accused Trump of doing and ridiculed him for it.
Users across social media torched Steward in the wake of the report going public.
"Just the latest case of glaring hypocrisy from our country’s liberal elite. As they say, 'rules for thee and not for me,'" one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "The left operates under different standards because they set the standards. It's not hypocrisy, it's hierarchy."
So far, Stewart has not responded to the report, but it'll be hilarious to watch him back peddle when he eventually does. \
The New York City local media scene lost an iconic broadcaster this week after she signed off from her job in an emotional ending to her long career.
According to the New York Post, veteran CBS New York anchor Dana Tyler delivered her final broadcast for the New York metro area after serving in the role for a staggering 34 years.
Her last broadcast was understandably emotional as she wished her viewers and fans farewell for the last time.
The 65-year-old news anchor began her career in 1990, holding the roles of general assignment reporter and weekend co-anchor. She and her co-anchor at the time were the first Black anchor team in the city, according to the outlet.
Tyler, visibly choked up during her final broadcast, praised her co-workers and fans for sticking with her for so long.
"I’m so honored to be here, so honored to say thank you to my several thousand co-workers in every department here, who over the past 34 years, and to this very second have collaborated with me, challenged and taught me, given me valuable, constructive criticism and encouragement," Tyler said.
She added, "This is my last newscast, my last 6 o’clock news with you here at Channel 2, it’s my last day at Channel 2, 34 years I’ve been here."
CBS New York anchor Dana Tyler emotionally signs off in final broadcast after 34 years: 'I'm so honored' https://t.co/3yQm9iBDBN via @nypmetro
— Bo Snerdley (@BoSnerdley) March 28, 2024
In a pre-recorded message to viewers, Tyler said, "We’ve laughed, we’ve cried together, we’ve tried to do our best for you, and my heart is full of gratitude and respect for my co-workers."
"I say thank you, Channel 2 viewers, you’re loyal, you’re kind, you keep us on our toes," Tyler continued. "I’ve always felt privileged for these 34 years that you’ve invited me, us, into your homes, your firehouses, your bodegas, so many places."
Tyler was praised by fans, co-workers, and her employer, CBS, in the wake of her retirement announcement.
"Thirty-four years, thousands of stories and a lifetime of memories. Thank you, @DanaTylerTV ,for setting the standard and being our anchor through it all. Join us as we wish Dana the very best!" CBS New York wrote on X.
"We'll miss you Dana. Thank you for everything you've done for us. I wish you the best in your future endeavors," one fan wrote on X.
Tyler won numerous Emmy awards during her news career, and was inducted into the New York State Broadcasters Hall of Fame in 2022.
Hunter Biden's narrative about being the victim of a Justice Department witch hunt failed to move a federal judge at an important hearing in California on Wednesday.
Biden attorney Abbe Lowell has argued that charges for tax evasion should be dropped because they were the result of a political pressure campaign from Republicans and President Trump.
Hunter was initially set to receive a generous plea deal from Special Counsel Daivd Weiss that unraveled in court last summer.
Weiss later filed felony charges against Hunter for dodging taxes as he led an extravagant lifestyle fueled by his income from shady international business dealings.
The increased pressure on Hunter came after IRS whistleblowers had begun sharing allegations that the DOJ probe into his finances was being slow walked, fueling an uproar among Republicans who said Hunter was getting favorable treatment.
California Judge Mark Scarsi told Lowell that he had shared no concrete evidence that politics impacted the prosecution, beyond the timeline.
“It’s a timeline,” Lowell said, "but it’s a juicy timeline.”
Prosecutors pushed back on the "outrageous" claim that they were acting under pressure from Trump and dismissed IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler as "hyenas baying at the moon."
Lowell urged Scarsi to "connect the dots" but he appeared reluctant to do so.
"One of the big hurdles that this motion has it that it’s not filed with any evidence,” Scarsi said.
Lowell has also argued that a sweeping immunity agreement that was part of the collapsed plea deal is still in effect. But Scarsi didn't seem to buy that either.
The tax charges come up with up to 17 years in prison.
The judge will decide before April 17 whether to dismiss the charges, with a trial date set for June 20. Hunter is also facing a June trial in Delaware for gun charges.
The trials could be politically damaging for Hunter's father Joe Biden, who is facing a close battle for re-election dogged by doubts about his age, poor approval ratings and the cloud of scandal surrounding his family's influence peddling.
Hunter's business partners have told Congress that Joe Biden was involved in his son's dealings, but Democrats have dismissed Republicans' impeachment inquiry as a sham.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Red flag laws have been flaring across America, as someone can complain he or she has a "fear" of someone else, and a judge without even contacting the target can order his or her guns confiscated.
Promoters claim it is a way to protect the public, but in reality, what it has done is forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens multiple times.
Those statutes so far have been based state by state, but Joe Biden, in his war on self-protection, now has launched a plan for a national "red flag center."
Which, two experts have argued, he didn't have the constitutional right to do.
It is John R. Lott Jr., chief of the Crime Prevention Research Center, and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who have written at the Federalist that Congress, controlled by Democrats at the time, provided authorization for the president to hand out grants to states with those red flag laws.
"But never was he authorized to establish a federal red flag center," they explained.
They note that Kamala Harras bragged about Biden's new "National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center."
She said the goal is to see to the "effective implementation of state red flag laws" and "keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others."
But Biden has "confused" "grants" for state programs with "an entirely new center."
The state programs already are raising questions, they note.
Under ordinary laws, they explain, "If you worry that someone is dangerous, you can tell the police your concerns. If the police agree that there is a 'reasonable' chance the person is a danger to themselves or others, mental health professionals will evaluate the individual. If the professionals give their consent, an emergency court hearing is held. A lawyer is provided to those who cannot afford one. Judges have recourse to various options, such as outpatient mental health care or driver’s license suspension. Gun confiscation or involuntary commitment may also be options, but only after going through the proper legal process."
Red flag laws bypass routine restraints, the charge.
There "a judge acts solely on the basis of a written complaint. He never talks to the person who made the complaint or the person against whom it was made. States vary on how quickly hearings must occur, but they all require that they take place within a month after one’s guns are taken away. But the steep cost of legal representation often deters defendants from seeking counsel, as lawyers can charge upwards of $10,000 for a hearing."
Only 29% of the public, they note from survey evidence, support such extremism.
They point out that suicides are not necessarily prevented, as there are methods not involving guns. And violence isn't always prevented as a criminal can drive a car into a crowd and injure.
And, they found, "Allowing for easy gun confiscation can leave good, law-abiding people defenseless. Andrew Pollack, who lost his daughter in the 2017 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, recently had an Extreme Risk Protection Order used against him by a neighbor in rural Oregon. When Pollack finally had his hearing in court, the judge didn’t even need to hear a defense because there was no evidence that Pollack had threatened anyone. Unfortunately, while disarmed, he faced a mountain lion outside his home. His dog tangled with the mountain lion, requiring 50 stitches on his side. As is virtually always the case, there was no punishment for the neighbors bringing the false claim."
A report at Liberty Nation explained, "Considering the hostility with which government at all levels have often viewed the private ownership of firearms, such laws are, of course, ripe for potential abuse."
And the report noted Massie's reaction was blunt, on social media: "What the hell is this evil? A Federal Red Flag center? We did not authorize this."
The report charged, "The anti-gun lobby was likely hopeful that red flag laws would facilitate a sort of slow-moving gun-confiscation program, but media investigations have shown that such laws are, in fact, rarely used – hence the creation of this new resource center, one can assume. According to the Associated Press, only four ERPOs were enforced in Chicago between 2020 and 2022, while there were 8,500 shootings resulting in 1,800 deaths during the same period. Red flag laws were used eight times in New Mexico over the same two years – the state had 600 gun homicides. Massachusetts used red flag laws 12 times and had about 300 fatal shootings."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Disney Corporation is facing accusations of breaching its fiduciary duty to stockholders and federal civil rights violations because of its leftist agenda that demands "diversity, equity and inclusion," an agenda that already has seen its productions skewing into an ideology rejected by families across America.
In a letter this week to Robert Iger, CEO, and other company officials, the America First Legal organization charges the company "has implemented facially illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and policies."
The letter points out that Iger "and the board, among your other fiduciary obligations, a have a duty of oversight and the responsibility for putting in place a reasonable and effective system of compliance monitoring and reporting relating to these mandates."
But, the letter said, the "fact that Disney has adopted facially illegal DEI policies is prima facie evidence that the company's internal controls have failed."
The letter notifies Disney of "mismanagement, including but not limited to intentional violations of federal civil rights laws, breaches of fiduciary duty, and the wasting of company assets."
The letter charges the company with "sacrificing the company's reputation and goodwill to serve a highly idiosyncratic and controversial political agenda that is offensive to the vast majority of the company's core customers."
That comes from "something other than the best interests of the company's shareholders," the letter charges.
It specifically cites Disney's full-throated participation in the nation's "culture wars."
And that risks "harming shareholder value.'
Disney has become a major player in several leftist ideologies in recent years that conflict with the traditional family values it had been known for portraying. Transgenderism, LGBT ideologies, quotas, and more now permeate its products, which in recent years have fallen far short of customer acceptance and financial expectations.
A report by the Post Millennial points out that the company's ideology now "lacks a rational business purpose."
The report explained the "demand letter" charges Disney's DEI ideology has "led to a significant drop in the company's value.
"The legal challenge comes in the wake of revelations made by American First Legal in February regarding Disney's alleged use of race and sex quotas in its hiring practices. The legal group filed a federal civil rights complaint with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, citing public documents and internal memos as evidence of discriminatory hiring practices," the report explained.
"Specifically, the complaint alleges that Disney imposes hiring quotas, requiring at least 50 percent of a hiring group to be members of an 'unrepresented group' for various positions, both on and behind the camera. This policy reportedly extends to characters on screen, actors, as well as the overall crew and staff involved in Disney General Entertainment productions."
The legal team argues that Disney's use of race, ethnicity, and sex in "hiring, training, compensation, and promotion" is unlawful and violates federal civil rights laws.
The report notes Disney's market cap was about $341 billion in 2021, but now is only $207 billion, a plunge of 40%.
The company is accused of refusing to adequately disclose to shareholders the financial risk created by adopting its now-"woke" ideologies.
"Disney has displayed an inexplicable disregard for its customers and shareholders, forcing radical gender-expansive, anti-White, and anti-police content on families while providing warnings about harmful content on uncontroversial content," the legal group said.
WND had reported only a day earlier that the corporation was folding in its fight with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over his moves to impose a state oversight board.
The company for decades essentially had been its government, controlling the Reedy Creek Improvement District within which its facilities exist. DeSantis' new board now will make decisions for that district, independent of company control.
That move developed when the company publicly attacked the state for its move to create and protect parental rights for their children in schools. Specifically, the concern was LGBT indoctrination for children.
Critics inaccurately called it the "Don't Say Gay" bill, as that was nowhere in the parental rights plan.
This week, the company said it was dropping its lawsuits against DeSantis over that fight.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Politicians, especially those who have been gifted by voters with the right to occupy the Oval Office for a term or two, often make huge sums afterward with books.
The online site Brooksy, for example, now lists the "10 best books on President Obama." Not the 10 books on his presidency … the 10 BEST books.
Joe Biden's legacy, however, is moving in another direction, after a major publisher abruptly canceled its plans for a book about his term in office.
A report at Politico notes in a "further reflection of the soft market for books about President Joe Biden, publisher Simon and Schuster has withdrawn its contract with Alex Thompson, Axios' national political correspondent, for a book about the Biden administration."
The project was supposed to be published early this year and likely would have been a benefit to Biden's attempt to gain control of the White House for another four years.
Plans were for it to be "a comprehensive book on Biden's presidency."
The report explained, "Simon and Schuster’s decision comes as a series of Biden books have sold relatively poorly — compared, at least, to the standards set by many best-sellers about predecessor DONALD TRUMP. Thompson is now actively engaged in talks with other publishers and is still working on the draft, according to a person close to him."
It continued, "GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI’s 'The Long Alliance' has sold around 1,500 hardcover copies, according to NPD BookScan, while CHRIS WHIPPLE’s 'The Fight of His Life' has sold around 5,000 and FRANKLIN FOER‘s 'The Last Politician' around 12,000. That compares to the nearly 1 million copies that MICHAEL WOLFF’s Trump-focused 'Fire and Fury' sold, also per NPD BookScan, and the more than 400,000 copies sold of BOB WOODWARD and ROBERT COSTA’s 'Peril.'"
A report at the Post Millennial cited the "lack of market interest" in a Biden book.
"People don't buy Biden books," the report explained.