Yearly Archives: 2024

(The Center Square) – Following nearly a year of investigations into political donation platform ActBlue, Republican Rep. Bryan Steil has introduced legislation he says will increase transparency and prevent illegal straw donations in online political donations.

The Secure Handling of Internet Electronic Donations Act, or SHIELD Act, would prohibit political campaigns from accepting contributions from gift cards or other prepaid credit cards, and require them to obtain and verify the CVV of all online credit and debit donations. It would also require political campaigns to get the affirmative consent of donors before they make a recurring contribution.

“American elections should always be free from foreign interference,” Steil said Monday. “The SHIELD Act will take a crucial next step in blocking foreign funding in our elections and certifying that every political contribution received is actually coming from the individual whose name is on the contribution. By passing the SHIELD Act, we will increase integrity and American trust in our elections.”

Steil launched a probe into ActBlue’s donor verification policies last year amid his concerns the organization was allowing foreign and fraudulent contributions.

Accusations of ActBlue violating or skirting federal campaign finance laws included laundering foreign contributions through prepaid gift cards, and accepting hundreds of donations for $2.50 from the same individual. Unlike many other online fundraising platforms, ActBlue does not require a CVV number for all donor transactions.

In its response to a November letter from Steil, ActBlue revealed it manually reviews contributions that indicate a foreign country in the address information, uses an external fraud prevention tool on its website, and requires CVVs for some transactions.

“Traditionally, CVV numbers have addressed fraud in transactions where material goods or services are provided in order to prevent chargebacks for stolen goods, which is not the case with political contributions,” the organization said. “Still, we currently require and use CVV on many transactions across the site, and have been in the process of increasing coverage of CVV to improve the donor experience.”

During the presidential debate on Tuesday night, Vice President Kamala Harris deflected when answering questions on the ongoing border crisis.

When asked “why did the administration wait until six months before the election to act” on the border crisis, and if she would have done anything differently from President Joe Biden, Harris didn’t answer the question. She deflected by repeating the claim she’s previously made that she prosecuted transnational criminal organizations when she was the attorney general of California from 2011 to 2017.

“I'm the only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns drugs and human beings,” she said.

She also repeated a claim that she would sign a U.S. Senate border bill that went nowhere in the Democratic controlled Senate.

“Some of the most conservative members of the United States Senate came up with the border security bill which I supported,” she said. “That bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now overtime trying to do their job.”

While a U.S. senator, Harris opposed increasing funding to hire thousands of new Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and advocated for eliminating ICE detention facilities, which house the most violent criminals, The Center Square reported. She has also more than once called for abolishing ICE altogether.

The Senate border bill would have expanded current failed policies, critics claim, codify mass migration and nullify state sovereignty.

Harris also repeated a claim that former President Donald Trump “got on the phone, called up some folks in Congress, and said, ‘kill the bill.’ And you know why? Because he'd prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.”

The bill failed because many Senate Democrats didn’t support it and their campaigns began distancing themselves from Biden-Harris border policies, which the majority of Americans oppose, according to numerous polls.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, also said it was dead on arrival. He called on the Senate to pass what he, and others say, is the strongest border security bill, HR 2, which the Senate refused to consider.

When asked about being appointed “to address the root causes of migration,” she did not cite one example of a root cause or what she did to address it, fix it or remedy it.

Nor did she address the record more than 12.5 million foreign nationals who illegally entered the country under her watch, including two million who evaded capture. They total more than the individual populations of 45 states. If illegal border crossers were a state, they’d be the sixth most populous state ahead of Illinois, The Center Square reported.

Nor did she address the record number of known or suspected terrorists who’ve been apprehended attempting to enter the U.S., more than 1,700 since fiscal 2021, the greatest number in U.S. history.

When asked about her flip-flopping on issues like building a border wall, she repeated the claim that “her values haven’t changed.” This is after The Center Square and other news outlets fact checked her opposition to border wall construction and funding for years.

At no point during the debate did she outline her plan for border security, deportation of violent criminals, or express condolences to Americans whose families have been murdered and raped by criminal foreign nationals who were released into the country under her watch. Biden-Harris parole programs have been directly linked to violent criminals who illegally entered and remained in the country who then went on to commit violent crimes against Americans, The Center Square has reported.

Earlier this year when endorsing Trump for president, the brother of Maryland resident Rachel Morin, who was raped and murdered by a Venezuelan illegally in the country, said, “My sister's death was preventable. The monster arrested for killing Rachel entered the US unlawfully after killing a woman in El Salvador. Joe Biden and his designated ‘border czar’ Kamala Harris opened our borders to him and others like him, empowering them to victimize the innocent. Yet to this day, we have not heard from Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. They never apologized.

“When Rachel was killed, President Trump called my family to offer his condolences. He wanted to meet with us. He cared. That is leadership. And we need real leadership back in the White House.”

Houston angel mom mother Alexis Nungaray, who also endorsed Trump, said she never heard from Harris even after she came to a Houston fundraiser after her daughter was strangled to death by two Venezuelan men illegally in the country. They were released into the country because of Biden-Harris policies, she said, which had to change.

“We're losing very innocent people to heinous crimes that shouldn't be happening in the first place."

Unions see a clear path through the legislature to boost membership after several legal challenges saw workers leave in droves.

This, according to a new report released Wednesday that grades public sector labor laws across the nation. The data was compiled by the Commonwealth Foundation, a policy group that focuses on fiscal conservancy.

David Osborne, senior fellow for labor policy at the foundation, said during a media briefing that government privatization, changing demographics and a 2018 Supreme Court decision, Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, have caused membership rates across the nation’s four largest public sector unions to fall more than 320,000 over the last five years.

The decline represents $106.8 million in annual dues and fees, according to the report.

“The overarching theme is that the unions have really responded to the membership losses since JANUS to drive up union membership,” Osborne said.

In the JANUS decision, courts held that unions could no longer collect “fair share” dues from non-members who benefit from collective bargaining agreements. Follow-up litigation has challenged the cumbersome process many former members had to overcome to leave the union and recoup dues improperly withheld.

In the report, states known as union “strongholds” scored lower than others that have enacted collective bargaining reforms.

Illinois, Michigan and Maryland stood out for unprecedented reforms that, in some cases, have constitutionally rooted union protections and tipped the scales in favor of executives, according to the report.

Illinois, for example, enshrined collective bargaining rights into the state constitution, which extended unionizing rights to every workplace, including those once considered inappropriate. Osborne said the “experiment could have really disastrous implications,” such as raising taxes to fund “outrageous” union demands.

He pointed to recent collective bargaining negotiations with Chicago Public Schools, during which leadership asked for abortion care access, affordable housing, homeless shelters in schools and all-electric bus fleets.

“The legislature wouldn’t have any opportunity to overrule that behavior,” Osborne said. “It would take a constitutional amendment to correct that balance.”

California, Pennsylvania and Vermont have considered similar amendments – the latter two more seriously, he added.

In Michigan, which slipped from a “B” to a “D” over the last two years, lawmakers repealed the“paycheck protection” law – which prevents public payroll systems from deducting union dues and political contributions – as was the state’s Right to Work provision. The state also gives unions access to employees’ personal information.

Some 13 other states give unions the same data collection power. In Hawaii, unions even store Social Security numbers to verify workers’ identities. The report says the practice leaves information vulnerable to ransomware attacks – like one that happened earlier this year in California.

Maryland, Delaware and California also offer tax incentives for union membership as way to boost recruits. While Delaware’s labor laws earned a "D" in the report, Maryland and Delaware – along with Illinois, Oregon and Washington – earned an “F” grading.

The nation’s four largest public sector unions – the American Federation of Teachers; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the National Education Association; and the Service Employees International Union – collectively represent 6.6 million workers.

AFSCME, according to records submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, has lost 7.5% of its members since 2017, outpacing the other three unions between 2.8 percentage points and 4 percentage points.

“I do think JANUS is playing a big role in this,” said Andrew Holman, a policy analyst at the Commonwealth Foundation. “And I think after the decision, people are becoming more and more aware of what their dollars are being put toward and are saying, 'I don’t want to be a part of this.'”

Osborne said 60% of membership fees, albeit funneled through outside organizations, support political causes. Even though members may be aligned ideologically, many feel “uncomfortable” with resolutions that take positions on issues like the war in Gaza or abortion rights.

Unions have refuted this claim in the past, such as the Pennsylvania State Education Association, which is under review by several state agencies for alleged funneling of union dues to support Gov. Josh Shapiro's 2022 campaign. The state's labor laws scored a "D" in the report.

“None of the issues seem to relate to what it is to be a teacher, for instance, so many of the members come home feeling like my union has really taken a stance on these political matters that have divided the workplace rather than united it,” Osborne said.

Of the highest-ranking states, Florida “sets a new gold standard,” according to the foundation. The most impactful reform, Osborne said, requires unions to run for “recertification” once membership drops below 60%. This means workers can decide whether to keep representation.

“We’ve seen a bunch of unions fail to file for reelection because they know they’ll lose,” Osborne said. “This ends up removing a union that never had majority support to begin with.”

Wisconsin and Iowa also require recertification. Unions in other states – like Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York and California – have never run for “reelection” since organizing in the 1970s.

(The Center Square) – Former Independent party presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Election Commission to remove his name from the state’s ballot this November, part of his ongoing battle to exit from races in swing states.

The case argues that, absent a compelling reason, different treatment for third party candidates violates the Equal Protection Clause and Kennedy’s First Amendment rights. It claims the different deadlines for ballot withdrawal for Democrat and Republican candidates versus third-party candidates–September 3 for the former and August 6 for the latter–are unlawfully discriminatory.

“Third parties can’t be treated differently and they can’t be discriminated against. Yet that’s what happened here. The Republicans and the Democrats have until today at 5 p.m. to withdraw their nominees and replace them with someone else,” the lawsuit argues. “But those rules don’t apply to independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr…He has not been treated fairly or equally with the other presidential candidates who declared and ran for the presidency and have since wanted to withdraw.”

In its certification of presidential candidates last week, the WEC voted 5-1 to put Kennedy on the ballot, despite his withdrawal and endorsement of Republican nominee and former president Donald Trump. Following the decision, county clerks were authorized to begin printing ballots.

But Kennedy has argued his request is not unreasonable since Wisconsin election law already provides exceptions for candidate removal post-certification, including in the case of candidate death or for personal and health reasons–provided the Democrat or Republican candidate meets the September 3rd deadline.

“Kennedy has (like President Biden) decided that for associational and expressive reasons, he does not want to run for President anymore. The deadlines prevent him from withdrawing, even though the Democratic and Republican Parties (at least in theory) could provide a different nominee to the Commission today,” the case says, arguing this proves “The Commission cannot claim any compelling state interest in forcing Independent candidates to file paperwork a month earlier.”

Due to these reasons, the lawsuit requests a stay on the WEC’s ruling and for Dane County Circuit Court to issue an order barring the agency from placing Kennedy’s name on the ballot.

In a mirror of national politics, California Republicans followed former President Donald Trump’s lead by proposing to end taxes on tips. While Vice President Kamala Harris, who formerly represented California in the U.S. Senate, embraced the measure, California Democrats said no, shooting down the proposed amendment in the California Senate.

“Even Trump and Harris both say we should eliminate the ‘tip tax,’” said the California Senate Republican Caucus in a statement.

Soon after Trump announced his proposal to a crowd in Nevada, which has the highest percentage of tipped workers in the nation, Harris also came out in favor of the proposal. The Budget Lab at Yale University reports there are approximately 4 million tipped workers — 2.5% of all workers nationwide. Many tipped workers earn less than the minimum wage, and thus earn the lion's share of their income from tips. Some higher-paid tipped professions such as barbers and hair stylists would also benefit from this rule change.

The bipartisan Committee for Responsible Federal Budget says this proposal would likely reduce government revenue by approximately $15 to $25 billion per year.

In the California Senate, Democrats — except for Senate President Pro Tempore Senator Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, and State Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, who abstained, voted to put aside the amendment, while all nine Republicans voted for it.

With the legislature having narrowly closed a $47 billion budget shortfall this year through cuts, deferrals, and shifts, it's unclear what additional measures the state would need to take to offset revenue losses from a potential state-level exemption.

Vice President Kamala Harris was once anti-fracking and opposed to former President Donald Trump’s tough immigration policies.

Now, it’s apparently a different story.

In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash this week, Harris was asked about the change in her stance on fracking. Fracking is a major industry and economic driver in the swing state of Pennsylvania, a state where Harris is up a slim 0.8%, according to Real Clear Politics’ polling average.

Harris said during a town hall in 2019 that there is “no question” she supports banning fracking. During the CNN interview, Harris said she does not want to ban fracking and that she “made that clear on the debate stage in 2020.”

“As vice president I did not ban fracking, and as president I will not ban fracking,” Harris said.

Harris has previously said she supports a ban on fracking, offshore drilling, and plastic straws. She also said she supports passing the Green New Deal, which includes a treasure trove of far-left energy policies.

Harris’ inconsistency on the fracking issue has drawn criticism.

”If Kamala Harris can so quickly reject her firm energy positions from the past, there is no telling how quickly she’ll renounce today’s positions in the future,” Daniel Turner, who leads the energy workers advocacy group, Power the Future, said in a statement. “Just like Vice President Harris abandoned her support for Joe Biden after telling the American people he was perfectly fine, she will abandon any position she pretends to have now. Harris is bankrolled by green billionaires who want to ensure the funding of their pet projects continue, so it’s beyond clear that she doesn’t care about the truth of her energy positions, she cares only about keeping the tax dollars flowing.”

During the same CNN interview, Harris said those who illegally cross the border should face “consequences.”

“We have laws that have to be followed and enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally,” Harris said. “And there should be consequence. And let’s be clear, in this race, I’m the only person who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations who traffic in guns, drugs, and human beings. I’m the only person in this race who actually served a border state as attorney general to enforce our laws. And I would enforce our laws as president going forward. I recognize the problem.”

However, Harris posted on then-Twitter in 2017 that “an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.”

Harris had also mocked Trump’s border wall during the Trump administration as a “vanity project” but has now expressed her support for a Senate immigration bill that allocates $650 million for building the border wall.

“Funding Trump’s unrealistic border wall would be a gross misuse of taxpayer money,” Harris wrote on Twitter in April of 2018.

A year earlier, Harris called Trump’s wall a “ stupid use of money” and pledged to “block any funding for it.”

It is possible the border wall funding was a concession Harris was willing to make rather than a policy goal.

However, any policy changes are notable since Harris has offered unusually few details on her platform if she were elected president.

Harris’ main campaign website offers no policy platform, and her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention largely avoided policy specifics.

Trump took a jab at Harris at a recent rally on this point.

“Now she’s saying ‘oh we want to build a strong border,’” Trump told his supporters. “Where has she been for three and a half years as we took in 20 million people, many of them horrible criminals?”

Harris is not alone in announcing new policy ideas, apparently to appeal to moderate voters. Trump announced at a recent rally that IVF treatments should be free to women, either paid for by insurers or the government.

(The Center Square) – A new Emerson College poll of likely voters reveals some changes in Midwest swing states.

Former President Donald Trump has a slim lead over Vice President Kamala Harris in Wisconsin, 49% to 48%, while Harris slightly widened her lead over Trump in Michigan at 50% to 47%.

Independent voters are largely veering towards Harris, with 46% of Michigan Independents choosing Harris, versus 43% for Trump. In Wisconsin, the divide is starker, with 52% choosing Harris and 43% Trump.

Defying previous trends, Republican U.S. Senate candidate for Wisconsin Eric Hovde has improved to 48%, only 1 percentage point behind incumbent Sen. Tammy Baldwin, his opponent.

“We’ve had huge movement in the last 30 days,” Hovde said in a video on X following the poll’s release. “Wisconsin is the number one battleground. Whoever wins Wisconsin will control the White House, and if I win, we’ll not only take control of the U.S. Senate for the next two years, but potentially for the next four years.”

Support for the U.S. Senate candidates in Michigan remains relatively stable, with Democrat Rep. Elissa Slotkin still leading Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers 47% to 41%.

While the economy remains all respondents’ top concern in both states, the issue of immigration has fallen in importance, replaced by “threats to democracy” and housing affordability.

Results also showed voters under 30 overwhelmingly favor the Democratic presidential candidate, with Harris pulling 62% of support in Michigan and 54% in Wisconsin, compared to Trump’s 32% and 41%, respectively.

The survey, conducted August 25-28, included 800 Michigan voters with a +/-3.4% margin of error, and 850 Wisconsin voters with a +/-3.3% margin of error.

(The Center Square) – State Sen. John Jagler is frustrated Milwaukee Public Schools seems to be ignoring the state law that requires police officers in the city’s schools. But, he doesn’t expect any changes either.

Jagler, R-Watertown, last week wrote a letter to the MPS board, asking when the city’s schools plan to follow the law and return school resource officers to their buildings.

Republican lawmakers included the school resource officer in 2023’s shared revenue deal. It required MPS to add 25 officers by Jan. 1. That didn’t happen.

“Now, I know it didn't get done fast enough last year. And to be honest, I kind of, to be fair, just kind of assumed it would be done in August of this year,” Jagler said on News Talk 1130 WISN on Tuesday.

Jagler said he realized that Milwaukee Public Schools may never return the officers to their buildings after hearing MPS school board vice president Jilly Gokalghandi dismiss a question about officers in schools during a question-and-answer session last month.

“We're going to continue to focus on restorative justice as the main lever of serving our kids,” Gokalghandi said. “So that is my commitment. I've said that. I've gone on record and said that over and over again. And so that is what I will focus on.”

Jagler said he was taken back by Gokalghandi’s dismissive attitude.

“Yeah, ‘chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, we're breaking state law, and we don't care.’ That just infuriated me. And not just the answer, which I guess I appreciate the honesty, but the just a flippant nature of it,” Jagler added.

There is no way for the legislature to force MPS to return school resource officers to its schools. The shared revenue law doesn’t include any punishments. Jageler said neither Gov. Tony Evers nor Wisconsin’s attorney general will “touch” the law to enforce it.

But, Jagler said, MPS may be creating a bigger problem by thumbing their nose at the law.

“What it's going to do, going forward, as we look at anything with MPS, [maybe a] bailout with new funding, how can we trust them to do anything?” Jagler asked.

Jagler said MPS responded to his letter with a promise to have an update on its school resource officer program at this week’s school board meeting. But he said the district isn’t promising to actually return officers to school anytime soon.

“‘We have been in discussions with stakeholders, including the teachers union, and the police department the goal to develop a plan in partnership with MPD which redefines the previous role of school resource officers,” Jagler read from MPS’ response to his letter.

The California legislature passed a bill allowing undocumented immigrants to make use of the state’s $150,000, 0 down, 0 interest home “loans.” The bill now goes to the governor’s desk, where he must either veto or approve the bill by the end of September.

California has one of the worst home shortages in the nation, with an estimated 4.5 million home shortage, and a nearly $1 million median home price.

"Many generational Californians can’t afford to buy a house in their home state thanks to Democrats’ unsustainable economic policies,” said State Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, R-San Diego, in a statement urging California Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto the bill. "This policy is not only unfair but also sends a dangerous message: ‘Come to California, whether legally or illegally, and claim your $150,000 home loan.’"

California’s Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loans program allows applicants to secure “loans” of up to $150,000 or 20% of the home’s purchase price — or, about what a typical down payment is — with zero down payment on this state “loan,” and no payments. In exchange, the state receives the original loan amount plus 20% of the appreciated gain when the home is refinanced, sold, or transferred.

Last year, the state allocated $255 million for the program for 1,700 lucky “winners” of an application lottery. This year, the state did not fund the program at all as it narrowly balanced a $47 billion budget deficit.

It’s not clear what happens if a family decides to hold on to a home as there are no provisions on how long a property can be held for, which means certain kinds of trusts could potentially allow the loan to not be paid back.

The bill now goes to Newsom’s desk for approval where it faces an uncertain future. The governor has often used the state’s poor finances to justify vetoing bills popular with California Democrats but unpopular nationwide.

Tennessee conservative activist Robby Starbuck has continued to impact corporate policies on diversity, equity and inclusion and donations to pride events, most recently at companies such as Lowe’s, Jack Daniel’s, Indian Motorcycle and Polaris.

Starbuck previously made public policies at Harley-Davidson, John Deere and Tractor Supply that led to corporate statements on how the companies would shift policies to limit or eliminate DEI priorities.

This week, Lowe’s made a statement that it would stop participation in the Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index along with stopping donations to pride events and ending its employee resource groups, which separate employees with specific characteristics such as sexual orientation or gender to provide corporate resources.

On Wednesday, Starbuck said that Ford did the same, ending involvement in HRC's index, pride donations and vowing that ERC groups will be focused on business. Ford also said that it does not have supplier or dealership quotas.

“We’re now forcing multi-billion dollar organizations to change their policies without even posting just from fear they have of being the next company that we expose,” Starbuck wrote. “We are winning and one by one we WILL bring sanity back to corporate America.”

Starbuck said that he was tipped off that Lowe’s was a company to look into after a pair of employees from Lowe’s DEI team visited his LinkedIn profile.

The Lowe’s changes were announced a week after Starbuck messaged its corporate leadership regarding the company’s corporate policies.

Starbuck was a 2022 Republican write-in candidate in Tennessee's 5th Congressional District after being removed from the ballot by the Tennessee Republican Party.

Jack Daniel’s parent company Brown-Forman recently announced changes in its company, just as Starbuck said he was about to write about the company’s policies but after he had gone through many employee LinkedIn pages, meaning they received notification he was looking at their pages.

Jack Daniel’s also left the HRC Corporate Equality Index along with announcing that executive and employee bonuses and goals would be tied to business performance and not DEI and it would end specific training that Starbuck described as “woke.”

The U.S. Department of Defense is under scrutiny for refusing to release records about exactly how spending on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion helps with national security.

The Center to Advance Security in America in May filed with the DOD a Freedom of Information Act Request, the legal pathway to obtain government documents. The FOIA sought to find out what DOD officials estimate is the real impact on national security of DEI spending, for which Congress approved $86.5 million in fiscal year 2023.

However, James Fitzpatrick, an Army Veteran who leads CASA, told The Center Square that the DOD has confirmed it received the FOIA request but still has not released any documents more than 100 days later.

“The Department of Defense has stated that diversity, equity, and inclusion is the American military’s greatest strength but has rarely detailed how,” reads the FOIA, which was obtained by The Center Square. “Given the recent hiring freeze on DEI related positions, it must follow that national security has been affected in some way. The information obtained is necessary to evaluate the impact of DEI initiatives and financing on prioritizing efforts to advance national security.”

The FOIA request specifically asks for documentation about how DOD estimates a recent hiring freeze on DEI hires will actually impact national security. DOD regularly estimates readiness and national security impacts, especially in its funding requests to Congress for various kinds of equipment, programs and more.

The most recent National Defense Authorization Act ordered a hiring freeze on new DEI positions while the Government Accountability Office reviews that spending.

CASA filed suit against the DOD Wednesday, a lawsuit that was exclusively obtained by The Center Square.

“If diversity, equity and inclusion are truly the military’s greatest strengths, or there have been times where they have said it is critical to the success of the military, then if the DOD is imposing a DEI hiring freeze … then there must be a corresponding lack of national security that goes along with it, if their position is spending more on DEI means military gets better and stronger,” Fitzpatrick told The Center Square.

DOD officials and documents repeatedly emphasize the importance of diversity in defending the nation.

Under FOIA law, federal agencies are generally required to provide documents within about three weeks. THe DOD has staff dedicated to handling these requests.

“They are legally required to produce records,” Fitzpatrick said. “They haven’t. They are well over the friendly threshold to provide records, and really they just need to engage in a conversation. By this point they very well should have reached out and said they’ve started the search.”

DEI Pentagon spending has become increasingly common and controversial in recent years. DEI spending includes well-paid DEI hires, training programs on gender pronouns and white privilege for troops, and efforts to recruit non-white Americans for certain roles.

The DOD’s fiscal year 2022-2023 “Department of Defense Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategic Plan” typifies the kind of language federal officials use about the necessity of diversity spending.

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness began the report with a message, saying that “leveraging this strategic diversity and expanding access to attract, retain, and advance the best talent our nation has to offer are the only way DoD will be able to outthink, outmaneuver, and outfight any adversary or threat.

“The 2022 National Defense Strategy highlights that for DoD to maintain the Joint Force’s military advantage globally and prevent attacks against our homeland, we must build a resilient force by developing and combining our strengths to maximum effect and investing in our people,” he continued. “Advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) across the Department is not about checking a box; it’s about obtaining the critical skills and experience to build the Total Force necessary to secure our nation for years to come.”

DOD did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

(The Center Square) – There is another lawsuit over another race-based program from the Biden Administration with a Wisconsin tie.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on Wednesday filed a lawsuit challenging the McNair Post Baccalaureate Achievement Program.

The McNair Program is a $60 million scholarship program open only to certain minority students.

“The government says that these groups are underrepresented. That may be, but that doesn’t give the government a right to discriminate against our clients and other students on the basis of race. Any attempt to balance the races – or create equal outcomes – is a dangerous and illegal policy,” WILL attorney Dan Lennington told The Center Square.

WILL is representing Young Americans for Freedom, a college-based program that teaches conservative values and thoughts. Its president is former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

“Denying a student the chance to compete for a scholarship based on their skin color is not only discriminatory but also demeaning and unconstitutional,” Walker said.

WILL’s suit claims Asian students, white students, Arab students, Jewish students and some Latino students are blocked from applying to the McNair program.

“Students excluded are being taught that their race is a negative, and that their government doesn’t value them as individuals,” Lennington added. “That’s an offensive and bigoted belief, and it harms the individual dignity of each student. All Americans have a right to be treated equally, and policymakers should never victimize Americans who they believe are ‘overrepresented.’.”

WILL has become one of the leaders in pushing-back against race-based programs at both the state and federal level.

“Race-based programs, whether called DEI or affirmative action, are pervasive in American society. They won’t go away by themselves -- we must root them out one at a time. Our goal is complete racial neutrality, and we won’t stop until America is truly a colorblind society,” Lennington said. “This is our 12th lawsuit against the Biden-Harris Administration. In our Equality Under the Law Project, which kicked off in 2021, we’ve represented 62 clients from 23 states. We handled 16 lawsuits so far and about two dozen other matters involving race discrimination.”

The Department of Education said the McNair program is designed to boost the number of low-income and minority students who are looking to get doctoral degrees. The department says students qualify if they are low-income, first-generation college students or are part of a “group that is underrepresented in graduate education."