Woke Georgia Democrat who’s running for governor by opposing school choice is caught sending her own children to $38k-a-year private academy

Democrat’s woke candidate for Georgia governor was caught sending her children to an elite $40,000-a-year academy despite her party’s staunch opposition to programs that help less wealthy students attend ‘unaccountable private entities’.

Keisha Lance Bottoms, 56, was revealed to have sent her children to Woodward Academy, a private institution with tuition upwards of $37,000 a year.

While Bottoms has not publicly outlined a position on school choice programs that allow students to use public funds for private tuition, the Democratic Party of Georgia (DPG) strongly opposes the policy they call a ‘scam to siphon taxpayer money away from public schools’. 

‘While [Governor Brian Kemp] and his administration preside over a failed rollout of a failed idea, Georgia Democrats will keep fighting for a high quality, fully funded public school system that works for all students,’ said DPG in a statement slamming the Republican’s school choice program.   

Bottoms, meanwhile, has been a strong proponent of her party’s message that vows to increase funding for public schools, even as she sends her own children to the cushy private school in College Park.

The former mayor has already had two of her four children graduate from the academy. Tuition this year for her 15-year-old twins, who just recently posed in photos wearing the school’s uniforms and have profiles on the sports team, would cost nearly $80,000 for both.

While it is unclear how many years each of Bottoms’s children attended the school, the cost for a student to have a full 14-year career at Woodward Academy from pre-K to 12th grade graduation would cost $477,740.

Parents sending four children through 14 years at the private school would have a tuition bill just shy of $2 million under today’s rates. 

Keep reading

The 5th Circuit Rejects Qualified Immunity for Cops Who Searched a Driver After a Bogus Traffic Stop

Around 5 p.m. on a Wednesday in June 2022, Mario Rosales was driving his red Mustang on Jackson Street in Alexandria, Louisiana, waiting to turn left onto Dorchester Drive, when a police SUV pulled up behind him. After the traffic light turned green and Rosales made his turn, Officers Samuel Terrell and Jim Lewis activated their lights and pulled him over.

The officers later claimed Rosales had “failed to signal” his turn. But as dashcam video showed, that was not true: The Mustang’s left-turn signal was blinking as Rosales waited at the intersection. And after stopping Rosales and his girlfriend, Gracie Lasyone, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, Terrell and Lewis detained them for 21 minutes, during which the cops asked if there was anything illegal in the car, grilled them about drug use, frisked Rosales, instructed him to empty his pockets, and gave him and Lasyone the Miranda warning that typically accompanies an arrest.

Rosales and Lasyone sued Terrell and Lewis in federal court that November, arguing that the officers had violated their Fourth Amendment rights under color of law. Terrell and Lewis claimed they were protected by qualified immunity, a doctrine that bars such lawsuits unless they allege violations of “clearly established” law. A federal judge disagreed, and last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that decision, concluding that Rosales and Lasyone’s allegations were sufficient to defeat qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

That ruling by a unanimous three-judge panel is striking for two reasons. It illustrates the limits of the broad leeway that the Supreme Court has given police officers to stop and interrogate motorists. It also illustrates the limits of qualified immunity, which in many cases has prevented victims of outrageous police misconduct from pursuing constitutional claims because they were unable to cite sufficiently specific precedents.

In the 1968 case Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that police may stop someone when they reasonably suspect he is involved in criminal activity and may frisk him if they reasonably suspect he is “armed and dangerous.” Three decades later in Whren v. United States, the Court said reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation is enough to justify stopping a car, even when that allegation is a pretext for an unrelated criminal investigation. And when a traffic stop is legally justified, the Court has held in other cases, police may question the driver about unrelated matters and may order both the driver and any passengers out of the car in the interest of officer safety.

The impact of those rulings was clear when Terrell and Lewis pulled over Rosales and Lasyone. The cops ordered both of them to exit the car, and they interrogated them about their places of residence, itineraries, criminal histories, and personal habits.

Keep reading

Democrat Georgia Senate Candidate Who Co-Hosts Drag Shows Convicted of Child Cruelty After Beating 5-Year-Old With a Spatula — Sentenced to 7 Years

A Democrat nominee for the Georgia State Senate is heading to prison after a judge found him guilty of cruelty to children and battery for striking a 5-year-old girl at a daycare.

Justin Grant Gillespie, 41, of Hull, was sentenced last week to seven years, with two years to serve in state prison. The rest will be served on probation. He remains in the Madison County Jail.

According to the Athens Banner-Herald, Gillespie was convicted in a bench trial before Madison County Superior Court Judge Chris NeSmith. The charges stemmed from a Feb. 1, 2021, incident at Happy Kids Learning Center in Hull, where Gillespie worked.

Authorities said he hit the child in the lower back with a spatula, leaving a red, raised welt. The girl told investigators Gillespie was mad at her for not taking a nap. Gillespie admitted swinging the spatula but claimed he was on the phone and did not realize the child was standing nearby.

The parents discovered the wound and reported it to the Madison County Sheriff’s Office. Charges were filed in March 2021. The case dragged on for more than five years.

Gillespie showed up for a jury trial, fired his lawyer that day, hired another attorney, and chose a bench trial instead. During testimony from the victim’s family, Gillespie was seen rolling his eyes. The judge factored that conduct into the sentence, according to Northern Circuit District Attorney Parks White, as reported by 92.1 WLHR.

Keep reading

Grammy-winning pastor’s half-time side job that pays $540,000 is with taxpayer-funded nonprofit

A Detroit pastor who last year admonished a parishioner for her inadequate church donation of $1,235 was paid a salary of $538,955 that year by a taxpayer-funded nonprofit he leads that is separate from the church, according to federal records.

That salary for Marvin Winans Sr. — the pastor of Perfecting Church and a Grammy-winning gospel singer — accounted for about 61% of what the nonprofit spent toward its stated mission of “community development,” its recent report to the Internal Revenue Service shows.

His role as president for the nonprofit — Perfecting Community Development Corporation — is a half-time job, the report says, which means he was paid about $518 per hour.

Winans’ salary has increased substantially in recent years and coincided with a $500,000 government grant the state awarded the nonprofit. Grant application guidance indicates the award was funded with federal pandemic relief money.

“I don’t know whether there were better recipients for this cash, but it doesn’t look like it was supposed to go to pay for the salaries of an organization’s director,” said James Hohman, director of fiscal policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a prominent conservative think tank in Michigan.

Winans did not respond to repeated requests from The Center Square, including a visit to his church, to comment for this article. The Center Square also sent him an email that summarized the article’s findings.

The salary Winans receives from the church itself, separate from the nonprofit, is not publicly disclosed because churches are generally not required to report their spending to the federal government.

His salary increases also come amid his vigorous fundraising campaign to finish work on an enormous church that has been under construction for more than 20 years.

Keep reading

Censorship Advocates Seek To Use Bots And Anonymous “Sock Puppet” Accounts For Themselves While Denying Them To Others

Political leaders across the West have said for a decade that governments must end online anonymity to shut down fake accounts known as bots, particularly those from Russia. “I want to see real names on the internet,” said German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in February. “In a democracy, citizens have the right to privacy,” said Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez at Davos in January 2025, and “not to anonymity or impunity,” proposing to tie every social media account to a European digital identity wallet. Greece’s digital governance minister proposed in April 2026 to link every profile to a verified identity because “The major problem behind anonymity is toxicity.” French President Emmanuel Macron declared that his priority was “to demand the disappearance of fake accounts” and “these famous bots, these troll farms.”

But now the advocates of government censorship of legal speech are demanding the legal power to wage information warfare through anonymous accounts and an explicit “sock puppet” strategy. Buried in the Australian government’s new censorship bill is a definition: “A sock puppet identity is a false or fictitious identity assumed by a person in the course of using, or carrying out any activity in relation to, an online service.” The legislation goes on not to warn of bad actors using sock puppets but rather to authorize the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, to create and use sock puppets to “disseminate” information.

Keep reading

In Shadow of Pending Lawsuit, CDC Again Recommends COVID Vaccines for Infants and Young Kids

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) quietly reinstated its July 2025 COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, including recommending the vaccine for “off-label” use among infants and children, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., reported.

According to the CDC’s updated webpage, the agency now recommends the COVID-19 shot for all adults ages 18 and older and for children ages 6 months to 17 years who are moderately to severely immunocompromised.

For children not at high risk — including males ages 12-24, who have the highest risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis — the CDC recommends the vaccine based on shared clinical decision-making.

The updated recommendations conflict with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for the vaccines.

There are currently no FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and adults younger than 64. For those younger than 65, the vaccines are only FDA-approved for those at high risk of COVID-19 illness, at various ages depending on the vaccine.

The CDC acknowledges that use of the vaccine in that age group would be an “off-label” use.

Latest changes may be tied to court order in ongoing lawsuit

In May 2025, the U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the CDC would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children 6 months and older and healthy pregnant women.

In September 2025, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) made the changes official when members voted that for people ages 6 months to 64 years, COVID-19 vaccination should be based on “individual-based decision-making.”

However, a court-ordered stay in March 2026 froze those recommendations. To comply with that order, the CDC is now reverting to its early 2025 recommendations.

The court-ordered stay, issued by U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, stemmed from an ongoing lawsuit filed in July 2025 by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and several other medical groups.

The groups sued Kennedy and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women. They amended their lawsuit several times in response to new HHS and CDC policies and recommendations.

The U.S. Department of Justice is appealing Murphy’s ruling on behalf of Kennedy and HHS. Oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 6 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.

Keep reading

Child sex abuse case stayed after Toronto police sat on arrest warrant for years

A sexual interference charge involving allegations that a Toronto-area man sexually abused his own daughter was stayed after police failed for years to execute an arrest warrant, despite having information about where he could be found.

The man had been charged with sexual interference but failed to appear in court in November 2017, prompting a warrant for his arrest.

According to a case summary from UL Lawyers, police had information about his whereabouts, including his grandmother’s address, which was approximately a 20-minute drive from the courthouse. Yet the warrant was not executed.

The man continued living in the Greater Toronto Area and was reportedly unaware that the warrant remained active.

It wasn’t until May 2025, nearly eight years after the missed court appearance, that authorities caught up with him. When he returned from an overseas vacation through Toronto Pearson International Airport, border officers discovered the outstanding warrant.

But by then, the years-long delay had jeopardized the prosecution.

In July 2025, the Crown agreed to stay the case, acknowledging that the delay violated the accused’s Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The outcome was rooted in the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark R. v. Jordan ruling, which established presumptive ceilings for criminal cases. Cases in Superior Court generally have a 30-month ceiling, subject to deductions and exceptional circumstances.

The result was that the allegation that the man sexually interfered with his daughter was never tested at trial.

The accused is presumed innocent.

Keep reading

Inside North Carolina Democrat Roy Cooper’s Culture of Corruption as Governor

Soft-on-crime North Carolina Democrat Senate candidate Roy Cooper’s tenure as governor was marked by a number of scandals exposing a culture of corruption in plain sight.

Early in his tenure, Cooper used the power of his office to pressure energy companies into creating a $57.8 million slush fund as his administration held up a pipeline permit. Investigators called it “an abuse of power” in sworn testimony when Cooper’s top aides rewrote an agreement giving Cooper control over funds rather than the State of North Carolina.

A Duke Energy lobbyist said Cooper’s senior policy adviser, Ken Eudy, was not truthful when making statements to a legislative committee investigating the Cooper administration’s role in the project and slush fund, according to reporting from Carolina Journal.

According to the report, investigators said it would be reasonable to conclude Cooper used the power of his office to pressure ACP developers into creating a fund as a condition for getting an environmental permit. The report also concluded, “the information suggests that criminal violations may have occurred.”

Keep reading

Force the CIA to Disclose Its Chile Records

For some odd reason, the CIA steadfastly refuses to disclose all of its records relating to the 1973 Chilean coup, which the CIA ardently supported. The CIA says that “national security” will be jeopardized if its records are disclosed to the American people.

That’s ridiculous. What do they think will happen — that the United States will fall into the ocean or be taken over by the communists, the terrorists, the Muslims, or some other scary boogeyman?

The disclosure issue is more relevant than ever, given that September 21 was the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Orlando Letelier and his assistant Ronni Moffitt on the streets of Washington, D.C.

Letelier had served in the administration of Salvador Allende, a socialist who was democratically elected president of Chile in 1970. U.S. officials, especially those in the U.S. national-security establishment, concluded that Allende posed a grave threat to U.S. “national security.” Therefore they set into motion the events that would ultimately lead to the violent 1973 coup, which resulted in one of the most brutal military tyrannies in history — one supported by the U.S. government.

Letelier and Moffitt were driving to work that September 21 morning when a car bomb exploded and killed them both. Moffitt’s husband, who was also in the car, survived. It was a knowing, deliberate, intentional act of murder and terrorism here in the United States.

It was ultimately determined that the person in charge of planting the bomb was a man named Michael Townley. He confessed to traveling from Chile to the United States and organizing a team of Cuban exiles that assisted him in planting the car bomb.

It has always been assumed that Pinochet ordered the bombing, in large part because the CIA conducted an investigation that concluded that Pinochet did, in fact, order the bombing. That conclusion has become an important part of the historical case against Pinochet. In fact, some people are demanding the release of the CIA’s long-secret Chile records to help establish that Pinochet did, in fact, order the bombing.

That’s, of course, a distinct possibility. Letelier was living here in the United States and working for a think tank that was actively working in opposition to the Pinochet dictatorship, including trying to convince Congress to cut off aid to the Pinochet regime. Thus, it stands to reason that Pinochet certainly had a motive to kill Letelier.

However, there is something else to consider. Pinochet was not a dumb man. He had to realize that if a major terrorist attack on American soil could be traced to his regime, his good, solid relationship with the U.S. government, including foreign aid to Chile, would be finished. It is very difficult to believe that he would have been willing to take that chance just to silence a prominent critic of his regime.

There is another possibility, one that the U.S. officials and the U.S. mainstream press are loathe to consider. That possibility is that it was the CIA, rather than Pinochet, that ordered the hit on Letelier.

Yes, I know what U.S. supporters of the CIA will respond. They’ll point to that CIA investigation that concluded that it was Pinochet who ordered the hit. But isn’t that sort of like saying that the Gestapo investigated one of its murders and concluded that someone else did it? If the hypothesis being investigated is CIA involvement in the assassination, how can the CIA’s own official conclusions be treated as dispositive, especially given the CIA’s longtime expertise in covering up its assassinations?

Keep reading

Pakistani National Charged in Massive $126 Million USPS Counterfeit Postage Scheme — Feds Seize Website That Allegedly Sold More Than 5 MILLION Fake Shipping Labels

A 33-year-old Pakistani national has been federally charged after authorities say he ran an unauthorized website that dumped more than 5.1 million counterfeit U.S. Postal Service shipping labels into the American mail stream, and left the Postal Service holding the bag for more than $126 million.

According to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Faheem Akram of Khanewal, Pakistan, operated LabelsBank.com, a site that was never authorized to sell USPS products. Investigators say the site sold fake postage at a flat cut-rate price, typically $2 a label, no matter the package’s weight, size, or destination.

Postal inspectors in Miami say more than 5,000 customers used the site.

According to NBC 6 South Florida, more than 5,200 buyers purchased the phony labels and shipped packages at rates far below what honest Americans pay. The website has now been seized and shut down.

A federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida indicted Akram on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to make and sell counterfeit postage stamps, five counts of making and selling counterfeit postage stamp labels, and four counts of wire fraud. As prosecutors note, charges are allegations. He is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

If convicted, he faces up to five years on the conspiracy and counterfeit-postage counts and up to 20 years on each wire-fraud count, according to NBC 6.

U.S. Attorney Jason A. Reding Quiñones, President Trump’s U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, did not mince words.

Keep reading