Dr. Kristin Collier delivers remarks at white coat ceremony in face of vocal resistance

Left-wing students at the University of Michigan Medical School on Sunday failed to block a pro-life physician from delivering a commencement address.

More than 300 students, alumni, and physicians, had petitioned to bar University of Michigan Medical School professor Dr. Kristin Collier from giving the keynote address at the school’s annual white coat ceremony. Some students walked out when she took the stage, and others hung a banner from the auditorium’s balcony that read: “Bans Off Our Bodies. Abortion Rights Now.” No one interrupted. But other students defended Collier, and Dean Marschall Runge made it clear that the school “would not revoke a speaker because they have different personal ideas than others.”

“The White Coat Ceremony is not a platform for discussion of controversial issues, and Dr. Collier never planned to address a divisive topic as part of her remarks,” Dr. Runge wrote in the email, a copy of which was shared by Princeton professor Robert George on his blog. “Our values speak about honoring the critical importance of diversity of personal thought and ideas, which is foundational to academic freedom and excellence.”

University administrators’ defense of free speech has become increasingly rare, as professors have lost their jobs or been removed from courses for voicing controversial opinions. Princeton University fired tenured classics professor Joshua Katz in May because he had failed to exercise his free speech “responsibly” on campus, the Washington Free Beacon reported. In November, faculty and students at the University of Michigan ousted a music professor from a course after he screened a film deemed racially insensitive. The university’s policy affirms a “deep commitment to freedom of speech and artistic expression.”

The effort to cancel Collier surprised colleagues and former students. A well-respected professor who has published peer-reviewed articles in some of the nation’s most prestigious medical journals, Collier had been chosen by a student honors society to deliver the speech. A faculty member since 2005, she had until four years ago been “a pro-choice atheist,” and credits her change in views to open debate. Dr. William Chavey, a professor of family medicine who has taught for 25 years at the medical school, told the Free Beacon the petition to stop Collier from giving the speech “did not reflect who she is.”

“I suspect that the people who signed it don’t know Dr. Collier,” Chavey said. “She’s obviously been valued for her clinical skills, her educational skills, and her scholarship. To criticize or demean her for her opinion is narrow minded and inappropriate.”

The petition, which was sent to the entire student body by Medical Students For Choice (MSFC), said Collier had made remarks on social media and in interviews that were “antithetical to the tenets of reproductive justice.” Having “an anti-choice speaker,” they said, would violate the university’s stance on abortion.

The signatories argued that allowing Collier to speak would also perpetuate “a pattern of disregarding an[d] actively silencing the voice of students and members of our community.” They went on to link her with a list of perceived institutional injustices, including “the expansion of [the university’s] police force in the 1990s” and “delayed reporting of a child pornography scandal at UM Hospital under the past and interim President Mary Sue Coleman.”

In an email responding to the student-led petition, Chavey noted the university’s stated commitment to “diversity” should have precluded “canceling Dr. Collier’s talk for her beliefs about abortion.”

“Dr. Collier’s views, described by MSFC as fringe, are shared by roughly half of the population,” Chavey wrote in a letter to the dean. “Current and entering medical students will encounter many patients and have numerous colleagues with whom they may disagree over this topic. They cannot all be canceled.”

A separate group of medical students argued for keeping Collier as speaker, a move they said would “reinforce the Medical School’s commitment to DEI, rather than compromise its commitment to reproductive health.”

“We see no indication that Dr. Collier’s personal views on abortion have compromised her care of patients or her teaching of trainees,” the students wrote in a letter to Runge and the student council, a copy of which was shared with the Free Beacon. The students further cited studies showing that, while not a majority-held opinion, a significant minority of OBGYNs have denied patients abortifacients because of “personal, religious, or moral beliefs against abortion.”

Around 50 percent of students who signed the petition promised to not attend if Collier was permitted to speak. It is unlikely they kept their word, given the size of the crowd. The signees hid their names from the public.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Minnesota’s Jeff Ettinger now says he ‘know[s] how to fight inflation’ as his former company made food ‘affordable’

Minnesota Democrat Jeff Ettinger says he “know[s] how to fight inflation” because his former company made food “affordable.” That company is facing an array of lawsuits that say it conspired to inflate the price of pork.

Ettinger served as CEO of Hormel Foods from 2005 to 2016. During that time, Hormel conspired with other pork processors to run a “classic … price fixing scheme” to drive up the price of ham and bacon, active lawsuits facing the company argue. While Hormel has said the allegations are “completely without merit,” one of the companies involved in the purported scheme agreed to a $42 million settlement in early July.

Now, Ettinger is running in an August special election to replace the late Jim Hagedorn after the Republican congressman died in February. Ettinger has attempted to fight concerns of record-high inflation under resident Joe Biden by touting his time at Hormel—in a July 10 ad, the Democrat said he “know[s] how to fight inflation” as his “business was making food affordable.” He went on to repeat the claim twice in the following week.

The price-fixing lawsuits that loom over Hormel, however, could undermine Ettinger’s ability to navigate a perilous political climate that is driven by voters’ concerns over the economy. According to a June MinnPost poll, 94 percent of Minnesotans say rising gas and grocery prices have made their lives more “difficult” or “inconvenient.” On a national level, meanwhile, Americans view inflation as the top problem facing the country and believe that problem is Biden’s fault—64 percent of likely U.S. voters say the Biden administration’s policies have increased inflation, according to a March Rasmussen poll.

Ettinger declined to comment.

According to the series of lawsuits against Hormel, the food processing company in 2009 began sharing sensitive information with its competitors about its “profits, prices, costs, and production” in an attempt to drive up pork prices. A who’s who of grocery and restaurant chains have joined the lawsuits, the first of which was filed in 2018—prominent plaintiffs include Kroger, Hy-Vee, Buffalo Wild Wings, Jimmy John’s, and Sonic Drive-In.

Ettinger, who grew up in Los Angeles, made big money from his time at Hormel—his total compensation in 2016 alone was $36 million, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The Democrat’s financial disclosure also shows tens of millions of dollars in investments, and half of the roughly $800,000 Ettinger has raised came from his own pocket.

Ettinger’s wealth sparked one of his primary opponents, small business owner Rick DeVoe, to accuse Ettinger of being out of touch with everyday voters in Minnesota’s First Congressional District, who DeVoe said are sick of “corporate malfeasance.” Still, Ettinger said in his July ad that he understands why Minnesotans “feel squeezed.”

Ettinger used his financial advantage to emerge from the special election’s May 24 primary and will face Republican Brad Finstad in November. Finstad, a former state legislator, served in former president Donald Trump’s Department of Agriculture and has raised $614,000 to Ettinger’s $805,000.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The U.S. Army announced on July 21 that it has approved just 20 permanent religious exemptions for the COVID-19 vaccine amid thousands of requests.

Out of the 8,000 applications for a permanent religious exemption, a total of 1,465 have been reviewed by the Army. Just 20 have been approved—an approval rate of about 1.37 percent.

All those who had their applications approved were in the active Army. None from the Army National Guard or Army Reserve have received an exemption.

That leaves 6,535 applications for a permanent religious exemption yet to be reviewed by the service.

Meanwhile, the Army has reviewed 1,045 permanent medical exemptions for the COVID-19 vaccine, out of 1,100 requests. It has approved just 34 of the requests, which is an approval rate of about 3.25 percent.

“Army officials review each request on an individual basis to determine whether an exemption is appropriate,” the Army stated. “Medical requests are reviewed primarily by healthcare providers, while religious accommodation requests include interviews with the Soldier’s chaplain, recommendations from the chain of command, as well as a public health and a legal review.

“All Soldiers who refuse the order to be vaccinated without an approved or pending exemption request are subject to certain adverse administrative actions, including flags, bars to continued service, and official reprimands.

“Soldiers who continue to refuse the vaccination order without an approved or pending exemption may also be subject to additional adverse administrative action, including separation.”

Ninety-six percent of the active Army, 88 percent of the Army National Guard, and 90 percent of the Army Reserve are fully vaccinated, according to the military branch’s statistics.

Over 17,000 COVID-19 Vaccine Refusals

More than 17,000 Army troops have refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine, data indicated. Most of the refusals come from the Army National Guard, where more than 10,700 soldiers have refused to be vaccinated.

Out of 1,425 active Army members who refused the COVID-19 vaccine, 1,379 have been separated; no troops in the Army National Guard or Army Reserve have been separated.

Since July 1, under orders of Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, members of the Army National Guard or Army Reserve who have refused the vaccine and don’t have a valid exemption “may not participate in federally funded drills, training, and other duty nor receive payment or retirement credit,” the Army said.

While the Army’s vaccine mandate continues to be in force, the U.S. Air Force has been temporarily blocked from enforcing its vaccine mandate after a federal district court in Ohio issued a temporary restraining order in mid-July. The order prevents Air Force authorities from disciplining any service members who are unvaccinated after having their religious exemption applications denied.

Plaintiffs in the case had contended that the class action suit would include more than 12,000 airmen.

According to data from the Air Force, as of July 11, more than 6,800 service members have been denied religious accommodation requests, while only 104 have been approved. Meanwhile, 834 members have been “administratively separated” by the branch.

Army Facing Personnel Shortfalls

The figures point to a low rate of permanent COVID-19 vaccine exemption approvals from the Army at a time when the service branch forecasts it will have significantly fewer troops than originally planned by the end of fiscal 2023.Members of the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Battalion, 69th Armored Regiment deploy to Germany in Savannah, Ga., on March 2, 2022. (Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images)

Army Gen. Joseph Martin, vice chief of staff for the Army, told a House military personnel panel on July 19 that the projection for the estimated total number of troops in the force by the end of the 2022 fiscal year, on Sept. 30, is 466,400—a drop of 6,600 from the original target of 473,000.

He also said that the estimated number of troops for the end of 2023 fiscal year is 445,000 to 452,000, which is 24,000 to 31,000 troops less than the original target of 476,000.

“Right now, what we’re experiencing—the ‘why’ of what we think is going on right now—is we’ve got unprecedented challenges with both a post-COVID-19 environment and labor market, but also private competition with private companies that have changed their incentives over time,” Martin said.

He said the Army can manage to handle personnel shortfalls in the short term, but it could have an impact on readiness if it persists.

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), a member of the House Judiciary and Armed Services committees, took to Twitter on July 19 to advocate for the end of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate in the military, noting the drastic projected reductions in strength for the Army.

“Army Reserve and Army National Guard reductions will be even worse. We must depoliticize the military and end the vaccine mandate,” he said on Twitter.

Johnson in late June accused the Biden administration of having destroyed the Army’s readiness “by creating an unnecessary recruiting and retention shortfall, and trying to make up the difference by lowering other crucial education and fitness standards.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Several individuals connected to a 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign plot to cast Donald Trump as a covert Kremlin collaborator are working in high-level jobs within the Biden administration—including at least two senior Biden appointees cited by Special Counsel John Durham in his “active (and) ongoing” criminal investigation of the scheme, according to recently filed court documents.

Jake Sullivan, who now serves as Biden’s national security adviser, and Caroline Krass, a top lawyer at the Pentagon, were involved in efforts in 2016 and 2017 to advance the Clinton campaign’s false claims about Trump through the media and the federal government, documents show. Other evidence shows that two other Biden officials—senior State Department official Dafna Rand and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Gary Gensler—also are entangled in the so-called Russiagate scandal.

It’s not known whether these Biden appointees have been interviewed by Durham’s investigators. But as the probe widens, some government ethics watchdogs anticipate that Biden’s presidency could be pulled into the scandal, which saw the FBI abuse its surveillance powers to spy on a Trump campaign adviser based on Clinton opposition research.

Just as the Democrats have used their control of Congress to cast President Trump and the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol as threats to American democracy, Republicans are vowing if they regain power after November’s congressional elections to investigate the years-long effort to question Trump’s 2016 victory and undermine his presidency.

The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Turner, recently pledged to hold hearings and issue subpoenas “to get to the bottom of [Russiagate] so this never happens again, so we never have Americans having to distrust their own government because of the politicization of the FBI [and] of our intelligence community.”

RealClearInvestigations has learned that Congress has referred to the Special Counsel’s Office at least a dozen cases of potential perjury involving former Clinton campaign officials and Obama administration officials who have testified behind closed doors about their involvement in Russiagate. Hill lawyers and investigators have met with Durham’s staff about the criminal referrals stemming from the sworn depositions.

Republican sources say that the roles played in Russiagate by Krass, Sullivan, Rand, and Gensler may be among the first to draw attention in hearings. Although the full range of their efforts has not been made public, here’s what is known so far.

Caroline Krass: Clinton Donor and Top CIA Lawyer

Krass, 54—whom Biden appointed as general counsel of the Defense Department early last year—is the former top CIA lawyer cited by Durham as “General Counsel of Agency-2” in his indictment of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

Durham alleged Sussmann first tried to plant a fabricated report with the FBI’s general counsel about a secret cyber-link between Trump and Russia-based Alfa Bank in order to set in motion an investigation of Trump before the 2016 election. Then, after the election, Sussmann filed a similar report with Krass’ legal shop at the CIA, the prosecutor said.

Although a Washington, D.C. jury in May acquitted Sussmann of lying about who was paying him to approach the FBI, the trial revealed that FBI field agents specializing in cyber crimes debunked his report within days of receiving it, and even suspected some of the evidence was cooked up. “We think it’s a set-up,” one agent warned in an internal FBI email. FBI brass working under then-Director James Comey, however, prolonged the investigation for several months.

Nevertheless, after Trump won the election, Sussmann brought the same Trump-Alfa Bank ruse to Krass—a Clinton donor and Obama appointee, then working under CIA Director John Brennan. Durham has found evidence that Krass welcomed the tip.

“We’re interested,” he said Krass told him in their December 2016 phone call. “We’re doing this review and I’ll speak to someone here, and someone will get back to you to arrange a meeting.”

Krass allegedly told Sussmann she would consider the information for inclusion in the intelligence review of alleged Russian interference in the election that Obama had ordered at the time. A declassified version of the review, known as the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), was released to the public the next month and accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of meddling in the election to help Trump win. A classified version included an annex with several unfounded and since-debunked allegations against Trump developed by the Clinton campaign as part of the so-called Steele dossier. It’s not known if the two-page annex, which claimed the allegations were “consistent with the judgments in this assessment,” included the Alfa Bank canard, since several sections remained blacked out when it was made public in 2020.

The ICA became a foundational document for subsequent Trump-Russia probes and has been used by Democrats and the media to suggest the 2016 election was stolen from Clinton.

“The greatest concern with the role of Krass is her ‘interest’ [in Sussmann’s tip] despite the lack of foundational support [for it],” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told RCI. “As with the FBI, the Clinton campaign found eager [Obama] officials to move on any such allegation [against Trump].”

On Feb. 9, 2017, Sussmann secured a sit-down meeting at CIA headquarters with “a representative from the Office of General Counsel,” according to documents reviewed by RCI, where he turned over more dubious material allegedly linking Trump to Russia. The CIA lawyer he met with worked under Krass, who did not leave the agency until several months later, despite the change in administrations.

The attorney, identified at trial only as “Steve M.,” said he would pass the tips on to CIA technical experts, as well as an FBI liaison officer, but they too dismissed the data as “self-generated,” meaning they appeared to be designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion of a nefarious cyber-link. Complete datasets were withheld from the CIA.

Apparently, the CIA did not even ask for the source of Sussmann’s walk-in tip, including where he got the data files he gave the agency. The FBI exhibited a similar lack of curiosity when Sussmann reported the false Trump-Alfa Bank connection.

However, like FBI brass, Krass and her boss at the time, CIA chief Brennan, were aware of Clinton campaign efforts to portray Trump as a Kremlin agent, and it was no secret that Sussmann’s Perkins Coie law firm represented her campaign.

“As Brennan’s top lawyer, she would know everything about that,” said Kash Patel, the former House Intelligence Committee investigator who interviewed Sussmann in a closed-door deposition in December 2017, and was the first to discover the Alfa Bank smear operation he ran at the FBI and CIA on behalf of Clinton campaign operatives.

Evidence shows that Krass had other reasons to be skeptical of Sussmann’s claims. As legal adviser to Brennan, she was involved in the referral her boss made to the FBI in 2016 to open a counterespionage case to find out how Russian intelligence intercepted information about Hillary Clinton’s plan to tie up Trump in a Kremlin scandal. The intercept revealed the Russians were on to a plot by Clinton and her then-foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan to “stir up” a scandal on Trump about Russia during the Democratic convention in late July 2016.

Brennan appears to have been less concerned about the Clinton campaign’s disinformation campaign than the fact Moscow knew about it. This so alarmed Brennan that he briefed Obama about it, according to a summary of his handwritten notes, declassified in 2020.

The referral, known as a counterintelligence operational lead (CIOL), was sent to Comey, who in turn forwarded it to then-FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok to investigate.

Strzok—who was fired by the FBI after his anti-Trump views became public—opened an investigation, not of Clinton but the Trump campaign. Krass’ chief of staff at the time, Brian Greer, confirmed that the purpose of the CIOL was not to investigate the Clinton campaign’s dirty tricks, but to run a counter-spying probe to see if the Russians had penetrated the Clinton camp. The concern, he said, was that Clinton “may have been spied on by a hostile intelligence service.”

Seemingly reflecting the attitude of his former boss at the spy agency, Greer opined that “there’s nothing illegal about” what Clinton did to Trump. “Even if it’s unsavory,” he shrugged, “that’s just politics.”

Federal campaign records reveal that Krass donated at least $3,575 to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 and 2008 campaigns for president. Before Obama appointed her to the CIA in 2014, she served as his special counsel for national security affairs in the White House.

Brennan’s handwritten notes were turned up by Durham and opened a new track in his investigation, which early on had appeared to clear the CIA of wrongdoing. But now Durham is actively investigating this CIA front, according to one of his pre-trial filings. His grand jury has interviewed at least eight current and former CIA employees, and he is seeking out other agency employees who may have attended the meeting with Sussmann.

“The government has been undertaking additional steps to determine if additional personnel were, in fact, present at this [Feb. 9] meeting with [CIA] employees,” Durham noted. “In addition, the Special Counsel’s Office maintains an active, ongoing criminal investigation of these and other matters that is not limited to the offense charged in the [Sussmann] indictment.”

It could not be determined if Krass is among former CIA employees interviewed by Durham’s team. Durham’s office remains tight-lipped, and neither the CIA nor Pentagon responded to requests for comment. Attempts to reach Krass were also unsuccessful.

During his 2017 House Intelligence Committee interview, Sussmann and his lawyer promised to provide the committee copies of all the documents he gave to the CIA, but Patel said they failed to turn them over. The former staff counsel said he is confident Durham has obtained them.

Meanwhile, Judicial Watch is suing the CIA for all its records of contacts with Sussmann under the Freedom of Information Act. The Washington-based watchdog group recently filed the lawsuit after the CIA failed last year to reply to a request for the records, including notes, related to agency phone conversations and meetings with the Clinton campaign attorney.

“The CIA is in cover-up mode about its communications with the [Clinton] lawyer implicated in a shady spy operation against President Trump,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “What is the CIA hiding about its role in this plot against Trump?”

Fitton maintains that what happened at the CIA could be an even bigger scandal than what happened at the FBI.

As one of the Intelligence Community’s top attorneys, Krass also was involved in Obama’s sudden decision after Trump won to make it easier for the CIA and FBI to root through raw personal communications intercepted globally by the National Security Agency, according to sources familiar with high-level legal consultations regarding the revision to spying rules at the time.

The departing president’s executive order relaxing rules for mining the NSA’s highly classified databases went into effect less than three weeks before Trump took office. At the same time, the White House rushed to preserve all intelligence related to Trump and Russia and disseminate it across U.S. agencies.

The order, known as “12 Triple 3,” allowed the FBI for the first time to sift through large troves of incidental communications—including phone calls and emails—involving U.S. citizens, without NSA filtering or even wiretap warrants. In effect, agents could put advisers and appointees of Trump, along with their family members and friends, under warrantless surveillance.

The easing of longstanding restrictions on intelligence-sharing set off a massive fishing expedition.

The FBI didn’t have much time to exploit the raw intercepts before Trump put his own people in place. So in a last-minute scramble, it asked both the CIA and NSA to search their holdings and collect as much information as possible on Russian oligarchs and other figures for any links to Trump and his advisers—namely, Gen. Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Carter Page.

The information was hastily processed and compiled into analytical reports and shared with other agencies, as well as Congress, putting Trump and his presidency under suspicion before he could even take the oath of office. Some of the material also was leaked to the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, and other major media—even though it was largely unsubstantiated.

In short, the new rules that Krass, along with other intelligence agency lawyers, helped draft making it easier to share raw streams of communications also made it easier to frame Trump as a Russian stooge before Obama left office.

Although Brennan’s appointment ended the day Trump was inaugurated, Krass stayed behind in her CIA job through the end of April 2017. When she finally resigned, she left behind a team of around 150 attorneys in her legal shop at Langley. They all remained in their positions in spite of the change in administrations.

Krass is not the only Russiagate-tied official who has resurfaced in the Biden administration.

Jake Sullivan: Potentially False Testimony

Sullivan, 45, played a pivotal role in the baseless Alfa Bank story as the Clinton campaign’s foreign policy adviser.

He is the “foreign policy adviser” referenced in the Sussmann indictment as one of the campaign officials who was briefed on the scheme to cook up the debunked rumor that Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin were secretly communicating through Alfa Bank’s computer servers. Sullivan promoted the “secret hotline” hoax in a campaign statement via Twitter just days before the November 2016 election, claiming, “This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.” He even called on “federal authorities” to investigate.

Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook testified at Sussmann’s trial that he discussed the Alfa Bank project with Sullivan before going to Clinton herself for approval to publicize it.

Sullivan is also the “foreign policy adviser” cited in U.S. and Russian intelligence as the mastermind behind the Clinton campaign plot to “stir up” a Trump-Russia scandal ahead of the Democratic National Convention in July 2016. During the party’s gathering in Philadelphia, Sullivan drove a golf cart from one TV network news tent in the parking lot to another, pitching producers and anchors the fable that Trump was conspiring with Putin to steal the election.

Now operating out of the West Wing as Biden’s national security adviser, Sullivan is under scrutiny for potentially false testimony he gave to Congress regarding his knowledge of, and role in, the campaign’s opposition research efforts against Trump. Lying to Congress is a felony, although it’s rarely prosecuted.

“He has the gall to come into Congress—I took so many of those depositions—and say he had no idea how the [Clinton-funded Steele] dossier was created, or who the $10 million [that] Jake Sullivan and the DNC were paying was being utilized [by] to collect fraudulent information [on Trump and his advisers],” said Patel, a former federal prosecutor, who had worked for GOP intelligence chair Devin Nunes when he took the depositions. ”So, I think John Durham’s on his case.”

An attorney for Sullivan did not respond to questions, while a spokeswoman for the National Security Council declined comment.

Prosecutors say the Clinton campaign operation to tar Trump continued even after the election, with Sullivan again taking a prominent role.

In February 2017, Sullivan met with another central figure in the plot to plant the Trump-Alfa smear with investigators—Daniel Jones, a former FBI analyst and Democratic staffer on the Hill, whose goal was to reignite the investigation and put Trump’s fledgling presidency under a cloud of suspicion.

On Feb. 10, 2017—one day after Sussmann met with a member of Krass’ staff at the CIA—Sullivan secretly huddled with Jones and his partners at FusionGPS, an opposition research firm that worked for the Clinton campaign, to hatch the post-election plan to resurrect rumors Trump was a tool of the Kremlin. As RCI first reported, the meeting—which lasted about an hour and took place in a Washington office building—also included former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The group discussed raising money to finance a multimillion-dollar opposition research project headed by Jones to target the new president. They ended up raising several million dollars for the effort, organized under a nonprofit called The Democracy Integrity Project. In effect, Jones’ operation would replace the Clinton campaign’s operation, continuing the effort to undermine Trump.

It’s not known whether Sussmann also attended the Feb. 10 meeting, but he had paid a visit to CIA headquarters that same week to peddle new disinformation about the supposed secret server.

At the time, the FBI closed its Alfa Bank probe, finding nothing sinister. ”The FBI’s investigation revealed that the email server at issue was not owned or operated by the Trump Organization but, rather, had been administrated by a mass-marketing email company that sent advertisements for Trump hotels and hundreds of other clients,” Durham wrote in his indictment.

Nonetheless, Jones and Sullivan kept promoting the canard as true. Jones reached out to old bureau colleagues to pass on supposedly fresh leads, and the FBI looked into the new leads, while Sullivan went on national media to give the impression there was still something to the rumors.

In a March 2017 interview with CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, for example, Sullivan discussed a story leaked to CNN by unnamed sources that the FBI was continuing to investigate the rumors of “a secret hotline between Trump and Russia.”

“How surprised were you to hear last week that this investigation is still ongoing?” Blitzer asked.

“I wasn’t surprised,” Sullivan said, “because what we learned during the campaign was that very serious computer science experts—people who work closely with the United States government—had uncovered this secret hotline between the Alfa Bank, the Russian bank, and the Trump organization.”

Sullivan insisted that the computer scientists “weren’t just making up crackpot theories.”

In fact, Durham is actively investigating their leader for potential fraud and conspiracy: computer contractor Rodney Joffe, who was offered a top post in a future Clinton administration, according to recent court filings. Joffe, who recently was terminated for cause as a longtime FBI informant, has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to cooperate with grand jury subpoenas. His lawyer did not respond to phone calls and email messages.

Dafna Rand: An Anti-Trump Outfit Called TDIP

A longtime Clinton aide currently serving in the Biden administration as the director of the Office of Foreign Assistance, Rand also played a key role in spreading the Alfa Bank hoax.

In early 2017, Jones recruited Rand, a former Senate Intelligence Committee colleague, to sit on the board of The Democracy Integrity Project to help dig up new dirt on Trump, according to incorporation papers, while continuing to push the debunked Trump-Alfa Bank allegations.

In October 2018, TDIP blasted out an email to top Washington journalists with the subject line, “TDIP News Brief,” which attempted to keep the Alfa Bank hoax alive. The three-page bulletin, a copy of which was obtained by RCI, rehashed the alleged “connections between a computer server associated with the Trump Organization and servers associated with Russia’s Alfa Bank.” It speculated Democrats would subpoena information from “the server in question” if they regained control of Congress in the midterm elections the following month.

Rand’s resume on LinkedIn omits her role at TDIP (pronounced T-DIP), which is revealed only in the nonprofit’s IRS tax filings. A Democratic Party donor, Rand previously worked as a top aide to Clinton at the State Department. Before that, she served in the White House as a national security adviser to Obama.

Responding to grand jury subpoenas, her old colleague Jones reportedly has cooperated with Durham’s investigation.

Rand did not return requests for comment.

Gary Gensler: At SEC, Still After Trump

Biden nominated the longtime Clinton operative to head the Securities and Exchange Commission in February 2021, and Gensler was confirmed by the Senate and then sworn in as chairman of the Wall Street regulatory agency two months later.

Notably, the SEC press release announcing his appointment and detailing his personal biography omitted his prior role as chief financial officer for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election team, where he managed the campaign budget, including expenditures that weren’t properly reported.

In March of this year, the Federal Election Commission fined both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee for violating campaign finance laws by falsely claiming that more than $1 million used for the Steele dossier and other opposition research against candidate Trump was for “legal advice and services.”

Durham has sought these and other financial records as part of his investigation and has interviewed several former Clinton campaign officials including Mook, who handled opposition-researching spending and other budget matters and consulted with Gensler’s office during the campaign.

Patel said investigators would be wise to continue following the money trail. He maintained that he and other lawyers on the House Intelligence Committee found that the Clinton campaign failed to report the proper purpose of millions of dollars in additional funding.

“They need to keep digging, because there’s at least $10 million and maybe $20 million more that went directly into opposition research,” Patel said, adding that the Clinton effort to frame Trump as a Russian agent was ”massive.”

Last year, Gensler named Melissa Hodgman his associate director of enforcement. She happens to be married to disgraced former FBI official Peter Strzok, who’s also implicated in Durham’s probe. Strzok led the investigation of Trump and his campaign, codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane,” before he was fired in 2018 over anti-Trump texts he exchanged with his mistress, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

As adviser to the head of the SEC’s enforcement division, Hodgman currently is helping oversee an investigation into Trump’s social media start-up, Truth Social. According to regulatory filings, the SEC last month served Trump Media & Technology Group with a federal subpoena for records. The company owns Truth Social, Trump’s answer to left-leaning Twitter, which kicked him off its platform last year over remarks he made concerning the Jan. 6 riot.

The SEC reportedly wants to know more about merger talks between Trump’s parent company and Digital World Acquisition Corp., a publicly traded company regulated by the SEC. RCI contacted the SEC about the investigation and Gensler’s previous work for the Clinton campaign, but did not hear back.

Patel warned that too many of the people who “abused their power” in the Russiagate conspiracy to frame Trump have returned to power.

“A lot of these Russiagate conspirators are back recycled in the Biden administration,” said Patel, who recently published a book related to the Russiagate scandal, “The Plot Against the King.” “They must be held accountable or they’ll only abuse their power again.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

When the first bus carrying illegal migrants from Texas arrived in the District of Columbia on April 13, an official of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) said those who had no family to pick them up would be “put on a train” to Florida, according to a newly surfaced email.

The Oversight Project, an investigative arm of conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, obtained the email from the D.C. government via a Freedom of Information Act request regarding its response to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s initiative to bus illegal immigrants apprehended at the nation’s southern border to the nation’s capital.

Abbott launched the border bus mission in April to give the Washington community a taste of what has been experienced by Texas border towns as a result of the Biden administration’s border policy. He pledged to send cooperating migrants to the U.S. Capitol, where “the Biden administration will be able to more immediately address the needs of the people that they are allowing to come across our border.”

In the email dated April 13, a FEMA official told a group of Washington health officials that Abbott “made good on his promise” to drop migrants off on the steps of the U.S. Capitol building.

The FEMA official appears to be disappointed that the Texas Division of Emergency Management, which was tasked to arrange the buses, didn’t keep its Washington counterpart informed of the buses’ whereabouts.

“DC was in contact with Texas EM [Emergency Management] and they said they would alert DC when a bus was leaving and provide a manifest. They did not do that,” the official writes.

The official goes on to describe a plan to rely on Catholic Charities of Arlington, Virginia, for support, although the religious charity network indicated that they didn’t have “a huge bandwidth” if buses kept coming from Texas. The official also said that FEMA has held meetings with Washington officials, Customs and Border Protection, non-governmental organizations from the border towns, and border town officials for advice on how to handle the situation.

“For this first drop, some were picked up by family members and the rest will be put on a train to Miami,” the email states.

The message was relayed by Patrick Ashley, senior deputy director of the D.C. Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Administration, and was introduced as “a quick update from FEMA.”

Destination: Miami

Some illegal immigrants who voluntarily accepted the one-way bus ticket to Washington told news outlets they wouldn’t be staying there. A young man from Venezuela, who was among the very first batch of arrivals, told Newsmax that his final destination was Miami. The Daily Beast spoke to the same group of people and reported that they were planning to travel either to New York or Miami, with the help of Catholic Charities.

When asked about their travel plans, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis warned the illegal immigrants not to try to come to the Sunshine State, where they wouldn’t be welcomed.

“To those who have entered the country illegally, fair warning: Do not come to Florida. Life will not be easy for you, because we are obligated to uphold the immigration laws of this country, even if our federal government and other states won’t,” the Republican governor’s office told Fox News in a statement.

“Florida is not a sanctuary state, and our social programs are designed to serve the citizens of our state. The governor will protect the sovereignty of the state of Florida.”

The Mayor’s Response

Meanwhile, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser continued to condemn Abbott for “tricking” people into accepting his bus ride offer.

Appearing July 17 on CBS News, Bowser said her administration has called on the federal government “to work across state lines to prevent people from really being tricked into getting on buses.”

“We think they’re largely asylum-seekers who are going to final destinations that are not Washington, D.C.,” the mayor said.

“I worked with the White House to make sure that FEMA provided a grant to a local organization that is providing services to folks. But I fear that they’re being tricked into nationwide bus trips when their final destinations are places all over the United States of America.”

FEMA and Miami Mayor Francis Suarez’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment by press time.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Carrie Sheffield, senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum, said her organization has had to introduce a Women’s Bill of Rights, which defines what a woman is, in response to transgender ideology and a larger Marxist agenda that aims to destroy Western culture.

“Gender ideology is just one strand of a much bigger, radical, Marxist agenda, and that is critical theory,” she said. “So you’ve got critical race theory, critical gender theory, [and] critical class theory. That’s a bigger assault on freedom,” Sheffield told NTD on July 15 during Freedom Fest 2022.

“[Critical theory] originated in Germany at the Frankfurt School and it was to indoctrinate and to basically destroy Western civilization,” said Sheffield.

The Women’s Bill of Rights was necessary because basic scientific truths are under attack, said Sheffield, pointing to when the recently appointed Supreme Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson would not define the word “woman.”

“I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said during her confirmation hearing.

“[Jackson] knew it was a hornet’s nest, no matter what she said, that it would be just torn to shreds. So she played it very cautiously. And I think that that’s unfortunate because it just showed how the left has cowed anyone from being able to just speak the most basic commonsense,” said Sheffield.

“The polling is overwhelmingly in our favor, that people say, ‘we reject allowing biological men to compete in biological female sports,’” added Sheffield.

Sheffield said she is not against anyone identifying as they wish in their personal life, but there are biological differences that should be respected, especially in law.

“There are biological realities for women, and they put us at a physical disadvantage to biological men. And the fact that we have to spell this out, I think, is unfortunate,” said Sheffield.

“The definition of what it means to be a woman is under attack, the definition of what it means to be a mother is under attack, in terms of the protections for women and girls that we have been fighting for,” said Sheffield.

Proposed Laws Could Have Opposite Results

Laws under Title IX were created to protect women but are now in jeopardy, she said.

“And now they’re under assault because some people want to allow biological men to come in and take away scholarships and championships and opportunities, and we believe that it’s counter to science and it’s counter to the law,” said Sheffield.

The transgender issue is bringing conservatives and some on the left together, said Sheffield, with the progressive Women’s Liberation Front working with Sheffield’s conservative Independent Women’s Forum.

Because transgender male prison inmates are allowed to self-identify as women and have carried out assaults, Sheffield said, “We see this as an assault on the basic safety and the civil rights of biological women to have places where we are protected, where we have equal protection under the law where civil rights were not violated.”

Democrats in Congress led by Chairwoman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) are once again pushing to change the Constitution and add the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that they say would ensure women’s rights. But conservatives like Sheffield say the move will harm biological women and create unfairness in areas including sports and reproduction, giving transgender males an advantage.

“As women leaders in Congress, we are here today—all these decades later—still fighting this same battle. We won’t stop until we win, when the ERA is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution,” said Maloney during a speech on the anniversary of the ERA on March 22.

However, Sheffield said attorney and Eagle Forum founder, Phyllis Schlafly, fought against the ERA when it was first introduced because it would achieve the opposite of what it proposes.

“What Phyllis and conservatives said at that time was that if you put this into place, you’re actually going to erase women, you’re going to force biological women into the draft, you’re going to allow men into women’s bathrooms, because it’s not going to recognize that there are actual biological distinctions,” said Sheffield.

Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

China’s military has become more aggressive and dangerous over the past five years, the top U.S. general asserted on July 24.

Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters during a trip to Indonesia that the United States and its allies have conducted more and more intercepts of Chinese aircraft and ships in the Pacific. The number of unsafe encounters has also increased significantly, he said.

“The message is the Chinese military, in the air and at sea, have become significantly more and noticeably more aggressive in this particular region,” said Milley, who recently asked his staff to compile details about interactions between China and the United States and others in the region.

The Chinese military has become “noticeably more aggressive in this particular region,” he also told the Financial Times. Milley spoke with The Associated Press and the Financial Times aboard his aircraft as he was flying to visit the Indo–Pacific over the weekend.

Milley, who has faced congressional blowback for holding two phone calls with a top Chinese general during the waning months of the Trump administration, didn’t provide specific figures about incidents involving Chinese jets or ships.

But, in one example, a Chinese J-6 fighter jet in May flew close to an Australian P-8 Poseidon spy plane and released chaff—pieces of metal debris to confuse enemy radar—that was sucked into the Australian plane’s engines, Australian officials said.

“The intercept resulted in a dangerous maneuver which posed a safety threat to the P-8 aircraft and its crew,” Australia’s military said last month about the encounter.

Threats to the Region

U.S. military officials have recently raised alarms about the possibility that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) could invade Taiwan amid speculation the CCP could take inspiration from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The CCP has stepped up its military provocations against Taiwan in 2022 as it looks to intimidate it into assimilating with the communist mainland.

Milley also made note of an agreement between the CCP and the Solomon Islands that will allow Beijing to potentially construct a naval base in the South Pacific region.

“This is an area in which China is trying to do outreach for their own purposes. And again, this is concerning because China is not doing it just for benign reasons,” Milley told reporters. “They’re trying to expand their influence throughout the region. And that has potential consequences that are not necessarily favorable to our allies and partners in the region.”

He said that the “vast majority” of countries in the Pacific want the U.S. military to be more involved amid the CCP threat.

“We want to work with them to develop interoperability and modernize our militaries collectively, in order to make sure that, geostrategically, we’re able to meet whatever challenge that China poses,” he said, according to the FT.

Earlier this month, two Republican congressmen again asked Milley’s office to provide more details about two phone calls he had with a top Chinese general, including one on Jan. 8, 2021. They said that the general may have usurped civilian control of the military and said that he “has yet to respond” to their questions.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

‘Freedom is under attack everywhere’: CloutHub CEO

Jeff Brain, CEO of the CloutHub social networking application, told The Epoch Times that freedom and liberty are being crushed in the United States, the Netherlands, Australia, and other countries across the planet.

“There are those that want to push for socialism and tyranny against those that believe in individual freedom and liberty. And that’s the struggle we live in right now,” he said in a July 21 telephone interview.

Spurred by a shadow ban

Brain was inspired by his own frustrations with social media to start a new platform.

Like many other users, he suspected he was being shadow-banned. In other words, his posts were partly or completely concealed from other users.

“I was being censored, and I just found that outrageous,” he said.

Even apart from censorship, Brain saw many problems with existing social media platforms.

“Many people acknowledge that they’re toxic. They invade people’s privacy, and they’re addiction mills,” he said.

Brain thinks that many alternatives to Big Tech share those same flaws. He wanted CloutHub to be different.

For one, when you click on a CloutHub user’s profile, you can’t see how many friends and followers it has. In addition, the site does not show how many views a user’s post has received.

Articles in its “News” section do, however, display views. (Full disclosure: The Epoch Times’ articles appear in the app’s news section, alongside sources ranging from The New York Times and Vox to The Washington Times and Breitbart News.)

Brain believes the constant exposure to metrics like post views can make people anxious while undermining civil conversation.

He aspires to create a “virtual kitchen table”—a network of Facebook Group-like Hubs where users can forge deep bonds around common interests.

Groups are organized into categories such as Faith, Politics, Music, Technology, and Health.

What Brain sees as a less-addictive design may translate to less user engagement. But, in his view, that is not necessarily a weakness.

“On our platform, people experience a little less interaction, but they’re doing real things,” he said.

CloutHub’s Google Play app ranks 4,316 in usage among all apps and 87 among social apps, according to SimilarWeb. (There is an iOS version as well.)

Brain said CloutHub has 4.5 million total users.

The platform, though open, is not wholly unregulated.

CloutHub prohibits doxing, harassment, and hundreds of words and phrases—mostly racial slurs and crude sexual language.

“We all know that the intention of Facebook and Twitter is not really about those [community standards]. It’s just a façade to silence people. But on my platform, hate is hate,” Brain said.

Users can also join anonymously, though they must prove their identity to become “Verified” users.

“We don’t believe in cancel culture, and we have to recognize that people are concerned, so if people want to use pseudonyms, they can use pseudonyms as their name,” Brain said.

Standing behind ‘global freedom coalition’

Brain says he connected Canadians protesting against COVID-19 mandates to GiveSendGo, an alternative to GoFundMe, because of the possibility that GoFundMe would not disburse donations to those protesters.

On Feb. 4, 2022, GoFundMe seized C$10 million ($8 million) in donations, stating that the fundraiser violated its Terms of Service. It pledged to “work with organizers to send all remaining funds to credible and established charities chosen by the Freedom Convoy 2022 organizers and verified by GoFundMe.”

Ontario’s government moved to freeze millions in donations to the truckers through GiveSendGo on Feb. 10.

GiveSendGo’s website was hacked on Feb. 13, and the group Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoS) leaked a list of donors.

On Feb. 14, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act against the protests, the first use of that law in that country’s history.

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced the same day that the government would freeze bank accounts and halt crowdfunding linked to the protests through “anti-money laundering and terrorist financing rules.”

After the GiveSendGo hack, Brain has started to build an alternative to the alternative: FundFreely.com, which he sees as “the counter to George Soros.”

He has also connected with farmers protesting climate mandates in the Netherlands.

Brain estimates he has spoken with 18 farm leaders on the phone, warning them that “the opposition is plotting against you while you’re sleeping, and you need to move fast, faster than you think.”

Canada and the Netherlands are just the start of what Brain sees as an emerging “global freedom coalition,” modeled on the non-violent resistance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

He ticks off other examples: in Brazil, leftist factions in the government, the opponents of President Jair Bolsonaro, making it impossible for their enemies to get jobs or even to travel; in Portugal, Italy, and Germany, farmers rising in solidarity with the Dutch; in Australia, truckers slow-rolling in protest of vaccination mandates.

The Canadians have regrouped to continue their fight. On July 23, they will join a global protest in solidarity with the Dutch, including through a demonstration at the Consulate General of the Netherlands in Toronto.

“I believe that people everywhere should unite. I think freedom is under attack everywhere, including the United States,” Brain said.

Yet for all his concern about incursions on liberty, Brain radiates optimism about the future.

“I think they [the other side] overreached. I think you’re going to see the biggest push for individual freedom around the word that we’ve ever seen.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all students 12 and older in Washington, D.C. violates federal law, a legal expert says.

“There is no FDA-approved COVID shot available and therefore, individuals have a right under the emergency use authorization to refuse these shots,” Matthew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, told The Epoch Times.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted emergency authorization to the Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines.

Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, people who go to receive a product that has received emergency authorization must be informed that some benefits and risks “are unknown” and of “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

“It is your choice to receive or not receive [the vaccine]. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care,” FDA fact sheets provided to people getting a shot state.

Staver’s group may challenge the District of Columbia vaccine mandate.

Other interpretations of the law do exist. The U.S. Department of Justice, for instance, has said that the section “concerns only the provision of information to potential vaccine recipients and does not prohibit public or private entities from imposing vaccination requirements for a vaccine that is subject to an emergency use authorization.”

Mandate and Availability

Students in Washington aged 12 and older must already get a COVID-19 vaccine in order to be on school sports teams. The D.C. City Council passed a law in 2021 to extend the mandate to attending school at all.

“We need everyone to get vaccinated to stop the spread and protect vulnerable members of our community,” Councilwoman Janeese Lewis George, a Democrat, said during a hearing on the bill.

The law says that students must “receive a vaccination that is fully approved in the United States to prevent against COVID-19.” But it also states that an approved vaccine needs to be “available” to students for the law to take effect.

The FDA has approved Pfizer’s vaccine for children as young as 12. But vials produced after the approval are marked Comirnaty, which became the vaccine’s trade name. And a survey of vaccine providers in the city indicated there are no vials of Comirnaty available.

“Unfortunately we do not,” West End Pediatrics, one of the providers, told The Epoch Times in an email when asked if they were administering Comirnaty.

Four other providers could not confirm having Comirnaty vials, while nine others did not pick up the phone or respond to requests for comment.

As recently as February, no states could confirm receipt of Comirnaty vials.

Education Officials

Citing the city law, the district’s Office of the State Superintendent of Education said on July 19 that students aged 12 and older must get a COVID-19 vaccine to attend school in the fall, unless they are granted a medical or religious exemption.

The deadline is the start of the school year.

“We want to make sure that all of our students have everything they need for a healthy start to the school year,” State Superintendent of Education Christina Grant said in a statement. “This means making sure children see their primary medical provider for a well-child visit and receive all needed immunizations.”

The office noted that the FDA has approved Pfizer’s shot for the age group but did not mention whether the vials produced after FDA approval were available.

Fred Lewis, a spokesman for the agency, declined to answer questions.

“Please reach out to the DC Department of Health for this information. DC Health is better able to respond to questions on vaccine availability in the District,” Lewis told The Epoch Times in an email.

A spokesman for the department of health did not respond to inquiries.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Advocacy group Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleging that the agency is slow-rolling a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to turn over records tied to resident Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.

Judicial Watch filed the FOIA suit against DHS on July 17 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking the court to force the agency to turn over all non-exempt records concerning government-provided security services to Hunter Biden or companions on any international trips from 2010 to 2013.

The advocacy group said in a July 20 statement that the Secret Service, which is part of DHS, had “failed to respond adequately” to three FOIA requests in March and April demanding records of security services—and related use of taxpayer funds—provided to Hunter Biden and companions.

“The Secret Service is violating FOIA law by slow-rolling and hiding Hunter Biden records,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in the statement. “What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Hunter Biden?”

DHS didn’t respond by press time to an Epoch Times request for comment on the lawsuit.

‘Questions Have Been Raised’

The backdrop for the lawsuit is Secret Service records obtained by Judicial Watch in 2020 showing hundreds of international trips taken by Hunter Biden during the first several years of the presidency of Barack Obama while receiving Secret Service protection.

“While it is typical for the families of the president and vice president to travel with them, questions have been raised about whether Hunter Biden used the government trip to further his business interests,” Judicial Watch stated.

Missing from the records the advocacy group obtained in 2020 was information on whether Hunter Biden’s travel was on Air Force One, Air Force Two, or other government aircraft or whether other family members were present.

Judicial Watch’s complaint indicates that the Secret Service had acknowledged the group’s FOIA request and by April 19 had “located potentially responsive records, was processing the records, and would send them” to Judicial Watch “upon completion of the processing.”

But those records haven’t been handed over to Judicial Watch, nor has DHS explained why it hasn’t yet transmitted the documents, the complaint alleges.

Other Hunter Probe

Besides Judicial Watch, Republicans in Congress have also sought Secret Service records tied to Hunter Biden’s travels while his father was vice president.

While the Secret Service turned over 259 pages of records (pdf) to Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the pair of senators objected to what they said were “extensive” and “improper” redactions that impede their ability to “understand the full scope of the interactions between Hunter Biden, his associates,” and the Secret Service.

Grassley and Johnson have been probing Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings. The senators released a report in 2020 (pdf) that said Hunter Biden’s job with Ukrainian energy firm Burisma created a “potential conflict of interest” for his father, who was heavily involved in U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

In 2019, Hunter Biden sat for an interview with ABC News, in which he insisted he hadn’t done anything “improper” in his business dealings, although he acknowledged “poor judgment.”

Hunter Biden told the media outlet that he “did nothing wrong at all,” but conceded that it was “poor judgment to be in the middle of something that is … a swamp … in many ways.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Retired Lt. Col. Sandy Miarecki, who served over 20 years in the Air Force as a pilot, was given a notice of proposed removal from her position as an instructor at the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) on July 14 for refusing COVID-19 vaccination and testing.

At the beginning of the school term, in January 2022, she was first suspended from teaching for the same reason.

Miarecki was vaccine injured in 1992 during her military service. She was not completely disabled from the injury, and she gave credit to her research on natural medicine, saying it allowed her to be functional.

When the COVID vaccines were mandated in the military, she thought the imposition would violate U.S. law as well as the Nuremberg Code.

“Before the [COVID vaccine] shots mandates came down, I warned my chain of command that they would be breaking federal law if they forced any EUA shots on anyone,” Miarecki told The Epoch Times, referring to the vaccines allowed under emergency use authorization.

Similar to Miarecki, USAFA civilian Olympic-calibre coach Dana Lyon believes that she was terminated due to rejecting COVID vaccination, according to The Gazette.

“When the mandates came down—illegally from SecDef, who has zero authority to mandate anything like this, per the USC—all subsequent people who forced the injections on people or lose their jobs or get kicked out of Academy were guilty of coercion under 21 US Code, Section 360bbb-3 and Nuremberg code,” Miarecki added.

The Nuremberg Code is a set of internationally accepted standards to which doctors have to conform when experimenting on humans. It was established by the war crime tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany, after World War II.

“Even to this day, neither Pfizer’s Comirnaty (the only FDA approved shots until Jan 2021) nor SpikeVax by Moderna (started in Jan 2021) have EVER been available in the US. Bottom line: all shots are still only EUA, and coercion to take them or lose your job or Academy appointment is a crime against humanity and punishable by death through international tribunals,” Miarecki said.

She says that some of her students told her that they didn’t want the shots, and she told them about the regulations for religious and medical exemptions.

“Since their chain of command denied them due process and withheld this information, the students (and faculty, and civilians) asked me for help,” Miarecki said.

“I helped them write exemption letters and connected them with my legal team when they wanted to talk to a lawyer. That was the first problem, that I was ‘counseling and mentoring students on avoiding the mandates,’” she noted.

Miarecki, who was given the Airman’s Medal for heroism in 1992 for a river rescue, says that she personally knows “three civilian instructors flying under the radar because they will do the EUA testing, and four military instructors doing the same.”

Miarecki told The Epoch Times that she filed formal DoD/IG complaints in Jan 2022, and in March 2022 the IG (Inspector General) informed her that part of the complaint should be handled by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), so she filed new complaints to the OSC but hasn’t heard back from them so far.

“I would guess that I will not receive a favorable outcome, which should arrive any day now,” she said.

Around the same time she was suspended, a federal district court in Ohio temporarily blocked the Biden administration from enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on thousands of U.S. Air Force service members who remain unvaccinated after having opposed the shot on religious grounds but have had their religious exemption applications denied.

The Air Force has been struggling with pilot shortages for years now.

Former Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein testified before Congress in 2017 about a shortage of aviators, writing in 2016 that the situation was a “quiet crisis.”

A DoD report (pdf) from 2019 noted that by the end of FY 2018, the Air Force was “short 2,000 pilots out of a total inventory of 18,400.”

“I know of personally more than 700 pilots who are actively unvaccinated and have filed a religious accommodation or have filed for a medical exemption or something of the sort,” USAF pilot Lt. John Bowes told The Epoch Times on June 24.

About this, Miarecki said: “I can guarantee that 700 is a low number overall.”

“We’ll be holding our breath to hear if we get a preliminary injunction, but this fight is far from over. Most pilots are still grounded, including myself, and we’ll see how that changes with the coming news,” Bowes told The Epoch Times on July 19.

The Epoch Times reached out to USAF for comment.

Beth Brelje and Mimi Nguyen Ly contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is saying it has performed vaccine safety data mining and analyses since early 2021, a reversal from a recent letter.

The CDC said in an operating procedures document dated Jan. 29, 2021, that it “will perform” a type of data mining analysis of vaccine safety data called Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR).

The public health agency also said it would conduct routine surveillance of the data, which is being logged into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The data mining and surveillance were aimed at detecting adverse events occurring at higher-than-expected rates.

But little of what the agency said it would perform has actually been performed, according to a June 16 letter to the Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit.

The group had asked, in a Freedom of Information Act request, for all data generated in connection with the data mining, as well as copies of other data.

In response, CDC records officer Roger Andoh said that staff within the CDC’s Immunization and Safety Office “inform me that no PRRS were conducted by CDC.”

“Furthermore, data mining is outside of th[e] agency’s purview; staff suggest you inquire with the FDA,” or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, he wrote.

The FDA was tasked with conducting a different method of data mining, according to the procedures document.

The CDC also failed to produce other information it said it would be producing, such as weekly tables of all reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines.

Confusion

The reaction to the disclosure was swift. Joshua Guetzkow, a senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem who has been applying his training in statistics to examine vaccine safety, said it showed the CDC “lied” about its efforts to monitor the safety database, known as VAERS.

“In their own document on their own website, they state unambiguously what their plans were to monitor VAERS for safety signals. They failed to do that,” Guetzkow, who has been working with Children’s Health Defense, told The Epoch Times via email.

“Another thing: in their FOIA response, they said that data mining is outside the CDC’s purview. Then why did they say they were going to do data mining with PRRs in the SOP briefing document?” he wondered.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who has been attempting to get answers from federal agencies throughout the pandemic, told CDC Director Rochelle Walensky in a letter that the disclosure “raises questions about whether CDC ever collected the information on vaccine safety it originally claimed it would” in the operating procedures document.

The request for information that triggered the CDC’s response was for data from Feb. 1, 2021, through Sept. 30, 2021.

Dr. John Su, of the CDC’s Immunization and Safety Office, heads the CDC’s VAERS team, which authored the operating procedures.

“CDC has been performing PRRs since Feb 2021, and continues to do so to date,” Su told The Epoch Times via email.

Hope That CDC Is ‘More Forthcoming’

In its response to the Freedom of Information Act request, the CDC “was unequivocal: the agency said it hasn’t done PRR and has no responsibility to do so,” Risa Evans, with Children’s Health Defense (CHD), told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Now the CDC states that it has in fact been conducting PRR since February 2021. CHD will certainly follow up with the CDC to obtain those records, and hopefully, the agency will be more forthcoming this time around in light of its legal obligations under FOIA and its stated commitment to ‘openness and accountability,’” she added.

The Epoch Times has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all PRR analyses the CDC has conducted, as well as other information. The VAERS team told The Epoch Times that the information “will be provided to you,” though a date has not been given.

The FDA, meanwhile, says that it has conducted a different type of analysis, called Empirical Bayesian data mining.

“FDA does perform Empirical Bayesian data mining periodically on data from VAERS as part of its vaccine safety monitoring efforts,” a spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.

Asked for the results, the spokesperson did not respond.

The Epoch Times has filed a FOIA request with the FDA for the results.

Guetzkow in 2021 performed his own analysis of data from VAERS. That analysis uncovered safety signals for a number of events, including severe allergic shock, Bell’s palsy, heart inflammation, and stroke. Some of the events have been confirmed to be connected, or described as likely connected, to one or more of the COVID-19 vaccines by the CDC and other U.S. authorities.

“CDC and FDA have been actively engaged in vaccine safety surveillance ever since COVID-19 vaccines have been in use. During the first month of their availability, data on anaphylaxis after [the Pfizer and Moderna] COVID-19 vaccines were published (including in highly visible journals, like the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), indicating an observed incidence comparable to data after other vaccines. VAERS detected what would become known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Janssen’s vaccine, leading to a pause in the use of the vaccine mere weeks after its use was initiated. VAERS reviewed reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during Summer 2021, providing a highly thorough characterization of such reports,” Martha Sharan, a spokeswoman for the CDC, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“These examples indicate that the vaccine safety surveillance systems in use by CDC and FDA identify potential vaccine safety concerns in a timely and effective manner.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The first major peer-reviewed study of monkeypox infections has found that the virus is primarily being transmitted through the sexual activity of gay and bisexual men in the United States and around the world.

The Journal of New England Medicine on Thursday published a study that looked at monkeypox infection across 16 countries between April and June, when cases began to emerge in countries outside of Africa.

The study reported on 528 infections diagnosed between April 27 and June 24, of which 98 percent were in gay or bisexual men with a median age of 38. Of these cases, 95 percent of the infections were suspected to have been transmitted through sexual activity—41 percent also had HIV.

Disease experts and officials from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) don’t consider monkeypox a sexually transmitted infection but have always said it could be transmitted through intimate contact, such as sex. It can also be spread by close contact and even infected clothing and bedding.

Until this year, monkeypox virus infection in humans has been rare outside of Africa, where it is endemic but mostly spread from animals. But there are now more than 16,000 cases worldwide in countries that mostly have not historically had monkeypox, according to the CDC.

Most of the cases appear to be in North America and Western Europe, where some of the first cases were linked to major LGBT events in Spain and Belgium, considered ground zero for facilitating transmission of the virus.

The leading theory among disease experts is that the monkeypox virus was sexually transmitted at those events.

An uptick in recent U.S. cases suggests transmission occurred at the tail end of Pride Month in late June and early July, based on the study finding that incubation is between three and 20 days (usually seven days).

Former Trump Health Officials Blame CDC

CDC officials were hesitant to recommend canceling marquee U.S. LGBT events, similar to the super spreading events in Europe that occurred the month prior.

LGBT event organizers were also treading carefully in the spring, wanting to avoid stigmatizing the LGBT community. U.S. health officials opted instead to boost targeted messaging to warn gay and bisexual men, who were deemed most at risk.

But officials should have done more, says Dr. Paul Alexander, a former Trump administration health official and researcher.

“All this needed was leadership saying no skin to skin contact, no anal sex, no sex, none for a few weeks and we would have helped this high risk group, but no, it’s political games and now the low-risk general heterosexual population is at risk especially from bisexual males,” Alexander wrote in a blog post.

The blog post also included a Twitter thread by a gay U.S. man recounting in graphic detail his experience with contracting monkeypox during an orgy in Palm Springs.

Alexander expressed concern that bisexual men could facilitate the spreading of the monkeypox virus outside of the LGBT community to heterosexuals. In fact, the CDC has said they know of eight cases in women and two new cases in children—one a toddler and the other an infant, BBC News reported.

“Heterosexuals could spread this if one partner is infected and there is rough abrasive sex that involves tearing of tissue,” Alexander added.

“This is not about being ‘gay,’ the virus is transmitted in bodily fluids and infected pustules and lesions in the infected person, through any tears on the skin or tissue e.g. rectal micro lesions etc,” he continued. “If heterosexuals engage in anal sex and one is infected with monkeypox or another [sexually transmitted disease], the other will get infected if there is tissue tearing.”

Although monkeypox infection generally clears up within a couple of weeks without the need for medical treatment, it has hospitalized some who experience severe anorectal pain, severe sore throats, and acute kidney injury.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

America’s current education system is antiquated, wasteful, and “bent on saving and serving itself,” argues former U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

She is one of the very few department heads to have advocated for the abolition of the agency she ran. Education gaps have only widened since the establishment of the federal Department of Education under President Jimmy Carter, she says.

Two years of remote learning have now put children months, if not years behind during this pandemic. “You couple the learning losses with the mental health challenges, and you have a disaster looming,” she says.

DeVos is the author of the new book, “Hostages No More: The Fight for Education Freedom and the Future of the American Child.” Tonight, she breaks down creative new approaches to schooling being adopted in states like Florida and Arizona that could soon change the game for millions of children across America.

Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.

* Click the “Save” button below the video to access it later on “My List“.

Below is a rush transcript of this American Thought Leaders episode from Jul 21, 2022. This transcript may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Jan Jekielek:

Betsy DeVos, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Ms. Betsy DeVos:

Thank you, Jan. It’s great to be with you.

Mr. Jekielek:

It’s been several years since we spoke last. You were the Secretary of Education at the time and you were getting, I think it’s an understatement to say a ton of flack for just about anything that you were trying to do. And now, you’ve written about it in your book. What is it like to be outside of government now? How has your life changed?

Ms. DeVos:

Well, I’ve been busy writing this book, which is about how we actually fix American education. And it’s been very, I would say, energizing and cathartic at the same time. And I’m continuing to advocate for kids and for their family’s ability to direct their own child’s education as I had for 30 years before I went to Washington.

So in that regard, not much has changed. I just am able to do it now with a different perspective and a different set of experiences. And I’m working with governors and state legislators and some of our federal elected officials as well to really promote and advance policies that are going to empower families to do just that.

Mr. Jekielek:

So tell me about this different perspective. What is it that you, what were the big lessons of being in an administration?

Ms. DeVos:

Well, it only confirmed further for me what I knew before even going there. And that is the federal government does not do education well. It is not involved in education in a good and positive and constructive way. It is really the purview of the family and the most local units of government that really have to be able to take charge of and control for the kids’ education.

And we’re seeing this happen now in more meaningful ways across the country with Arizona being the most recent state, the first state to enact a universal education freedom policy, which is going to change the life trajectories for thousands of kids in that state. I’m very excited about that. I’m also excited about how that’s going to continue to build momentum in other states for the policy changes necessary to do that same thing.

Mr. Jekielek:

And so it’s interesting to me, because you are the head of a large federal department. Of course, education is left to the states, but there’s been all sorts of federal mechanisms created to be able to influence the states with time, right?

Ms. DeVos:

Yes. Well, people often don’t realize the fact that only 8% or 9% of funding for K-12 education comes from the federal government and yet the regulations and all of the policies that directly impact state and local education are far beyond that 8% or 9%. And so there are a lot of strings attached to the money that government sends and funds for K-12 education.

I contend that that money is better spent when directed by families from the state level as well. And I use the metaphor of a backpack. Kids go to school every day with the stuff they need for the day. Metaphorically, we should attach the funds that are already being spent on that child to that child’s backpack, for that family to figure out, is there assigned school working for them? If not, let’s figure out where is going to work.

And K-12 education is the least disrupted industry in our country. And it is an industry. We spend $750 billion a year on K-12 education, and we continue to get poorer and worse results in spite of the fact of spending more and more and more money. If we would empower families with those resources to make those buying decisions, we will get the creativity and ingenuity and entrepreneurship we need in K-12 learning experiences that we haven’t had to date with a 175-year-old industrial model approach.

Mr. Jekielek:

What place is there, if any, for a federal department of education? I’ve had someone on the show very recently who simply said, “Do away with it all.”

Ms. DeVos:

I concur with that. I think the department should not exist. It was a payoff to the teachers unions that Jimmy Carter made in 1979 or ’76 when he was running for election. And it was actually affected or implemented in 1979. We have since then spent over $1 trillion at the federal level alone with the express goal of closing the achievement gaps. Not only have those gaps not narrowed one little bit, by most measures they’ve actually widened.

And so there is no compelling reason for having a federal department of education. There are a couple of laws that we need to make sure are followed, protecting civil rights and making sure children with disabilities have the kinds of supports they need. But those don’t need to exist in a federal department. They can exist in another already established department and be overseen very well in those places. The federal department of education does not add any value to kids’ educations.

Mr. Jekielek:

You’re perhaps the first department head I’m aware of who’s advocating for the abolition of the department that they headed.

Ms. DeVos:

I did while I was there. I said, I would be very happy to work myself out of a job. And in fact, the last two budgets that we presented to Congress actually sought to block grant all of the funds to the states and local districts. Congress didn’t take it up seriously to even debate it. I hope they do.

I think it’s a very worthy discussion, particularly with how we’ve seen the system act and respond this last two years when families have had a front row seat to see firsthand the failings of the system.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to talk about this Arizona law that you mentioned earlier. It’s obviously a major development. Before we go there, I just want to touch a little bit on this past administration. You actually quit following January 6th. You said that President Trump had crossed the red line. I want to give you a chance just to kind of say your piece, like what exactly happened so people understand what your position was very clearly before we continue.

Ms. DeVos:

Well, to put it a little more in context, following the election in November, during the rest of November and December when there was debate happening around a second COVID relief package, there was a very real opportunity to get a school choice, education freedom provision included in that bill. But The White House was not focused on doing those kinds of things and advocating for that kind of policy.

And so what could have been wasn’t, and my role, my job, focusing on doing the right things and everything we could for students, I’d pretty much come to the end of what we could possibly accomplish. And on January 6th, when I saw what was happening and I didn’t hear the president say the things that he could have or should have said, at least what I felt, to put an end to what was happening.

And when he turned his back on his vice president, it was kind of a line in the sand for me. I also felt we should have been taking victory laps about all of the accomplishments of the administration, of which there were so many. And instead we were focused on this. And so I’m always a forward looking person. That’s what I continue to do. And that’s what I think we need to do.

Look ahead. Let’s learn from what we did in the past, but let’s keep moving forward and doing the right thing for, in my case, the right thing for kids and more broadly the right thing for Americans.

Mr. Jekielek:

So again, you started talking about this Arizona law. A number of people are saying this is groundbreaking. There’s been nothing like this before. So, tell me a bit about this law. Do you see this as the future for the American child and where should it go from here?

Ms. DeVos:

Yeah, so the Education Savings Account is what Arizona just passed and Governor Ducey signed into law. That means that for all 1.1 million students in Arizona, if their families decide that the school to which they’re assigned is not working for them, they can take 90% of what the state would spend on that child and use it to buy that child’s education.

They could use it to go to a different school, one that requires tuition, a faith-based school or another private school of some sort. Or they could use it to customize their child’s education and maybe buy a couple of classes at one place, maybe buy a virtual class, maybe a couple of classes at a charter school, let’s say. Any combination of those things, or perhaps some things that haven’t yet even been developed.

In Arizona during the lockdowns, there were many families, many of them in the urban areas that started to band together in small cadres or consortiums of families and basically start up what I would refer to as a 21st century one-room schoolhouse with multi-age kids. They would hire a teacher that was looking for a different experience. And for them, if that’s working, they need to have the opportunity to continue to pursue that kind of experience for their children.

And like I said, the system has been so one size fits all for 175 years. We haven’t really wrapped our heads around what education in the K-12 years could really look like for kids, because we haven’t had the kind of creativity that we’ve seen in every other industry. This in Arizona, and I think there will be other states that will soon follow, we’re going to see that creativity really fostered and growing in ways that we can’t predict today.

Mr. Jekielek:

So you’re just making me think of something bizarre that I heard fairly recently. Basically, in a school where all the teachers were not in school. This is in New York, basically. One of the moms is describing this situation. The parents banded together and created one of these schoolhouses in that same school. And they said, how bizarre an experience was that? The teachers couldn’t come and actually, some of these teachers were somehow involved in the creation of this as well.

So on the one hand, the actual system wasn’t really functioning except perhaps virtually, although, certainly not at a hundred percent. And on the other hand, there were people creating these sorts of things. In some cases, even employing people that were involved in the educational system in the first place. What do you make of this?

Ms. DeVos:

Well, I think it’s just one example of people finding solutions to problems. And I’ve used the example recently of a small school that I’m familiar with in West Michigan. I live in Michigan. It’s cold in the winter in Michigan. And yet there’s this small school where the kids are outside all day, all year long and they’re learning outside and they choose to do this. It is an outdoor school by design. And the teachers who are there are choosing to be there.

And I use it as one small example of thinking about solutions that we need to be much more open to because we know kids learn differently. They have different needs. And parents again have had front row seats to that in the last couple of years. And they’ve seen if distance learning was just the ticket for their child or if it was a disaster. They’ve seen in many cases, curriculums that they didn’t want their children to be exposed to.

And in other cases, they’ve seen curriculums that were very low in their expectations of what a child could do. And the parents may know that their child is capable of much more. They should have the opportunity to find the solution that’s going to work for that child to unlock that child’s full potential.

Mr. Jekielek:

For all intents and purposes, from everyone that I’ve heard, the distance learning didn’t work for most kids. It worked for a few kids that were very self-directed, but it didn’t work for most of them. And I guess, the other part of the previous question, these teachers weren’t in school. And so this is one of the reasons the parents had to start organizing. But what about the fact that these teachers weren’t in school in the first place? There’s a lot of contention about that, right?

Ms. DeVos:

And I think many of them had longed to be in school. They knew that their kids were falling further and further behind, but the system in many cases precluded them from doing that. There were a lot of teachers who I think have walked away from teaching because they’ve become so frustrated by the system.

And in an education freedom environment like Arizona is just creating, teachers are going to become the most valued part of that equation. And there are going to be opportunities for them like they’ve never seen before. Opportunities for them to be really creative themselves about solving problems for families and kids, or addressing needs.

And I’m just very excited about what it can mean for students in Arizona and more broadly, how it’s going to continue to drive change. Because we know that this is a very winning issue for families, for everyone … Like three out of four Americans say, “Money for students should follow the student to where that student goes to school.” You cannot deny the power behind that sentiment.

And when that actually happens at a scale to really make a difference, again, we’re going to see creativity and experiences for kids in their K-12 learning that we haven’t even begun to dream of because we’re just so stuck in this one-size-fits-all old model that is no longer working for way too many kids across the country.

Mr. Jekielek:

You’re expecting because of this new legal structure around the funding for students, all sorts of new models will spring up. Teachers will be able to enter them, figure new things out. It’s sort of like this innovation land in education.

Ms. DeVos:

Absolutely, absolutely. And Florida is one state where they’re farthest along with the greatest number of students. They’re going to continue to expand those opportunities for kids. But we’re only at the tip of the iceberg as to what that could look like.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to touch a little bit more on this, the learning during the pandemic. I think you were urging schools to open very early on. And I think you even threatened to withhold funding as part of the urging, so to speak. How did that end up playing out in the end?

Ms. DeVos:

Well, there was no ability to withhold funding at the federal level. But we did everything we could as an administration to urge and encourage schools systems, all of those involved to find the solutions, to get kids back to learning.

And again, we don’t even begin to understand the breadth and magnitude of the learning loss and the impact, the negative impact on kids, particularly the most vulnerable kids, low income kids, many kids from minority families. They’re the ones who have been most hurt by the system’s behavior during the pandemic. And you couple the learning losses with the mental health challenges, and you have a disaster looming.

Again, this is the ideal time for states to change their policy, to support funds going to the families for their children’s education, not to systems or buildings that are going to simply double down on doing the same thing, the same way over and over again, with more money and expect different results. It’s not going to happen. It hasn’t happened in the last 30 years. It’s not going to happen tomorrow because the system is bent on saving and serving itself.

Mr. Jekielek:

This is something that’s been really troubling me. This arguably a generational crisis caused by these two years for some students of almost a complete loss of education. I forget what the numbers are exactly. But some significant percentage of students is almost a complete loss in the prime of their lives, so to speak, or their childhood lives. One way to deal with it is to adopt new, innovative methods. But have you thought about how America and frankly, every country that’s faced this is actually going to deal with this?

Ms. DeVos:

Well, I believe you’re only going to deal with it when you interject creativity and entrepreneurship into it to solve problems because you are not going to get a different result by doing the same thing. And we’ve seen families actually start to address these issues because they did so out of necessity during the pandemic. We should support those and many more who are suddenly attracted to something different because they’ve seen the opportunities.

And the reality is that the traditional system or systems, they’re going to ultimately make changes because they’re going to see the competition. They’re going to have benchmarks to be able to compare themselves to, they’re going to make changes that are ultimately going to benefit kids too. But you have to allow for the families to make those choices and those decisions in order to foster that kind of change.

Mr. Jekielek:

Were there any policies that you instituted while you were a secretary of education that you felt just didn’t work out the way they were planned or things that you wish you had done differently now with a bit of hindsight, like looking at it?

Ms. DeVos:

Well, I wish we had been able to get the federal tax credit to support education freedom passed and accomplished. Short of that, everything else we did was really focused on doing the right thing for students. And our work on Title IX on making sure that kids, when they are on campuses and they have an issue with sexual misconduct, that they have a framework that is fair, that is balanced, that is going to treat everyone fairly and with respect, and put the one who brings it forward in control of what happens next.

That and other issues on which we regulated or dealt, those are all … The current administration, the Biden administration is trying to undo all of those and turn us backward. This is a travesty for students, and we have to speak up. We have to push back against this effort to totally upend all of the progress that we made on behalf of students.

Mr. Jekielek:

It’s kind of a fundamentally different view of how education should function, isn’t it? I mean, we saw this debate that saw Glenn Youngkin win in Virginia.

Ms. DeVos:

And Terry McAuliffe said that parents didn’t have any business in their knowing or directing what was going on in their child’s schools. I mean, he said he doubled down on it.

[Sound bite/Terry McAuliffe]:

So I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take their child, make their own decision.

[Sound bite/Speaker 4]:

You vetoed it, to our parents. You vetoed it.

[Sound bite/Terry McAuliffe]:

I stopped the bill that I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.

Mr. Jekielek:

Do you feel like that’s the MO here with undoing these pieces? Or what do you think the operating principle is here?

Ms. DeVos:

It’s a very, very left wing, far left of the Democrat party that is really driving these policies. And they are really turning back and doubling down on the disastrous policies that the Obama administration advanced. It would totally reverse everything that we did. It would also expand the definition of biological sex to gender identity, and basically anything you decide at any point in time. And it would decimate women’s sports, ultimately.

Mr. Jekielek:

So we also have this situation where there’s a lot of people that are advocating against school choice, who actually send their kids to private school. And this has always struck me as kind of a bizarre dichotomy.

Ms. DeVos:

Well, it’s a total hypocrisy. It’s for people who consistently fight against low income and middle income parents being able to make these decisions, they’re making those decisions themselves. And the fact that they blatantly do so without apology is, to me, I cannot fathom it or understand it. I don’t. These are the very kids they profess to want to help. And yet they consistently protect and defend a system that denies those families those opportunities.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to talk a little bit about higher education, about college. New York University right now, it’s like, a year is something like 80 grand, $80,000. It’s very difficult to access for the majority of Americans, or frankly, anybody. And so does that make sense?

Ms. DeVos:

No, it doesn’t make any sense. And the cost of higher education has continued to skyrocket and you saw it take off dramatically when the federal government, when they federalized student lending under the Obama administration, ostensibly to pay for Obamacare.

Not only has it not paid for anything to do with Obamacare, it has cost American taxpayers, most of whom never went to college or took out student loans, billions and billions of dollars. It is an unsustainable model. It is out of control. And now you have an administration that’s trying to wipe away all kinds of student debt.

You cannot do that. The president cannot do that. He cannot legally do that on his own. And you cannot say with a straight face that wiping out a bunch of student debt is a good policy, because it is not fair to the two out of three Americans who didn’t go to college, who will ultimately have to pay those bills. And it’s not fair to the students who took out student loans and have faithfully paid on them, or the families that save for their children to go to college, or for the veterans that served and earned their college funds.

It makes zero sense. And even if you said it did make sense and you wiped it away, where does that leave you? You haven’t solved anything. You’re going to have students next year taking out student loans and you’re going to have the same problem all over again.

So this is an issue that Congress and the administration have really got to deal with. It is unsustainable the way it has gone. There is no accountability on the part of higher ed institutions for what kind of quality or what kind of outcomes they are serving up. And there’s just no governor on what they can charge for a tuition.

Mr. Jekielek:

And for those of us uninitiated, what are the nuts and bolts of how that worked? How did that Obama policy basically create this trend?

Ms. DeVos:

Well, there used to be private lenders that were backed by the federal government for certain students. And that worked. It worked for everyone, but the federal government took over all student lending in 2010.

And at that point … And so they send all the student loans directly to the schools and then the schools take out what they’re going to take out. And if there’s some left over, then the students get it. But very often the students don’t understand the implications of that. And they will go and spend it on things that are not related to education, which is not a good decision either.

And so the whole model is it’s not a logical or defensible model for the long term.

Mr. Jekielek:

But how did that actually balloon these? Just the university-

Ms. DeVos:

Well, because they’re on the government’s balance sheets as though they’re all good loans that are going to be fully repaid. And in many cases, they’re not. And in many cases, students have elected and Congress has continued to adopt all of these repayment plans that are based on a student’s income versus what they actually owe. And so they’re ultimately paying back pennies on the dollar from what they have borrowed and someone somewhere has to pay that.

Mr. Jekielek:

So I guess the big question here is, American education already prior to COVID was in rough shape. And we’ve talked a little bit about this already. And so now we have this prototype in Arizona, but we don’t know for sure how that’s going to play. What are you suggesting states do?

Ms. DeVos:

Well, I’m suggesting all states adopt policies that are going to give parents and families the freedom to direct their children’s education, to choose where their child gets their K-12 education. And I’ve cited Arizona as the most recent state, the first state to do a universal model in approach.

But there have been many other states that have been very forward leaning on this. Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, there are a lot of states that have undertaken these programs. They’ve been at smaller scales. But Florida, as I said, is the most advanced in this, has the greatest number of students in programs, going to schools other than their assigned schools.

And interestingly, the districts where students are the highest number or percentage of students are going to schools other than their assigned school, the students who are remaining in their assigned schools are actually the outcomes, the achievement levels are actually improving.

I argue there has not been a definitive study on this, but there’s a couple of reasons, logical reasons. First, the kids have left if that school wasn’t working for them. They’re choosing to go somewhere else that is working. And the kids who are still staying there are the beneficiaries of leadership now making decisions and changes that they refuse to or wouldn’t make before, because they have other schools and other experiences now to benchmark themselves against.

And they’re actually improving opportunities for kids within the traditional schools as well. It’s a win-win for everyone. And the system that continues to defend the monopolistic government run system cannot fight back against these arguments because they are obvious and they are proliferating in many states where these policies have been adopted.

Mr. Jekielek:

So you’re very obviously against Critical Race Theory, Praxis, within education K to 12, I suspect any area. Now, what do you make of the fact that some of the most woke schools are actually the elite private schools? And so, we talk about school choice, the opportunity. Ostensibly, these are the schools that anybody would dream of coming, yet they’re the ones that have seemed to be hit by this ideology, perhaps the most. I mean, obviously not empirically, but that’s what people are telling me. So what do you think of this?

Ms. DeVos:

Well, this is a problem all over the place, and that’s why I think parents need to be demanding and expecting radical transparency around curriculum. And while many of these elite private schools are experiencing the same type of phenomenon or families have finally found out about it, there are many other schools, faith-based schools in states across the country that have been doing a great job of preparing and educating students and giving families opportunities at much lower costs than these elite private schools.

Many people, when we talk about choosing a private school through an education freedom model, immediately go to these, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year schools. But there are many, many schools that educate children at a much lower cost, $10,000, in some cases less, and have a faith-based grounding that are doing a good job and families want to be able to make those choices as well.

And so these policies can support whatever families decide is going to be the right environment and the right setting for their kids.

Mr. Jekielek:

So you’re seeing this correlation between them being faith based and having the more classical education model, basically. That’s what you’re saying?

Ms. DeVos:

Well, there are a lot of classical models that there’s classical charter schools, there’s classical Christian schools. And that focus, I think, have been reawakened and is going to continue to grow. The opportunity to access those opportunities is only going to happen for all families if they’re empowered to make those choices with policies that support that.

Mr. Jekielek:

Got it. Any final thoughts as we finish up?

Ms. DeVos:

Just again, thanks for the opportunity to be here. My book is really about how we fix American K-12 education and how we can make learning a great experience for every child. And I hope that folks will enjoy it.

Mr. Jekielek:

Well, Betsy DeVos, it’s such a pleasure to have you on.

Ms. DeVos:

Thanks so much, Jan.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A New York man was released from jail without bail hours after he tried to stab Rep. Lee Zeldin (R., N.Y.), a foregone conclusion because of a bail reform law passed in 2019.

The Monroe County Sheriff’s Office in Rochester, N.Y., charged David Jakubonis with attempted second-degree assault and released him before his trial, according to a Thursday press release. Jakubonis, an Iraq war veteran who was inebriated, used a small weapon with two sharp prongs to assault Zeldin, telling the representative, “You’re done,” when he swung at him during a campaign speech for veterans in Perinton.

His words as he tried to stab me a few hours ago were “you’re done”, but several attendees, including @EspositoforNY, quickly jumped into action & tackled the guy.

Law enforcement was on the scene within minutes.

The attacker will likely be instantly released under NY’s laws. pic.twitter.com/wZEyIyrjFe

— Lee Zeldin (@leezeldin) July 22, 2022

“After being charged with a felony for last night’s attack, the man who tried to stab me was instantly released back onto the street due to New York’s insane cashless bail law,” Zeldin told the Washington Free Beacon. “Too many people throughout our state have suffered violent attacks and even death, as a result of criminals who were allowed to walk free because of soft-on-crime bail policy. We must repeal cashless bail in New York!”

Attempted assault is a felony in New York, but criminal justice reform legislation passed in 2019 bars judges from setting bail because the charge is “nonviolent,” the New York Times reported. Zeldin predicted his assailant would be released shortly after the incident due to state law.

In another case in June, a New York City offender stabbed two Subway passengers the day after he was released from jail for brandishing a knife at police.

The attack comes as elected officials face increased threats of violence in the United States. In 2017, a far-left gunman shot up a practice for the Congressional Baseball Game in Washington, D.C., nearly killing House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (La.). A left-wing group threatened this year’s upcoming game, warning of “serious consequences” if it doesn’t get its way.

Zeldin is running to unseat New York Democratic governor Kathy Hochul in November. Members of Zeldin’s campaign staff restrained Jakubonis until law enforcement officers arrived and took the assailant into custody. The congressman was uninjured.

Along with other U.S. states, New York saw crime rise over the past two years. Zeldin’s assault took place on the outskirts of the city of Rochester, which set an all-time record for homicides in 2021. The FBI reported the United States in 2020 had its largest ever annual homicide increase, up 30 percent from 2019.

Zeldin is one of two Jewish Republicans in Congress. The Empire State had a record number of assaults against Jews in 2021, as anti-Semitic incidents have reached an all-time high nationwide, the Anti-Defamation League reported in April.

Update 6:46 p.m.: This piece has been updated with a comment from Rep. Zeldin.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Free Beacon report sparks probe

Congressional Republicans launched a formal investigation into the Biden administration on Friday following its decision to sell a Chinese state-controlled company nearly one million barrels of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, according to a copy of the probe obtained exclusively by the Washington Free Beacon.

The probe comes on the heels of a Free Beacon report detailing how the Biden administration sold China oil from the U.S. reserves amid a crippling energy crisis that has sent consumer prices skyrocketing. Rep. Pat Fallon (R., Texas), a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, is spearheading the investigation along with six of his GOP colleagues, including Reps. Ronny Jackson (Texas) and Ralph Norman (S.C.).

Fallon and his colleagues are demanding the White House turn over a trove of documents detailing the behind-the-scenes decision-making about these sales, as well as others potentially made to “foreign adversaries.”

The Biden administration came under intense criticism earlier this month after it was disclosed that it sold Chinese state-controlled energy firm Unipec 950,000 oil barrels from the U.S. reserves, which historically are tapped in response to emergencies. The White House claimed the sale would “address the pain Americans are feeling at the pump” and “help lower energy costs.” But critics say the administration is exploiting the reserves to appease foreign countries while it cuts production domestically to appease the Democratic Party’s far left flank.

“Your policies are harming American energy independence and benefiting our adversaries,” the lawmakers write. “Draining the [U.S. reserves] to historic lows for the sake of political expediency … threatens the national security of our nation, and contemplates no long-term strategy to ensure the energy independence of the United States.”

Information included in the Republican probe shows that the White House sold China 2.5 million barrels in October and another 1.5 million in November. Millions more were sold to other foreign countries during this time period. Amid these sales, the U.S. reserves dipped below 500 million barrels—the lowest level since 1986. China, on the other hand, has around 926 million barrels stored as it continues to import illicit Russian and Iranian oil to offset the rising price of crude. Current projections show the U.S. reserves “will be drained to approximately 130 million barrels by 2031,” according to figures included in the probe.

“The American people can’t afford to put gas in their tanks and our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is at its lowest level in decades, yet Joe Biden is wasting our money and resources by sending oil that’s intended for emergencies to the Chinese Communist Party,” Jackson told the Free Beacon. “Helping our adversaries and setting America up for failure in the event of a major disaster or national security threat is no way for an American president to govern. Taxpayers deserve better.”

The lawmakers say the “depletion of emergency supplies is troubling to the American public and puts the United States at a disadvantage should there be a real disaster or a national security threat.”

As China drains the American reserves, it also is “benefitting from loopholes in current sanctions against Russia and from your lack of sanctions enforcement,” the lawmakers write. “It is troubling that the United States is exporting [reserved] crude to China as China continues to align itself with our adversaries.”

While China has said that it would stop importing Russian oil amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, it has not made good on these promises. It also is importing illegal Iranian crude oil at record amounts, behavior that has been enabled by the Biden administration’s decision to loosen sanctions on Tehran as part of an effort to cajole it into signing a revamped version of the 2015 nuclear accord.

“Biden has taken these inappropriate steps as China continues to build their own reserve capabilities with cheap Russian and Iranian oil,” Fallon told the Free Beacon. “Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created to address national or weather emergencies, not for political expediency and personal profit.”

The Republican lawmakers instructed the White House to provide them with internal documents related to the sell-off of America’s strategic oil reserves. This includes “all documents and communications, from January 20, 2021, to present” that relates to U.S. crude “being shipped to foreign adversaries—specifically, the People’s Republic of China.” The White House must also furnish in-depth information about China’s own oil reserves, as well as any draft plans to potentially replenish America’s stockpile.

“Our strategic reserves are for national security, not to satisfy global oil markets, and certainly not to cover for resident Biden’s failed energy policies,” Norman told the Free Beacon. “This administration owes our nation immediate answers to these questions.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Illinois set to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue

Illinois Democratic governor J.B. Pritzker celebrated the departure of two GOP billionaires and one of the state’s biggest businesses in remarks delivered last weekend to a group of Democrats gathered in the Sunshine State.

Pritzker opened remarks at a Florida Democratic Party event by calling Ken Griffin, the CEO of hedge fund Citadel, a “spoiled rich kid” and arguing that Griffin’s decision to relocate his company to Florida stemmed from disappointment over his preferred gubernatorial candidate’s loss last month in the Republican primary. “Griffin announced he was taking his toys and leaving Illinois,” Pritzker told the Tampa Bay crowd. “Again, really sorry about that.”

Griffin, who was not long ago the richest man in Illinois, cited Florida’s lower crime rate and more hospitable business environment as reasons for the move, which cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in annual income tax revenue. A spokesman for Citadel said that the hedge fund’s employees paid more than $1 billion in taxes to Illinois over the past decade.

While his remarks drew attention from the mainstream press, Pritzker’s comments about Griffin and another billionaire, former Illinois Republican governor Bruce Rauner, were largely overlooked.

It’s a curious political argument from Pritzker, a governor facing reelection in November and who has seen three major companies announce plans to decamp from Illinois in the past two months: Caterpillar, Boeing, and Griffin’s Citadel. The remarks were an obvious attempt to position Pritzker as an alternative to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), so his decision to highlight the businessmen who have chosen to take their companies to Florida from Illinois is puzzling.

Pritzker mocked Rauner, who moved to Florida in 2018. Rauner, whose net worth is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions, paid $50 million in state income taxes in 2016 alone. “He’s your problem now,” Pritzker said. “Sorry about that.”

Citadel was the third major Illinois employer that recently announced its intention to leave the state. In May, Boeing announced it was moving its headquarters to Virginia from Chicago. The following month, Caterpillar, which has been headquartered in Illinois for nearly 100 years, said it would move 230 jobs in the state to Texas.

Several leaders in the Illinois business community cite rising crime in Chicago as a primary reason why they consider leaving the state. Murders in Chicago rose by 60 percent in 2021 compared to the previous two years. Shootings were up 66 percent and car theft was up 19 percent during the same time period.

A spokeswoman for Pritzker did not respond to a request for comment about whether he celebrates the departure of all billionaires from Illinois, or just Republican business leaders.

Democrats who attended Pritzker’s speech included Rep. Val Demings (D., Fla.), who is now running statewide for Senate. Demings did not respond to a request for comment about whether she agrees with Pritzker’s assessment of Griffin.

Pritzker faces reelection in November against Republican Darren Bailey and is rumored to have presidential aspirations.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Trump-backed campaign is run by ex-con who escaped jail time for felony robbery

A GOP congressional primary challenger in Michigan says he detests “America’s crime epidemic.” His top consultant was convicted of robbing a Subway restaurant years after receiving a felony cocaine charge.

John Gibbs, who is challenging Rep. Peter Meijer (R., Mich.), since December has paid Cool Strategies LLC more than $20,000 for “campaign management,” according to campaign finance disclosures. The firm is registered to Florida native Daniel Cool, who in 2014 was convicted of second-degree felony robbery after he held up a local Subway in Orlando, court records show. While robbing the sandwich chain, Cool placed his hand under his shirt to act as if he had a gun and told a clerk to “give me all the money that you have,” the Orlando Sentinel reported. Cool then fled the scene in a convertible Chrysler Sebring.

Gibbs’s decision to employ Cool is at odds with his campaign rhetoric. The Republican has railed against “America’s crime epidemic” and criticized prosecutors who “refuse to put violent criminals behind bars where they can’t hurt innocent Americans.” Cool may be familiar with that issue—he did not go to prison for his crime, despite multiple prior arrests.

After an initial not guilty plea, Cool pleaded no-contest and later received an adjudication of guilt from the Florida judge handling the case. As part of his plea deal, Cool was sentenced in January 2014 to just five years probation. His probation was terminated early in March 2018, roughly a decade after Cool was arrested for felony cocaine possession. The Gibbs campaign consultant also saw his driver’s license suspended in 2008 after he was charged with fleeing the scene of an accident with property damage. Court records show that Cool moved to Michigan by May 2017, while he was still on probation. He began his work for the Gibbs campaign in the Great Lakes State roughly four years later.

Gibbs told the Washington Free Beacon he is “aware” of Cool’s criminal past but stood by the operative, saying he looks forward to Cool “continuing to play an important role in defeating Peter Meijer on August 2 and Hillary Scholten in November.”

“I’ve worked with Dan in a close capacity for the entirety of my campaign and can vouch for his character as a Christian, a family man, and a hard-working member of my staff,” Gibbs said. “I was aware that Dan made a mistake during a difficult time in his life. And he has served his time and paid the price.”

Cool did not serve time for his robbery.

Cool has appeared at high-profile events with the Gibbs campaign as part of his consulting role. In February, Cool posted a photo alongside Dr. Ben Carson, who has endorsed Gibbs, at a campaign event. Two months later, Cool attended another Gibbs event with Carson and former president Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Cool also helped recruit volunteers to walk with the Gibbs campaign in a Fourth of July parade.

Prior to his congressional run, Gibbs served in Trump’s Department of Housing and Urban Development. He landed Trump’s endorsement in November, with the former president saying he decided to back Gibbs in part because of Gibbs’s affinity for law enforcement.

Meijer, meanwhile, joined Congress in 2021 after defeating Democratic attorney Hillary Scholten by 6 points. He has raised $2 million to Gibbs’s $340,000. The two Republicans will square off during Michigan’s August 2 primary, with the winner moving on to face Scholten—who is running unopposed in her primary—in November.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) efforts to militarize outer space are threatening the United States’ ability to defend itself and project power, according to the U.S. Space Force’s chief of space operations.

“China has gone from zero to 60 very quickly,” said Gen. John Raymond. “They are clearly our pacing challenge.”

“Today, more so than in the past, we have to worry about protecting and defending [our] satellites.”

Raymond delivered the remarks at the Aspen Security Forum on July 20, where he said that the United States would need to lead the world in developing international norms of behavior for space.

A Cluttered Space

Raymond said that developing more codified rules for space and further developing U.S. space systems are important given the essential role of space-based technologies in deterring conventional conflicts and preventing the escalation of hostilities.

“Space provides a great opportunity to have one more … means to change the deterrence calculus … and to deter conflict from beginning or extending into space, which we feel would deter a conflict from spilling over onto land,” Raymond said.

He noted that virtually all of the world’s most vital systems—from GPS to missile defense to international banking verification—are space-based. And space, Raymond said, is becoming more congested, more competitive, and more contested.

Indeed, the number of tracked objects in orbit has increased from 22,000 to 50,000 in just the last two years, he said.

China on the Horizon

Beyond mere space debris, however, Raymond said that China’s communist regime poses a serious threat to the United States’ interests in space, and that the regime is building out a suite of different weapons to attack U.S. space infrastructure.

“There’s a full spectrum of threats that we’re worried about,” Raymond said.

“Everything from reversible jamming of communication satellites and GPS satellites … to kinetic destruction.”

Raymond added that the CCP is reaching “near parity” with the United States regarding its space capabilities and is working to develop technologies that could seize the military, civil, or commercial advantage in space.

“That provides them [an] advantage, and that provides risk to our forces,” Raymond said.

“They have seen the advantages that space has provided us as we’ve integrated space and cyber and multi-domain operations, and, to be honest, they don’t like what they see.”

Raymond’s comments to that end were reminiscent of those made by Space Force Gen. David Thompson back in November, who said that China and Russia are conducting reversible attacks on U.S. satellites “every single day.”

2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Fchina-threatens-every-instrument-of-national-power-space-force-

To that end, Raymond said that establishing “rules of the road” for the international community is vital to securing space, even if it was a foregone conclusion that the CCP wouldn’t obey those rules. By at least having a solidified framework, Raymond said, China’s hostile actions in space could be measured and recorded.

“I firmly believe that we need to develop norms of behavior, rules of the road. The U.S. and its partners are working on that.”

“And today, one of the challenges is there are no rules or very few rules. It’s the wild, wild west.”

Raymond added that China threatens “every instrument of national power.” Still, he assured the audience that the Space Force would do everything in its power to prevent the CCP from escalating its aggression in space into a bona fide war.

“We come to work every day wanting to deter great power war,” Raymond said. “That’s what we do.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Dr. Anthony Fauci will receive a tax-paid annual federal retirement pension benefit of $414,667—more than the President’s $400,000 annual salary—if he leaves the civil service service in January 2025, as he has said he plans to do, according to the nonprofit government watchdog Open the Books (OTB).

While the specific details of an individual federal employee’s retirement benefit are exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the formula used to determine the amount is public, as are key details, including annual salary and years of service.

The OTB figure was arrived at by the nonprofit’s auditors by using the known formula, salary data and number of years of service for Fauci, who is the long-time Director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes for Health (NIH).

Fauci will have been a government employee for 59 years and be 85 years of age if he retires in January 2025. Under the present rules for federal compensation, his annual salary at retirement will be nearly $530,000, according to the OTB calculations.

He presently is paid $456,028 in annual salary compensation, making him the highest-paid employee on the federal payroll. His salary exceeds those of the president, the vice president, the heads of federal departments, senators and representatives, and the justices of the Supreme Court.

Fauci did not respond to The Epoch Times request for comment.

Adam Andrzjewski, OTB’s president, told The Epoch Times that “if it wasn’t already clear enough, Dr. Fauci’s profound impact on our public health policies, economy, and public schools is reflected by this enormous pension. At the end of the day, taxpayers helped fund this pension and guarantee all of it.”

The OTB chief added that the generosity of federal compensation overall is excessive, noting that “when debating the pay, perks, and pension benefits for federal employees, everything needs to be on the table. Today, the average federal bureaucrat makes six figures, receives 44 days of paid time off, and has a very lucrative retirement pension. It’s tough for the private sector to compete with this benefit package.”

The Chicago-based nonprofit is the nation’s largest private repository of information on government spending, including salary and pension benefit data. The foundation has filed thousands of FOIA requests and obtained data on more than $6 trillion in federal spending, the official checks of 49 of the 50 states, and the pay and pension information for 25 million government workers.

Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady, is also highly compensated and is listed on the NIH website as “Senior Investigator” and “Chief of the Department of Bioethics at NIH’s Health Clinical Center.”

Her title is currently listed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management as “Social Science” with a pay level of $238,970, according to data compiled by OTB. The current top pay rate for federal government executive-level officials is $226,300.

Grady’s compensation is at the center of a federal court complaint as a result of NIH officials’ refusal to disclose information sought via a FOIA request dated April 8 by OTB. The OTB lawsuit (pdf) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The OTB request sought “all employment contracts, modifications, and addendums” for Grady since assuming her present position, as well as “all confidentiality agreements/documents, conflicts of interest waivers or documents, ethics disclosures, and financial interest and/or economic interest disclosure documents.”

In addition, the FOIA request sought a copy of Grady’s current official job description. All federal employment positions are required by federal law and regulation to have an official position description that describes the specific duties and responsibilities for which the individual holding the position can be held accountable.

The OTB FOIA was acknowledged by NIH officials on April 28, which was the maximum of 20 days allowed by federal law for an agency to do so. Federal law also requires agencies to communicate a final determination on what documents, if any, they will provide in response to requests. But OTB told the court that the NIH had failed to do so by the May 26 deadline.

The NIH further failed to advise OTB of its potential administrative remedies, and has produced none of the requested documents or explained which, if any, of the FOIA’s eight permitted exemption categories apply that would allow for the documents to be withheld.

As a result, the complaint asked the court to order the NIH to conduct a thorough search for all of the requested documents, to produce all such documents that aren’t subject to being withheld by a certain date, or to explain why doing so isn’t possible, and to provide what is known as a Vaughn Index describing each withheld document and why it was withheld, and to pay Open the Books the legal costs of the litigation.

Fauci’s long-time boss, former NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins left the agency in December 2021, and was then appointed in March 2022 as resident Joe Biden’s Chief Science Adviser. That appointment made Collins the highest-paid member of the most expensive White House staff ever.

Not all of Fauci’s income is received from federal taxpayers, however, as was first reported by The Epoch Times. He also received 23 secret royalty payments of undisclosed amounts between 2010 and 2020 from entities outside of the federal government that NIH refuses to identify. The 23 payments were part of an estimated $350 million in royalty payments received by more than 1,600 NIH officials, scientists and researchers, according to OTB.

Collins received 14 such payments, while Fauci’s top deputy at NIAID, Clifford Lane, received eight payments, according to OTB.

Dr. Lawrence Tabak, Collins’ successor as Acting NIH Director, admitted during a May congressional hearing that the $350 million in secret royalty payments has the appearance of a conflict of interest, but he claimed the agency has enough internal safeguards to prevent abuse..

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The U.S. Supreme Court gave Texas and Louisiana a temporary legal victory in the border states’ attempt to strike down a September 2021 Biden administration immigration guideline.

The Supreme Court, in a ruling without explanation on Thursday, allowed a federal judge in Texas to block the Biden Administration’s immigration guideline that, according to the border states’ prosecutors, limits the ability of border agents to detain and deport illegal aliens.

The ruling is a political setback for the Biden administration as it tries to juggle an unprecedented surge in illegal immigration, overburdened Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and an agenda to replace the Trump administration’s more stringent border policy amid bipartisan criticism.

Dissenting justices include Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—marking Jackson’s first vote since the start of her tenure last month.

DHS Guidelines

The DHS issued the new immigration enforcement guidelines in late September 2021, directing immigration authorities to exercise “discretion” and prioritize detaining or deporting illegal aliens who “pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security.”

Put into practice, the September 2021 guideline designates that an illegal alien’s lack of legal authorization to stay in the United States “should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them.”

This guidance is in direct contrast with the Trump-era DHS policy, which guides immigration authorities to detain and deport illegal aliens in a non-discriminatory manner, except in certain limited cases, such as those who came to the United States as children or are parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

The high court’s ruling, which upheld a federal court’s ruling in June 2022 vacating the Biden administration’s September 2021 DHS guidance, gives Texas and Louisiana a temporary victory, at least until the Supreme Court hears the case in the December 2022 argument session.

‘Uncontroverted Evidence’

According to Trump-nominated Judge Drew Tipton from the Texas District Court for the Southern District, it is “difficult to deny” that the DHS’s September 2021 memo inflicted harm on the state of Texas.

Tipton sided with the border states in saying that “uncontroverted evidence” shows that the September 2021 memo led to an increase in the flow of illegal immigrants into Texas, with the state needing to spend more money on prosecution, detainment, healthcare, and administration. 

The district court continued by saying that while the DHS argues that some immigration data showed an increase in the number of arrests and expulsions following its guidance to “prioritize” criminally convicted aliens, the increase is disproportionate considering the “unprecedented surge of illegal aliens pouring over the border.”

“Given that the number of encounters with illegal border-crossers is ten times what it was in April 2020 … an increase in arrests and expulsions is far from impressive, especially if … roughly three-fourths of the illegal aliens that cross the border go undetected by DHS entirely,” Tipton wrote.

Border States Sue

The ever-escalating legal clash between the border states and the Biden Administration began two days after Biden took office.

Texas, on Jan. 22, 2021, sought a court injunction on a January 20 DHS memorandum that the state attorney general said suspended the deportation of the “vast majority of illegal aliens without any consideration for individual circumstances.”

As the case spiraled in the courts, the DHS issued a new set of immigration guidelines in February 2021 and yet another in September 2021—the last of which Texas and Louisiana sued in Texas’s District Court for the Southern District.

Tipton sided with the border state attorneys general and ruled in June 2022 that the federal government may not “require its officials to act in a manner that conflicts with a statutory mandate imposed by Congress.

Texas and Louisiana showed that the DHS’s September 2021 guidance, Tipton continued, is “contrary to law,” “arbitrary and capricious,” and “failed to observe” necessary government procedure.

“Using the words ‘discretion’ and ‘prioritization,’ the Executive Branch claims the authority to suspend statutory mandates,” Tipton wrote. “The law does not sanction this approach.” 

Split Courts

After Tipton’s ruling, the Biden administration appealed to a three-judge panel—unsuccessfully.

The judges at the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an unsigned opinion dated July 6, 2022, wrote that some of the Biden administration’s concerns advanced in its September 2021 guidelines—particularly those replacing “Congress’s statutory mandates—are “extralegal” and “plainly outside of the bounds of power” conferred to Congress by the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

“For example, it provides that the guidelines ‘are essential to advancing this administration’s stated commitment to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality,’” the panel wrote.

The Fifth Circuit ruling came a day after a polar opposite ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on a similar case, in which Arizona, Ohio, and Montana sued the Biden administration on the same grounds.

Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a Bush-appointed judge, sided with the Biden administration, opining in the ruling that the Biden administration, like previous governments, is given “considerable authority” by federal law to shape immigration policy and, therefore, guidelines for detention and removal of illegal immigrants.

The Fifth Circuit court, in explaining its differing opinion with the Sixth Circuit, said that precedent supports its conclusions and that “fulsome fact-findings” from the lower court support Texas’s and Louisiana’s standing.

In an email statement to The Epoch Times, a spokesperson from the DHS said it “is obligated to and will continue to abide” by the Texas District Court’s decision regarding its September 2021 guidelines “as long as the decision remains in effect.”

“In the interim, ICE officers will make enforcement decisions on a case-by-case basis in a professional and responsible manner, informed by their experience as law enforcement officials and in a way that best protects against the greatest threats to the homeland,” the spokesperson added.

The Texas attorney general celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling as “another win” for Texas and border security. 

“Yesterday the Supreme Court made clear that, while we prepare for oral argument this winter, the Biden Administration must detain illegal aliens with criminal convictions,” Paxton said in a July 22 press release.

“It’s the right legal decision, and it’s what’s best for Texas and our nation.”

Source: The Epoch Times

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s top donors were Texans

Californians along with out-of-state donor George Soros have contributed heavily to Democrat Beto O’Rourke’s gubernatorial campaign to unseat Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.

Soros, a Hungarian-born businessman who has championed Democrats and their causes for decades, is known for backing progressive candidates. Many of the candidates he helped elect are considered far-left, such as George Gascon, who won the Los Angeles District Attorney race in 2020 but is facing a second recall effort for his soft-on-crime stance.

O’Rourke, who unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. Senate against Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018 and the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, amassed $27.6 million in campaign contributions from late February through June. Abbott raised $24.9 million in the same period.

Abbott maintained $45.7 million cash-on-hand, well above O’Rourke’s $23.9 million.

In addition to Soros’ $1 million contribution, O’Rourke received $1 million each from Tench and Simone Coxe, an Austin, Texas, couple formerly of California. He is a venture capitalist, and she is co-founder of Blanc & Otus public relations.

Texas campaign records show many of O’Rourke’s large donations came from out of state. He received a total of $500,000 from 28 California donors who gave $10,000 or more. Our Texas Pac of Colorado donated $500,000, and the American Federation of Teachers in Washington D.C. gave $300,000.

Meanwhile, many of Abbott’s campaign donations came from Texans. His top donor was S. Javaid Anwar, a Midland oilman and regular GOP contributor, who gave the governor’s campaign $750,000. Abbott appointed Anwar to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board twice.

Only one of Abbott’s top donors, Kenny Troutt, a California real estate billionaire who contributed some $500,000, was out of state.

O’Rourke began a seven-week campaign swing this week across the Lone Star State, where he is scheduled to make 70 stops. Abbott has vowed to follow O’Rourke’s campaign with an ambulance listing what the “real” candidate actually stands for, while launching ads against his oponent.

Abbott wasted no time seizing O’Rouke’s ties to the left with an ad titled: “Defend Texas from George Soros!”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Pennsylvania Republicans are arguing a 2019 law that largely expanded mail-in voting in the Commonwealth has been made invalid by a court ruling.

A group of 14 GOP lawmakers filed a lawsuit against the state’s Acting Secretary Leigh Chapman in the Commonwealth Court on July 20, seeking again to throw out Pennsylvania’s universal mail-in ballot law, Act 77.

It comes two months before the midterm elections this fall featuring high-profile races across the Keystone State.

The lawsuit claims that the mail-in voting law should be nullified under a federal appeals court’s May decision that had allowed election officials to count undated mail-in ballots. The panel said throwing out mail ballots in that election for lacking a handwritten date would violate voters’ civil rights. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has quietly dismissed Republicans’ request to overturn the court’s order.

Yet provisions of Sections 6 and 8 of Act 77 both require voters to “fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope,” which goes against the Federal Law based on the court’s judgment.

A non-severability clause written into Act 77 says “the remaining provisions or applications of this act are void” if any of its requirements are struck down. Plaintiffs, therefore, requested the court in the Wednesday lawsuit to declare all remaining provisions of Act 77 invalid and quash the law.

State Rep. Seth Grove, chair of the House State Government Committee, also said last week in a letter that “the entire bill should now be void.”

Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth Leigh Chapman, a Democrat, disagreed in a July 20 letter, saying Act 77 still remains in place, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported. “Your specious legal theory perpetuates disinformation,” Chapman wrote.

Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration wrote in a response to a state lawmaker’s query Wednesday that the federal appeals court decision did not trigger the non-severability provision. That’s because the lawsuit had targeted Lehigh County’s decision not to count the ballots, not the validity of the date requirement, it said.

No-Excuse Mail Voting Law

Act 77 was passed in the Pennsylvania Legislature and signed into law in 2019 by Democrat Wolf. In any case, courts have not always chosen to enforce non-severability provisions in the past.

According to the state’s election agency, more than 4.2 million people voted in person in Pennsylvania during the 2020 election, compared to the 2.6 million who voted by mail—which includes both absentee voting and no-excuse mail-in voting.

Republicans have been questioning the practice, following former President Donald Trump’s claims about election fraud.

Last August, the same 14 Republican lawmakers filed a lawsuit against the mail-in voting law, saying it was unconstitutional. Bradford County Commissioner Doug McLinko in September 2021 filed a similar legal challenge before the two suits were consolidated into one.

A Pennsylvania trial court then struck down Act 77 in a 3–2 decision in late January. This decision, however, was immediately appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The case is still pending, yet under state law, Act 77 was automatically reinstated upon appeal.

The state’s 2019 mail-in voting law has become a hot topic for frontrunners on the 2022 campaign trail, with Republican gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano vowing to repeal it if he gets elected, while his Democratic rival, state Attorney General Josh Shapiro, has vowed to defend the law.

On July 12, the state sued officials from three counties to force their local governments to count undated mail-in ballots from a recent primary election; Republican Senate candidate David McCormick filed a lawsuit on May 23 to ensure all mail-in ballots submitted without a handwritten date are qualified in the tightly contested GOP primary election for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A Milwaukee security guard will not be charged in a fatal shooting that took place after the man he eventually killed shot and killed a fellow security guard.

The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office cleared Enoch Wilson in the July 9 death of Luis Lorenzo, who was killed in the parking lot of a grocery store, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The incident began when Lorenzo, 36, became embroiled in a dispute with security guard Anthony Nolden, 59.

The district attorney’s office said that Nolden told Lorenzo he could not bring a shoulder bag into the store because store policy prohibits them. Lorenzo entered the building with the bag anyway.

After an argument, Wilson was called to help Nolden remove Lorenzo from the store.

Believing he was going to fight, Nolden pepper-sprayed Lorenzo, who then ran into the parking lot. Nolden followed.

Wilson, who had just arrived to intervene, grabbed Lorenzo and, as the DA’s office put it, tried to “direct him to the ground.”

After a struggle, Wilson got Lorenzo face-down and straddled him.

At that point, Lorenzo reached into his bag and grabbed a gun. He blindly fired one shot upwards, killing Nolden.

Lorenzo fired one shot at Wilson as well but missed. Wilson then stood and shot Lorenzo, killing him.

“Under these circumstances, Wilson’s conduct fell within the scope of the law of self-defense and defense of others,” a statement from the district attorney’s office said.

BREAKING: A grocery store shootout outside El Rey on Cesar Chavez Drive in Milwaukee has left two people dead and one injured.

According to police, a man entered the store, causing a disturbance, and two security guards chased him into the parking lot. pic.twitter.com/ANz5ALqUfX

— BNN Newsroom (@BNNBreaking) July 10, 2022

William Sulton, an attorney representing Lorenzo’s family, said the guards were at fault.

“These folks are not police officers,” Sulton said. “They’re attacking him. Mr. Lorenzo responds by trying to save himself and that has tragic consequences for he and Mr. Nolden.”

Killer of David Dorn Convicted of First-Degree Murder in Shooting of Retired Police Officer

Lorenzo was a convicted felon and was not allowed to own firearms, according to the Journal Sentinel.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services, Wilson’s gun permit expired less than two weeks before the shooting.

Sulton said that was a major issue because “misuse of firearms is such a problem in our community that we should aggressively prosecute these crimes.”

Chief Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern said the lapse did not bar Wilson from owning a gun and that “under the circumstances created by Lorenzo’s actions, Wilson’s use of force was necessary.”

For followers of “Star Trek,” one of the most memorable antagonists is the Borg, a race of beings composed of organic and biomechanic body parts linked together in a hive mind called the “Collective.”

In their quest to achieve perfection, the Borg travel through the galaxy extending their power and control by integrating the knowledge and technology of other alien species through a process called “assimilation,” whereby individuals are forcibly injected with nanoparticles that alter their cellular DNA and transform them into drones for the Collective. Each Borg has no individual thoughts or will. They are part of a group consciousness where all are constantly supervised, guided and controlled.

In an example of life imitating art, the World Economic Forum is a major player in world affairs today.

Klaus Schwab, a German economist and mechanical engineer, founded this non-governmental organization in 1971. The WEF is best known for the annual conferences it holds in Davos, Switzerland, which bring together hundreds of political and business leaders from around the world to discuss international issues. Funded by approximately 1,000 multinational corporations, private donors and government contributions, it is one of the most important networks in the world for the globalist power elite.

In 1992, Schwab began a parallel organization called the Global Leaders for Tomorrow (the name changed in 2004 to the Forum of Young Global Leaders). Applicants to this program are subjected to a very rigorous selection process. The more than 1,200 graduates include some of the most powerful presidents, prime ministers, senior government advisers, health bureaucrats and business leaders in the world.

In June 2020, at its 50th annual meeting, the WEF announced the launch of the “Great Reset,” an initiative to reimagine the world and transform the global economy.

This effort involves transhumanism, the development of technologies across digital and biological worlds to improve human mental and physical capabilities — that is, to make disabilities, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death a thing of the past. Schwab described this in more detail in his 2016 book “The Fourth Industrial Revolution.” According to him, this revolution will change not only what we do but also who we are.

In a 2016 Swiss television interview, the interviewer asked when he thought implantable microchips would be implemented on humanity. Schwab said, “Certainly in the next 10 years. And at first we will implant them in our clothes. And then we could imagine that we will implant them in our brains, or in our skin.”

In a 2020 book co-authored with Thierry Malleret, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” Schwab declared that the COVID-19 crisis represented an unprecedented opportunity to reimagine the world — that is, to implement the Great Reset. This includes genetic engineering involving making people part-synthetic, incorporating them into the Internet of Bodies (an evolution of the Internet of Things), and merging them into a required global digital identification regime in order to participate in this reimagined world.

Schwab’s top adviser and transhumanist Dr. Yuval Noah Harari openly admits that the gathering of enormous amounts of data on individuals would enable global elites to build a digital dictatorship that tyrants of the past could only have imagined.

Here are a few more ideas expressed by Dr. Harari that illustrate his worldview:

“By hacking organisms, elites may gain the power to re-engineer the future of life itself.”

“Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design. Not the intelligent design of some god above the clouds, but our intelligent design, and the intelligent design of our clouds — the IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud. These are the new driving forces of evolution.”

“Humans are now hackable animals. The whole idea that humans have this soul or spirit and they have free will, and nobody knows what’s happening inside me, so whatever I choose, whether in the election or whether in the supermarket, this is my free will — that’s over.”

Sacrificial Sam

“Now, humans are developing even bigger powers than ever before. We are really acquiring divine powers of creation and destruction. We are really upgrading humans into gods. We are acquiring, for instance, the power to re-engineer life.”

“Fake news has been with us for thousands of years. Just think of the Bible.”

“All these stories about Jesus rising from the dead and being the Son of God — this is fake news.”

To be continued in Part 2.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.

Vets on Duty chairman Jason Church is ‘laser-focused’ on ‘advocating for a strong national defense’

A coalition of veterans dedicated to strengthening America’s military has been uniformly slammed as racist by their critics. It’s a surprisingly callous take on a group chaired by a Purple Heart recipient who lost both his legs in Afghanistan.

Jason Church, a retired U.S. Army captain, joined with other veterans of the war on terror to ensure the United States retains military supremacy. Their group, Veterans on Duty, is warning that progressive bureaucrats have taken control of the armed forces and are forcing troops to sit through diversity, equity, and inclusion seminars when they should be training for battle. The newly formed nonprofit aims to reverse this trend by recruiting veterans to leadership roles and supporting lawmakers and policies that will help keep the U.S. military battle-ready.

To mark the group’s launch, Church penned a New York Post op-ed laying out these problems and enumerating Veterans on Duty’s proposed solutions. Critics immediately accused him of racism.

The progressive group VoteVets tweeted that Church “makes the same arguments that were made against integration over 70 years ago.” VoteVets, which is  chaired by Jon Soltz, who still has both of his legs, has spent tens of millions of dollars backing Democratic candidates, also slammed Church as a “loser congressional candidate.” Church entered a 2020 special congressional election in Wisconsin in an effort to continue serving his country “even though the Taliban took my legs.”

VoteVets CEO Janessa Goldbeck, who also has both of her legs, struck a similarly harsh note, calling Vets on Duty members “assholes” after saying, “50 years ago these people would have been mad about racial integration. Today they are mad about women and LGBT people in the military.”

At no point in Church’s Post piece does he call for the military to exclude soldiers based on race or sexual orientation. But he isn’t surprised by the reaction to Veterans on Duty’s launch.

“The radical left has long used baseless accusations of bigotry to browbeat dissenters as it bends American institutions to its will,” Church told the Washington Free Beacon. “This tired tactic should be ignored. We are laser-focused on our mission of advocating for a strong national defense and combating progressives’ efforts to corrode the military from within.”

As Church points out, that corrosion couldn’t come at a worse time. In his Post piece, he notes that Iran is close to obtaining nuclear weapons, and the Chinese Navy last year “surpassed our own as the world’s largest,” all while Russia is marching its armies through Ukraine.

Members of the media were also quick to criticize Church’s piece.

“I’m just woke enough to say you … are a fucking idiot,” MSNBC pundit Malcom Nance tweeted at Church. Nance, who tweeted “#DealWithIt” after terrorists killed 13 U.S. soldiers outside Kabul Airport in Afghanistan last summer, called Church “another pro-Trump Summer Soldier begging to be given a public paycheck for exhibiting asshattery & beclownment  above and beyond the Call of Duty.”

“Just imagine how all these right-wingers would have reacted with horror if they had been around when Harry Truman desegregated the military,” tweeted Max Boot, a Washington Post columnist who has not served in the military. “Now that was woke!”

Jeremy C. Hunt, a black military veteran who serves on Veterans on Duty’s board, quickly rebuffed Boot’s accusation. “We care about a military that wins,” Hunt wrote. “If you want an example of modern segregation in the military, look no further than the Biden administration’s racist DEI protocols that you defend.”

Those protocols include instructional videos that teach Navy cadets how to use gender pronouns, and “gender identity” training for Green Berets, the Free Beacon originally reported.

Still, Boot tells the Free Beacon that he stands by his claim “that the right-wingers who today decry the supposedly ‘woke’ military would have opposed the integration of the military in 1948.”

“How do I know? Because that was the conservative position back then,” said Boot, adding that “this whole ‘Vets on Duty’ exercise looks to be mere partisan politics designed to bash Democrats—not a serious attempt to protect the military.”

Jay Kramer, executive director of Veterans on Duty, says that politics is precisely what puts the military at risk.

“At a time of growing threats to the United States, progressive ideologues are pushing radical policies that undermine the men and women of our military,” Kramer told the Free Beacon. “While out-of-touch commentators focus more on messaging than substance, we are joining with like-minded veterans nationwide to do the hard work to ensure our military remains lethal and effective.”

VoteVets and Goldbeck did not return Free Beacon requests for comment. Nance could not be reached for comment.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

But whatever you do, don’t boycott-divest-sanction Palestine [US Patriot]

The Palestinian government is complicit in “rampant, wide-spread, and systematic torture of Palestinian nationals” and Israelis, according to a landmark legal complaint filed this week with the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The International Legal Forum (ILF), an advocacy group representing more than 3,500 lawyers and civil society activists across the globe, is pressing the ICC to investigate the Palestinian Authority for war crimes in the first ever case of this nature presented to the court, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The organization is demanding that the ICC launch “an immediate investigation and prosecution of Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership for allegations of torture.” The documents outline instances of the Palestinian government engaging in “violent beatings, arbitrary detention, solitary confinement, cruel and inhumane prison conditions, harassment, forced confessions, and summary executions.”

The case comes just a week after resident Joe Biden made his first trip to the Middle East and announced another $316 million in U.S. taxpayer funding for the PA and organizations that work with it, bringing the total amount of American aid to around $1 billion. The Trump administration froze this money over concerns that the Palestinian government spends international aid dollars on terror groups and imprisoned terrorists.

“It is noteworthy that resident Biden has just returned from the Middle East, where he touted millions of dollars in increased funding to the Palestinians,” Arsen Ostrovsky, the ILF’s chairman and CEO, told the Free Beacon. “One has to ask the question, then, are U.S. tax payer dollars also going toward underwriting torture practices carried out by the Palestinian Authority?”

While the Palestinian government has long pressed the ICC and other U.N. organizations to investigate alleged Israeli human rights abuses, the ILF’s complaint marks one of the first times a pro-Israel organization has attempted to force international legal authorities to investigate the PA.

The complaint exposes how the Palestinian Authority and its security apparatus “systematically and intentionally” engage in wide-spread “violence and torture against Palestinian nationals in the West Bank, including against human rights activists, journalists, political opponents, dissidents, women, minors, members of LGBTQ community, social media critics, and purported ‘collaborators’ with Israel.”

These acts of torture, the group says in its legal filing, “routinely occur with the full knowledge of and under the express authority and/or directions of the PA.”

This includes targeting Palestinian human rights activists and those critical of the PA government.

Nizar Banat, a 43-year-old Palestinian reformist, in June 2021 was attacked in his home by the PA’s security services—one of several similar attacks on critics that the ILF says amount to a breach of international norms.

“Over 25 PA security services officers entered Banat’s home, subdued him with pepper spray, and then viciously assaulted him before his wife and children, including by beating him with iron bars and wooden batons,” according to the complaint. “The PA security services then dragged Mr. Banat from his home, stripped him of his clothes, and dragged him away into a waiting vehicle, where he subsequently died in their custody.”

The legal filing also accuses Hamas, the terrorist group that runs the Gaza Strip, of torture. This includes war crimes charges for Hamas’s repeated rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cities.

Hamas is holding on to the bodies of murdered Israeli soldiers, which also constitutes a war crime, according to the ILF’s complaint.

“It is our contention that the above criteria [are] sufficiently met, so as to commence an immediate investigation against [PA president Mahmoud] Abbas and [PA prime minister Mohammed] Shtayyeh, for the crime of torture, pursuant to the Rome Statute,” the group writes in the filing.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Ohio Democrats attacked Republican Senate candidate J.D. Vance’s trip to Israel, where he pledged to be a strong advocate for the Jewish state.

Vance’s Wednesday address at a gathering in Tel Aviv was met with mockery from Vance’s Democratic opponent, Rep. Tim Ryan. Ryan’s communications director Izzi Levy falsely stated that Vance campaigned in Israel before holding a single event in Ohio. Michael Beyer, the communications director for the Ohio Democratic Party, said Vance would rather be in Israel than his home state.

Both comments mirror the anti-Semitic trope that American politicians are more loyal to Israel than to the United States, and highlight how the Jewish state’s security has transformed into a partisan issue. While Ryan previously said he supports Israel’s right to self-defense, he voted in 2021 against funding for the Iron Dome and supported the Obama administration’s Iran Deal.

In Israel, Vance pledged to be “as strong an advocate for the U.S.-Israel relationship as anyone.” He called the Iran Deal “a disaster” and applauded former president Donald Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

Brad Kastan, chairman of JewishColumbus’s Community Relations Council, said Democrats “should strongly encourage, not discourage, our leaders to visit the Jewish state.”

​​”Israel is our strongest and most important ally in the Middle East. All Americans and particularly the citizens of Ohio benefit from the strong strategic and economic ties, not to mention shared values, we enjoy with Israel,” Kastan said. “Ohio Democrats, or anyone who appreciates the role our U.S. senators must play in foreign policy, should strongly encourage, not discourage, our leaders to visit the Jewish state.”

Ryan himself visited the Jewish state in 2016 during his House reelection campaign. It is unclear whether Ryan at the time would rather be overseas than in Ohio.

The attacks from Ryan’s campaign and allies come as the race between the longtime House member and Vance heats up. Vance won May’s Republican primary on the back of an endorsement by former president Donald Trump and is viewed as the favorite to win in November given the current political climate.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Women Against Abuse discouraged black domestic abuse victims from calling the police. Yes, you read that right.

It was just two months after the death of George Floyd that one of the largest domestic violence nonprofits in the United States, Women Against Abuse, brought in several diversity consultants to conduct a racial-equity audit. The goal of the audit, Women Against Abuse told staffers, was to become “a fully inclusive, multicultural, and antiracist institution.”

By November 2020, the organization, which is ostensibly devoted to “serving all survivors,” was offering to pay “BIPOC” employees more than their white counterparts and discouraging black abuse victims from calling the police. Its employees were also at war with each other, bickering over whether Jews are a persecuted minority group and whether there is such a thing as a non-racist white person.

Those events prompted Nicole Levitt, an attorney with the group’s legal center, to file a discrimination complaint against her employer with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that it “berated, humiliated, and subjected” her to “mandatory thought reform efforts.”

“Women Against Abuse used to be liberal,” Levitt told the Washington Free Beacon. “Now it’s illiberal.”

This story is based on Levitt’s discrimination complaint, Women Against Abuse’s response to it, and materials from the equity audit that Levitt shared with the Free Beacon. It reveals how the leading domestic violence nonprofit in Philadelphia descended into dogmatism and infighting, obsessing over identity as domestic homicides in the city reached an all-time high of 43 in 2021—more than double the previous year.

That obsession manifested in avant garde policies that led the group far astray from its core mission. The policies weren’t just the product of employee activism, but of outside consultants—including Ragina Arrington, now the chief executive officer of the Clinton Foundation’s Global Initiative University, who since July 2020 has been helping Women Against Abuse conduct its equity audit.

Arrington began this work as a senior officer at Philanthropy Unbound, one of two diversity consultancies retained by Women Against Abuse in the wake of George Floyd’s death. The consultants soon injected race into every crevice of the organization, transforming it from the inside out.

Leftwing nonprofits across the country have undergone similar transformations. From the Sierra Club to the Guttmacher Institute to the American Civil Liberties Union, the Intercept’s Ryan Grim reported last month, progressive advocacy groups have “effectively ceased to function,” as their outward-facing missions fall prey to internal tumult.

Women Against Abuse is a case study in how that tumult is generated, as activist employees bring in well-heeled diversity consultants who in turn empower the activists.

The consultants doing this work are increasingly mainstream, as Arrington’s institutional ascent demonstrates: She left Philanthropy Unbound for the Clinton Foundation two years after beginning work with Women Against Abuse, and has continued consulting for the domestic violence nonprofit from her new perch, creating a direct line between the two groups.

The Clinton Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.

In addition to Arrington, Women Against Abuse hired Crossroads, a diversity consultancy that specializes in dismantling “white supremacy culture.” Formerly known as Crossroads Ministry, the consulting group has worked with a wide range of organizations—including the Presbyterian Church—to “institutionalize accountability.”

The stakes of this consultant-led metamorphosis are high. Women Against Abuse provides a panoply of services to abuse victims, from housing and legal representation to child care, case management, and crisis counseling. It is also the primary domestic violence shelter in Philadelphia, according to materials from the audit reviewed by the Free Beacon, and helps the city government coordinate efforts to address domestic violence, which surged across the country amid the pandemic.

After the consultants got involved, however, Women Against Abuse began hosting presentations on defunding the police, whom it discouraged non-white victims of domestic violence from calling.

“It is often unsafe for Black victims, victims of color and immigrant victims to reach out to police for help,” the group posted on its website in the summer of 2020, given the “inherent racism” of law enforcement.

“The police have never been the solution to violence against women,” asserted one PowerPoint presentation, which staffers were required to attend in May 2021. The presentation—”Defund the Police: Safety Planning”—counseled a “restorative justice” approach to domestic violence that used “community-based organizations.”

Women Against Abuse did not respond to a request for comment about whom victims should call instead of police.

The group also jettisoned its membership in the Sanctuary Institute—effectively an accrediting body for domestic violence nonprofits—which outlines best practices for working with trauma victims. The audit found early on that those practices were a “safe harbor from confronting white supremacy,” according to a July 2022 PowerPoint presentation summarizing the audit’s progress, because they focused on comforting people—not on holding them “accountable to things like micro-aggressions and white supremacy behaviors.”

“I’m concerned about them getting rid of that model,” said Levitt, a licensed therapist who counseled trauma victims before she became an attorney. “Who knows what they’ll replace it with?”

The relentless racialism didn’t just affect Women Against Abuse’s policies, but also its office culture. In February, Levitt filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that her employer had created a “racially hostile work environment”—in part by asking white staffers to sign a statement affirming that “all white people are racist and that I am not the exception.”

“In the name of ‘equity’ and ‘anti-racism,’” the complaint reads, Women Against Abuse “instituted race-focused programming under which employees are discriminated against, segregated, and barraged with negative racial stereotypes.”

The group’s transformation began in July 2020, when the then-executive director of Women Against Abuse, Jeannine Lisitski, hired Arrington as a part-time diversity consultant.

“In a commitment to transparency (to counteract white dominant values like secrecy!) I’m reaching out to share an update about the work that we are doing as an agency to move closer to our goal to become an anti-racist organization,” Lisitski emailed staff on July 15, 2020. As part of that work, Arrington would facilitate racial “affinity spaces for ongoing healing and conversation.”

Lisitski also announced that the Women Against Abuse would be working with Crossroads to conduct a multiyear “equity audit,” which Arrington would help to facilitate. The audit is ongoing to this day, according to the July 2022 PowerPoint, and Arrington has remained involved with it, serving as a liaison between Crossroads and Women Against Abuse.

The audit came as staffers were at each other’s throats over issues of race and identity—including the issue of whether Jews counted as an oppressed group. On July 23, 2020, a member of the legal center circulated an article about anti-Semitism in the Black Lives Matter movement. Levitt chimed in to endorse the article, writing that, with anti-Semitic violence on the rise, “I hope as an organization we would stand against this as well.”

Her email elicited a torrent of vitriol from her colleagues, one of whom called it “a slap in the face of every brown and black person.”

Anti-Semitism “is not woven into the fabric of American society,” another staffer said. “White Supremacy is.” Whatever fear Jews feel, the staffer added, is “nothing compared to what black Americans feel.”

That was news to Levitt: She’d lived in Israel during the Second Intifada, she said in a follow-up email, where “I was personally shot at” and “some of my friends died.”

Things went downhill from there. In November 2020, Women Against Abuse solicited applications for a “Racial Equity Audit Task Force” to help Arrington and Crossroads “eradicate” bias. True equality, the group made clear, would require white members of the task force to earn less than others.

“All task force members will receive a small stipend every pay period,” Women Against Abuse told staffers in a November 10 email. “Due to the nature of this process and the additional emotional labor of unearthing many biases that negatively affect individuals with their shared identity, Black, Brown, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) staffers will receive a larger stipend.”

“I was astounded they would do something so blatantly illegal,” said Levitt, who included the incident in her discrimination complaint. Multiple civil rights laws, including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibit pay discrimination on the basis of race. Responding to the complaint, Women Against Abuse told the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that it would be ending the race-based stipend scheme.

The audit proceeded from the assumption that Women Against Abuse was steeped in racism—and that it was powerless to rectify that racism without the consultants’ help. “Your organization is caught up in a power arrangement that maintains racial inequality,” a handout from Crossroads reads. “Your organization’s ‘solutions’ to racism are ultimately a part of the problem and do not affect change at a root level.”

To come up with better solutions, Crossroads surveyed staffers in August 2020 on how Women Against Abuse “harmed,” “exploited,” and “disempowered” people of color. Several respondents singled out the Sanctuary Institute principles for criticism, according to the July 2022 PowerPoint from the audit. Others complained that the group’s legal center “centered around [a] criminal justice system that harms POC,” and that Women Against Abuse expects staffers “to respond to upper management requests ASAP.”

The audit also included a series of “skills-building sessions” moderated by Arrington, who spent each session dissecting a different aspect of “white supremacy culture.” People of “all identities” could participate in the sessions, Arrington told staffers in an April 2021 email, because “white supremacy culture is a smog that we all ingest, digest, and push back out to the people around us.” The constituent particles of that smog, her email continued, include a “sense of urgency” and “objectivity.”

Though the skills-building sessions were optional, the racial affinity spaces were not, Levitt said. Arrington facilitated many of these spaces, including the legal center’s white affinity space, which in April 2021 drew up a “full value contract” it asked all white attorneys to sign.

The contract, a draft of which was reviewed by the Free Beacon, asked the attorneys to abide by 15 commandments. “Assume good intentions” was one. “Own that all white people are racist and that I am not the exception” was another.

Levitt refused to sign the contract—or attend any more of the segregated meetings.

“I found the idea of being separated into groups by skin color to be inherently racist and regressive, not to mention against the law,” Levitt said. “I refused to take part in the scapegoating and demonizing of an entire race. Anyone with a sense of history will tell you that things didn’t tend to go well when that happened.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Former First Lady Melania Trump said Thursday that she was not aware of the events taking place during the U.S. Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021.

“On January 6, 2021, I was fulfilling one of my duties as First Lady of the United States of America, and accordingly, I was unaware of what was simultaneously transpiring at the U.S. Capitol Building,” Trump told Fox News.

She added that “it was my obligation to record the contents of the White House’s historic rooms, including taking archival photographs of all the renovations.”

“Several months in advance, I organized a qualified team of photographers, archivists, and designers to work with me in the White House to ensure perfect execution,” she continued. “As required, we scheduled January 6, 2021, to complete the work on behalf of our Nation.”

Trump also cast doubt on claims made by her former press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, who has often criticized former President Donald Trump and the former first lady after they left office.

“Ms. Grisham was not in the White House on January 6, and her behavior in her role as Chief of Staff ultimately amounts to dereliction of duty,” Trump said, while adding that normally, the first lady’s chief of staff “provides detailed briefings surrounding our Nation’s important issues.”

“In fact, Ms. Grisham failed to provide insight and information into the events surrounding January 6 as she had abandoned her post in Washington, D.C.,” she said. “Shamefully, this behavior has only partially become public knowledge; yet was consistent for Ms. Grisham.”

Trump added: “It is evident that Grisham’s recent betrayals are a last-ditch attempt to resuscitate her ruined career and reputation.”

Text Message

Grisham responded to Trump’s statement Thursday with a cryptic Twitter message that read: “Lol. That’s truly all I’ve got.” The Epoch Times has contacted her for comment.

Last month, she posted on Twitter a screenshot of a conversation she allegedly had with Trump on Jan. 6.

“Do you want to tweet that peaceful protests are the right of every American, but there is no place for lawlessness & violence?” Grisham allegedly texted Trump, who was listed as “MT,” with the response in the conversation being simply “No.”

The screenshot text message that was posted by Grisham, who also served as the White House press secretary, has not been confirmed by Trump or an official source.

Grisham also issued a response Thursday speculation she doctored the screenshot, writing: “I’m actually not smart enough to do that.”

Adding to Fox News, Trump said that if she was “fully informed of all the details … I would have immediately denounced the violence that occurred at the Capitol Building.”

“And while Ms. Grisham’s behavior is disappointing, it is not surprising or an isolated incident,” she continued.

Her statement comes as the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 incident is continuing to hold public hearings on the Jan. 6 breach. Some Republicans and former President Trump say the panel is an attempt to distract Americans from more pressing issues such as the economy, inflation, gas prices, and illegal immigration.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland weighed in the Jan. 6 hearing, saying that “no person is above the law.” That comment came in response to a question about a memo the Justice Department reportedly sent out noting a longstanding agency practice of not making politically contentious prosecutions in the lead-up to federal elections.

“I can’t say it any more clearly than that. There is nothing in the principles of prosecution, in any other factors, which prevent us from investigating anyone who is criminally responsible for an attempt to undo a democratic election,” Garland told reporters at the Department of Justice headquarters in Washington.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Employees in Republican states have a higher quitting rate than those governed by Democrats, potentially indicating a more secure job environment in the red states.

Among the top 10 states with the highest resignation rates during the past 12 months, eight are Republican, according to data from WalletHub. This includes Alaska with a 12-month resignation rate of 4.18 percent, followed by Kentucky with 3.74 percent, Montana with 3.69 percent, Wyoming with 3.66 percent, Mississippi with 3.53 percent, Idaho with 3.48 percent, South Carolina with 3.48 percent, and Indiana with 3.42 percent.

The only two Democratic states in the top 10 were Georgia and Arizona at the second and tenth spot, with 12-month resignation rates of 3.86 percent and 3.37 percent, respectively.

Employee quitting rates tend to be higher when workers are confident about finding another job, which demands a robust economy.

“Higher quit rates are a sign of worker confidence,” Julia Pollak, chief economist at job site Zip Recruiter, told MarketPlace in a recent interview.

“When there are more jobs out there, it’s more likely that you’ll take a leap and apply for a new one,” she added, per the outlet.

In a July 5 article, The Wall Street Journal reported that the COVID-19 pandemic “changed the geography” of the American economy as red states recovered economically more quickly than blue states. Workers moved from the coasts to the middle of the United States and Florida.

The share of jobs in Republican states has risen by over half a percentage point since February 2020, according to an analysis conducted by the Brookings Institution. As of May 2022, red states added 341,000 jobs, while blue states lost 1.3 million jobs.

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a shift in employment structure as more businesses opted for remote work. This allowed many employees to move to red states that have cheaper housing, lower taxes, and less traffic.

Business Friendliness

Red states are comparatively more conducive to a business environment, according to CNBC’s “America’s Top States for Business” 2022 rankings. The ranking takes into account 88 metrics spread over 10 major categories. Republican states in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions of dominated in the category of “business friendliness.”

Topping the category was North Dakota, followed by Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana in the second, third, and fifth spots. All these are Republican states. Arizona, which ranked fourth, was the sole blue state in the top five.

“Companies follow the path of least resistance,” CNBC analysts said regarding the metric of business friendliness. “That includes a legal and regulatory framework that does not overburden business.”

As to the overall employment situation across the country, Colin Corbett, an assistant professor of economics at Bradley University, told WalletHub that younger workers have reentered the workforce at nearly pre-pandemic levels.

“Older workers who have retired are unlikely to return to the workforce barring a dramatic shift in economic conditions and employers’ willingness to hire them,” Corbett said.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

In the latest Democrat acknowledgment of America’s cost-of-living squeeze, House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told Fox News that red-hot inflation is a “huge problem” for households.

Hoyer made the remarks in an interview on Fox News’ “Your World” program that aired on July 20.

“Inflation is a huge problem. It’s a huge problem for Americans. Supply shortages—particularly in grocery stores—a huge problem for Americans. We need to deal with that,” the Democrat leader said.

The remarks follow a recent admission by White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein that inflation in the United States is “unacceptably high,” although there’s some improvement in areas like gas prices, which Bernstein said were “moving in the right direction.”

After hitting a record-high of more than $5 a gallon last month, gasoline prices have trended downward, with the automotive association AAA reporting that, on July 21, the national average was $4.44 per gallon.

Hoyer insisted that the Biden administration was working to tame soaring inflation, touting such measures as the recently passed Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act, which Washington-based think tank R Street Institute panned as exacerbating “the very problems it claims to solve,” while also adding $700 million of public debt.

Rural Households Hit Harder by Inflation

The latest inflation print came in at a multi-decade high of 9.1 percent in annual terms, with food up 10.4 percent and energy a whopping 41.6 percent.

While price inflation affects all American consumers, recent studies from Iowa State University and the New York Federal Reserve Bank showed that different spending patterns among different demographics means that the inflationary wave has had a disproportionate impact.

Rural households, for example, have been hit harder by soaring inflation, with the Iowa State University study showing that rural discretionary incomes have plunged by 50 percent since 2020, with most of those losses taking place in the past 12 months.

The discretionary incomes of urban households, by contrast, saw a far more modest drop of 13 percent over the same period.

Black and Hispanic households tend to spend more of their income on transportation, with the New York Fed estimating that blacks faced an inflation rate 0.6 percentage points higher than the headline rate, while for Hispanics this was 0.6 percentage points higher.

bell&email=walkerboh2112%40msn.com

Inflation for Asian American households was 0.5 percentage points lower, while the rate faced by whites was about the same as the headline 9.1 percent figure.

Inflation Keeping Gen Z Living With Parents

The inflationary squeeze also has hampered the ability of the Gen Z cohort to move out and live independently.

A recent survey conducted by Qualtrics on behalf of Credit Karma showed that 29 percent of Gen Z respondents in the 18–25 age range were living with their parents or other relatives and viewed the arrangement as more or less permanent.

Soaring housing costs are likely a major factor behind the high proportion of young Americans continuing to live with their parents.

The rent index in June’s inflation figure rose 0.8 percent over the month, the largest monthly increase since April 1986.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development informs government policies to restrict farming and transform the food systems in different parts of the world, said Alex Newman, an award-winning international journalist who has covered this issue for over a decade.

The 2030 Agenda is a plan of action devised by the United Nations (U.N.) to achieve 17 sustainable development goals (SDG). The goals and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development were adopted by all UN member states in 2015.

Then-Secretary General of the U.N. Ban Ki-moon called the 2030 Agenda “the global declaration of interdependence,” (pdf) Newman said in a recent interview on EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program.

“In my opinion, [it] was a direct swipe at our Declaration of Independence … So instead of being independent nations, we will all be now interdependent.”

The 2030 Agenda “covers every element of human life, every element of the economy,” including global wealth redistribution not only within the nations but also among the nations, Newman commented. The Agenda “specifically says that we need to change the way that we consume and produce goods,” he added.

Goal number two on the 2030 Agenda deals specifically with food, Newman said.

In September 2021, the U.N. held the Food Systems Summit, which emphasized the need “to leverage the power of food systems” for the purpose of achieving all 17 sustainable development goals by 2030, according to a U.N. statement.

“Everyone, everywhere, must take action and work together to transform the way the world produces, consumes, and thinks about food,” the statement said.

Taking Over Farmland

The sustainable development agenda emerged in the 1970s when the United Nations tried to define it at a conference in Vancouver, Canada, in 1976. Newman said.

The conference, which was the first U.N. Conference on Human Settlements known as Habitat I, adopted the Vancouver Declaration (pdf), a report that provided recommendations for U.N. member states.

Newman quoted an excerpt from this report: “Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”

Newman said that, in his view, the U.N. ultimately wants to get rid of private land ownership. “We see this all over the world. This is not just happening in the Netherlands.”

He thinks that a war is taking place against farmers and ranchers, especially those who are independent or those who are not part of the system. “They want to remove small farmers, even medium farmers, from their land, and they want to bring it all under the control of these—I think there’s no other term to describe it—fascistic public-private partnerships.”

Newman noted some examples to illustrate his opinion: The Chinese regime forces peasants to move to megacities, farmers are killed in South Africa, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States proposed a new rule that could bankrupt small and medium farmers.

In March 2022, the SEC proposed a regulation that “would mandate publicly traded companies to report on their carbon emissions and other climate-related information,” as well as report similar information from any companies with which they do business, according to an SEC statement.

As a consequence, all companies in the business supply chain of a publicly traded entity would have to report their carbon emission and climate-related data.

U.S. Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) led 30 lawmakers to urge SEC to repeal its proposal, calling it a “regulatory overreach.”

”Imposing regulatory overreach on farmers and ranchers falls outside of the SEC’s congressionally provided authority,” the senators said in a statement. “This substantial reporting requirement would significantly burden small, family-owned farms.”

The American Farm Bureau Federation said in a statement that the proposed rule could create “substantial costs” for farmers because they do not have teams of compliance officers or attorneys like large corporations. Moreover, it may push out of business small and medium-sized farmers and force food-processing companies to look for agricultural raw products outside of the United States, the statement asserted.

Centralizing Food Supply

 “If you control the food supply, you control everything,” Newman said.

“One of the things that the communists loved to do is create scarcity and create dependents. As long as you have independent people who are able to take care of themselves, there really is no need for the government to run your life and to control everything that you do,” Newman said.

“Americans are good examples,” Newman continued. “As long as the food production is widely diffused, and it’s in the hands of independent producers, it becomes very difficult to get people to bend to your will.”

The whole idea of using food as a weapon has been a hallmark of communist regimes for 100 years, Newman explained. “It’s also been a hallmark of the very same people who are openly promoting the U.N. Agenda 2030, the sustainable development goals, and even the World Economic Forum.”

Those who contrived “the controlled demolition of our food supply … want to completely restructure it,” in order to gain total centralized control of that because it gives them absolute power over everybody under their jurisdiction, Newman said.

For example, the Chinese regime and the mega-corporations formed a public-private partnership to centralize control of the food supply, Newman said.

It’s similar to what occurred in Nazi Germany, where on paper private companies own the business and ostensibly manage their businesses, but, ultimately, the private companies will be taking their orders from the government, Newman explained.

In the United States, the ESG metrics are used to “hijack control of the business sector, of the individual companies, and put them at the service of the goals of what I call the predator class—the people behind the World Economic Forum, behind the United Nations,” Newman said. (ESG stands for environmental, social, and governance criteria that are used to evaluate companies on how compliant they are with sustainability.)

The food supply centralization is just one component of their agenda, but it is a very critical one, which along with energy and other things, allows them to control humanity, he added.

World Economic Forum Involvement

In January 2021, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the government of the Netherlands launched a new initiative called Food Innovation Hub, according to a WEF statement. The Hub, joined by several public and private sector partners, is a key platform that will use technology and innovations for food systems transformation, the statement said.

The Food Innovation Hub secured “multiyear funding “ from the Netherlands’ government and established its Global Coordinating Secretariat that would coordinate the efforts of the regional food hubs as well as align with global food processes and initiatives such as the UN Food Systems Summit, the statement read.

The global food Secretariat would be located in Wageningen, Netherlands, at the heart of the Dutch agrifood ecosystem, and would direct the development of global, regional Food Innovation Hubs, according to the “Invest in Holland” website.

“The work of these regional hubs is already underway, with more than 20 organizations leading the initiative across Africa, ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations], Colombia, and India, and the European hub,” the website said.

Ramon Laguarta, CEO of PepsiCo, said in the WEF statement: “Food is one of the main levers we can pull to improve environmental and societal health. With the right investment, innovation, and robust collaboration, agriculture could become the world’s first sector to become carbon negative. … Unlocking this potential will take ambitious multi-stakeholder, pre-competitive collaborations to transform the food system—exactly what these Hubs are designed to cultivate.”

Among the solutions advocated by the WEF to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions is replacing livestock-derived foods with alternative forms of protein, such as insects, and lab-cultured proteins, according to a 2019 white paper (pdf) commissioned by the WEF.

In response to this recommendation, several indoor agriculture start-ups have emerged, including Ÿnsect, “the first fully automated vertical insect farm in the world, able to produce 100,000 tons of insect products a year,” a WEF report said.

In March, France-based Ÿnsect acquired Jord Producers, a U.S. mealworm manufacturer, to expand its operations in the United States by entering the American chicken feed market, said a company statement.

How People Can Stop Food Takeover

If people want to prevent food supply from being used as a tool to control them, they need to find alternative sources of food locally, Newman said. “You need to have a relationship with the local farmers in your community, get to the local farmers market, deal with the local farmers, come up with some agreement,” such as getting delivery of fresh, seasonal produce from the local farms for 100 bucks a week, he said.

“We need to really start providing an alternative economic structure, because if we let them get control of the entire food supply, I guarantee you, it will be used as a weapon to take your freedom, to get you to do things you otherwise wouldn’t want to do, to undermine the sovereignty of your nation, whether you’re in the United States or another country, and ultimately to dispossess people of their private land and of their freedom.”

“If you have agricultural land, do not sell out to these people. They’re trying to bribe the farmers to leave their land.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Ruling against EPA sets precedent for a series of lawsuits against agency overreach

As the Biden administration reels from a string of recent legal defeats, political analysts hail the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest ruling, West Virginia v. EPA, as but one component of a new, broad-based approach that the courts are taking to halt a century-long effort by progressives to empower the administrative state and rule Americans by bureaucratic decree.

Dating back to President Woodrow Wilson 100 years ago, progressive presidents, including Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, have worked to transfer law-making authority from Congress to their executive agencies. Wilson, the father of modern-day progressives, believed the Constitution, with its separation of powers, was an outdated document and that professional bureaucrats were superior at decision-making, compared to the time-consuming and compromise-ridden process of passing laws through elected representatives.

Wilson wrote in the 1887 article “The Study of Administration” that “the many, the people, who are sovereign [under the Constitution] have no single ear which one can approach, and are selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn or foolish.”

“The greatest revolution since the Constitution in many ways has been this movement away from legislatures into agencies,” Matthew Spalding, Dean of Hillsdale College’s Graduate School of Government, told The Epoch Times. “The crisis here is the movement away from consent,” as Americans increasingly lose their right to have a voice in setting the laws and regulations that control their lives.

In 1984, for example, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that came to be known as the Chevron Doctrine, ruling that federal agencies had the authority to decide the scope of their power in situations where congressional authorization was ambiguous. Since this ruling, Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, the courts have sided with federal agencies in cases where the authority of agencies was challenged.

Now, for the first time in a century, a series of rulings from federal courts have put up a roadblock to halt administrative encroachment. Two factors have brought about this change. First, the appointment by the Trump administration of 234 federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices. And second, the Biden administration’s unusually brazen attempts to push federal agencies well beyond their legal authority in order to impose a left-wing agenda on the United States without popular consent.

West Virginia Ruling

In the case of West Virginia v. EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempted to force America’s electric utilities to switch from fossil fuels to wind and solar. On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration had no authority to do so.

“For years, unelected bureaucrats in the administrative state have been trying to destroy our fossil fuel industries by transforming the EPA into a communist-style central planning authority because they know they can’t get their radical environmental policies passed through Congress,” said West Virginia State Treasurer Riley Moore in an official statement, lauding the decision as “a victory for the rule of law.”

“Part of the problem is Congress writing these broad laws that leave a lot of room for interpretation by the agencies that are supposed to execute the laws,” William Shughart, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, told the Epoch Times. “That has led to this explosive growth in the administrative state. The West Virginia ruling applies the brakes to that growth.”

‘Major Questions Doctrine’

One of the key components of this Supreme Court ruling is the “major questions doctrine.” This is the concept that agencies, which are unelected by and unaccountable to the public, cannot make up rules on issues of major importance to Americans without clear authorization from elected representatives.

“The Supreme Court decision speaks to the legal flaws with trying to mark an entire industry for termination,” Jonathan Berry, a partner at Boyden Gray & Associates, told The Epoch Times. “What the Supreme Court is saying is that when you take on initiatives of major economic or political significance, those measures have to be authorized by a clear statement from Congress.”

“One of the most profound aspects of this ruling is its portability across regulatory regimes,” Berry said. In rendering its West Virginia decision, the Supreme Court looked at prior rulings, including those against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). “The common thread across those cases is the executive branch using an administrative agency to wade into policy areas beyond what Congress authorized,” Berry added.

In August 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the CDC did not have legal authority to ban landlords from evicting non-paying tenants. In January of this year, the Court ruled that OSHA did not have authority to force employees of large companies to take the Covid-19 vaccine.

“What we’re seeing here is extremely significant,” Spalding said. “The way the Court works is they do these things in different cases here and there, but they’re putting a doctrine together that ultimately builds up to a larger case. The heart of the matter is the unconstitutionality of essentially shifting legislative authority outside of the legislative branch into these agencies.”

“There are already tons of lawsuits out there that have been winding their way through the legal system for years,” Bonner Cohen, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, told The Epoch Times. “Some of those lawsuits will eventually make it to the Supreme Court, but a lot of them may be dealt with at lower court level simply because people can now point to the precedent that was set in West Virginia v. EPA.”

Administrative Overreach

Last week, a Trump-appointed federal judge temporarily blocked orders by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) that attempted to force states to, among other things, allow transgender children to compete in sports in schools according to their gender identity rather than their gender at birth. Twenty state attorneys general brought a suit against the DOE directive, arguing that the authority to decide such policies “properly belongs to Congress, the States, and the people.”

Two other areas where administrative overreach by the Biden administration will likely be challenged next are a directive from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding “green accounting” (that is, accounting that factors environmental costs in the financial results of operations) and gun control initiatives from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

In a case that closely parallels West Virginia v. EPA, the SEC issued a directive that all listed companies must provide audited reports on the greenhouse gas emissions of their operations, as well as those of their suppliers and customers. In addition, companies must detail their strategies to reduce such emissions. Critics believe this will open companies up to a rash of environmental lawsuits and actions by activist asset managers like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey was among the first state officials to threaten legal action in response.

The ATF has been attempting to expand the legal definition of which gun parts constitute a firearm in an effort to implement a Biden administration initiative, which failed to pass Congress, against unregistered homemade guns, thus turning a formerly legal practice into a felony. A lawsuit against this has already been filed by the Gun Owners of America. In addition, the ATF was found to be keeping records of “several hundred million” gun purchases, despite the fact that Congress explicitly outlawed a federal gun registry.

Loss of Public Trust

Such attempts to circumvent public consent by legislating through unelected federal agencies inevitably lead to a loss of public trust in government.

“If there’s no consent, no responsibility, no check-back system, then you really are undermining public confidence in that process,” Spalding said. Regarding the ATF and gun control measures, a June poll by NPR/Ipsos found that, while most gun owners said they would accept universal background checks, they “harbored a deep distrust of government.”

“The more that this administration steps over the line and claims for itself powers that the peoples’ representatives in Congress have not given it, the more we should expect a decline in trust and in legitimacy,” Berry said.

As the courts begin to push back against administrative overreach, however, the backlash from the political left has been escalating, including demands for “packing” the Supreme Court with more left-leaning judges, or even abolishing the Court altogether.

Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, President Biden stated, “We cannot allow an out-of-control Supreme Court, working in conjunction with extremist elements of the Republican Party, to take away our freedoms and our personal autonomy.” A recent survey by Rasmussen and the Heartland Institute found that, in the wake of the EPA decision, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the pro-Second Amendment Bruen decision (regarding concealed weapons), most Democrats and younger voters see the Court as a racist and sexist institution and want to pack it with progressive judges, remove it, or replace it.

“These findings clearly show that most Democrats and young Americans do not respect the sanctity of the Supreme Court when it issues decisions that run counter to their agenda,” Heartland Institute Research Fellow Chris Talgo told The Epoch Times. “As a former U.S. history and American government teacher, I can say without a doubt that our education system is not teaching the basics when it comes to civics. Most American students cannot name the three branches of government, let alone understand the role of separation of powers. This does not bode well for the future of freedom, seeing as how young voters are hostile to the very institutions that preserve our freedom.”

The Justice Department, for example, permitted weeks of intimidating protests outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices after the opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade was prematurely leaked prior to the formal ruling. Following the arrest in June of an armed man who was charged with attempted murder at the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) demanded that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland “detail the steps the Department of Justice is taking to protect our Supreme Court Justices in the wake of an unprecedented harassment and intimidation campaign.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was criticized for taking weeks to bring a bill protecting Supreme Court justices and their families to a vote, even after the alleged assassination attempt against Justice Kavanaugh. When the bill was put to a vote, 27 Democrats voted against it.

Granting Power to Experts

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who disagreed with the majority in the West Virginia case, argued that the courts must defer to the EPA, which she deemed the “expert agency,” and allow the agency to interpret the scope of its own power. Critics of this approach, however, remain skeptical of granting too much power to experts and question whether administrators are in fact experts when it comes to issues like national energy policy or making personal medical decisions.

“These are career government employees,” Cohen said. “They are not experts.”

“Look at the experience the country had during the pandemic, where we had such experts as Dr. [Anthony] Fauci and Dr. [Deborah] Birx and others throughout the federal government who completely mishandled the public health response to COVID-19,” Cohen said. “If these are the experts, we need to free ourselves from experts, because they got it spectacularly wrong.”

One of the methods used to expand administrative power has been the declaration of government health emergencies, including the pandemic health emergency, the climate health emergency, the racism health emergency, and the “gun violence” health crisis.

“Anytime you encounter the word ‘emergency,’ anytime you encounter the word ‘crisis,’ be careful,” Cohen said. “It may in fact be a crisis because those things happen, but it may be nothing more than a pretext for a power grab.”

“The invocation of an emergency is not a justification for combining the powers of government into a single person,” Berry said. “That’s the definition of tyranny.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

President also announces Gulf of Mexico opened to offshore wind farms that could power 3 million homes

Resident Joe Biden on July 20 stated that “climate change is an emergency,” leaving open the possibility of additional executive actions aimed at mitigating climate-related issues after Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) ended negotiations on climate and energy programs advocated by other Democrats.

“Climate change is an emergency and, in the coming weeks, I’m going to use the power I have as president to turn these words into formal official government actions through the appropriate proclamations, executive orders, and regulatory power that the president possesses,” Biden said during a brief speech that he delivered at Brayton Point Power Station, a former coal-fired power plant in Somerset, Massachusetts.

The president announced the opening of offshore areas in the Gulf of Mexico to wind power.

“These areas cover 700,000 acres and have the potential to power over 3 million homes,” an accompanying White House fact sheet read.

In addition, Biden noted that he would allocate $2.3 billion to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, for what he described as infrastructure to withstand “extreme heat, drought, flooding, hurricanes, [and] tornadoes.”

He also drew attention to $385 million in spending for the Department of Health and Human Services, largely for community cooling centers and air conditioners.

Biden spoke after White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre ruled out an immediate emergency declaration during a July 19 press conference.

“I would not plan an announcement this week on [a] national climate emergency. Everything’s on the table. It’s just not going to be this week on that decision,” she said.

“Taking action is something he will do if Congress won’t.”

Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and others also released a letter concurrent with Biden’s speech, asking the president to declare a climate emergency.

Talk of a climate emergency has met with pushback from Republicans and other skeptics of expanded government power through climate-inspired mandates.

“Biden is using climate change as another excuse for the government to insert more control into your lives,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) wrote in a July 20 post on Twitter.

“The Atlantic [magazine] freaked out in 2019 over what Trump could do if he declared a national emergency: Martial law, control internet traffic, freeze financial assets,” commentator Glenn Beck wrote on Twitter, also on July 20.

“Weird how the media is now silent about what Biden could do to ‘climate deniers’ under a climate emergency.”

In 2019, then-President Donald Trump declared a national emergency in an effort to secure additional funding for a wall along the southern border. Biden formally ended that emergency in 2021 after issuing a proclamation describing the wall as a “waste of money.”

“By declaring a national climate emergency, Biden can unlock emergency executive powers already granted by Congress to aggressively combat the crisis,” the Center for Biological Diversity wrote in a 2022 document, “The Climate President’s Emergency Powers.”

Environmentalist Bill McKibben, who advocates a climate emergency declaration, complained on his Substack on July 19 that Biden’s “ability to postpone decisions has become the stuff of Washington legend.”

McKibben claimed that Hillary Clinton would have declared a climate emergency if she had been elected president, meaning “resident Joe Biden should do it now.”

“As president, I have a responsibility to act with urgency and resolve when our nation faces clear and present danger. And that’s what climate change is about. It is literally, not figuratively, a clear and present danger,” Biden said during his July 20 speech.

He cited “more powerful and destructive hurricanes and tornadoes” as evidence of a climate crisis gripping the country.

Experts have refuted previous claims from Biden that tornadoes can be linked to man-made climate change.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has likewise pointed out that little evidence supports a significant rise in the number of Atlantic hurricanes or other tropical storms due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Yet, they concluded that “it is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes.”

The former Brayton Point power plant where Biden spoke has been acquired by energy giant Avangrid, which intends to convert it to a facility for manufacturing offshore transmission cables for wind turbines.

Biden noted that the CEO of a company involved in the project, Vineyard Wind, had “joined [him] at the White House this month.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

After controversial vote, state legislators Brittany Pettersen and Yadira Caraveo are running for Congress

A pair of Democrats running for Congress in Colorado voted to weaken the state’s penalty for felony murder as Denver experienced a near-record spike in homicides.

In the spring of 2021, state legislators Brittany Pettersen and Yadira Caraveo backed a bill that made felony murder in Colorado a Class 2 felony instead of Class 1. As a result, criminals convicted of felony murder in the state can no longer be sentenced to life without parole; instead, they may receive just 16 years in prison. The Democrats’ votes came as homicides in Denver spiked to near-record highs—in 2020, the number of killings in the city rose to 95, up from 63 the year before. In 2021, Denver experienced 96 homicides, the highest number seen in four decades.

Roughly one year later, both Pettersen and Caraveo are running to represent Denver’s suburbs in Congress. But with crime on the rise in Colorado, addressing public safety has become a top issue in the Centennial State, meaning the Democrats’ decisions to lower the state’s felony murder penalty could haunt them as they navigate a difficult political environment under resident Joe Biden. Just 30 percent of Colorado voters approve of Biden, while 55 percent disapprove, according to Civiqs. Biden in 2020 won the state by 14 points.

Arvada, Colo., deputy chief of police Ed Brady said criminals “have been emboldened” by Democrats in the state legislature.

“I think all of the efforts that have been led by our state legislature, by our governor, to be more offender-focused and less victim-focused—that has caused crime to increase greatly,” Brady, who is running for sheriff in Jefferson County, a northwest Denver suburb, told the Washington Free Beacon. “When our state becomes more concerned about the impacts of crime on the offender than they do the victim, that’s how we become a state without a control on crime.”

Neither Pettersen nor Caraveo’s campaigns returned requests for comment.

Before Democratic governor Jared Polis signed the Pettersen and Caraveo-backed bill in April 2021, a criminal who participated in a violent crime that resulted in the death of a person—say, for example, a burglary gone bad—could be charged with Class 1 felony murder and sentenced to life in prison even if that criminal did not directly kill the victim. Now, a criminal who fits that description cannot face life behind bars, a development that Brady called “concerning.”

In addition to Pettersen and Caraveo’s 2021 felony murder votes, the pair of Democrats voted in 2019 to make the possession of four grams or less of fentanyl and other hard drugs a misdemeanor instead of a felony. Colorado prosecutors called on state lawmakers to exempt fentanyl from the bill, as four grams of the drug is equivalent to 13,000 deadly doses.

But the bill’s sponsors refused, and opioid overdose deaths in the state rose by 54 percent in 2020. Two years later, five people died of fentanyl overdoses in a suburban Denver apartment, including two victims who left behind a four-month-old baby. That tragedy sparked a Pettersen-sponsored bill aimed at addressing Colorado’s fentanyl crisis, but possession of less than four grams of fentanyl is still a misdemeanor under that legislation.

Pettersen and Caraveo both ran unopposed in the state’s June primary elections. Come November, Pettersen will face Republican Erik Aadland in Colorado’s Seventh Congressional District, while Caraveo will square off against GOP challenger Barbara Kirkmeyer in the eighth district. Aadland told the Free Beacon he would not have voted to reduce Colorado’s felony murder penalty, a decision that he said “undermines the leverage that law enforcement has.”

“Denver is now number one in the country for auto theft, it’s number one in the country for bank robberies. This is because progressives are soft on crime,” Aadland said. “We’ve got to fix the government at every level to hold people accountable, uphold the rule of law, enforce the law, and support law enforcement.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The Washington Post sternly condemned President Joe Biden for his “shameful” greeting of Saudi Arabian royalty, but has remained mum on its owner’s extensive business dealings with the Saudis.

The paper—which is owned by Amazon executive chairman Jeff Bezos—led the charge following video of Biden fist-bumping the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. The Post’s publisher, Fred Ryan, wrote that Biden’s trip “erodes” the “moral authority” of the United States. In his piece—which is topped with an artistic rendering of Biden shaking a blood-covered hand—Ryan criticizes the president for “turning a blind eye” to the Saudi regime’s alleged murder of Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi. Ryan said Biden was sending the “message that the United States is willing to look the other way when its commercial interests are at stake.”

Just four months before Biden’s trip, however, it was Amazon traveling to the oil kingdom for commercial interests. A senior Amazon executive was photographed shaking hands with high-ranking Saudi officials to finalize an economic partnership between the multinational conglomerate and the Islamic theocracy. The Post did not cover Amazon’s Saudi agreement, according to a review of the paper’s archive.

Since Bezos’s 2013 purchase of the Post, experts have speculated that his substantial Amazon holdings may influence the paper’s coverage. A 2018 piece in HuffPost featured anonymous statements from several Washington Post employees who said they felt uncomfortable criticizing Amazon given Bezos’s ownership of the paper.

“I tend to do less critical thinking about Amazon than I do, say, about Facebook or Google or Walmart, and the reason is fairly obvious: because I am thankful for the opportunity I have, which wouldn’t exist without Jess [sic] Bezos,” one employee said. “Conflicts of interest are there no matter how well we do our jobs,” another said.

Bezos has a $116 billion stake in Amazon, which has taken major steps to expand its footprint in Saudi Arabia in recent years. During the March 19, 2022, meeting between Amazon officials and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Investment, the company stressed its “commitment to the Kingdom.”

“This partnership underscores our commitment to the Kingdom and our customers in it, and will contribute to accelerating the growth of the e-commerce sector, as well as enabling businesses to take advantage of the great growth opportunities that the Kingdom offers,” said Ronaldo Mouchawar, an Amazon vice president for the Middle East region.

The major deal followed several steps taken last year by Amazon to establish a foothold in Saudi Arabia. In January 2021, Amazon extended its trademark Prime delivery service to Saudi Arabia. Two months later, Amazon announced plans to add 11 new buildings and hire 1,500 new workers in Saudi Arabia. The company also partnered last month with Saudi start-ups to help improve the country’s logistics infrastructure.

None of the developments were covered by the Post, which appears to have last covered Amazon’s business dealings in Saudi Arabia in October 2019, when the company decided to cease operations in the country following Khashoggi’s murder.

Writers at the Washington, D.C.-based liberal news outlet have not shied away from criticizing others for involving themselves with the Saudis. The Post denounced entertainment companies such as Disney for allowing their shares to be purchased by the Saudi government, criticized influencers for attending a Saudi-sponsored music festival, and attacked performers like Mariah Carey for doing shows in the country.

The paper did not respond to a request for comment on its coverage of Amazon, which also did not respond to request for comment.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

ANALYSIS: Does wearing a fancy top hat indoors to conceal your unsightly bald dome make you dumber?

Washington Post columnist Max Boot wears a fancy top hat—indoors and outdoors—to conceal his freakish bald head. It may or may not be making him dumber, given the profoundly stupid tweet he posted while attempting to insult a group of veterans who actually did serve their country in uniform.

“Just imagine how all these right-wingers would have reacted with horror if they had been around when Harry Truman desegregated the military,” Boot wrote on Twitter, the social networking platform. “Now that was woke!”

Boot’s ridiculous and racially charged comment came in response to a New York Post op-ed written by Jason Church, a retired U.S. Army captain. Church argued that our military should focus more on preparing for armed conflict with bad actors around the world and less on embracing the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” ethos of government bureaucrats.

“The Navy is producing instructional videos on gender pronouns while its poorly maintained ships crash at sea,” wrote Church, citing a Washington Free Beacon report. He also suggested—quite reasonably—that lowering the military’s physical fitness standards in the name of “inclusivity” was not a good thing. Other changes designed to make the military more “woke,” Church argued, have “weakened training, lowered morale,” and “diminish[ed] the fighting spirit, cohesiveness, and reputation of America’s Armed Forces.”

Boot, who never served in the military but has written several books about war, had responded with the cerebral heft of a Salon commenter, and Church let him know it. “With respect to @MaxBoot, this is beneath you and the Post,” he wrote. “We are right to be worried about politicizing the military and @VeteransOnDuty will voice these concerns. Smugly dismissing this as bigotry is cheap and wrong.”

Church, who joined the Army in 2011 and received a Purple Heart in Afghanistan, is the chairman of Veterans on Duty, a national membership organization dedicated to “exposing how the woke revolution in the services works” and compelling the military to “get back to basics” by electing like-minded policymakers.

Jeremy C. Hunt, a black Army veteran and member of the Veterans on Duty board, also blasted Boot’s smug commentary. “We care about a military that wins,” he wrote in response to Boot’s tweet. “If you want an example of modern segregation in the military, look no further than the Biden administration’s racist [diversity, equity, and inclusion] protocols that you defend.”

Boot attempted to defend himself, once again channeling the intellectual rigor of the Salon comments section. “Diversity makes the military stronger,” he wrote. “Will you criticize Trump as well as Biden?”

Church, Hunt, and their fellow Veterans on Duty members fought for democracy by defending their country against foreign enemies. Boot “fights for democracy” by writing boring columns in the Post.

On Sunday, for example, Boot defended Biden’s meeting with bone-saw dictator Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, whom the president once pledged to make a “pariah” until flip-flopping as soon as rising gas prices threatened Democratic prospects in the midterm elections.

READ MORE: I Forced a Bot to Read 1,000 Max Boot Columns and Write a Max Boot Column of Its Own

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

A would-be robber was shot dead by the very man he was evidently trying to rob on Saturday.

The intended victim was at an ATM in Houston around 10:30 p.m. when the would-be robber walked up and pulled a gun on him, KPRC-TV reported.

In a quick turn of fate, the man then pulled out a gun of his own, shooting and killing him.

Both men fired their weapons, but only the suspect was harmed, according to Fox News.

The name of the man who shot the would-be robber has not been released, but he remained after the incident to cooperate with police questioning, Fox reported.

The case will go through a grand jury, according to KPRC.

Adult male deceased at the scene. 202 pic.twitter.com/lHw2IIXtRp

— Houston Police (@houstonpolice) July 17, 2022

It seems it was a busy but victorious weekend for armed citizens.

On the same night in St. Charles, Missouri, another would-be robber was shot and killed before he could carry out his plans.

A customer with a concealed pistol was walking out of a QuikTrip gas station when he saw a black SUV pull up and park without using a parking space.

The man in the SUV — later identified as 26-year-old Lance Bush — walked into the store, grabbed the clerk by her wrist and dragged her to the counter. The armed citizen, who remains anonymous, said she was screaming.

The customer went back into the store and saw that the would-be robber had a knife to the clerk’s throat.

He asked if everything was OK. The robber said yes. The crying clerk said no.

Killer of David Dorn Convicted of First-Degree Murder in Shooting of Retired Police Officer

The customer then asked again, but this time with his pistol drawn.

“I pulled my gun up and I asked him, ‘Are you sure everything is OK?’ And that’s when the suspect said, ‘No, it’s not OK, but I got something for you,’ and he grabbed his bag, ran from around the counter and started running towards me, and that’s when I fired shots,” the customer told KSDK-TV.

He shot Bush four times.

“I don’t think I honestly had a choice,” he said. “He already had a knife at her throat, he could’ve pulled out something bigger than what I had. Then you would’ve had two people dead instead of one.”

Record-high inflation and high fuel and fertilizer prices have put the U.S. en route to a food shortage, National Black Farmers Association president John Boyd Jr. warned.

While the Biden administration sends aid to African countries, Ukraine and other nations, “we also have to take care of those at home,” Boyd told “Fox & Friends First” during the Wednesday episode of the show.

“We continue to help other parts of the world, but we haven’t taken care of American farmers,” Boyd said. “We have to do better at taking care of America’s farmers and taking care of those American people first.

“The Biden administration isn’t moving and acting swiftly enough to address the farm crisis,” he added.

“You have the high cost of fuel, the high cost of fertilizer and lime and all of these upfront costs for America’s farmers, and we haven’t done anything … to fix that.”

Boyd said he paid less than $400 per ton for fertilizer just a year ago. In 2022, Boyd is paying $1,100 per ton.

Black US farmers awaiting billions in promised debt relief
Farmer John Boyd Jr., poses for a portrait during a break from bailing hay at his farm in Boydton, Va., Thursday, May 27, 2021. Documents from a USDA internal review that Boyd provided to The Associated Press show inve… pic.twitter.com/phHtudGFgY

— Biedex Markets (@biedexmarkets) September 1, 2021

According to an April report from Barron’s, the Russo-Ukrainian war nearly doubled prices for fertilizers. The price hike made its way to food prices as well, especially the price of corn.

“The combination of sanctions, shipping firms avoiding the Black Sea region … and traders shunning Russian supplies has created significant uncertainty for farmers regarding their ability to secure adequate fertilizer supply,” said Jeremy Thurm and John Kuhn of Aegon Asset Management, according to Barron’s.

Another challenge Boyd faces is the high price of diesel fuel, which he said costs him around $6 per gallon.

Although diesel prices have fallen in recent weeks, the national average remains high at $5.497 per gallon, compared to $3.273 a year ago, according to AAA.

Boyd warned that if the Biden administration does not do enough to address the challenges facing American farmers, the nation is “heading for a food shortage.”

“We’re going to see empty food shelves in the coming months,” he said.

Chilling Video: Ranchers Line Up for Miles, Forced to Sell Cattle as TX Dries Up

Boyd said that the Biden administration “hasn’t put things in place to help us.”

“The administration isn’t talking enough about the plight of what’s going on with America’s farmers,” he said. “We’re losing farmers every year that we don’t take action.”

“High cost of food — that’s going to affect every American that walks into the supermarket. … We have to find a way to invest in infrastructure for farmers and put farmers first and put more small-scale farmers back into business,” Boyd said.

It’s the kind of vision Trump supporters will savor, but should give Democrats nightmares.

With Democrats already spending the summer scheming to avoid the disaster of the Biden presidency in the November mid-terms, one key observer of American politics is already looking ahead to the fall of 2024.

And what he’s seeing should have the wokest liberals losing sleep for the next two years.

Dick Morris, an architect of Bill Clinton’s presidential runs in 1992 and 1996 and an adviser who helped the Clinton White House weather the scandal that led to Clinton’s impeachment in 1998-99, has since become one of the country’s most respected conservative commentators.

But he still brings that knowledge of both the Clintons and Democratic Party politics to bear. He’s forecasting a return of Hillary Clinton to the American political stage for the 2024 presidential campaign — and facing off against former President Donald Trump in a rematch of the 2016 fight.

And he said a case coming before the Supreme Court next term will help seal a Trump victory.

While Trump has made no announcement regarding his 2024 intentions yet, Morris has no doubt the 45th president intends to become the 47th president. And he appears equally sure that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic standard-bearer running against him.

That’s more likely than another round of the doddering Joe Biden, he said, or Democrats taking a gamble on Vice President Kamala Harris (a woman who can’t even get her own staff to stay on board.)

“Already, the Democrats are pressuring Biden not to run because they see what a disaster he would be. And Harris is no better. The line of possible alternatives is queuing up,” Morris told Newsmax on “National Report.” (The full show can been seen at this link. The Morris interview segment starts about the 2:40 mark)

“You have Gavin Newsom, governor of California, [Jared Polis] the governor of Colorado, Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary.

“But, ultimately, the left is going to have their candidates, and they’ll probably run Sanders or maybe AOC, and that will trigger Hillary into the race in order to save the Democratic Party from the left rerunning the Hillary Sanders race of ’16. And I think Hillary will win that contest. I think she and Trump will face it off, and I think Trump is going to win handily.”

(To be clear, it’s a topic Morris said he explores at length in his new book: “The Return: Trump’s Big 2024 Comeback,” so there’s undeniably a bit of salesmanship here.)

While a new Trump would obviously galvanize Democrats, progressives and their Janissaries in the mainstream media, there are plenty of reasons to think he might succeed.

Simply comparing the record of the Trump years on foreign police, the economy and energy independence against the current 1970’s malaise redux of Biden’s incompetent administration would go a long way toward getting sane Americans voting Republican.

Biden’s Approval Rating Hits a New Low, Fueled by Democrats Jumping Ship

But Morris sees another reason:

In the fall, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case of Moore v. Harper, an election law dispute out of North Carolina that would invest state legislatures with greater power over how elections are conducted.

As Politico reported, the case mainly involves the issue of gerrymandering legislative districts, but Morris sees broader implications, such as changes to election laws that would improve the integrity of the vote.

“In the five key swing states, Republicans control the legislature, but the Democrats control the governor,” he said. “So [Republicans] passed all these great bills, prohibiting drop boxes, voter ID, no ballot harvesting, and the Democratic governors have vetoed them.

“But when the court rules in this case, which they will next term, it will completely cut the governors out of the process, and those bills will be veto proof and take effect.”

Morris didn’t identify the swing states he had in mind, but North Carolina — where the Moore case originated and Democrat Roy Cooper is in the governor’s office with a GOP-controlled legislature — is obviously one. Other swing states with Republican-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors are Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

If Trump had secured the combined 46 Electoral College votes of those three states in 2020, he’d be president today.

And to Morris, that means he’s going to be president come 2025.

Obviously, this isn’t graven in stone. Morris gives short shrift to any potential challenger to Trump for the nomination — such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — and predicting events two years away is always a dicey proposition in human affairs (particularly septuagenarian human affairs). But it’s a valid argument.

And no honest American who watched how the 2020 election unfolded in a pandemic year, where elections officials and courts seemed to make up rules as they went along, can dispute that the vote could easily have gone Trump’s way in crucial states decided by razor-thin margins (like Arizona’s 10,457 out of more than 3 million cast).

If Morris is right, those conditions won’t be around for a 2024 rematch between Trump and Hillary. And if that doesn’t keep Democrats awake at night, nothing will.

A man who allegedly attacked at least four different households in Lincoln County, Mississippi, on Tuesday morning was stopped thanks to the decisive action of one responsible gun owner.

According to WLBT, the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office originally responded to a call around 4 a.m. Tuesday morning about a man threatening people inside a home.

By the time deputies arrived at the scene, the man had fled. However, deputies received a call about a man allegedly breaking into another home and assaulting two people there.

Deputies arrived at the second house to find in addition to the two reported victims of assault, a neighbor had also been attacked. Once again, the suspect was no longer at the scene.

As they were gathering information about the second alleged attack of the night, deputies received a call from a third household about a man who allegedly tried to break into the home, WLBT reported.

Soon after arriving at the third house, where the suspect was nowhere to be found, deputies heard one gunshot ring out from a nearby house.

They finally made their way to the fourth house, where they found a man had been shot while allegedly attempting to run over someone with his vehicle.

The suspect was transported to the hospital, but he was soon pronounced dead, WLBT reported.

After an investigation, deputies determined this same suspect had been involved in all four Tuesday morning incidents. Two victims were treated for injuries at the hospital, and the man who shot the suspect was not facing charges as of Tuesday.

This story appears to be yet another example of a responsible gun owner using his firearm to protect others from an alleged criminal.

If the homeowner had not stepped in and shot the suspect, there is no telling how much more damage the suspect could have caused.

Police said he was attempting to hit someone with a vehicle at the time he was shot, and he very well may have planned to carry out further crimes if he was not stopped.

The story comes on the heels of the heroic actions from 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken in Greenwood, Indiana.

As a shooter opened fire on shoppers in the food court of Greenwood Park Mall, Dicken reportedly drew his 9mm handgun and returned fire from about 40 yards away, hitting the shooter with his first shot.

Related:

‘Deep-Staters’ Demanding Missouri CCW Holder’s Info; Sheriff and AG Will ‘Go Down With Ship’

A revised timeline from the police said Dicken neutralized the shooter in just 15 seconds.

#BreakingNews Greenwood police revise timeline–now say Armed Citizen Eli Dicken neutralized mall shooter in a mere 15 seconds–not 2 minutes as previously stated.#GreenwoodParkMall @WTHRcom pic.twitter.com/4sV7VA1drp

— annemariewthr (@AnneMarieWTHR) July 19, 2022

The gunman still tragically took three lives in the attack before Dicken killed him in defense, CNN reported. If not for Dickens heroic actions, the death toll could very well have been much higher.

As the left continues its push for strict and oftentimes unconstitutional gun control, it is important to recognize law abiding citizens who use their Second Amendment rights to protect both themselves and others.

IS AMERICA DUE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION?

A strong majority of Americans support holding a “Convention of States” to limit spending by the federal government and its overall power, according to new survey data.

Conducted by The Trafalgar Group, the poll is the latest example Americans’ lack of support for the economic policies of the federal government. The poll included 1,000 likely voters and was conducted in early July 2022.

The data revealed cross-party support for reining in the federal government’s spending and executive powers by ratifying Constitutional amendments proposed during a potential Convention of States. A Convention of States is a process outlined in the U.S. Constitution, which allows states to to propose amendments if more than two-thirds of the country, 34 states, convene. It then takes 38 states to ratify any proposed amendments.

A sizable 63.3 percent of Independent voters supported amendments “focusing on term limits for Congress and federal officials, federal spending restraints, and limiting the federal government to its constitutionally mandated authority.”

A stunning 50.2 percent of Democratic voters also supported the measures, with 25.6 percent opposing them and 24.2 percent unsure.

A whopping 81.3 percent of Republican voters supported holding a Convention of States to rein in federal government spending and power through amendments tackling the aforementioned issues.

“Voters in all parties know that—regardless of who is in power—Washington, DC is fundamentally broken and something dramatic has to be done to change the game. The deck is stacked against the American people, and these numbers show vast majorities agree its time to reboot the relationship between the federal government and the states,” said Mark Meckler, President of Convention of States Action.

MUST READ: EXC: 52% Say Cheating Impacted 2020 Election, While 50% Say It Will Blight U.S. Mid Terms.

“The founders saw this problem was inevitable, and inserted a provision into Article V of the Constitution to empower the states to return our Republic to its original design. Clearly, the public support is there across all demographics to make this happen.”

Convention of States language has passed 19 state legislatures in the United States since the campaign’s inception, which active legislation or the passing of legislation in one chamber in a further 17 states.

WHY ISN’T ANYONE STOPPING THIS?

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is helping fund the Chinese Communist Party’s Ministry of Science and Technology, assisting the brutal regime in its efforts to lure foreign scientists in to boost China’s scientific advancement, The National Pulse can reveal.

A recent, $100,000 grant from the Microsoft mogul’s foundation was sent to the Foreign Talent Research Center of China’s Ministry of Science and Technology in June, according to the organization’s website.

The purpose of the cash is listed as organizing a forum on “pandemic preparedness and response,” which would focus on “leveraging resources to improve global health and support disadvantaged populations who are disproportionately impacted by pandemic.” The forum is affiliated with the Zhongguancun Forum, a Beijing-based technology conference sponsored by the Chinese Communist Party that counts high-level officials – including President Xi Jinping – as speakers.

The Gates Foundation’s decision to fund the Foreign Talent Research Center of China’s Ministry of Science and Technology comes amidst controversy over the likelihood of international collaboration between U.S. and Chinese researchers in Wuhan leading to the genesis of COVID-19. Since the outbreak of the virus, the Chinese Communist Party has stonewalled investigations into the origins of the virus and planted Western researchers with compromising ties to China in senior investigative roles.

Beyond COVID-19, the Chinese Communist Party has also come under fire for weaponizing its science and technology programs to lure Western scientists away from their home countries in order to facilitate Chinese advancement and military build-up. This program – commonly known as the Thousand Talents Plan – has led to several Department of Justice (DOJ) indictments of American researchers who routinely fail to disclose their financial ties to the Chinese Communist Party despite receiving U.S. taxpayer funds.

MUST READ: Bill Gates-Funded Lab, Less Than 2 Miles From Wuhan Institute, Reports Cholera Case.

The Ministry of Science and Technology’s Foreign Talent Research Center appears to engage in similar conduct, as it is responsible for “bring[ing] in foreign talent,” according to an outline of its missions.

The ministry “formulates and facilitates the implementation of plans for bringing in high-end foreign experts, develops mechanisms for pooling top-notch scientists and research teams from abroad, and provides services for foreign experts,” it continues.

The unearthed grant comes amidst the Gates Foundation pouring millions of dollars into China, including to universities with ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

South Texas blogger labels Flores “Miss Frijoles” and uses sexually crude language

Republican Congresswoman Mayra Flores responded to racial stereotypes and crude language used to describe her by a South Texas blogger paid with campaign money from Congressman Vicente Gonzales, her Democratic opponent in the Texas District 34 midterm election.

In a Twitter post on Monday, Flores accused the Gonzales campaign of paying for a blogger to “run hateful and racist ads” against her. The posts that appeared in the McHale Report blog referred to her as “Miss Frijoles,” “Miss Menudo,” “Miss Enchiladas,” and a “cotton-pickin’ liar.”

“I am disgusted that Vicente Gonzalez has hired a creepy blogger to attack my Mexican heritage and sexually degrade me, but I won’t let this distract me from my work,” she told The Epoch Times via text. “Vicente Gonzalez is an example of everything that’s wrong with Washington. It’s truly sick,” she said.

Jerry McHale, a longtime South Texas blogger, also used sexually crude language in a May 13 headline about the Congresswoman: “Does Flores Want Trump to Come & Take Her [expletive]???”

Federal Elections Commission data shows Gonzalez made campaign advertising expenditures to Jerry McHale of $1,200 on June 24 and $1,000 on October 27, 2021.

McHale told The Epoch Times that Gonzalez never told him what to write, and he has never spoken to the Congressman. He was unapologetic for the language used in the blog. The self-described ultra-left Democratic blogger said he had no regrets using “satire” to describe Flores or “punching hard” at Republicans. He said Gonzalez and other politicians pay him to run photos with wording akin to a headline.

Colin Steel, campaign manager for Gonzalez, did not return a call seeking comment. However, he told NBC News, which first reported the story, that Gonzalez disapproves of calling Flores names and denied any wrongdoing.

Flores became the first Republican elected in the heavily Hispanic Rio Grande District in more than 100 years. The devout Christian won a special election for the district on a conservative platform of God, family, and country.

The controversial blog is just the latest incident in the rough-and-tumble political race for Texas District 34, which Flores aims to keep red. During her swearing-in ceremony, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi appeared to nudge Flores’ daughter to the side, which prompted Flores to condemn Pelosi on social media.

Pelosi’s camp responded that the speaker was trying to help the child so she wouldn’t be hidden during photos at the event.

Flores, a legal immigrant from Mexico married to a border patrol agent, is convinced that more Democratic voters will realize that their traditional Latino values are more aligned with the Republican Party. Democrats largely ignored the special election, but Republicans saw it as an opportunity to further their efforts to convert South Texas red after a strong showing in 2020.

Flores replaced former Rep. Filemon Vela (D-Texas), who resigned this spring to work for a Washington D.C. lobbying firm. She will only hold the seat until January 2023—unless she can beat Gonzales to serve for a full term by winning in November.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

More than two months after Pennsylvania’s May 17 primary election, the Department of State still has not certified the election results. It’s an administrative failure that undermines confidence in the state’s election system, according to Republican state Rep. Seth Grove, chairman of the State Government Committee.

That is one of numerous examples Grove described at the state capital building in Harrisburg during a July 19 press conference in which he released a 186-page report (pdf) with the long title, “Election Reform in Pennsylvania: Missed Opportunities and Continued Chaos-an Interim Report on The Status of Elections in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania After the Veto of House Bill 1300.”

Grove is still advocating for something like HB 1300, which Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed in June 2021. It was a package of election reforms that called for voter identification and provided for early in-person voting; moved the voter registration deadline back from 15 days to 30 days before the election; established a state bureau of election audits; allowed for pre-canvassing of mailed ballots; and would have made it easier for older and disabled voters by moving them to the front of the line or providing curbside voting so they could remain in their car.

The bill also introduced stiffer fines and longer possible prison terms for election tampering.

But Wolf didn’t go for it.

“This bill is ultimately not about improving access to voting or election security, but about restricting the freedom to vote,” Wolf said in a statement about the veto. “If adopted it would threaten to disrupt election administration, undermine faith in government, and invite costly, time-consuming, and destabilizing litigation.”

It didn’t seem like Wolf read the bill, Grove said in his report.

“Unfortunately, Gov. Wolf vetoed the bill despite seeming largely unfamiliar with the contents. By vetoing the legislation, he made himself the sole obstacle to historic reform that would have improved nearly every aspect of election administration in Pennsylvania. Most importantly, it would have allowed the General Assembly to live up to our constitutional requirement for uniformity and fairness in elections and prevent any reoccurrence of the national attention our current, broken process received during and after the November 2020 Election.”

Incidents from the Report

The report details troubles in the state’s elections that have happened since 2020. The following incidents are a sampling of those described in more detail in the report:

In 2021, a Luzerne County man admitted to using his deceased mother’s information to apply for an absentee ballot.

During the May 2021 primary, some counties faced a shortage of paper ballots at polling places on election day, in part due to higher than expected in-person voting. Shortages happened in Clearfield, Delaware, Lebanon, and York counties, and possibly others.

In Fayette County during the same election, an issue with barcodes meant ballots were not scanning or being recorded. Affected ballots were set aside and counted by hand when polls closed.

Also in the May 2021 primary, nine Snyder County voters received the wrong ballots, and Erie County voters left two polling sites with their marked ballots.

During the November 2021 general election, during the preelection process, Berks County’s Spanish-language ballot instructions included the incorrect date for the election, affecting 17,000 mail-in ballots.

In the same election, the Lehigh County Board of Elections decided to count undated ballots. In response, members of the House Republican Caucus issued a letter threatening impeachment unless the law was followed. The matter resulted in litigation in federal courts, with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ordering the undated ballots be counted.

That was not the last of ballot issues.

Another case in federal district court challenged the practice of disqualifying ballots lacking a secrecy envelope. The case is not yet resolved.

And recently, the Department of State filed suit against the Berks, Lancaster, and Fayette county boards of elections over certification disputes arising from the 2022 primary election. At issue is the treatment of ballots lacking a date. These counties certified results excluding such ballots, as required by Pennsylvania law.

Court Case Holding Up Certification

When the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision about undated ballots in the May 2021 primary, the Pennsylvania Department of State ordered Berks, Lancaster, and Fayette counties to certify an updated election result including the count of any ballots previously rejected for lacking a date.

The three counties did not do so, claiming that the previous court decision applied only to that case, and that the election code does not provide for election results to be certified a second time.

The case remains in Commonwealth Court, which is holding up certification of the 2022 primary election.

Grove called on the governor and his fellow lawmakers to try again on election reform legislation.

“It is my hope all sides and stakeholders can come to the table to compromise and bring true and meaningful election reform to Pennsylvania voters,” Grove said in a statement. “House Republicans have stood, and still stand, ready to address the myriad of election issues urgently in need of correction.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The antibodies triggered by COVID-19 vaccines are interfering with people’s immune systems as newer virus variants emerge, Dr. Harvey Risch said.

The two most widely-used vaccines in the United States, produced by Pfizer and Moderna, both work by sending messenger RNA into muscle cells, where they produce a piece of the spike protein from the virus that causes COVID-19. The spike protein triggers the production of antibodies, which are believed to help prevent infection by SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, and fight illness if one still gets infected.

But the vaccines are based on the spike protein from the original virus variant, which was displaced early in the pandemic. Since then, a series of newer strains have become dominant around the world, with the latest being BA.5.

Related Coverage

Dr. Harvey Risch: Why Are Vaccinated People Getting COVID at Higher Rates Than the Unvaccinated?

“The vaccines only make a very narrow range of antibodies to the spike protein,” compared to the broader exposure experienced when one gets infected, Risch, an epidemiology professor at the Yale School of Public Health, told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders.”

“The problem with that is, of course, that when the spike protein changes because of new strains of the virus, that the ability of the immune system to make antibodies that correlate to the new strains becomes reduced to the point where it may be almost ineffective over longer periods of time,” he added.

That leads to the antibodies being triggered by the vaccines not binding strongly enough to neutralize.

“What that means is they become interfering antibodies, instead of neutralizing antibodies,” Risch said. “And that’s the reason I believe that we’ve seen what’s called negative benefit—negative vaccine efficacy over longer time—over four to six to eight months after the last vaccine dose, that one sees the benefit of the vaccines turn negative.”

Worse Effectiveness Amid Spike Protein Changes

A number of recent studies have indicated that people who were vaccinated are more likely to get infected with COVID-19 after a period of time, including Pfizer’s clinical trial in young children (pdf). Some real-world data also show higher rates of infection among the vaccinated. Other research indicates vaccines still provide some protection as time wears on after getting a shot, but the protection does wane considerably. The research all deals with the Omicron variant, which became dominant in late 2021, and its subvariants.

There were relatively few changes to the spike protein as the initial variants emerged, which meant that vaccines still provided a fairly good benefit, Risch said. But Omicron started off with more than 50 changes to the spike protein, and subvariants of Omicron such as BA.5 have added more.

He pointed to data reported by United Kingdom health authorities in March (pdf)—the officials stopped reporting the data after that—pegging people who had received both a primary vaccination series and a booster as having three times the rate of symptomatic infection as unvaccinated people.

“After the second dose of the mRNA vaccines, it looks like they provide a benefit against symptomatic infection for … most people for maybe 10 to 12 weeks,” Risch said.

“After the first booster, the third dose, that drops to six to eight weeks. After the fourth booster, it may be as short as four weeks before the efficacy wears off and begins to turn negative.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Left-wing Democrat mega donor George Soros has donated $1 million to help Beto O’Rourke’s efforts to unseat Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, filings show.

Records filed with Texas Ethics Commission published Tuesday show the billionaire donated the sum to the Beto for Texas political action committee in June, according to The Hill. O’Rourke’s campaign confirmed the donation to the outlet.

O’Rourke has benefited from laws in Texas that allow uncapped campaign donations. According to filings, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee has received a number of donations over six or seven figures.

Soros, 91, frequently supports progressive causes. He has spent at least $40 million in support of liberal prosecutor candidates between 2014 and 2021, according to a report published by Virginia-based Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund.

Additionally, the progressive investor gave more than $125 million to a Democrat-aligned super PAC to boost Democrat groups and candidates ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

Soros handed over his donation to Democracy PAC, which he set up in 2019. Democracy PAC is his main political action committee to support Democrats in what was a “long-term investment” beyond the 2022 elections.

He has also spent tens of millions of dollars funding media properties, including journalism schools and industry organizations, according to a report by the Media Research Center.

Matt Palumbo, author of “The Man Behind the Curtain: Inside the Secret Network of George Soros,” said the billionaire funds many left-wing groups, media companies, and political candidates through his Open Society Foundation.

Palumbo, during an interview for EpochTV’s “Facts Matter” program, also said Soros uses his influence to control what is written about him.

Soros’s foundation claims to promote democracy and individualism, but in reality it supports a more radical agenda, said Palumbo.

Abbott Leads O’Rourke

According to a poll from the University of Houston’s Hobby School of Public Affairs, Abbott leads O’Rourke by 5 percent among likely voters (pdf).

The report states that Abbott leads at 49 percent to O’Rourke’s 44 percent, with 5 percent undecided and 2 percent intending to vote for Libertarian Mark Tippetts.

“More than nine out of 10 Abbott (95 percent) and O’Rourke (92 percent) voters are certain about their vote choice, while 5 percent and 8 percent indicate they might change their mind between now and November,” the report states.

“Abbott holds a 27 percent (60 percent to 33 percent) lead over O’Rourke among white voters while O’Rourke holds a 72 percent (80 percent to 8 percent) lead over Abbott among Black voters, and a 9 percent (51 percent to 42 percent) lead among Latino voters.”

Women prefer O’Rourke (6 percent) while Abbott outpaces O’Rourke with support of men (18 percent), according to the report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

WASHINGTON—The contempt of Congress charge levied against former White House aide Steve Bannon cannot be proven, lawyers for the defendant told a federal jury on July 19.

He is on trial for allegedly defying subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives committee that’s investigating the breach of the U.S. Capitol, which occurred on Jan. 6, 2021.

Bannon ignored warnings that he could face criminal prosecution if he did not comply with the subpoena, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn said.

“When you ignore a subpoena, that’s a crime,” she said. “That is why we are here today.”

But Evan Corcoran, a lawyer for Bannon, challenged that narrative, saying that the subpoena was not ignored.

The evidence will show there was “direct engagement” and prolonged negotiations between lawyers for Bannon and the government because of questions about what materials and testimony Bannon could give, Corcoran said.

There will also be no evidence that shows Bannon “willfully defaulted when he didn’t appear in a congressional office on Oct. 14,” Corcoran said. “The date was the subject of ongoing discussion and negotiation, so the government can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Steve Bannon committed a crime.”

After Bannon didn’t appear before Congress in October 2021, the House voted to hold him in contempt, and a grand jury indicted him several weeks later on two counts of contempt of Congress.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the panel, said a day after the failure to appear that Bannon had “willfully failed to both produce a single document and to appear for his scheduled deposition.”

Bannon has said he couldn’t hand over materials or testify because the subpoena sought records protected by executive privilege, which had been asserted by former President Donald Trump. His lawyers said that Bannon wouldn’t testify until the panel reached an agreement with Trump, or a court ruling settled the matter. Thompson said that Bannon, who was a Trump aide in 2017, could still testify about and produce documents relating to matters outside of the privilege.

Vaughn, the prosecutor, said that the case “is about a guy who refused to show up.”

“Yes, it’s that simple,” she said.

Rare Prosecution

While others have been held in contempt of Congress over the years, the choice to prosecute Bannon on the matter is unusual. The last criminal contempt case took place in 1983, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Bannon, who the committee believes has information about efforts to block the certification of the 2020 presidential election, is being targeted by the Democrat-dominated panel because of politics, Corcoran said.

“Politics is the lifeblood of the U.S. House of Representatives,” he told the jury. “They stand for reelection every two years.”

Members “are perpetual candidates for Congress and politics pervades everything they do,” he added later.

Bannon faces up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $2,000 if convicted.

Corcoran noted that the vote in Congress to hold Bannon in contempt was close, and told jurors to think about the political aspect when weighing evidence.

“Ask yourself: Is this piece of evidence affected by politics?” he said.

1st Witness

Following the opening arguments, Jan. 6 committee chief lawyer Kristin Amerling took the stand.

Amerling, the first witness, said that the committee’s authority ends when the next Congress is seated in January 2023, making it important for people who are asked to provide information to comply with deadlines.

In the view of committee members and staff, Bannon played multiple roles related to the events on Jan. 6, including his attempts to persuade the public that the election wasn’t legitimate, Amerling said.

“Trump won,” Bannon told reporters outside the courthouse. “[resident] Joe Biden is illegitimate.”

The subpoena required him to provide documents by Oct. 7, 2021, and to appear before the committee a week later, and he did neither, Amerling testified.

Bannon told reporters that Thompson “didn’t have the guts to show up here and he sent a staffer.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

While Dr. Anthony Fauci on Tuesday amended his Monday retirement announcement, Republicans who have criticized Fauci’s COVID-19 leadership were not changing their tune.

A Tuesday report from The Hill contradicted one from the day before concerning Fauci’s plans. Politico had reported that Fauci would retire by the end of resident Joe Biden’s term.

“I’m not going to retire. No, no, I’m not going to retire. I may step down from my current position at some time,” Fauci said. Fauci, 81, is currently the president’s chief medical adviser, as well as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

As Fauci told the story on Tuesday, he had been asked if he would keep working if former President Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election.

“I said a very innocent but true thing. I said whether it’s Donald Trump or it’s Joe Biden’s second term, I don’t intend to be in my current position in January of 2025,” Fauci said.

“What happens between now and then I have not decided, but the one thing I do know is that I have other things that I want to do in a professional way that I want to have the capability — while I still have the energy and the passion to do them,” he said.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has sparred with Fauci in Senate hearings, welcomed the change.

“Excellent – because I look forward to ascertaining Fauci’s involvement in the cover-up of the lab origins of COVID — Under Oath!” he tweeted.

Excellent – because I look forward to ascertaining Fauci’s involvement in the cover-up of the lab origins of COVID — Under Oath! https://t.co/LHmpE8QuWs

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) July 19, 2022

Other Republicans reacted to the possibility of Fauci stepping down by saying that the career bureaucrat does not deserve to happily slip off into the golden years of retirement.

“Whether Fauci retires or not, he still must be investigated and held responsible for his role in Covid-19,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia tweeted.

“Fauci thinks he’s just going to retire and move on with his life. Not on my watch,” Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert said. “He belongs in jail.”

Whether Fauci retires or not, he still must be investigated and held responsible for his role in Covid-19.

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) July 18, 2022

Fauci Announces He Will Be Leaving His Job

Fauci thinks he’s just going to retire and move on with his life.

Not on my watch. He belongs in jail.

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) July 18, 2022

 In an Op-Ed for The Wall Street Journal, James Freeman linked Fauci’s fading popularity with that of Biden.

“One shuttered the country and the other campaigned as a shut-in. Two Beltway lifers who promoted the disastrous lockdown policies of the Covid era seem to be on their way out of Washington. And even left-leaning media folk seem ready to see them depart,” he wrote.

With less than two weeks remaining for Congress members in D.C. ahead of the August recess, Democrats are doing all they can to push their legislative agenda through.

Help Governor DeSantis Keep Florida Safe From Radical Leftists!

They may be hoping to ride the coattails of the gun bill resident Biden signed at the end of June, as they have lined up four hearings and one bill markup to completely take place by tonight.

Here is the hearing that has already taken place and what Democrats have scheduled for today in the hopes of disarming law-abiding Americans.

House Financial Services’ Tuesday Hearing: “Thoughts and Prayers Are Not Enough: How Mass Shootings Harm Communities, Local Economies, and Economic Growth”

Five witnesses appeared at Tuesday’s hearing, including the senior director of research at Everytown for Gun Safety. Another witnesses is a business and real estate professor at the University of Georgia who has stated in written testimony submitted to the committee that he is currently working on a paper studying the impact on real estate prices in areas where school shootings have occurred. For his research “a mass shooting is defined as a gun-related episode of violence with three or more victims (not necessarily fatalities), not including the shooter; it is an episode that does not involve gangs, drugs, or organized crime.” His research doesn’t focus on areas with high levels of gang activity, drug use and organized crime such as New York City and Chicago. (RELATED: Police: Hero Citizen Stopped July 4th Mass Shooting by Illegal Immigrants)

House Oversight and Reform’s Wednesday Hearing: “Examining the Practices and Profits of Gun Manufacturers”

House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) has sent letters to heads of three major gun manufacturers — Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.; Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. and Daniel Defense, LLC. Maloney has summoned them to appear at this week’s hearing meant to “examine the role of the firearms industry in the gun violence epidemic, including with respect to the sale and marketing of assault weapons and the broad civil immunity that has been granted to manufacturers.” (RELATED: Capitol Police Arrest 17 House Democrats at Supreme Court)

House Judiciary Committee’s Wednesday Markup: H.R. 2814, the “Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act”; H.R. 1808, the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021”

This hearing will focus on two bills, H.R. 2814 and H.R. 1808. H.R. 2814 was introduced by California Democrat Adam Schiff and aims to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, commonly known as the PLCAA. This was act was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005 and protects gun manufacturers from being sued by the families of gun violence victims. (RELATED: California Scheming to Deny Gun Permits to Residents Based on Ideological Views)

H.R. 1808 is the Assault Weapons Ban, which has been brought up in previous sessions of Congress but has never received serious consideration. I hope that during this hearing lawmakers will first be able to define what they consider to be an assault weapon before trying to ban something they can not even put a finger on.

Senate Judiciary’s Wednesday Hearing: Hearings to examine the Highland Park attack, focusing on protecting our communities from mass shootings

The purpose of this hearing is to gather more information about the shooting that took place in Highland Park, Illinois over Independence Day weekend. The shooting happened mere days after the gun bill Biden signed at the end of June — the bipartisan Safer Communities Act — became law. Instead of questioning why the biggest gun control package in over 20 years didn’t stop the shooting, lawmakers will no doubt try to pass further legislation that will again do nothing. (RELATED: Report: Highland Park Parade Shooting Suspect Confesses)

Joint Economic Committee’s Wednesday Hearings: “Hearings to examine the economic toll of gun violence, focusing on how our nation bears the costs.”

Democrats have called a slew of anti-gun advocacy witnesses to help push their radical agenda through Congress. Three of four witnesses are from liberal groups, with the only conservative witness presently listed for the hearing being Heritage Foundation legal fellow Amy Swearer.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

The State Department helped fund a film festival in September that featured movies depicting drag queens, incest, and pedophilia, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

Queer Lisboa, an international queer film festival held in Portugal, was given $10,000 as part of the Biden administration’s push to “support LGBTQ+ and Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility efforts” abroad, according to a State Department spokeswoman. The festival’s offerings included P.S. Burn This Letter Please, a documentary about drag culture in post-war New York City, Saint-Narcisse, a film about incestuous twins, and Minyan, a movie about a 17-year-old Jewish boy who leaves his parents to explore New York City’s gay scene and eventually has sex with an adult bartender.

The event was one of several bankrolled by taxpayers to promote LGBT acceptance abroad. In the last year, the State Department funded the “first gender and sexuality library in Lebanon,” provided diversity and inclusion consulting to Latin American police forces, and hosted a transgender recognition webinar in Norway, according to an interagency report. The department said locals sometimes pushed back against LGBT promotion, perceiving it as “Western,” “imported,” or “against cultural or religious values.”

The festival also screened a biopic of Harvey Milk, the United States’ first openly gay elected official. Milk, a city official in San Francisco during the 1950s, once dated a 16-year-old boy while Milk was in his 30s. He also tried to get another teenage boy to run away from home to live with him, according to a biography of the politician.

Top officials at the U.S. Embassy in Portugal launched the event as part of the State Department’s effort to implement resident Joe Biden’s “Memorandum on Advancing the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons Around the World.” The head of the embassy expressed gratitude and said she was “very happy” to support the festival as part of its diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

A spokeswoman for the State Department told the Free Beacon their grant also paid for high-profile director and Democratic donor Gus Van Sant to speak at the event and facilitated travel to the luxurious island chain on which it was held. In its initial communication, the department declined to provide a dollar amount for the festival grant.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Glenn Kessler’s bold claims lack context, evidence, credibility

The Washington Post‘s executive fact-checker on Monday made a number of bold assertions involving a fellow journalist. “Always great to hang out with the brilliant and talented @TaylorLorenz,” Glenn Kessler wrote on Twitter, the social networking platform, “a terrific addition to the @washingtonpost staff.” The tweet included a photo of the two journalists posing in pandemic-era face masks and casual business attire.

Kessler’s comments are worth unpacking with an aim toward enlightening readers who rely on our expertise. As the Post‘s chief arbiter of truth, Kessler has established himself as a cultural influencer who drives the conversation both within the Beltway and beyond. His words should be taken seriously as well as literally. Anyone who practices journalism, one of America’s most noble professions, carries a burden of great responsibility.

READ MORE: Fact Checking’s Final Frontier

The Washington Free Beacon will never stop holding members of the media to account. A rigorous standard is necessary to ensure they don’t abuse their power by peddling misinformation to vulnerable American consumers. When no one else has the courage to fact-check the fact-checker, we will. Please enjoy the following thoughtful analysis.

CLAIM #1: “Always great to hang out with … Taylor Lorenz.” 

VERDICT: Not credible. Because in the attached photo we are unable to see the expression on either journalist’s face, a more decisive assessment is not possible at this time. The evidence we do have suggests Kessler is exaggerating at best. Lorenz is obsessed with the internet. She has a history of lying about her age and partying with teens. As several of her colleagues have observed, she says a lot of “cringey” things like “I’m the most online reporter that you can find” and “Younger people recognize the power of having their own brand.” She wears a brand-name N95 mask and keeps the thermostat at 87 degrees. She might be a lizard person. Those aren’t traits one typically associates with a “great” hang.

CLAIM #2: “Brilliant and talented.” 

VERDICT: Insufficient evidence. When making such a bold assertion in a public forum one has a moral obligation to provide supporting evidence. Kessler neglected to do so in this case, which suggests he knows the statement to be false. That’s not necessarily a crime; he wasn’t under oath. Nevertheless, given his role as a professional fact-checker it seems reasonable to assume a nefarious motive. Misinformation is the single greatest threat to our democracy. In this case, Kessler has misrepresented his personal opinion as a statement of objective fact. That’s dangerous. Even if it were technically true—which it’s not—the fact-checker’s words might be seized upon by Facebook grannies and other social media users to promote their political agenda.

CLAIM #3: “A terrific addition to the Washington Post.” 

VERDICT: Missing crucial context. This is another example of Kessler peddling misinformation by exploiting the American’s public inability to distinguish true fact from subjective opinion. He neglected to explain the metrics by which he has assessed Lorenz to be a “terrific addition” to the Post, and declined to consider the dissenting views of other journalists who despise her self-promotional approach to brand-focused influencing.

New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, for example, did not appreciate Lorenz publicly dissing the Times for failing to allow “influencer journalists” to build their brands. “Is there something going on in the world other than the desire of some folks to get more attention?” Haberman wrote in early March, referring to Russia’s recently launched invasion of Ukraine. Lorenz, who worked at the Times before joining the Post earlier this year, reportedly called Haberman a “bitch” for questioning her obsessive coverage of a 15-year-old’s social media posts.

FINAL RATING: 3½ CLINTONS

Source: The Washington Free Beacon

George Soros boosted District Attorney Alvin Bragg in his campaign for office

Facing criticism from across the political spectrum, a Manhattan district attorney boosted in his campaign for office by George Soros, has moved to drop murder charges against a bodega worker caught on camera defending himself from a violent assault.

The office of District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D.) filed a motion to drop the second-degree murder case against Jose Alba, a middle-aged employee who used a knife to subdue an assailant assaulting him at work, according to the New York Post. The Manhattan prosecutor’s office said it could not prove Alba had been unjustified in his use of deadly force after his more physically imposing attacker lunged behind the counter, threw him against a wall, and grabbed him by the collar, the motion states. Bragg had initially set Alba’s bond at $250,000, an unprecedented move for an office that has largely abandoned cash bail. New York City mayor Eric Adams had opposed the charges, saying Alba acted in self-defense and was “following the law.”

The motion is one of the only times Bragg has reversed course under pressure. In June, the mother of a murdered Army veteran castigated a Bragg attorney in court to no avail after the prosecutor sentenced her son’s killer to just seven years in prison. Bragg has evaded accountability for many other assault cases, even amid public outcry. His office has not issued further charges in the case, though the assailant’s girlfriend had pulled a knife from her purse and stabbed Alba, according to the bodega worker’s attorney.

Soros in 2021 donated more than $1 million to Bragg’s campaign, helping to elect the Harlem native as part of a decade-long push to install liberal prosecutors across the country. The progressive megadonor has spent more than $40 million to place dozens of left-wing prosecutors in half of America’s largest jurisdictions, a June Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund report found, ousting many career prosecutors in the process. In cities and municipalities nationwide, the prosecutors have radically overhauled bail laws and pursued lightened sentencing.

Bragg handily won his November election by 67 percentage points, promising to reduce incarceration. He told prosecutors in a memo shortly after taking office to avoid prison sentences for most felony cases except under “extraordinary circumstances.”

In the past three years, homicide has shot up 52 percent in New York City, according to the latest NYPD crime data. Shootings are up more than 100 percent, and car theft is up 91 percent. The city in 2021 recorded nearly 500 homicides—the most it’s seen in a decade.

Update 3:13 p.m.: This piece has been update with additional information.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

New York governor Kathy Hochul’s administration funneled more than $600 million in no-bid COVID-19 contracts to a megadonor family that has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democrat’s campaign.

From December 2021 to March 2022, Hochul’s Department of Health paid $637 million in taxpayer funds to Digital Gadgets LLC for at-home COVID tests, the Albany Times Union reported. That company—which is based in New Jersey and sells hoverboards and other electronics through television shopping network QVC—is led by Charlie Tebele, whose family has contributed nearly $300,000 to Hochul’s campaign. The purchases were made under Hochul’s November coronavirus state-of-emergency order, which suspended the state’s competitive bidding process for COVID-related spending.

The ordeal marks the latest example of how Democratic governors have used the pandemic to award their political allies. In April of 2020, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer (D.) awarded a contract for the state’s contact-tracing operation to a Democratic consultant who then retained one of Whitmer’s own campaign vendors, liberal data behemoth NGP VAN, to work on the project. After the Washington Free Beacon exposed that deal, Whitmer rescinded the contract and said her office had no role in awarding it. Internal emails, however, later showed that Whitmer’s office gave the “green light” to move forward with the plan.

Hochul is not the only New York Democrat to award a COVID contract to Digital Gadgets after taking campaign cash from the owner’s family. In the spring of 2020, then-New York City mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration awarded $119 million in no-bid coronavirus contracts to the company shortly after the Tebele family gave the Democrat’s presidential campaign roughly $30,000. Digital Gadgets, however, failed to provide the 2,000 ventilators and 200,000 “breathing kits” it promised to the city, causing the de Blasio administration to cancel a $91 million contract that was part of its deal with the megadonor family’s company.

Hochul took office in August 2021 after disgraced Democrat Andrew Cuomo resigned in the wake of sexual misconduct allegations. Hochul has leveraged her relationships with deep-pocketed megadonors such as the Tebeles to raise a record-breaking $34 million since becoming governor. She emerged from New York’s gubernatorial primary in June and will face Republican challenger Lee Zeldin in November.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Vice President Kamala Harris compared restrictions on abortion to America’s history of chattel slavery during a speech on Monday at the NAACP’s national convention.

“We know, NAACP, that our country has a history of claiming ownership over human bodies,” Harris said after criticizing the Supreme Court’s June ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. “And today, extremist so-called leaders are criminalizing doctors and punishing women for making health care decisions for themselves.”

Harris’s remarks were met with faint applause. 

The vice president’s speech aligns with the rhetoric of both left-wing activists and media outlets. MSNBC has alleged a connection between pro-life policies and slavery, and the ACLU wants to legalize abortion up to birth in order to “end forced pregnancy.” Harris’s tenure as vice president has been marred by awkward gaffes and poorly worded statements.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stood by Harris’s comments during a press conference on Monday.

“She is correct,” Jean-Pierre said. “Today’s decisions are criminalizing doctors and essentially taking the rights away from women, taking the freedom away from women. Really taking away people’s privacy.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

San Francisco Public Schools released data last month painting a bleak picture of academic achievement in the famously liberal city.

For the 2021-2022 school year, just 47 percent of eighth graders were deemed ready for high school. Twenty-eight percent of students in the San Francisco Unified School District are “chronically absent”—a proportion that has doubled since the 2019-2020 school year. Two-thirds of African-American students fall into that category.

Despite the declining academic performance, San Francisco city officials have debated whether or not to rename schools or remove murals dedicated to important figures in American history. Three progressive members of the San Francisco school board were recalled earlier this year after parents opposed the district’s focus on social justice issues over education.

In English Language Arts, 42 percent of students in the district scored below proficient, with 72 percent of African Americans and 66 percent of “Latinx” at reading levels deemed unsatisfactory for their grade levels.

San Francisco schools in 2021 refused to disclose the percentage of students ready for college or a career after graduation. The district has yet to release data on the percentage of students on track to graduate and is withholding its 2022 report until the following year, according to the performance analysis report released in June.

Only Asian students in San Francisco are more likely than not to be prepared for high school. The proportion of students prepared has dropped 13 percent since 2021.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Parents think school boards are ‘not putting students first,’ says candidate

More than two years after San Diego first instituted a COVID-19 mask mandate, city schools are reinstating masks for students. Any child who doesn’t want to wear a mask, board president Sharon Whitehurst-Payne told KUSI News, won’t be allowed back in school.

“They can opt not to return to the regular school, but to go to the school … via Zoom,” Whitehurst-Payne told the local news station, adding that students “really should wear the mask.”

The board has already ordered the nearly 25,000 students in San Diego’s summer school program to mask up. Whitehurst-Payne said students in the program uncomfortable with wearing masks should “just not return.”

Remote learning during the pandemic has severely harmed children’s education, a Harvard study found. K-12 students who attended school remotely lost 40 percent of their typical math curriculum learning. Almost half of all parents, including around 70 percent of Republicans and around 50 percent of independents, say masking hurts their children’s education. Clinical trials, meanwhile, have shown that masks have little effect on the spread of COVID-19.

The announcement comes only a few months after San Diego schools in April lifted their original mask mandate. Whitehurst-Payne attributed the new mandate to “high” levels of COVID-19 transmission, according to the CDC. The district will revisit the policy in two weeks.

The San Diego Unified School District is not alone in ushering in a third year of COVID-19 protocols. Public schools in other Democratic-run cities such as Washington, D.C., New York City, and Chicago are forcing unvaccinated students to quarantine at home after COVID-19 exposures, even if they test negative. The CDC in May said “a third of the U.S. population” should wear masks indoors.

San Diego’s mask mandate “exemplifies why many parents are stepping up to run,” Carlsbad school board candidate Sharon McKeeman told ABC 10 News. “They feel that school boards have not listened to families’ concerns during the pandemic and … [are] not putting students first.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Federal authorities are investigating claims that former attorney general Eric Holder’s wife, an obstetrician, violated health privacy laws by misusing her former patients’ records to help promote her new menopause relief business.

The Department of Health and Human Services’s Office for Civil Rights opened the investigation in June into the alleged breach, which may have impacted up to 27,000 patients at Dr. Sharon Malone’s former medical practice, Foxhall Associates, according to HHS records reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

Foxhall, which is conducting its own investigation and alerted HHS to the breach last month, claims Malone retained a list of its patients’ names, contacts, and insurance information after leaving the practice in December 2020.

Malone’s legal troubles come as her husband, who led the Department of Justice for six years and is now one of the Democratic Party’s most prominent activist attorneys, has denounced the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as “an attack on women and on every citizen’s right to privacy” and called for Democrats to pack the court with left-leaning judges.

Malone allegedly turned over the records to her new employer, Alloy, a telehealth start-up that she helped launch in 2021, which used the information to send out marketing emails.

Now the case is pitting Foxhall, a high-end women’s health practice with an elite clientele in Washington, D.C., against Malone and Alloy, a buzzy, menopause prescription start-up founded by a former editor in chief of Marie Claire with $3.3 million in seed funding last year.

Alloy’s CEO has insisted that Malone retained the records legitimately from Foxhall—a claim that the medical practice’s lawyer vehemently denied to the Free Beacon.

Health privacy experts told the Free Beacon that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, also known as HIPAA, prohibits marketing to patients without their consent—and Malone could face steep financial penalties if the HHS investigation leads to charges.

“It’s hard to see how they can wriggle out of being charged with a HIPAA violation,” said Abner Weintraub, a longtime HIPAA compliance consultant. “Consent is required from a patient.”

“Unless the doctor who took the records had a good excuse, and it would have to be a damn good one in this situation … [they could face] significant fines and penalties,” added Weintraub, noting that the fines could reach six figures and open the door to additional civil litigation by patients.

HHS did not respond to a request for comment.

The Free Beacon previously reported on Foxhall’s reputation for exclusivity. The office, which told the Free Beacon in 2014 that it didn’t accept Medicaid because it didn’t have the “demographics for it,” has been accused of reserving morning appointments for “important people,” such as former Free Beacon reporter-turned-Trump-spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington.

In December 2020, Malone left Foxhall Medicine, where she had been a physician and co-owner. But she kept a list of patients, including names, phone numbers, email addresses, and medical insurance providers without the firm’s knowledge, according to a newspaper legal notice that Foxhall published as part of a federal requirement on June 27.

Malone went on to join Alloy as its chief medical officer ahead of its 2021 launch. She “turned the list over to [Alloy], who then sent out emails to a portion of the Foxhall patients on the list,” according to the legal notice. Foxhall said it discovered the breach after receiving complaints from patients.

But Alloy denied that Malone obtained the Foxhall records improperly.

Alloy co-CEO Monica Molenaar told the husband of one angry patient, who had emailed the company to complain, that “Dr. Malone did not steal any patient information. She was given a list of emails by the practice coordinator of what she was told were her patients so that we could give them an update,” according to a copy of the July 14 email obtained by the Free Beacon.

“A small portion of that list received an email from us and that is it. No other information was given, taken or used,” added Molenaar.

But a lawyer for Foxhall told the Free Beacon that it “never provided any patient information to Alloy” and “never provided any patient information to Dr. Malone after Dr. Malone left the practice.”

“Dr. Malone, to our understanding, based on the investigation that we have conducted, retained patient information after she left the practice,” said attorney Christopher Ezold.

Alloy’s founder, Anne Fulenwider, the former editor in chief of Marie Claire, told the Free Beacon that she was “totally happy to talk about this with you” when reached by phone last week. But she said she was running into a meeting and unable to discuss at the moment. She did not respond to follow-up requests for comment.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The Ron Paul Institute featured at its conference last month a former United Nations weapons inspector who spent time in jail on child sex charges.

During the June 4 conference, Scott Ritter, a longtime critic of U.S. foreign policy, blasted the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine against Russia’s military invasion in a speech titled “Two-Front War: Biden’s Mouth is Writing Checks the U.S. Military Can’t Cash.”

The former U.N. weapons inspector, who has been arrested at least twice for attempting to solicit underage girls, was convicted of and served jail time for exposing himself online in 2009 to a police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl. A similar 2001 charge was reportedly dropped after he participated in a pre-trial probation program.

The isolationist think tank’s decision to host a speech by Ritter comes after another non-interventionist group, the Quincy Institute, removed an article written by Ritter from its website following an outcry from social media posters who noted that he was a convicted sex offender.

The Ron Paul Institute, which has been promoting Ritter’s speech on its website and social media, did not respond to a request for comment about its choice to feature a convicted child predator to tee off against the bipartisan effort to aid the embattled Ukrainian government.

It’s not the first time the institute and its namesake founder, former congressman Ron Paul, have partnered with controversial figures as part of a larger effort to promote isolationist policies that help America’s foreign adversaries.

Several of the group’s founding leaders have long-held ties to pro-Kremlin organizations, including a public relations shop created to shore up Vladimir Putin’s image. Paul also claimed the U.S. government had foreknowledge about the Sept. 11 attacks and intentionally let Osama bin Laden remain at large for years to justify foreign wars.

The former congressman also spoke at a conference hosted by a Holocaust denier whose group accused “Zionist billionaires” of “financially raping” the Russian people.

Ritter, a contributor to the Kremlin-funded Russia Today, last year wrote an article for the Quincy Institute that downplayed Russian cyber attacks. The Quincy Institute removed the article after Twitter users raised concerns about Ritter’s sex offender record.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Congressional Republicans want to mandate that any immigrant who applies for a U.S. visa disclose ties they might have to Iran and its terror affiliates, according to legislation obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Those seeking entrance into the United States are not currently asked on immigration forms if they have ties to the hardline Iranian government and its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the country’s paramilitary fighting force responsible for orchestrating terror attacks on Americans.

The bill, led by Rep. Jim Banks (R., Ind.) and a coalition of 14 lawmakers affiliated with the House Republican Study Committee (RSC), comes on the heels of a Free Beacon report detailing the Biden administration’s decision to loosen immigration laws so that individuals with known ties to designated terror groups can more easily enter the country. The amended law permits foreigners who provided “insignificant material support” to designated terror groups to receive “immigration benefits or other status.”

“Opening the border to members of a hostile terrorist army violates the Biden administration’s constitutional obligation to protect states from invasion,” Banks said. “Unfortunately, House Democrats have prioritized appeasing Iran above all else.”

Banks and his colleagues say the administration is opening “the floodgate for supporters of IRGC terrorism to enter the United States,” according to an RSC-authored memo circulating among Republican offices on Capitol Hill and obtained by the Free Beacon.

The Republican legislation, called the “Protecting America from IRGC Terrorists Act,” seeks to close these loopholes by mandating that every foreigner applying for a U.S. visa or citizenship disclose any ties to Iran and the IRGC on relevant immigration forms. The Republican coalition says the legislation is particularly important as Iran and its terror proxies actively plot to assassinate current and former U.S. government officials.

“I am shocked that disclosing Iranian and IRGC affiliations was not already a requirement for U.S. visa applications,” Rep. Lisa McClain (R., Mich.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee and one of 15 Republican cosponsors of the bill, told the Free Beacon. “Iran has shown us time and time again that they are no friend of the United States.”

The legislation, which is likely to garner widespread Republican support but stall in the Democrat-controlled House, would force the State and Homeland Security Departments to “ask about an alien’s affiliation with the Iranian state and the IRGC on visa, permanent residency, and naturalization application forms,” according to a full copy of the bill.

“By requiring these carefully crafted questions in our immigration vetting process, the bill aims to strengthen immigration accountability and transparency and provide more data for the Department of State and Department of Homeland Security to better evaluate potential US national security threats,” the RSC wrote in its internal policy brief on the legislation.

The Biden administration made several changes to federal immigration laws late last month that allow individuals who provided “humanitarian assistance” or “routine commercial transactions” to designated terror groups to obtain residence in the United States.

A State Department spokesman told the Free Beacon at the time that the changes were made to facilitate the immigration of vulnerable Afghans who may have been forced to work alongside terror groups operating in the country.

Former U.S. officials and experts, however, pointed out that the policies do not mention Afghanistan and apply specifically to designated terror groups. The Taliban, for instance, is not designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The broad nature of the changes drew accusations that the special immigration benefits could apply to IRGC members—though the State Department disputes that charge.

The changes “are an effort to address issues related to Afghanistan,” a State Department spokesman told the Free Beacon in July, when the policy change was first announced. “The circumstances between Afghanistan and Iran are very different.”

Republican House lawmakers, led by Banks, launched a formal probe into the policy change earlier this month, as the Free Beacon first reported.

The order was “released just weeks before negotiations with Iran over restoring the nuclear deal recommenced,” Banks and three of his colleagues wrote in a letter to the White House demanding in-depth information about its justification for amending immigration law. “Your administration may be trying to entice Iran back to the nuclear deal by using broad executive authorities to weaken the penalties connected to the [foreign terrorist organization] designation without requiring the IRGC and other Iran-supported terrorist organizations to verifiably cease their terrorist activities.”

Rep. Mike Waltz (R., Fla.), a cosponsor of the bill and member of the Armed Services Committee, said the legislation “will help ensure these terrorist supporters are barred from our homeland.”

“Over the last two decades, the IRGC is responsible for the killing of over 600 U.S. servicemembers and continue to threaten U.S. public officials who dared challenge their terrorism,” Waltz said. “Allowing any individuals into our country who may have assisted these terrorists would be a direct national security threat to our citizens.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.) says he wants to stop lawmakers from exploiting their office for personal gain. But his investment in an aerospace company awarded a lucrative Pentagon contract is the kind of conflict of interest he’s claimed to oppose.

Kelly owns as much as $250,000 in non-public stock in Boom Technology, according to his most recent financial disclosure. The former astronaut served on Boom’s board of advisers until 2019 and had up to $50,000 in stock options in the company that expired in February. In January, Boom Technology announced a strategic partnership with the Air Force worth up to $60 million, one of the military branch’s “largest investments” into research of supersonic aviation. The three-year partnership marked a “substantial increase” over an Air Force contract with Boom Technology from 2020, before Kelly entered the Senate.

Kelly’s stake in Boom poses a potential conflict of interest because of his position on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which oversees the Pentagon’s budget. He is also on the Airland Subcommittee, which has oversight of the Air Force’s research budget. Kelly has introduced multiple bills to prohibit members of Congress from profiting off their office, including bans on lawmakers from trading stocks and receiving campaign contributions from corporate PACs. Kelly, who has said he wants to “root out corruption and increase transparency in Washington,” exercised stock options in Boom Technology in April 2021.

Kelly placed his assets in a blind trust in July 2021 to ensure “transparency and accountability.” He has since proposed legislation to require all members of Congress to do the same. But other lawmakers have cast doubt on the practicality of blind trusts to curb conflicts of interests. “You know what you put in, so it’s not really blind,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D., Calif.).

Asked for comment, Kelly’s office denied his investments pose a conflict of interest, saying that senators and congressional committees do not award contracts to individual companies. But Boom Technology lobbies the Senate on defense appropriations and noise pollution, the main hurdle to commercially viable supersonic flight. The federal government banned supersonic commercial flight in the 1970s because of the “sonic boom” airplanes emit when flying faster than the speed of sound. Boom Technology and its competitors claim they can drastically reduce the noise pollution in their airplanes.

As a Boom adviser, Kelly helped the company land one of its earliest commercial wins. According to Boom CEO Blake Scholl, Kelly arranged a key meeting between the company and his friend, Virgin Galactic founder Richard Branson. The billionaire later pledged to buy 10 of Boom’s supersonic planes. Emerson Collective, the investment firm founded by Apple heiress Laurene Powell Jobs, is also a major investor in Boom. The Apple heiress gave maximum campaign contributions to Kelly in 2019 and 2021.

Boom has touted its technology for potential use by the American military, but the company has also worked with Chinese companies to “bring supersonic flight to China,” the Washington Free Beacon has reported.

Kelly has faced scrutiny before over his business dealings. He cofounded a space tourism company, World View Enterprises, that partnered with Tencent, a Chinese technology behemoth that helps Beijing censor the Internet.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Almost 60 percent of Americans believe that the Chinese-owned short video app TikTok should be removed from app stores after revelations that American user data has been repeatedly accessed in China, according to a new poll.

In a survey conducted by the Convention of States Action and Trafalgar Group, 58.6 percent of respondents said they supported “efforts to remove TikTok from app stores now that the company has revealed American’s user data can be accessed by TikTok employees in China.”

Meanwhile, 17.8 percent of respondents were opposed to such action, and 23.6 percent said they were not sure. The poll was conducted from July 7 to July 10, surveying more than 1,000 likely 2022 election voters with a margin of error of 2.9 percent.

The results came less than a month after leaked recordings of internal company meetings obtained by Buzzfeed News allegedly showed that from least September 2021 to January, engineers in China had access to the app’s U.S. data.

TikTok employees at times had to turn to their colleagues in China to determine how U.S. data was flowing, which the U.S. staff weren’t authorized to independently access, according to the report.

The July survey showed that Independents (56.9 percent) and Republicans (76.8 percent) were more likely to support measures to remove TikTok, while 39.2 percent of Democrats agreed with this proposal.

The recent revelations have renewed scrutiny on the app, owned by Beijing-based ByteDance, that officials and experts say may be used by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for espionage and to conduct information operations. They cite national security laws in the country that compel companies to cooperate with Chinese intelligence agencies when asked.

TikTok has repeatedly denied such allegations, saying that it stores U.S. user data on servers outside of China and that it would never allow Beijing to access such information.

“TikTok is just another invasive tool for communist China to infiltrate Americans’ personal and proprietary information,” Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) previously told The Epoch Times.

“This app presents a very real threat to our national security, and the United States should take strong action to stop the CCP’s espionage campaign.”

The Trump administration had sought to ban the social media app, citing data security risks. But resident Joe Biden later reversed the measure, and instead ordered the Commerce Department to evaluate the platform to determine whether it poses a national security risk.

In addition to U.S. user data being accessed by Beijing to conduct espionage operations, TikTok may also be used to shape Americans’ perceptions to be favorable to the Chinese regime, according to Mark Meckler, former interim CEO of social media platform Parler and president of the Convention of States Action, the advocacy group that commissioned the survey.

Meckler described TikTok as one part of the communist regime’s long-running “digital warfare against the United States.” He pointed to the Chinese military’s concept of “total war” that seeks to leverage an array of methods and arenas outside of traditional warfighting domains, such as media and culture, to overcome the enemy.

“This is just one more slice in that pie giving the Chinese Communist Party an opportunity to do damage to the United States by affecting the culture of young people,” Meckler said.

The Epoch Times has reached out to TikTok for comment.

Eva Fu contributed to this report. 

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A new study published this month revealed that COVID-19 mask mandates in schools have little to no effect.

“Our findings contribute to a growing body of literature which suggests school-based mask mandates have limited to no impact on the case rates of COVID-19 among K-12 students,” researchers at the University of Southern California and the University of California–Davis said in a preprint study published on Research Square.

Researchers evaluated two school districts in Fargo, North Dakota, in which one had a mask mandate and the other did not during the 2021–2022 academic year.

“We observed no significant difference between student case rates while the districts had differing masking policies nor while they had the same mask policies,” they noted, adding that the “impact of school-based mask mandates on COVID-19 transmission in children is not fully established” amid mandates nationwide.

A number of other studies have found no link between mask mandates and a drop in COVID-19 cases.

In one study published in May, researchers found that COVID-19 mask and vaccine rules implemented by Cornell University had limited impact against the transmission of Omicron in late 2021 and 2022.

“Cornell’s experience shows that traditional public health interventions were not a match for Omicron. While vaccination protected against severe illness, it was not sufficient to prevent rapid spread, even when combined with other public health measures including widespread surveillance testing,” the paper said.

And researchers in Spain found that mask mandates for children in Spain weren’t linked to a lower rate of COVID-19 cases or transmission.

In an evaluation of schoolchildren, kids aged 6 and older in Catalonia were required to wear masks once school reopened during the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers said.

Researchers compared the incidence of COVID-19 in older children to younger children to try to determine whether the mandates had been effective in the aim of reducing transmission of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19, in schools.

Their study identified a much lower case rate in preschool, where there were no mandates when compared to older groups who were required to wear masks. Five-year-olds, for instance, had an incidence of 3.1 percent, while 6-year-olds had an incidence of 3.5 percent.

Researchers in Toronto, Canada, and California replicated a 2021 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of counties in Arizona, published in The Lancet in May, that expanded the number of data points and extended the time period. They discovered that cases quickly declined in the weeks after the CDC cut off its study and decreased more quickly in the counties that didn’t have mask mandates.

“School districts that choose to mandate masks are likely to be systematically different from those that do not in multiple, often unobserved, ways. We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval,” the researchers said.

“It was known long before COVID-19 that face masks don’t do anything,” Former Pfizer VP Michael Yeadon, a toxicologist and allergy research specialist, told The Epoch Times in May.  “Many don’t know that blue medical masks aren’t filters. Your inspired and expired air moves in and out between the mask [and] your face. They are splashguards, that’s all.”

Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Authorities revealed that the 22-year-old Indiana man who stopped a mass shooting at an Indiana mall over the weekend is Elisjsha Dicken.

The suspect was identified as Jonathan Sapirman, 20, who was killed by Dicken. Sapirman killed three people, identified by local officals as Pedro Pineda, 56; Rosa Mirian Rivera de Pineda, 37; and Victor Gomez, 30.

What Happened in the Incident

Dicken was accompanying his girlfriend at the Greenwood Park Mall, located 15 miles south of Indianapolis, when a shooter opened fire after emerging from the mall bathroom, Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison said.

“I will say his actions were nothing short of heroic,” Ison said of Dicken.

Dicken then “engaged the [shooter] from quite a distance with a handgun, was very proficient in that, very tactically sound, and as he moved to close in on the suspect he was also motioning for people to exit behind him,” Ison explained during a news conference.

Authorities in the news conference said Sapirman’s motive is unknown. Before he opened fire, Sapirman spent more than one hour in the mall bathroom, Ison said.

He had purchased three weapons and brought them to the mall, Ison said, but he only used a Sig Sauer M400 rifle.

Legal Implications

Indiana attorney Guy Relford, who is representing Dicken, said that his client followed the law.

Relford issued a statement saying he’s “a true American hero who saved countless lives during a horrific event that could have been so much worse if not for Eli’s courage, preparedness and willingness to protect others.”

“Because we want to respect the on-going criminal investigation by the Greenwood Police Department and take time to honor the three innocent lives lost, we won’t be making any substantive comments on Sunday’s events until after the authorities’ investigation is closed,” Dicken’s lawyer added.

As of July 1 in Indiana, state law no longer required individuals to have a permit to carry a firearm. Officials said Dicken was armed with a 9mm handgun.

Dicken was not technically allowed to carry a gun inside the mall as the Greenwood Park Mall’s website says it has a no-gun policy.

However, the rule “certainly has no effect whatsoever on his ability to use force to defend himself or to defend the other people in the mall,” Relford told the Indianapolis Star. He said that if Dicken carried the firearm into the mall and was told to leave and he doesn’t, he could be charged with trespassing.

Dicken was praised by local officials for his actions.

“I’m grateful a good guy with a gun was there to prevent further casualties and am praying for the families who lost loved ones in this senseless tragedy,” Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) wrote on Twitter Sunday night.

“Our city, our community and our state is grateful for his heroism in this situation,” Greenwood Mayor Mark Myers said. “He’s a young man processing a lot. I ask that you give him space and time to be able to process what he’s gone through last night.”

“I am 100 percent certain many, many more people would’ve died last night if it was not for his heroism,” Ison told ABC News. “The young man had his wits about him, acted very quickly.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill to codify same-sex marriage into law.

The Democrat-controlled lower house passed the Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404), a bill that codifies same-sex marriage into U.S. law, with a bipartisan 267–157 vote; 47 House Republicans backed the bill. The bill now heads to the Senate, where 10 Republican votes are needed to overcome the filibuster threshold.

“Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law,” reads the bill’s summary on Congress’s website.

“The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin,” the bill’s summary continued.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced the bill on July 18.

The passage of the bill came a month after the Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (pdf), a decision that overturned the 1981 landmark abortion decision, Roe v. Wade. The highest court opined in Dobbs that decisions affected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment should be “reconsidered.”

In his concurring opinion to Dobbs’s majority ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas said that “‘substantive due process’ is an oxymoron that lack[s] any basis in the Constitution” and that “the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights.”

For this reason, Thomas said that “in future cases, [the justices] should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” and that “because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

Nadler takes the position that same-sex marriage is a “fundamental right” that was targeted by the Supreme Court.

“Three weeks ago, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court not only repealed Roe v. Wade and walked back 50 years of precedent, it signaled that other rights, like the right to same-sex marriage, are next on the chopping block,” said Nadler in a July 18 press release.

“As this Court may take aim at other fundamental rights, we cannot sit idly by as the hard-earned gains of the Equality movement are systematically eroded. If Justice Thomas’s concurrence teaches anything it’s that we cannot let your guard down or the rights and freedoms that we have come to cherish will vanish into a cloud of radical ideology and dubious legal reasoning,” Nadler continued.

Over the last weekend, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) publicly reaffirmed his stance that policies on issues such as gay marriage and abortion should be left to state legislatures to shape. 

Cruz previously voiced opposition to Obergefell v. Hodges (pdf), the 2015 Supreme Court decision in which the 5–4 majority ruled that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantee the fundamental right to marry to same-sex couples.

“Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation’s history,” Cruz told podcast Verdict+. “In Obergefell, the court said, ‘no, we know better than you guys do,’ and now every state must sanction and permit gay marriage. I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided. It was the court overreaching.”

“And had the court not rolled Obergefell, the democratic process would continue to operate: that if you believe that gay marriage was a good idea, the way the Constitution is set up for you to advance that position is to convince your fellow citizens. And if you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws to reflect those views,” the senator added.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Border apprehensions recently topped 1.7 million, with three months of the fiscal year remaining. At the same time, the Biden administration has broken a long-standing policy of publicly releasing the number of illegal immigrants who die while crossing into the United States, or soon after.

The Rio Grande Valley in Texas and the Tucson Sector in Arizona have traditionally been the most deadly border sectors, as the river and the summer heat claim the most lives, and smugglers leave injured and sick aliens to die.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published on its website the number of migrant deaths along the southern border from fiscal 1998 to fiscal 2020, but stopped once the Biden administration took over the agency.

Over the course of three months, The Epoch Times made multiple requests to CBP for the missing data from fiscal years 2021 and 2022 to date. But CBP, to date, has declined to provide the information.

Previous CBP data show 247 illegal immigrants died near the border during fiscal 2020, while 300 died in fiscal 2019.

This June, according to unpublished CBP data obtained by The Epoch Times, 111 illegal immigrants died while crossing into the country, or soon after. An additional 53 died in a tractor-trailer unit outside San Antonio.

The highest number of deaths on CBP’s record was 492 people in fiscal year 2005. In the same year, Border Patrol apprehended about 1.2 million illegal immigrants.

The historical CBP data include a footnote indicating that the “data may be subject to change based on new discoveries of remains and possible dates of death as determined by a medical examiner.”

Not all migrant deaths are counted in the CBP data, as Border Patrol agents aren’t always involved in the discovery. Sheriff’s offices have their own tally of bodies discovered by ranchers, hunters, or others.

Brooks County in Texas accounts for many border-related deaths, and sheriff’s deputy Don White of Remote Wildlands Search and Recovery often finds the bodies. The illegal immigrants traveling through Brooks County have evaded law enforcement at the border and are walking on ranchland 70 miles farther north to skirt the Border Patrol checkpoint on Highway 281.

So far this year, White has recovered 64 bodies and is set to break last year’s record of 119 recovered from the brush and 11 from nonpursuit traffic situations. In comparison, 34 bodies were found in 2020.

“A video has surfaced of two men supporting a third man. The third is environmentally stressed, and is not doing well,” White posted on Facebook on June 19. “The two men supporting him are cleaning out his pockets, and putting his personal items in their pockets. Then they walk him off the trail and lay him in the brush. Cruel, if found, the young man will not have an ID.”

He shares another story of a woman who was “stressed and lost.” White searched for the woman at a GPS location she had sent to her parents, but she had moved.

“She sent a new GPS location to her husband in Amarillo. He didn’t want authorities to be involved, so he drove down to get her. She was where the GPS he had said she was. Deceased,” White posted on Facebook on June 12.

“If he would have thought of her life first and called it in, the outcome would have been different. Shaping up to be a savage summer.”

In Arizona’s remote desert areas, the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner (OME) works with nonprofit group Humane Borders to document illegal immigrant deaths.

So far this fiscal year, with three months remaining, the Tucson sector has recovered 128 bodies.

“Since January of 1990, over 3,600 undocumented migrants have died within the Pima County OME jurisdiction,” Humane Borders states on its website.

“And in any case, many remains will never be found or reported.”

The Pima County OME recorded the highest number of body recoveries (226) in fiscal year 2021, according to its annual report.

A Government Accountability Office report issued in April said CBP hasn’t “collected and recorded, or reported to Congress, complete data on migrant deaths or disclosed limitations with the data it has reported.”

The report evaluated the Missing Migrant Program implemented by Border Patrol in June 2017 “to help rescue migrants in distress and reduce migrant deaths along the southwest border.”

The program focuses on an area consisting of 45 counties on or near the nearly 2,000-mile international border with Mexico.

As of February this year, Border Patrol had placed 165 rescue beacons and more than 2,500 “911” placards along the southwest border, the report stated.

PUNTA GORDA, Fla.—The Florida Supreme Court agreed to impanel a statewide grand jury in response to a petition filed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in June to investigate immigration-related criminal offenses, including child endangerment.

“We were able to get the Florida Supreme Court to approve our request to impanel a statewide grand jury. … So, we’re gonna be doing really significant investigation about anybody, any organizations, particularly in Florida, who may be a part of facilitating some of the illegal migration that we see,” DeSantis said on July 19 in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times.

“And I think that that’s something that’s very, very significant.”

The petition outlined the governor’s ultimate goal of prosecuting parents for child endangerment as they utilize “transnational criminal organizations or other illicit actors to smuggle their unaccompanied alien children into the U.S., subjecting them to serious dangers.”

The petition states that in the first six months of fiscal 2021, 91 percent of the unaccompanied minors were released to a “sponsoring family member.” However, the petition goes on to state how treacherous a journey it is for the children who are often “assaulted, raped, kidnapped, and/or killed, especially young girls who are sexually exploited.” They’re often used to traffic drugs and weapons and launder money, the petition notes, and the terrain exposes the children to “harsh environmental conditions.”

The petition estimated the number of unaccompanied minor children who entered the United States and were placed with a sponsor in 2021 was 107,686, and so far in fiscal year 2022, that number is 61,143. More than 11,000 were brought to Florida in fiscal year 2021 and so far, almost 7,000 in fiscal year 2022.

“As a mother, protecting children is close to my heart,” Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody said in a statement. “We cannot turn a blind eye to traffickers and smugglers exploiting the border crisis to subject children to extremely dangerous conditions.”

The Florida Supreme Court that granted the petition issued an order to impanel a statewide grand jury for a period of 12 months to investigate crime, return indictments, and perform all functions of a grand jury with regard to offenses listed in section 905.34 of the Florida Statutes.

This decision provides examples of the offenses as “(a) parents, guardians, or other family members of unaccompanied alien children who have conspired with transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) or other illicit actors to smuggle, and thus endanger, their children;” and “(c) persons and organizations who are involved, directly or indirectly, in transacting with TCOs, their members, or other illicit actors to smuggle or traffic unaccompanied alien children or other illegal aliens to Florida.”

The Cornell Law School website describes a grand jury as an “investigative body, acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge. Criminal prosecutors present the case to the grand jury. The prosecutors attempt to establish probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been committed.”

The Department of Homeland Security reported during fiscal year 2020 that 4.3 percent of the 290,000 unaccompanied minor children who came here between fiscal 2014 and fiscal 2019 were returned to their home countries while 95.7 percent were still in the United States. A total of 28 percent of them were granted some kind of relief, while the rest will “live in the shadows of society with the fear of being deported,” according to the report.

“The easiest thing would be for the federal government to just adopt good policies here,” DeSantis said in his statement. “But I think we’ve seen over the last year and a half, that’s not something that they’re typically prone to do. So, we’re gonna continue to fight hard on all these fronts and make sure that we’re vindicating the best interest of the state of Florida.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

As House Democrats tout a renewed effort to expand the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), Senate Democrats remain divided on both the feasibility and value of the scheme.

The plan, contained in Rep. Hank Johnson’s (D-Ga.) Judiciary Act, would add four new seats to SCOTUS.

The renewed push to pack the bill comes in the wake of SCOTUS’ landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which it overturned the abortion standard put in place by Roe v. Wade in 1973. The 6–3 decision was supported by all of the court’s six conservative justices and opposed by the three liberals on the court.

Following that decision, SCOTUS’ conservative justices also struck down a New York State gun control law that it deemed unconstitutional, in addition to a decision that severely constricted the scope of carbon regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency.

This string of conservative decisions, particularly the decision in Dobbs, has left Democrats scrambling for solutions to weaken the power of the court’s conservatives.

During a July 18 press conference, several progressive Democrats in the House renewed calls to expand SCOTUS and add four new seats, a scheme that critics have long referred to as “court-packing.”

Democrats insisted that they were not packing the court, but that conservatives had already done so under President Donald Trump, likely a jab at then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) refusal to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected death. Later, McConnell also quickly moved forward with the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, even going so far as to change filibuster rules to ensure her confirmation in the GOP-controlled Senate.

“The nightmare scenario of GOP court-packing is already upon us,” said Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.). “That’s how they got this far-right 6–3 majority in the first place.”

Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) expanded on Mondaire’s claim, arguing that Republicans have for a long time emphasized judicial nominations to cement their control over the federal government.

Following the successful confirmation of three conservative justices under Trump, which left SCOTUS’ liberal branch substantially outnumbered, SCOTUS has “gone rogue” and “become a radical institution,” Takano claimed.

Johnson, who sponsored the Judiciary Act, said that the conservative majority has left “[the] Supreme Court at crisis with itself and with our democracy”; because of the majority, Johnson added, “basic freedoms are under assault.”

Though Johnson’s bill is not unprecedented—the Supreme Court has been expanded several times before—the last such expansion of the court, which raised the number of seats from seven to nine, came under President Andrew Jackson in 1837.

The move, which may be able to win the support needed to pass the House, is more contentious in the Senate.

Some lawmakers in the upper chamber, including Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), have called for the overturn of the filibuster to pass the Judiciary Act, which would have little chance of passing the evenly-divided Senate.

“We need to repeal the filibuster so that we can expand the Supreme Court to reclaim the two stolen seats on a now illegitimate court, which are stealing the rights of American people,” Markey, who appeared at House Democrats’ July 18 press conference,  said shortly after the overturning of Roe.

Similar calls have been echoed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who in the past has said that “the court’s 6–3 supermajority will continue to threaten basic liberties for decades to come.”

However, more vulnerable Senate Democrats facing tough reelection battles have suggested their opposition to the proposal.

“You’d have to talk about specific details, but I have not been in favor of expanding the size of the court,” said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), whose 2020 victory saw Arizona send two Democrats to the Senate for the first time in decades. Republican strategists generally consider Kelly’s seat to be among the most vulnerable in this year’s midterms.

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), similarly, has called for his party to focus on fighting back inflation for the time being.

“Right now, I’m focused on lowering costs for Georgians who are pushing their way back and want to see us cap the cost of insulin, which is a bill we need to get done,” Warnock said on July 12.

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), who in 2016 won her seat by a .16 percent margin, has also suggested that she opposes expanding the court.

Given moderate opposition to the House plan, it is highly unlikely that the effort will go anywhere. In the Senate, Democrats supporting the bill would need the support of at least 60 members to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold, or would need to sway moderates like Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) in favor of a filibuster carve-out.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Internal research shows Pfizer’s executives have been announcing the next stage in the fight against the pandemic before government officials can even study the issue, annoying experts and scientists, and leaving the public questioning whom they can trust. Who’s really in charge?

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• The COVID-19 pandemic has been a real boon to Pfizer. Not only has it doubled Pfizer’s annual revenue, it has also given the drugmaker unique weight in determining U.S. health policy — something that concerns even staunch vaccine-pushers like Dr. Paul Offit
• Pfizer’s revenue in 2021 was $81.3 billion — approximately double that of 2020 — and the COVID shot accounted for $36.78 billion of that
• Pfizer’s COVID jab dominates 70% of the U.S. and European markets, and Paxlovid, its COVID drug, has become a standard treatment choice in hospitals. This despite findings showing the shot doesn’t prevent infection or transmission, and that Paxlovid causes severe rebound and supercharges mutations
• The U.S. had thrown away 82.2 million expired COVID jab doses as of mid-May 2022, yet the Biden administration ordered another 105 million doses at the end of June 2022 for a fall booster campaign that will cost taxpayers $3.2 billion
• Pfizer’s contracts are almost exclusively slanted in Pfizer’s favor. They’re guaranteed payment while having no financial liability for injuries and deaths, and it appears this indemnification applies even if they were to be found guilty of fraud

According to Kaiser Health News (KHN),¹ the COVID-19 pandemic has been a real boon to Pfizer. Not only has it yielded “outsize benefits” in terms of profits, but it has also “given the drugmaker unusual weight in determining U.S. health policy.”

“Based on internal research, the company’s executives have frequently announced the next stage in the fight against the pandemic before government officials have had time to study the issue, annoying many experts in the medical field and leaving some patients unsure whom to trust,” KHN reporter Arthur Allen writes, adding:²

“When last year Bourla suggested that a booster shot would soon be needed, U.S. public health officials later followed, giving the impression that Pfizer was calling the tune.

Some public health experts and scientists worry these decisions were hasty, noting, for example, that although boosters with the mRNA shots produced by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech improve antibody protection initially, it generally doesn’t last.

Since January, Bourla has been saying that U.S. adults will probably all need annual booster shots, and senior FDA officials have indicated since April that they agree … The company’s power worries some vaccinologists, who see its growing influence in a realm of medical decision-making traditionally led by independent experts …

When resident Biden in September 2021 offered boosters to Americans — not long after [Pfizer CEO Albert] Bourla had recommended them — Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia … wondered, ‘Where’s the evidence you are at risk of serious disease when confronted with COVID if you are vaccinated and under 50?’

Policies on booster recommendations for different groups are complex and shifting, Offit said, but the CDC, rather than Bourla and Pfizer, should be making them. ‘We’re being pushed along,’ he said. ‘The pharmaceutical companies are acting like public health agencies.’”

The fact that a vaccine-pusher like Offit — infamous for claiming a baby can safely tolerate 10,000 vaccines at once³ — is questioning and pushing back against Pfizer’s influence over health policy reveals just how brazen, unethical and potentially dangerous that is.

Massive Profits Made From Useless Products

According to Allen, Pfizer’s revenue in 2021 was $81.3 billion⁴ — approximately double that of 2020 — and the COVID shot accounted for $36.78 billion⁵ of that. For comparison, Lipitor, Pfizer’s previous top selling statin, generates roughly $2 billion a year,⁶ while their strep vaccine, Prevnar 13 rakes in $6 billion a year.⁷

Its mRNA gene transfer injection against COVID now dominates 70% of the U.S. and European markets, and Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID drug, has become a standard treatment choice in hospitals. This, despite researchers finding Paxlovid (molnupiravir) causes severe rebound and supercharges mutations.

In a rational scenario, that finding would have put a stop to its use, but no. In an official health advisory⁸ to the public, issued May 24, 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first warns that Paxlovid is associated with “recurrence of COVID-19 or ‘COVID-19 rebound,’” and then in the very next sentence stresses in bold print a narrative supporting its use and enriching Pfizer with instructions saying:

“Paxlovid continues to be recommended for early- stage treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 among persons at high risk for progression to severe disease.”

Allen also notes that, during an investor call, a Pfizer official highlighted reports of Paxlovid’s failure, but spun it into “good news” for investors, as patients may require multiple courses!⁹ Obviously the objective has long ago shifted from helping humans to raping them for as much profit as possible.

Similarly, while Pfizer’s COVID jab clearly doesn’t prevent infection or spread, and Americans are rejecting the shots in growing numbers — 82.2 million doses had expired and were chucked in the trash as of mid-May 2022¹⁰ — the U.S. government still went ahead and ordered another 105 million doses at the end of June 2022.

These are intended for a fall booster campaign, at a cost to taxpayers of $3.2 billion.¹¹ The U.S. is actually paying about 50% more for each of these new jab boosters this time around — $30.47 per dose compared to $19.50 per dose paid for the first 100 million doses.

The U.S. government has also promised to purchase another 20 million courses of Paxlovid, at an eye-watering cost of $530 per five-day course. Basically, Pfizer is being financially rewarded for producing products that are useless at best and dangerous at worst, and we’re all paying for it. In case you’re curious, that is another $10.6 billion transferred from U.S. taxpayers to Pfizer.

Future Boosters Won’t Undergo Human Clinical Trials

After you likely thought it couldn’t ever get any worse, KHN also touches on, but doesn’t delve into, the fact that Pfizer suggested they skip human trials as they move forward with jabs that are reformulated for newer variants. If this strikes you as crazy, you’d be right. It’s sheer madness, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — a clearly captured agency — has already surreptitiously agreed to this egregious miscarriage of science.

How this wicked scheme, known as the “Future Framework,”¹² was adopted by the FDA without formal vote is explained by Toby Rogers, Ph.D. — a political economist whose research focus is on regulatory capture and Big Pharma corruption¹³ — in the video above. He also explained it in a June 29, 2022, Substack article:¹⁴

“Yesterday [June 28], the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee approved a bivalent COVID-19 shot with the Wuhan strain and the Omicron variant … Wait, hold up, I thought the FDA was voting on the Future Framework yesterday?

The policy question was whether reformulated COVID-19 shots would be treated as new molecular entities (which they are) in which case they should be subject to formal review or whether reformulated shots would be treated as ‘biologically similar’ to existing Covid-19 shots and be allowed to skip clinical trials altogether.

Apparently the FDA did not have the votes to just pass this as a policy question. If you ask anyone whether reformulated mRNA represents a new molecular entity, well of course it is, so that would require formal regulatory review.

What the FDA did instead was to smuggle the policy question in disguised as a vote about reformulated ‘boosters’ for the fall.

In essence, the FDA just started doing the Future Framework (picking variants willy nilly, skipping clinical trials) and essentially dared the committee members to turn down a booster dose — knowing that all of the VRBPAC members are hand-picked because they’ve never met a vaccine they did not like.

So of course only two people on the committee had the courage to turn down a booster dose — even though it was based on this preposterous process (that was never formally adopted) where there was literally no data at all … By stealth, the FDA replaced a system based on evidence with a system based entirely on belief.”

Countries Held to Ransom

In 2021, secret details of Pfizer’s contracts came to light, showing they are essentially holding countries hostage to nonnegotiable demands for payment in full AND freedom from liability.¹⁵

In late February 2021, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported¹⁶ that Pfizer was demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 jab.

Several countries, including Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Peru, agreed to this demand, putting up bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings as collateral. In short, theses governments are guaranteeing Pfizer will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it, so the company won’t lose a dime if its COVID shot injures people.

Shockingly, these terms are binding even if those injuries are the result of negligent company practices, fraud or malice!

Government purchasers must acknowledge that the effectiveness and safety of the shots are completely unknown, all while indemnifying Pfizer against any and all financial liability.

In October that same year, Public Citizen published the secret contracts^17,18 between Pfizer and Albania, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, the European Commission, Peru, the U.S. and the U.K., further revealing the extent to which these countries handed power over to Pfizer. In almost all scenarios, Pfizer’s interests come first.

For example, government purchasers must acknowledge that the effectiveness and safety of the shots are completely unknown, all while indemnifying Pfizer against any and all financial liability. This is the ultimate corporate maleficence, using their leverage to force the kill shot down these countries’ throats and avoiding any personal responsibility for damages.

Even if Pfizer eventually is convicted of fraud in the U.S. and loses all its liability protection from the COVID jabs because of it, that judgment would not impact these foreign contracts. These countries sold their souls to Pfizer and have absolutely no recourse but to pay even if the shots kill everyone.

The contracts for at least four countries also secure Pfizer’s intellectual property rights even if the company is found to have stolen intellectual property rights of others. In such case, the government purchaser becomes the liable party. As explained by Public Citizen:¹⁹

“For example, if another vaccine maker sued Pfizer for patent infringement in Colombia, the contract requires the Colombian government to foot the bill. Pfizer also explicitly says that it does not guarantee that its product does not violate third-party IP, or that it needs additional licenses.

Pfizer takes no responsibility in these contracts for its potential infringement of intellectual property. In a sense, Pfizer has secured an IP waiver for itself. But internationally, Pfizer is fighting similar efforts to waive IP barriers for all manufacturers.”

Equally shocking is that countries are forced to follow through on their vaccine orders even if other drugs or treatments emerge that can prevent, treat or cure COVID-19.²⁰ Is it any wonder, then, that governments around the world have suppressed the use of safe and effective outpatient drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?

If these drugs were allowed to be used and could be proven to work, the COVID injections would be completely unnecessary and their emergency use authorization would disappear, yet governments are on the hook for hundreds of millions of doses.

Pfizer Has ‘Habitual Offender’ Track Record

The fact that Pfizer has behaved like a criminal who works out a cover story for a planned murder before committing it is not surprising, considering its history. Pfizer, has been sued in multiple venues over unethical behavior, including unethical drug testing and illegal marketing practices.²¹

In his 2010 paper,²² “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR,” Robert G. Evans, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor at Vancouver School of Economics, described Pfizer as “a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.”

Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. They are recurrent criminal felons. None of these convictions has deterred their nefarious behavior.

In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay another $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,²³ and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million,²⁴ as well as $75 million to settle charges relating to its testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children.

As reported by the Independent²⁵ at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic. For two weeks, the team set up right next to a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin.

Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure. Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame.

The problem was they never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug. What’s more, while Pfizer produced a permission letter from a Nigerian ethics committee, the letter turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasn’t set up until a year after the trial had already taken place. Pfizer’s rap sheet also includes bribery, environmental violations, labor and worker safety violations and more.²⁶

Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

Now, despite Pfizer being one of the least ethical drug companies, we’re told to trust them with our very lives, and the lives of our precious children. They’re going to put out booster shots this fall that have undergone absolutely no testing whatsoever, and we’re to simply throw caution to the wind because Pfizer — which has no liability whatsoever — says so.

In 2014, Pfizer faced a surge of lawsuits that accused it of hiding known side effects of its anticholesterol drug Lipitor.²⁷ They got off scot-free that time, as a federal judge dismissed thousands of cases alleging the drug caused Type 2 diabetes.^28,29 But at least they had liability and could be sued.

When it comes to the COVID jabs, injured patients and family members of those killed by it won’t even have the ability to sue for damages, as governments around the world have indemnified them completely, and it looks as though they might not even be liable even if they’re found guilty of fraud. But we will have to see what the courts rule on that one. Still, that any nation would agree to a contract like that is just mindboggling.

Meanwhile, mounting evidence shows the COVID shots destroy immune function over time, and Pfizer’s own trial data reveal deaths and serious adverse events numbering in the tens of thousands.

It’s hard to tell who’s more deserving of punishment — Pfizer or the equally captured federal agencies, the FDA and the CDC, that go along with them and do nothing to protect the lives of the youngest members of our society. Clearly, it’s up to us to protect ourselves and our loved ones, because wolves in sheep’s clothing are ruling the roost — they’re making all the decisions, and captured agencies are simply doing their bidding.

Originally published July 18, 2022 on Mercola.com

Sources and References

• ^{1, 2, 4, 9} KHN July 5, 2022
• ³ Science Daily January 10, 2002
• ⁵ Washington Examiner February 8, 2022
• ⁶ Axios October 30, 2019
• ⁷ True Cost of Health Care
• ⁸ CDC Advisory May 24, 2022
• ¹⁰ NBC News June 6, 2022
• ¹¹ Businesswire June 29, 2022
• ¹² FDA Briefing Document June 28, 2022
• ¹³ Brownstone Institute June 22, 2022, Author’s Bio
• ¹⁴ uTobian June 29, 2022
• ¹⁵ STAT News February 23, 2021
• ¹⁶ The Bureau of Investigative Journalism February 23, 2021
• ^17, 19 Public Citizen October 19, 2021
• ¹⁸ Twitter Zain Rizvi October 19, 2021
• ²⁰ COVID19up.org August 17, 2021 (archived)
• ²¹ SGT Report January 7, 2021
• ²² Healthcare Policy 2010 May;5(4):16-25
• ²³ DOJ October 21, 2011
• ²⁴ Reuters August 6, 2014
• ²⁵ The Independent March 23, 2014
• ²⁶ Corporate Research Project Pfizer
• ²⁷ Reuters August 8, 2014
• ²⁸ Drugwatch Lipitor Lawsuits
• ²⁹ Reuters May 12, 2021

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A federal court has granted a request by Missouri and Louisiana officials to obtain information and documents from top-ranking officials in the Biden administration over its alleged collusion with social media giants in an effort to censor and suppress free speech.

Eric Schmitt, Missouri’s Republican attorney general, announced on social media on July 13 that Terry Doughty, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, had ruled in favor of the request for the discovery process.

The ruling paves the way for the attorneys general to collect documents from top-ranking Biden administration officials and social media giants.

In court documents (pdf) shared by Schmitt, Doughty wrote that there is “good cause” for an expedited preliminary injunction discovery.

The judge, a Trump appointee, also gave a timeline in which federal officials and social media platforms must hand over documents.

Plaintiff states may serve document and information requests from government officials and third party subpoenas on up to five major social media platforms seeking to identify which federal officials have allegedly been in communication with them within five business days after the ruling.

The ruling was issued on July 12.

Federal officials and social media platforms must also hand over documents and answer questions from officials from the two states within the next 30 days, the judge ruled.

‘Suppressed Disfavored Speakers’

The ruling comes after the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri filed a lawsuit in May alleging that the Biden administration “colluded with and/or coerced social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by labeling the content ‘disinformation,’ ‘misinformation,’ and ‘malinformation.’”

The attorneys general named social media giants such as Meta, Twitter, and YouTube in a press release announcing the lawsuit in May.

They also claimed that resident Joe Biden himself, along with other top-ranking government officials, had worked with the platforms to censor and suppress free speech, including “truthful information” pertaining to the origins of COVID-19, the effectiveness of masks, election integrity, and the security of voting by mail, as well as the ongoing Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

Among the defendants named in the lawsuit are Biden, former press secretary Jen Psaki, chief medical adviser to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Disinformation Governance Board executive director Nina Jankowicz, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and others.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the officials “pressured and colluded with social media giants Meta, Twitter, and YouTube to censor free speech in the name of combating so-called ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation,’ which led to the suppression and censorship of truthful information on several topics, including COVID-19.”

The complaint also alleges that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board was created “to induce, label, and pressure the censorship of disfavored content, viewpoints, and speakers on social-media platforms.”

The lawsuit contends the alleged suppression of free speech and collusion violate the protections of the First Amendment and amount to action in excess of statutory authority.

It also contends that the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

Missouri and Louisiana filed a Motion for Expedited Preliminary Injunction-Related Discovery on June 17, 2022.

In announcing the court’s decision to grant the attorneys general’s request, Schmitt said on Twitter, ” No one has had the chance to look under the hood before – now we do.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Via this genetic engineering experiment, they’ve literally injected ‘seeds of demise’ into everyday people like a cockroach spray. Based on a 2011 estimate, he believes an extra 700 million will be killed from this bioweapon – and they’ve known about the risks since 2005.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• David Martin, Ph.D., presents evidence that COVID-19 injections are not vaccines, but bioweapons that are being used as a form of genocide across the global population
• The spike protein that the COVID-19 shots manufacture is a known biologic agent of concern
• Martin believes the number that may die may have been revealed back in 2011, when the World Health Organization announced their “decade of vaccination”
• The objective for the decade of vaccination was a population reduction of 15% globally, which would be about 700 million people dead; in the U.S., this may amount to between 75 million and 100 million people dying from COVID-19 shots
• When asked what timeframe these people may die in, Martin suggested “there’s a lot of economic reasons why people hope that it’s between now and 2028”
• The projected illiquidity of the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs by 2028 suggests the “fewer people who are recipients of these programs, the better;” Martin believes this may be why people 65 and over were targeted with COVID-19 shots first

In this revealing interview with Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com, David Martin, Ph.D., presents evidence that COVID-19 injections are not vaccines but bioweapons that are being used as a form of genocide across the global population.¹

In March 2022, Martin filed a federal lawsuit against resident Biden, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services alleging that COVID-19 shots turn the body into a biological weapons factory, manufacturing spike protein. Not only is the term “vaccination” misleading when referring to COVID-19 shots, it’s inaccurate since they are actually a form of gene therapy.²

“And we are not only not going to be sued for, you know, any libel or misinformation, we are actually holding people criminally accountable for their domestic terrorism, their crimes against humanity and the story of the coronavirus weaponization that goes back to 1998,” Martin says.³

SARS-CoV-2 Has Been in the Works for Decades

Martin has been in the business of tracking patent applications and approvals since 1998. His company, M-Cam International Innovation Risk Management, is the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. M-Cam has also monitored biological and chemical weapons treaty violations on behalf of the U.S. government, following the anthrax scare in September 2001.⁴

According to Martin, there are more than 4,000 patents relating to the SARS coronavirus. His company has also done a comprehensive review of the financing of research involving the manipulation of coronaviruses that gave rise to SARS as a subclade of the beta coronavirus family.

Much of the research was funded by the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci.⁵ Martin explained:⁶

“I think it’s important for your listeners and viewers to remember that it was 1999 when Anthony Fauci and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill decided to start weaponizing coronavirus they patented in 2002 — and you heard that date correctly, that’s a year before the SARS outbreak in China.

You know, they knew it was a bioweapon since 2005. They knew it was effective at harming populations, intimidating and coercing populations”

COVID-19 Shots Are an ‘Act of Bioterrorism’

According to Martin, the spike protein that the COVID-19 shots manufacture is a computer simulation of a chimera of the spike protein of coronavirus. “It is, in fact, not a coronavirus vaccine. It is a spike protein instruction to make the human body produce a toxin, and that toxin has been scheduled as a known biologic agent of concern with respect to biological weapons for the last now decade and a half,” he said.⁷

Rather than being a public health measure as they were widely campaigned to be, COVID-19 shots are an act of bioweapons and bioterrorism. Martin shared that in 2015, Dr. Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance that funneled research dollars from the NIAID to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for coronavirus research, stated:⁸

“We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”

Daszak, who Martin refers to as “the money launderer in chief,” “actually stated that this entire exercise was a campaign of domestic terror to get the public to accept the universal vaccine platform using a known biological weapon. And that is their own words, not my interpretation,” Martin said.⁹

Martin: 100 Million May Die Due to COVID Shots

Both Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 shots contain nucleic acid sequences that are not part of nature and have not been previously introduced to the human body. This amounts to a genetic engineering experiment that did not go through animal studies or clinical trials.

However, already people are dying from the shots and, Martin states, “many more will” due to issues such as blood clots, damage to the cardiovascular system and problems with liver, kidney and pulmonary function.¹⁰

An onslaught of reproductive and cancer cases related to the shots are also anticipated. “The fact of the matter is an enormous number of people who are injected are already carrying the seeds of their own demise,” Martin said.¹¹ As for how many may die, Martin believes the numbers may have been revealed back in 2011, when the World Health Organization announced their “decade of vaccination”:¹²

“Based on their own 2011 estimate, and … this is a chilling estimate, but we just have to put it out there … When the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Chinese CDC, the Jeremy Farrar Wellcome Trust and others published The Decade of Vaccination for the World Health Organization back in 2011 their stated objective was a population reduction of 15% of the world’s population.

Put that in perspective, that’s about 700 million people dead … and that would put the U.S. participation in that certainly as a pro rata of injected population somewhere between 75 and 100 million people.”

When asked what timeframe these people may die in, Martin suggested “there’s a lot of economic reasons why people hope that it’s between now and 2028.”¹³ This is because of “a tiny little glitch on the horizon” — the projected illiquidity of the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs by 2028.

“So the fewer people who are recipients of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the better,” Martin said. “Not surprisingly, it’s probably one of the motivations that led to the recommendation that people over the age of 65 were the first ones getting injected.”¹⁴ Other populations at risk are caregivers, including health care providers, and others in the workforce who were forced to be injected, such as pilots.

“Why is it that we’re suddenly having 700 flights a day being canceled because, allegedly, airlines don’t have pilots? … the dirty secret … is there a lot of pilots who are having microvascular problems and clotting problems, and that keeps them out of the cockpit, which is a good place to not have them if they’re going to throw a clot for a stroke or a heart attack,” Martin said.

“But the problem is we’re going to start seeing that exact same phenomenon in the health care industry and at a much larger scale, which means we now have, in addition to the problem of the actual morbidity and mortality, meaning people getting sick and people dying.

We actually have that targeting the health care industry writ large, which means we are going to have doctors and nurses who are going to be among the sick and the dead. And that means that the sick and the dying also do not get care.”¹⁵

Why COVID Shots May Change Your DNA

It’s been stressed by the media and public health officials that COVID-19 shots do not alter DNA. However, Martin brings attention to a little-known grant from the National Science Foundation, known as Darwinian chemical systems,¹⁶ which involved research to incorporate mRNA into targeted genomes. According to Martin:¹⁷

“Moderna was started … on the back of a 10-year National Science Foundation grant. And that grant was called Darwinian chemical systems … the project that gave rise to the Moderna company itself was a project where they were specifically figuring out how to get mRNA to write itself into the genome of whatever target they were going after.

That could be a single-celled organism, it could be a multi-celled organism or it could be a human. And the fact of the matter is Moderna was started on the back of having proven that mRNA can be transfected and write itself into the human genome.”

It is completely unknown what the short- or long-term effects of the spike protein analog that’s inside people who received COVID-19 injections will be. But with respect to alteration of the genome, Martin states that data show mRNA has the capacity to write into the DNA of humans, and “as such, the long-term effects are not going to merely be symptomatic. The long-term effects are going to be the human genome of injected individuals is going to be altered.”¹⁸

Fraud Removes Big Pharma’s Liability Shield

The 2001 anthrax attack, which came out of medical and defense research, led to the passage of the PREP Act, which removed liability for manufacturers of emergency medical countermeasures.

This means that as long as the U.S. is under a state of emergency, things like COVID-19 “vaccines” are allowed under emergency use authorization. And as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect, the makers of these experimental gene therapies are not financially liable for any harm that comes from their use.

That is, provided they’re “vaccines.” If these injections are NOT vaccines, then the liability shield falls away, because there is no liability shield for a medical emergency countermeasure that is gene therapy. Further, lawsuits that can prove the companies engaged in fraud will also negate the liability shield. Martin states:¹⁹

“One of the convenient things about the PREP Act is the immunity shield from liability actually is only as good as the absence of fraud. Because if there was fraud in the promulgation of the events, leading to an emergency use authorization, then all of the immunity shield gets wiped out.

So the reason why it is so important for conversations like the one we’re having to actually be promoted and be advanced is because the pharmaceutical companies — and this includes Pfizer and Moderna and J&J — know they are perpetuating a fraud. The great thing about this is when that fraud is established, 100% of the liability flows back to them.

… when a fraud was the basis for a fraud, then we actually have a number of other legal remedies that allow you to pierce that veil. So in the end, there’s no question … and it’s quite evident based on the current mortality and morbidity data that given the fact that when it comes to biological weapons and bioterror each count comes with $100 million penalty. That’s what the federal statute gives us.

The penalty for corporate domestic terrorism, when you have per count $100 million a pop liabilities — that is an existential threat that takes a company like Pfizer or takes a company like Moderna out of existence. And that is what we’re working for every day.”

If you’d like to follow the progress of the ongoing legal cases seeking to expose the truth — that a criminal organization is seeking to obtain control over the global population via the creation of patented bioweapons marketed as novel viruses and injections — you can find all the details at ProsecuteNow.io, a website compiled by Martin and colleagues.²⁰

Originally published July 16, 2022 on Mercola.com

Sources and References

• ¹ Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022
• ² Europe Reloaded March 23, 2022
• ³ Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 1:21
• ^4, 5 Substack July 24, 2021
• ⁶ Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 9:52
• ^7, 8, 9 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 3:26
• ^10, 11 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 6:22
• ¹² Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 7:58
• ^13, 14 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 12:40
• ¹⁵ Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 13:38
• ¹⁶ National Science Foundation, Darwinian Chemical Systems
• ^17, 18 Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 17:21
• ¹⁹ Rumble, Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog June 28, 2022, 52:01
• ²⁰ Prosecute Now

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Monday ended its COVID-19 program for cruise ships that reported cases of the virus, while saying that ships can handle their own testing and mitigation.

“CDC has worked closely with the cruise industry, state, territorial, and local health authorities, and federal and seaport partners to provide a safer and healthier environment for cruise passengers and crew,” the federal agency’s website said in an update on Monday. “Cruise ships have access to guidance and tools to manage their own COVID-19 mitigation programs.”

“While cruising poses some risk of COVID-19 transmission,” the agency said, the “CDC will continue to publish guidance to help cruise ships continue to provide a safer and healthier environment for crew, passengers, and communities going forward.” The agency did not post a date for the latest guidance, but an Epoch Times review of archived pages shows that the update was posted Monday.

Throughout the pandemic, the cruise industry worldwide has been gutted by lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and other government-imposed rules. Cruise industry groups have called on the CDC to end its program for months.

Health officials have often scrutinized cruise ships and warned that the vessels allow for widespread transmission of COVID-19, the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. In early 2020, extensive media coverage was dedicated to an outbreak on the Diamond Princess ship in Japan, prompting health agencies worldwide to place curbs on cruises.

‘Important Step Forward’

In a statement Monday, Cruise Lines International Association spokeswoman Anne Madison told USA Today that it’s pleased the rules were dropped “in favor of a set of guidelines for public health operations on cruise ships

“We look forward to reviewing the details, which we understand will be posted on the CDC website in the coming days,” she told the news outlet. “This is an important step forward in the CDC aligning the guidelines for cruise with those it has established for other travel, hospitality, and entertainment sectors.”

The CDC used a so-called “Conditional Sailing Order” throughout the pandemic after having first issued a no-sail order in 2020. The CDC dropped the conditional order as well as its color-coded COVID-19 warning system earlier this year, which was also hailed by cruise industry groups.

As for mandatory vaccination rules on ships, several fully vaccinated cruises have faced respective COVID-19 outbreaks so far in 2022.

A “100 percent vaccinated” Princess Cruises vessel, for example, reported a COVID-19 outbreak before it docked in San Francisco, officials said in late March.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis fought against COVID-19 restrictions for cruise ships, including vaccine mandates. Last year, the Republican governor vowed that he would take legal measures to end the enforcement of CDC rules at ports in Florida, which are used by major cruise operators.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A top U.S. health agency is refusing to identify which employees are working on vaccine safety teams, drawing criticism from watchdog groups.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a database in which people file reports of adverse events following vaccination. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) manages the database with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The Epoch Times sought the names of employees on three CDC teams charged with analyzing data from VAERS, including a team that looks at data pertaining to post-vaccination heart inflammation. The CDC denied the request in full.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires agencies to comply with information requests but establishes exemptions that agencies can cite to withhold requested information. Roger Andoh, a CDC FOIA officer, cited an exemption that protects “personnel and medical files and similar files” if the disclosure of the files “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

“The information that has been withheld under Exemption 6 consists of employee names. We have determined that the individual(s) to whom this information pertains has a substantial privacy interest in withholding it,” Andoh wrote to The Epoch Times.

Calls for Transparency

Watchdog groups questioned the move.

“If Democrats and Republicans want the American people to trust government institutions, i.e. CDC, NIH [National Institutes of Health] and all the others, one would think members of Congress, agency bureaucrats, and the president’s administration would be motivated to start by offering transparency and eliminating the taxpayer’s justifiable questions and worries,” Adam Andrzejewski, CEO and founder of OpenTheBooks.com, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Not having the ability to see into the bureaucracy is troubling and these agencies are rife with conflicts of interest. Denying transparency to the public is never the answer.”

Michael Chamberlain, director of Protect the Public’s Trust, noted that Americans’ trust in the government, and health agencies in particular, has declined during the pandemic, according to surveys.

“Pulling the veil of secrecy over basic agency information only serves to make this situation worse,” he told The Epoch Times in an email.

The CDC’s FOIA office reviewed its decision after a request from The Epoch Times.

“I’ve taken a look at your case and we stand by the full denial of the requested information due to the potential for harassment and to protect the physical safety of the employees on these teams,” Bruno Viana, a deputy director who handles FOIA questions, told The Epoch Times in an email.

The Epoch Times has appealed the determination to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the parent agency of the CDC and the NIH.

VAERS Teams

The CDC describes VAERS as “the nation’s early warning system” for the detection of vaccine safety signals, or signs that specific side effects are linked to a vaccine. Health care workers are required to report serious adverse events following vaccination to the database, and other interested parties, such as relatives, can also file reports.

Health officials have repeatedly said that signals from the COVID-19 vaccines would be detected by VAERS and other systems like it, but one of the most prevalent serious side effects, heart inflammation, appears to have been first identified by the Pentagon, not the CDC. Even after the Pentagon discovered the issue, the CDC’s director said no signal was found, though the agency has since acknowledged the side effect.

Raw data from VAERS doesn’t alone constitute a safety signal, according to the CDC. The agency says experts must analyze the data to figure out if signals truly exist.

The three teams whose members the CDC is shielding are among those tasked with analyzing the data, including digging into medical records from reports. One focuses on post-vaccination blood clotting—a condition identified after Johnson & Johnson vaccination. Another looks at the post-vaccination heart inflammation, which has appeared in many more people—especially young males—than expected after receipt of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines. A third analyzes an assortment of data.

The work of the teams has been cited by CDC officials during meetings about vaccines.

If the names of the team members were released, they could be used to file additional records requests, which could shed light on how the CDC is analyzing the VAERS data. For example, one could request emails sent between two team members during the time when the heart inflammation issues were first uncovered to see if they were aware of the issue before U.S. military doctors.

The names of all CDC employees are listed in the Department of Health and Human Services’ employee directory, but it isn’t clear from the directory which workers are on the VAERS teams.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, others respond to boycott notices from West Virginia state treasurer

Six financial institutions that West Virginia Treasurer Riley Moore contacted over their alleged boycotting of the fossil fuel industry have replied, denying the accusations while laying the groundwork for what could be a protracted legal battle.

The Epoch Times obtained the letters through a West Virginia Freedom of Information Act request.

Moore sent letters to BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, U.S. Bancorp, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley on June 10.

That was in line with a new West Virginia law that limits the state’s ability to do business with financial institutions believed to be boycotting energy companies with ties to coal, oil, or natural gas production.

The companies had to respond to the letters within 30 days of receiving them to avoid being placed on a list of restricted financial institutions, which would have been published 45 days after Moore’s office sent them. The West Virginia State Treasurer’s Office still intends to publish a list of restricted financial institutions.

Coal, natural gas, and oil are important sources of revenue for the state, including through what are known as severance taxes.

In fiscal year 2022, West Virginia collected almost $800 million in such taxes, more than the nearly $300 million collected during the previous fiscal year.

In addition to providing direct tax revenue, the fossil fuel industry is a significant driver of the state’s overall prosperity.

A West Virginia University research report found that coal power and coal mining were collectively responsible for roughly $13.9 billion in economic activity in West Virginia in 2019.

Sen. Joe Manchin

Unsurprisingly, one of the few national-level Democrats who defend fossil fuels is Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

On July 14, Manchin made it apparent that he wouldn’t back resident Joe Biden’s efforts to finance additional climate and energy programs.

The move prompted one University of California–Santa Barbara political science professor to write on Twitter that she was “holding [her] children and sobbing.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), and other Democrats have since taken aim at Manchin’s chairmanship of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Moore, a Republican, thinks Democratic rhetoric and policies targeting the fossil fuel industry have helped shift voters in West Virginia, a state long dominated by Democrats, toward the Republican Party.

“We have union members voting for us in large numbers now, which was not the case previously,” Moore told The Epoch Times on July 18.

‘Risk Management’

The banks and financial institutions that received letters have argued that their various policies on fossil fuel financing don’t qualify as boycotts, claiming that they’re covered by the ‘reasonable business purpose’ exemption in West Virginia’s new law.

“The Company’s reasonable business purpose for any determination not to proceed with a transaction includes assessment of both commercial viability and risk management for the Company and its clients,” Goldman Sachs’s letter reads.

It also noted that it tells firms in the energy sector that a diversification strategy tends to make companies “much more successful in obtaining financing.”

“That is the basis for the note in the Company’s Environmental Policy Framework, available on its public website, about the phasing out, over time, of financing of thermal coal mining companies that do not have a diversification strategy within a reasonable timeframe,” the letter reads.

Goldman Sachs’s letter also states that the company doesn’t back energy firms if their financing supports new thermal coal mines, mountaintop removal mining, new coal plants that lack carbon capture or equivalent technologies, and new upstream oil drilling in the Arctic.

Similarly, Wells Fargo asserted that its limitations on the financing of coal, its “additional levels of due diligence to companies in the oil and gas and mining industries,” and its unwillingness to fund oil drilling in the Arctic reflect a reasonable business purpose—namely, risk management.

Morgan Stanley explicitly argued that its risk management strategy encompasses “the risks of climate change” to “our reputation and client relations.”

In its own “Environmental and Social Policy Statement,” Morgan Stanley pledges to not finance new coal plants without carbon capture or similar technologies and to not finance new thermal coal mining.

“By 2030, we will phase out our remaining credit exposure to companies with greater than 20% of revenue from thermal coal mining globally,” the policy statement reads.

JPMorgan Chase made a very similar argument in its letter to the West Virginia State Treasurer’s Office.

Like Wells Fargo and other firms that responded to Moore’s letters, JPMorgan Chase stated that it already provides significant financing to the energy industry, countering the argument that they’re boycotting it.

Yet, the language in West Virginia’s law refers not merely to full de-banking, but more broadly to any action “intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with a company” involved in fossil fuels or doing business with a fossil fuel company.

This includes actions on a firm because it “does not commit or pledge to meet environmental standards beyond applicable federal and state law.”

Wells Fargo, for its part, pointed out that it recommended against a resolution at its 2022 shareholder meeting that would have seen it “adopt a boycott-like policy prohibiting lending to or underwriting new fossil fuel development.” That resolution failed to pass.

Law Professor Questions Responses

William J. Carney, Charles Howard Candler professor of law emeritus at Emory Law School, didn’t find the financial institutions’ arguments convincing.

In a July 15 email interview with The Epoch Times, Carney noted that some of the banks and financial institutions “claim ‘environmental risks,’ which involves either the risk of government regulations or a risk of reduced demand for their products.”

“Rising oil prices put the lie to the price risk, as does President [Joe] Biden’s trip to Saudi Arabia to beg for more output,” he said. “Government regulation is dependent on politics, which currently suggests a consumer revolt against anti-energy policies.”

Carney said he strongly disagrees with the overall push for de-banking oil, coal, and natural gas companies.

“Obviously it is suicide for local banks to boycott fossil fuel companies in West Virginia. The entire anti-carbon fuel movement is predicated on a false assumption: that global warming is caused by the use of fossil fuels,” he said. “[Boards] that act on this assumption have not engaged in a reasonable inquiry, and thus should not be protected by the Business Judgment Rule.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Moderate Democrats will play a key role in the coming midterm election and very likely handle the U.S. House to the Republicans, analysts said.

The main reason for the rebelling moderates is President Joe Biden’s policies.

“This [moderate voting] base is becoming increasingly disenchanted with what seems to be the ongoing failures of the Biden administration on major party platforms such as rising inflation, gas prices, and a pretty weak economy,” Jamie Wright, a political pundit at The Wright Law Firm, told The Epoch Times.

Josh Wilson, a political consultant and ex-aide to former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, shared the view that the state of the economy under Biden is a significant factor in the shift.

Besides this, Wilson also pointed out that the historical pattern of midterm elections for the party of the president will also contribute.

“Simply based on U.S. electoral history, where the president’s political party tends to suffer major losses during the first midterm of the presidential term, it is highly likely that Republicans will see major gains in the House of Representatives,” he said.

Progressive Movement Pushing Moderates Away

For over a decade, progressive activists have been pushing the political spectrum in the United States to the left in various ways, from woke textbooks in the education system to protests on the streets.

As a result, some moderate Democrats found themself isolated and being pushed out.

Elon Musk, the Tesla CEO who was a liberal, shared a meme on April 28 explaining how the progressive movement has made him closer to the conservative side. The meme shows the political left moving away from the centers since 2008 while the center and right remaining stationary. As a result, he falls into the area close to the conservative without even changing his political stance.

The meme was liked by over 1.5 million users after Musk shared it on his Twitter account.

Biden, who mainly posed as a moderate during his campaign, followed the progressive movement closely after he came to the White House and adopted policies from the woke agenda.

That deepened the discontent among moderates.

A major factor was the extreme lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates related to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, also known as the novel coronavirus, outbreak.

“You just have one public official who’s never been elected … no scientific citation for any of these mandates, simply telling Americans: ‘do what you’re told,’” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent Democrat, criticized the policies during an interview with The Epoch Times’ sister media NTD at the “Defeat the Mandates” rally in Washington on Jan. 23.

The mandates were “all designed to instill fear and confusion in Americans, and it’s just a catastrophic exercise in bad government and manipulation,” he added.

Biden’s Energy Policies and Soaring Gas Price

Another area that moderate Democrats feel upset about is the economic performance during Biden’s presidency, especially the rising inflation and gas prices.

According to CNBC’s All-America Survey, Biden’s economic approval rating dropped 5 points from April’s survey to 30 percent. His approval of the overall handling of the presidency dropped to 36 percent. Of the 800 people across the nation polled by CNBC, 51 percent believe Biden’s efforts to fight inflation are making no difference, and 30 percent think the measures are actually hurting.

The Biden administration has strictly adhered to its climate crisis agenda, rejecting boosting domestic energy production and insisting people should buy electric vehicles as an alternative option amid high gas prices.

However, electric vehicles are unaffordable for many families.

A Consumer Reports survey shows that 52 percent of people say they would not buy an electric vehicle because the costs of buying and maintaining them are too high.

How Moderate Democrats May Act in Midterms

Though the moderates are not as popular in the mainstream media or on some politicians’ priority agendas, they still make up the majority of Democrats, Wright said.

“There is a real power struggle between the moderates and the extreme left within the party. However, moderates still make up the majority,” she said.

She believes it’s important for the Democrat candidates to appeal to the moderate voting base to ensure they don’t leave the party over failed policies.

Wilson believes the moderates will act in two ways—either they won’t show up or vote Republican—and will cost the Democrat Party heavily.

“Democrat members of the Congress seem to be trending more to the left but Democrat voters are not. To be more specific, Democrats in D.C. seem to be putting social issues ahead of economic issues. [However,] most voters want the government to focus on things that impact them daily,” he said.

“It’s more likely that moderate Democrat voters will not vote in the midterm if [they are] extremely fed up, rather than cast a ballot for a Republican,” he said. “If the Republican candidate in those swing districts is also a moderate, they may be able to bring Democrat voters across the line.”

“By not showing up and voting for the Democrat, Democrat voters will absolutely be protesting the current situation and indirectly helping Republicans take control,” he added.

The situation is also likely to put moderate Democrat candidates in harm’s way because “they will be painted as extreme liberals during the campaigns” under the current political climate, Wilson stated.

Masooma Haq and Jack Phillips contributed to the report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

If there is one consistent fact about electric vehicles, it’s that they are unreliable. Now their charging stations have come into question as well.

In Aspen and Glenwood Springs, Colorado, many companies have implemented charging stations in their parking lots. Not all of them are fully functional, however.

Chris Lane, a Basalt resident who owns two electric cars, highlighted a couple of issues with the local charging stations: Cables are ripped out, attachments are damaged and screens are cracked.

If there is a mechanical problem with any one of these stations, it automatically shuts down, Aspen Daily News reported.

“I charge in Glenwood, I see problems. I charge in Aspen, I see problems,” Lane said. He mentioned one exception: Tesla’s stations.

“I will say this, the Tesla stations are way better, flawless,” he said.

Companies and stores that have EV stations in their parking lots are expected to take care of them, but this has not always been the case.

The Willits Town Center in Basalt, Colorado, is a prime example. With 11 total stations, five were out of order and two were inaccessible, leaving only four functioning chargers available.

“I see mechanical failures up and down the valley,” Lane said.

Despite Tesla’s more consistent reliability, most charging stations in the area have been inoperable. This fact should be concerning for EV owners, especially if they are traveling long distances.

Furthermore, a gas-powered sedan was seen in one of the two parking spaces in front of an EV station on July 10. The second spot, as Aspen Daily News wrote, was a handicapped space, “creating confusion as to whether it could be used for charging for a driver who wasn’t handicapped.”

So even when the EV stations work, someone might park their gas car in front of it, preventing EV owners from charging. This is another indication that buying an electric car is inefficient and inconvenient in the long run.

Philip Jeffreys, SkiCo director of housing development, described the local charging station conditions as a sort of “Wild West.” SkiCo owns 12 charging stations, which roughly make up 26 percent of all spaces in the company’s private parking lot.

In addition to slow recharge times and long lines, this incident demonstrates yet another EV technology failure … and it’s not just in Colorado.

Tesla Owners Share Alarming Message Received on Screen Amid Heat Wave

In San Francisco alone, 23 percent of EV stations were not functional of the 657 plugs studied. The study excluded Tesla’s charging stations.

It sure seems like electric vehicles will not become the future of driving, based on this ongoing trend.

Despite the left’s political efforts in advocating for widespread EV use, the future is not going green anytime soon.

As supply chain woes continue around the world, many car buyers face the possibility of having to drive blind.

According to Fox Business, a shortage of semiconductor chips is forcing some automakers to cut out certain features that have become commonplace in newer vehicles.

These features include not only amenities like heated seats and touchscreens, but also safety features like blind-spot monitors and proximity alerts.

“Automakers are in a tight spot when the materials aren’t available for some of the safety technology,” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) Jessica Cicchino said.

“It really shifts the burden on the consumers who are already having a hard time shopping for a car.”

Technology experts suggest the chip began with the lockdowns that swept the world at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in early to mid-2020.

“The shortage can be traced back to the first half of 2020, when overall consumer demand for cars declined during the lockdown,” noted IT publication TechRepublic reported.

“This forced chip manufacturers to shift their focus to other areas, such as computer equipment and mobile devices, which spiked in demand with more people working remotely.”

Of course, blind spots are not a new phenomenon. They have been an issue since the invention of automobiles, and side mirrors were invented as a way to help improve a driver’s vision.

Yet even with these mirrors, most cars still have blind spots in which drivers cannot see other vehicles around them without physically turning around and looking over their shoulders.

There are currently no regulations requiring blind-spot monitors, Fox Business reported. However, Cicchino said they are extremely helpful safety features.

“While we don’t test for them in our vehicle ratings programs, these are useful technologies to have, and we do want to see them on as many vehicles as possible,” she said.

A study conducted by IIHS found blind spot monitors could reduce collisions causing injury by 23 percent, Fox Business reported.

In addition, blind spot monitors are often accompanied by rear cross-traffic alerts. These are the systems that notify a driver when a car is approaching as they back up, and the IIHS study found they could reduce backup crashes by 22 percent.

Surveillance Footage Shows Carjackers Steal a Mother’s Car and Run Her Over in Broad Daylight

While cars can still comply with all regulations without having these features, Consumer Reports senior director of automotive testing Jake Fisher said it would be a negative development for fewer vehicles to include them.

“It’s unfortunate that the chip shortage may prevent a new model from coming with the latest safety features that can prevent crashes and injuries,” Fisher told Fox Business.

“After all, better safety is one of the leading reasons people decide to upgrade their car in the first place.”

Fox Business confirmed at least two automakers, Volkswagen and Cadillac, were not offering blind-spot models on certain models as of Sunday. The companies said they could not predict whether this would change in the near future.

If there is one piece of good news, Fisher said it was the fact that many companies have not yet had to resort to cutting safety features.

He assured Fox Business “most automakers have the required chips to keep producing their models without removing equipment — and a smart shopper will avoid the models that do.”

A local government official in a Pittsburgh suburb is facing an assault charge after police say she attacked an officer who responded to a complaint at her home.

Bellevue Borough councilwoman Sabreena Miller faces charges of aggravated assault and resisting arrest, according to WPXI-TV.

Police went to Miller’s home on Saturday after a 3:47 a.m. report of a stabbing.

Upon arrival, they found John Miller, Sabreena’s husband, with a wound to his right leg that was bleeding onto the floor. John Miller told police he dropped a knife, leading to the cut.

Police took a look around and came upon two knives on the kitchen floor, as well as pools of blood.

An officer encountered Sabreena Miller, who asked why he was there and ordered him to leave.

After explaining the circumstances, the officer said Sabreena Miller began to scream at him and tell him he had no right to be there. He said he smelled alcohol on her breath.

head during a stabbing investigation in her home over the weekend. officer told her that he was called there and said her husband was bleeding from a stab wound at the front door, the station reported. The officer also said he smelled alcohol on Sabreena Miller’s breath as she

— Annie T Oakley (@Oakley1Annie) July 18, 2022

They seem to think they can do anything they want & get by with it https://t.co/8cllzcbIc9

— Annie T Oakley (@Oakley1Annie) July 18, 2022

Police also noticed that Sabreena Miller had scratch marks on her neck.

Miller is accused of punching an officer in the back of the head and struggling with him to the point where both officers responding needed to subdue her prior to arresting her, according to court documents.

John Miller told police he and his wife quarreled because she wanted to mix narcotics with the alcohol she had consumed and he “did not what her to mix the two for her safety,” according to CBS.

Police said John Miller denies he was stabbed despite the wound that required hospital treatment at Allegheny General Hospital.

Related:

Man Notices Something Wrong at Gas Station, 4 Shots Later He’s a Hero – Another Good Guy with a Gun Saves the Day

Sabreena Miller was sent to Allegheny County Jail.

John Miller also faces assault charges for the scratches found on Sabreena.

Kathy Coder, a former council member, said she was “saddened to hear about Sabreena’s behavior and the altercation,” according to WTAE-TV.

“Sabreena is a talented young woman who has been highly engaged in the community and has made many positive contributions to Bellevue. Hopefully, she and John will use this as a learning experience and will seek help, as needed, so these types of issues will not plague them and impede their bright future. Many people believe in them and will always be there to support them,” Coder said.

In running for office, Miller said part of her platform was “applying accountability in a way that avoids blame culture, and instead encourages improvement and collaboration.”

A 77-page report released by the Texas state House of Representatives said there were systemic failures on behalf of the some 400 enforcement officers who responded to the May 24 mass shooting at a school in Uvalde.

“There is no one to whom we can attribute malice or ill motives. Instead, we found systemic failures and egregious poor decision making,” the report said, noting “shortcomings and failures of the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District [CISD] and of various agencies and officers of law enforcement” and “an overall lackadaisical approach.”

Those claims appear to coincide with statements made by top Texas officials days after the shootings. Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw said on May 27 that it was the “wrong decision” not to engage with the shooter, Salvador Ramos.

Meanwhile, surveillance footage from Robb Elementary School released on July 12 shows officers waiting around more than 45 minutes before several officers approached the classroom where Ramos had entered. The officers didn’t enter. It took more than 75 minutes for law enforcement to kill Ramos, 18, after he entered the building.

The report said that law enforcement failed to quickly confront the suspect and instead retreated to safety.

“In this crisis, no responder seized the initiative to establish an incident command post,” it states. “Despite an obvious atmosphere of chaos, the ranking officers of other responding agencies did not approach the Uvalde CISD chief of police or anyone else perceived to be in command to point out the lack of and need for a command post, or to offer that specific assistance.”

Some individual officers acted without instruction to try to reach the shooter and might have been able to do so if they had more backup, according to the paper.

“Given the information known about victims who survived through the time of the breach and who later died on the way to the hospital, it is plausible that some victims could have survived if they had not had to wait 73 additional minutes for rescue,” the report reads.

A force of 376 law enforcement officers responded to the mass shooting, according to the House panel, which said that there wasn’t clear leadership as they responded.

Texas lawmakers on July 17 noted that Ramos was born in Fargo, North Dakota, before he was moved to Texas when he was a child. Ramos also may have been sexually abused as a child, the report states, citing…???

Friends of the suspect, including a girlfriend, told investigators that Ramos became increasingly depressed during the COVID-19 pandemic. At one point, Ramos told the girlfriend that he wouldn’t live past age 18.

In the wake of the shooting, which left 19 students and two teachers dead, congressional lawmakers used the tragedy to pass a gun control bill that included funding to bolster red flag laws and other measures. The bill was signed into law on June 25 by resident Joe Biden.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Oil prices rose on July 18 as the U.S. dollar softened and after resident Joe Biden wrapped up his trip to Saudi Arabia, failing to secure a pledge from the Middle Eastern country to boost crude output.

Brent crude futures for September settlement rose $4.53, or about 4.5 percent, to $105.70 a barrel as of 4 p.m. EDT on July 18, after a 2.1 percent gain on July 15.

U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures for August delivery gained $4.53, or about 4.7 percent, to $102.10 a barrel, after climbing 1.9 percent in the previous session.

Last week, both Brent and WTI posted their biggest weekly drops in about a month as recession fears dented market sentiment.

Yet, oil supplies remained tight and the U.S. dollar has eased off recent highs, with both factors offering support to crude prices.

Softer Dollar

The greenback weakened on July 18 after hitting multi-decade highs against a basket of currency peers last week. The DXY dollar index touched nearly 109 on July 14, before slipping to 107.45 by 4 p.m. EDT on July 18.

A weaker dollar tends to support oil prices and other dollar-denominated commodities as it makes them a more attractive buy for holders of other currencies.

Some analysts said that the July 19 oil rally is unlikely to last, with high inflation maintaining pressure on central banks to keep tightening even in the face of growing signals of an economic downturn.

“Bear market bounce” is how Keith McCullough, CEO of investment research firm Hedgeye, described the moves in crude, in a post on Twitter.

Buoyed by a weaker greenback, other commodities rose, including wheat and copper. A key industrial input, copper is seen by many analysts as a barometer of a recession.

“Another good example of a crashing market that’s bouncing this morning,” McCullough said of the action in the price of copper, which rose over 3 percent on Monday morning after tumbling 8.2 percent last week.

Wheat futures on the Chicago exchange rose 1.6 percent on July 18, recovering from their lowest in around five months.

Relief rallies are common in bear markets, experts say.

Biden in Saudi Arabia

The July 18 moves in the price of oil and other commodities come on the heels of Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia, which wrapped up without a pledge for the Kingdom to boost oil supply. Biden has called on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil producers to ramp up oil production in a bid to cool high gasoline prices and, more broadly, inflation.

Inflation in the United States, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, accelerated in June to a fresh 40-year high of 9.1 percent.

Despite the rally in a number of commodities, they’ve trended downward in recent weeks, suggesting inflationary pressures may be easing.

Gasoline prices have dropped over the past several weeks, with GasBuddy analyst Patrick De Haan saying in a July 17 statement that the most common gas price in the United States was $3.99 per gallon. The median gas price stood at $4.39 a gallon nationwide, while the top 10 percent most expensive locations averaged $5.71, De Haan added.

bell&email=walkerboh2112%40msn.com

Despite no pledge from Saudi Arabia to boost output, Biden administration officials held out some hope for a little more supply-side relief.

Amos Hochstein, a senior State Department adviser for energy security, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on July 17 that, following Biden’s trip, several Gulf oil producers would be taking “a few more steps” to boost output, though he did not say which countries and by how much.

But analysts at ING said in a note that the Biden administration’s view that producers in the Middle East would boost output seems rosy and “comments from Saudi Arabia were less optimistic.”

“The Saudis have said that any changes in output would be done within the broader OPEC+ framework, and that the group would monitor the market and respond if needed,” they wrote, adding that, with the exception of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, there’s “little in the way of spare capacity.”

Markets will be watching the Aug. 3 OPEC+ meeting closely for supply signals as the cartel’s current output pact expires in September.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci revealed that after about five decades in the federal government, he’s planning on leaving his position by the end of resident Joe Biden’s current term.

“We’re in a pattern now. If somebody says, ‘You’ll leave when we don’t have COVID anymore,’ then I will be 105. I think we’re going to be living with this,” Fauci, 81, told Politico in an interview published on July 18 that he plans to retire by the end of Biden’s current term, which ends in January 2025.

Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he became a household name as the face of the federal government’s response, often generating criticism from Republicans and conservatives about his generally dire predictions about the pandemic.

Of his relationship with former President Donald Trump, Fauci said that “we developed an interesting relationship … two guys from New York, different in their opinions and their ideology, but still, two guys who grew up in the same environments of this city. I think that we are related to each other in that regard.”

And if Republicans win back either the House or Senate in 2022, Fauci noted that he will likely be investigated by GOP lawmakers. But he claimed that regarding those investigations, “I don’t make that a consideration in my career decision.”

In the Politico interview, Fauci continued to defend his public recommendations, including school closures, mask-wearing, vaccination regimes, and lockdowns.

“My telling somebody that it’s important to follow fundamental good public health practices … what are you going to investigate about that?” he asked.

Possible Investigations

However, Fauci has faced public questions from Republicans in Congress about his agency having given funding to third-party groups to carry out research in China. COVID-19, caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, emerged in Wuhan, China, and a significant number of U.S. intelligence officials last year released a report suggesting the virus may be linked to the top-level Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Last month, amid questions from Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Fauci conceded that he isn’t able to halt federal funding from being doled out to researchers in China.

“The NIH [National Institutes of Health] is still funding research in China, at least $8 million since 2020,” Marshall said. “In the Intelligence Community’s 2022 Annual Threat Assessment, the Chinese Communist Party is presented as one of the top threats to the United States, along with Russia, Iran, Syria, and North Korea. To my knowledge, only China is receiving U.S. research dollars.”

Later, he asked Fauci, “When will you as director of NIAID stop funding research in China?”

Federal health agencies, Fauci said in response, “had very productive peer-reviewed highly regarded research projects with our Chinese colleagues that have led to some major advances in biomedical research.”

“We obviously need to be careful and make sure that when we do fund them we have the proper peer review and we go through all the established guidelines,” he said.

NIAID officials didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

At Charlestown High School in Boston, certain teachers instructing students learning English who have recently arrived in the United States may be indoctrinating these children to incite violence as a form of resistance to their alleged oppressors, according to experts.

The “classroom files” of three of the school’s teachers in the Sheltered English Immersion Program are currently available for download on the Boston Teachers Union (BTU) website. These teachers teach Humanities to ninth- and 10th-grade students who have recently arrived in the country from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and China, the website states.

One part of the curriculum profiled on the website involves “notes and assignments around oppression, resistance, and narrative structure.”

“It includes detailed note-taking sheets and powerpoints on institutional, interpersonal, and internalized oppression,” the BTU website reads. “Students are invited to critically examine when certain forms of resistance might be appropriate.”

A worksheet dubbed “Forms of Resistance” is included as an example of what’s taught in the course.

The first page of the worksheet identifies three types of oppression as “Instituional [sic],” “Interpresonal [sic],” and “Internalized,” and then lists examples of each. One example of oppression at the institutional level listed is, “Trump builds a wall on the border so it is harder for Latinos to enter the US.” At the interpersonal level, an example given is, “A husband tells his wife she must stay home to cook and clean.” An example of oppression at the internalized level used by the worksheet is, “An Asian girl hates her eyes, she thinks she is ugly so she gets surgery to change them.”

Students were next asked to “list different forms of resistance for each level of oppression.”

The following pages of the worksheet with the heading “Forms of Resistance Notes” contains 11 rows identifying 11 types of resistance that could be employed to end certain forms of oppression. The column on the far left contains pictures identifying each type of resistance and students are made to name the type of resistance in the next column. Next, students are meant to fill in the blanks in the column that provides the “explanation” for each form of resistance. In the last section, students are to choose which of the three levels of oppression—institutional, interpersonal, or internalized—that the type of resistance was “most effective at ending.”

Alongside peaceful protest methods, such as boycotts, sit-ins, and petitions, the worksheet also contains three images that appear to portray violent forms of revolt: riots, shown by masked protestors wearing all black throwing projectiles, including what appears to be a flare; fights, depicted by a cartoon image of two people brawling; and political assassinations, shown by an image of President Richard Nixon as a target of crosshairs.

‘Indoctrination’

Parental rights advocates expressed alarm at what was apparently being taught to English as a Second Language students at the Boston high school.

Rebecca Friedrichs, founder of advocacy group For Kids & Country and author of “Standing up to Goliath: Battling State and National Teachers’ Unions for the Heart and Soul of our Kids and Country,” said that as a teacher for 28 years and a parent of two children, she was “disgusted” by the worksheet that she described as “damaging and dangerous.”

“These English language learners [in these classrooms] are likely new immigrants to the country, coming to this country to experience freedom. [But in Boston], they’ve run smack dab into Marxist indoctrinators posing as educators,” Friedrichs said. “Schools are meant for educating children, not indoctrinating them in radical ideology.”

The worksheet is “full of lies,” she said, noting that teachers are using these lies to indoctrinate children.

Alex Newman, award-winning international journalist and executive director of the advocacy group Public School Exit, agrees.

“The material was clearly designed to indoctrinate children into seeing themselves as victims of oppression,” he said.

Newman was most alarmed by the worksheet’s examples of violent resistance that he said implied a need to “overthrow” anyone who’s allegedly responsible for the oppression.

“They seem to be promoting revolt and resistance to legitimate forms of authority,” he said.

Newman is also a contributor to The Epoch Times.

The goal of such teachings is to prime children to accept illegitimate forms of authority and encourage them to engage in violence to achieve those ends, he said.

“Legitimate authorities must be brought down if they want to impose new authorities,” Newman said.

And this “indoctrination program” is “an extension of that same lawless agenda.”

Justifying Violence

The worksheet’s attempt to justify violence could be seen through the picture of three individuals dressed in black throwing various objects, including a flare. Both experts noted that the image alludes to groups such as Antifa, a far-left anarchist movement that seeks the overthrow of capitalism.

The explanation listed alongside the picture on the worksheet reads, “Protesting or marching with [blank].” Friedrichs took issue with the characterization.

“They’re clearly engaged in violence, throwing bottles and more,” she said.

In a second example, depicting crosshairs on the chest of President Nixon, Friedrichs said this type of image is “extremely dangerous in the mind of a child.”

“When children are being encouraged to view assassination as a legitimate form of resistance, we’ve entered into some very, very dangerous territory,” Newman said. “The blatant encouragement of assassination as a tactic of resistance to oppression is how this image needs to be understood.”

Images such as this are “paving the way to more widespread violence in society,” he said, noting that “there are very, very powerful forces that want to see America break out into some very significant violence.”

“In America, there’s a centuries-old tradition of tolerance for peaceful protest, for peaceful assembly, [and] for peaceful seeking of redress of grievances that’s being lost,” Newman said. “A lot of these children are being indoctrinated to believe that the alleged oppression they are facing is so severe that violent rebellion is not only justified, but necessary.”

Teachers Taught to Radicalize

Both Friedrichs and Newman said there have been great efforts to radicalize children against lawful and legitimate authority for quite a long time.

“Part of the problem is that [U.S. education] has gone through a multi-generational process of indoctrination that has resulted in a situation where each generation is more indoctrinated,” Newman said. “As these teachers continue to accept even more extreme and more destructive ideas than the previous generation, they’re not realizing that they’re actually being subjected to the indoctrination programs.”

After a K–12 education, Newman said that “they are further radicalized, [as] the indoctrination is often turbocharged at a four-year college, where they are brainwashed even more to believe that not only are these ideas legitimate, but that they are the correct pedagogy, and this is the way children should be educated.”

“They are made to believe that their education is for justice, education is for social justice, [and] their education makes the world a better place,” he said. “Many of these teachers are so brainwashed that they have a feeling of self-righteousness about this—and it’s very sad to see.”

Friedrichs also noted that “a small amount of activist union teachers have been planted in our schools who quietly push this type of nasty agenda.”

“Teachers unions have made gains in the political arena, and they’ve gotten people into key places of power, which often allows them to get away with this nightmare,” she said.

Friedrichs also pointed out the “glaring” misspellings on the worksheet. On the first page, it reads “INSTITUIONAL” and “INTERPRESONAL.” With three people using the document, she considers this “a dead giveaway that these are not truly professional teachers, but union activists masquerading as teachers.”

She said the misspellings are “a huge embarrassment to professional teachers.”

“People are masquerading as teachers and unions all across the country so they can push a very radical agenda,” Friedrichs said.

Potentially Criminal

The advocates called for those responsible for the worksheet to be investigated.

“Those involved in putting together this worksheet need to be removed immediately and disciplined over this,” Friedrichs said.

Had she presented a worksheet like this to her students in the past, she said she would have been fired.

“It was out of the realm of possibility that anyone would have ever done this until recently, when the teachers unions opened the floodgates of their evil agenda,” she said.

Newman said, “Somebody who thinks this is appropriate to teach to children has absolutely no business teaching children; that much is clear; they should not be in a classroom.”

Both Friedrichs and Newman believe that the document warrants a criminal investigation.

“There’s a fine line between free speech and advocacy for violence, and this document appears to cross over that line,” Newman said.

The responsible person or party for this document needs to be questioned, he said.

“If it is determined that this was actually intended to encourage children to use violence as a political tool, I think serious measures and accountability are going to be justified.”

At the very least, Newman is calling for “a full investigation that results in a strong measure of discipline from education authorities.”

Free Speech Exception

Attorney Daniel Schmid, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel, agrees with Friedrichs and Newman. He told The Epoch Times that while the First Amendment allows for free speech, “there are certain well-delineated exceptions—one of which is incitement to violence.”

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court established in 1969 that the First Amendment doesn’t protect speech that incites people to violence or to imminent lawless action.

“Encouraging people to commit an act of violence against political leaders, that’s not protected speech,” Schmid said regarding the worksheet. “It probably falls under fighting words [according to the court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire] or incitement to violence.

“Assassinating a political leader and committing acts of violence is not to be celebrated and encouraged. It’s a crime, and it ought to be punished as so.”

While he said there’s always a question of intent, U.S. law, 18 U.S.C. Section 373, makes it a crime to solicit people to commit an act of violence. According to the law, “it’s a felony to encourage people to commit an act of violence.”

These teachers should be held accountable, Schmid said.

The Epoch Times contacted the Boston Teachers Union to determine if some of the “classroom files” were meant to incite violence. Neither BTU President Jessica Tang nor Professional Learning Director Paul Tritter have returned a comment. Representatives for Charlestown High School also didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Biden administration dramatically reduced migrant prosecutions by nearly 80 percent in the 2021 fiscal year, even as illegal crossings skyrocketed.

Just 2,896 migrants apprehended on the southwest border were transferred into U.S. Marshals Service custody in the 2021 fiscal year, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. In the 2020 fiscal year, 13,213 migrants were transferred to federal authorities for prosecution.

Internal DHS memo obtained by the Washington Free Beacon

The precipitous drop in migrant prosecutions illustrates resident Joe Biden’s break from prior administrations’ policies toward illegal immigration. Refraining from bringing criminal charges against the vast majority of individuals entering the country illegally also provides evidence for critics who say the White House is exacerbating the migration crisis on the southern border.

The decline in prosecutions for illegal border crossings also happened amid the worst border crisis in U.S. history. Migrant encounters on the southern border exceeded two million in 2021.

Under federal law, it is a misdemeanor crime to illegally cross the border. A second arrest for illegally crossing the border can be prosecuted as a felony. According to federal law, those found guilty of an illegal border crossing face fines and up to two years in prison.

“The lack of accountability from this administration encourages the worst people flooding our borders, criminals, to keep violating our laws until they finally commit a crime so egregious that the Department of Justice is forced to prosecute,” a senior DHS official told the Free Beacon.

In the 2019 fiscal year, 20,604 migrants were transferred to Marshals Service custody for prosecution. The previous year, former president Donald Trump halted prosecutions of parents who crossed into the country illegally with children.

Defenders of the White House will likely say the drop in prosecutions can be almost entirely attributed to Title 42—a public health regulation that allows authorities to rapidly expel migrants who enter the country. With Title 42 in effect, law enforcement does not need to process migrants in a typical manner and instead works to expel them as quickly as possible.

But Trump instituted Title 42 in March 2020 at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and still prosecuted far more migrants than in Biden’s first year of his presidency. Moreover, illegal border crossings in 2020 were much lower than in 2021, which saw the most migrant apprehensions in U.S. history.

Biden ordered an end to Title 42 in April, although legal challenges from Republicans have temporarily kept it in place. The Biden administration has not yet released border crossing prosecution data for the 2022 fiscal year.

Beyond attempting to eliminate Title 42, the Biden administration has worked to undo immigration policies from the Trump administration. Last month, the Supreme Court authorized Biden to terminate the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forces many migrants to wait in Mexico before their asylum court hearing in the United States. 

The Free Beacon in December reported on deportations plummeting to the lowest number in decades under Biden. The White House has also stonewalled congressional investigations into where DHS is placing illegal immigrants after they are released into the U.S. interior. 

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The controversial male-to-female transgender swimmer Lia Thomas has been nominated for NCAA’s Woman of the Year.

The award “honors the academic achievements, athletics excellence, community service and leadership of graduating female college athletes,” according to the NCAA’s website. Since it was established in 1991, there has never been a biological male nominee. Thomas beat out around 219,000 biological female competitors for the nomination.

Lia, formerly William, began transitioning in 2019 before the swimmer’s junior year at the University of Pennsylvania after years of competing as a man. Thomas gained national spotlight after winning the Women’s Division I Swimming and Diving Championships 500-yard freestyle event in March, leaping from a 65th ranking as a man to the first place spot as a woman and breaking Ivy League records.

Nearly 60 percent of Americans believe biological males should not be allowed to compete in collegiate or professional women’s sports, according to a June Washington Post poll.

In January, the NCAA Board of Governors mirrored the International Olympic Committee’s guidance on trans athletes, allowing the governing bodies of sports to make their own gender-qualifying rules. FINA, the international water sports federation, had not yet announced their new transgender policies by the time Thomas was permitted to compete and erase records set by outstanding biological women.

The Woman of the Year nominee pool will eventually be narrowed to 30 finalists, with the winner selected in January. Each NCAA member school has the opportunity to nominate up to two athletes for the honor, though a second has to be an “international student-athlete or student-athlete of color.”

The NCAA selects the Woman of the Year based on athletic and academic performance as well as a personal statement and service and leadership work. Thomas holds a national title, so his athletics score is the highest possible on the selection scale.

The service and leadership section asks nominees to list special recognitions received. Thomas has been mentioned in hundreds of news articles since 2019 and was featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated earlier this year.

Thomas’s Olympic dreams were dashed last month when FINA banned post-puberty male-to-female transitioners from competing as women. Thomas now plans to attend law school and become a civil rights attorney, citing experiences with gender discrimination.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The party has spent millions to nominate radicals across the country

The Democratic Party is attempting to help nominate a journalist with ties to salacious drag queens and Neo-Nazi “Jew hunters,” according to NBC News. Arizona Democrats last week circulated a press release intended to undermine Karrin Taylor Robson, the GOP gubernatorial candidate running against Kari Lake, a longtime news anchor and Democratic donor who volunteered for Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008.

Election observers correctly assumed that the reason Democrats were attacking Robson was to boost Lake’s chances of winning the Republican nomination for governor. Given her close ties to the drag queen and Neo-Nazi communities, Lake is presumably the candidate Democrats would prefer to face in November. The party pursued a similar strategy in 2016 by helping Donald Trump win the GOP presidential nomination. Alas, that didn’t work out as they’d hoped.

Trump endorsed Lake last year despite her 2017 comments denouncing his performance at a press conference following the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va. Lake told her Facebook followers that Trump “showed absolutely no self-control” during the press conference, which she described as “a train crash … a real $hit$how.” She is currently leading the primary field by 8.5 percentage points, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. Arizona holds its primary on August 2.

Ironically, Lake is now attracting support from some of the same Neo-Nazi types responsible for the Charlottesville rally. In August 2021, she posed for a photo at a campaign event with Ethan Schmidt-Crockett and Greyson Arnold, renowned icons of incel racism. Schmidt-Crockett, for example, recently posted a video in which he announced his plan to “celebrate white history and Christian heritage [by] bringing back some good old Jew hunting.” Arnold, meanwhile, has repeatedly defended Adolf Hitler and argued that the United States fought on the wrong side in World War II.

Lake has also been accused of hypocrisy for her recently established opposition to drag queens. The candidate, who has attacked drag queens as dangerous to children, reportedly maintained a close friendship with a prominent Arizona drag queen named Richard Stevens, aka Barbra Seville. “I’ve performed for Kari’s birthday, I’ve performed in her home (with children present,) and I’ve performed for her at some of the seediest bars in Phoenix,” Stevens wrote on Facebook last month.

Arizona is not the only state in which Democrats have meddled in the Republican primary by backing the most controversial GOP candidate. They helped Doug Mastriano win the GOP gubernatorial nomination in Pennsylvania by running ads touting his pro-Trump credentials. In Illinois, the state’s billionaire governor J.B. Pritzker (D., Ill.) and the Democratic Governors Association spent $30 million attacking Richard Irvin, a moderate black Republican, to spoil his chances of winning the GOP gubernatorial nomination.

The party has even meddled in House primaries by supporting radical candidates. Nancy Pelosi’s House Majority PAC attempted to defeat Rep. David Valadao (R., Calif.), who voted to impeach Trump, by boosting his pro-Trump primary opponent. It didn’t work, but the party’s efforts have been widely criticized. For all their wailing and moaning about the democracy being under assault, Democrats have been actively seeking to promote Kari Lake and Republican candidates who embraced the campaign to overturn the 2020 election.

Good luck!

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The State Department says it is not considering a redesignation of the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels as a terrorist group, even after a delegation of human rights activists launched a pressure campaign against the Biden administration.

A redesignation of the Houthis is not a top priority, according to the State Department. “We are currently focused on securing, extending, and building on the [United Nations] truce in Yemen, which is having a tangible impact on millions of Yemenis and provides a credible opportunity for peace in Yemen,” a spokesman told the Washington Free Beacon.

The statement comes on the heels of a visit last week by Yemeni human rights activists, who were in Washington, D.C., to press the Biden administration and Congress to consider redesignating the Houthi rebels in Yemen as terrorists. The designation was first approved by the Trump administration during its push to isolate Iranian-backed terror fronts but reversed by resident Joe Biden when he took office last year.

Biden administration officials who met with the activists said they view a redesignation of the Houthis as an obstacle to securing a permanent ceasefire between the Iran-armed militants and Yemeni government, according to sources familiar with the meetings. The activist pressure campaign was launched to coincide with Biden’s first trip to the Middle East last week, in which he met with Saudi Arabian leaders to discuss Houthi attacks on the country, among other issues.

The D.C. visit by the Yemeni human rights advocates was accompanied by a letter to the White House criticizing its decision to delist the Houthis and warning about the dire humanitarian crisis in Yemen that has developed. The July 11 letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Free Beacon, was signed by 35 organizations advocating for Yemeni human rights. The Biden administration removed the group from the terror list as part of a bid to help bolster U.S.-backed peace talks between the Iranian-armed rebels and the Yemeni government. Though a tenuous cease-fire is in place and expected to be renewed in August with U.S.-backing, the human rights leaders maintain the Houthis must be held accountable for their attacks on civilians.

“Unfortunately, the administration seems more focused on renewing a failed truce than on actually resolving the conflict and aiding the Yemeni people,” Dr. Wesam Basindawa, a human rights activist who participated in the meetings, told the Free Beacon. Basindawa’s delegation was organized by the Yemeni Coalition of Independent Women, a human rights organization that seeks to draw attention to Houthi atrocities and their repeated violation of the cease-fire agreement. The activists met with officials representing the U.S. special envoy for Yemen, as well as a bipartisan group of lawmakers.

Asked about the situation, a State Department spokesman indicated to the Free Beacon that a redesignation of the Houthis is not being considered.

“Humanitarian considerations continue to be an important factor in any decision regarding a Foreign Terrorist Designation of Ansarallah,” the official name of the rebel group, according to a State Department official.

Human rights activists disagree. They say the Houthis continue to conduct terror attacks and violate the cease fire agreement.

“In the year and a half since that action was taken, the Houthis have not moderated their actions or engaged in a productive dialogue,” the activists wrote in their letter to the White House. “Furthermore, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen has not been relieved.”

Since the Biden administration delisted the terror group, “the number of Houthi militia violations against Yemeni people and attacks against civilian targets in Saudi Arabia had doubled,” the group notes. “In the past period, the Houthis conducted … drone or missile attacks on Saudi airports and airfields.”

At home in Yemen, “the violence of the Houthi group increased after it was removed from the list of terrorist organizations,” committing crimes that include the “siege of cities, bombing civilians, booby trapp[ed] roads and schools, sniping civilians, child recruitment, displacement of civilians from their homes, humanitarian aid theft,” and other atrocities. “Nearly half of these incidents affected women and children,” the group says.

“The Houthis have responded to your administration’s offer of compassion and conciliation with disdain. They have refused to take advantage of the opportunity that your administration provided and allow for the alleviation of the pain and suffering of the Yemeni people,” they write. “It is therefore time to reconsider the Houthi designation as a” foreign terrorist organization.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Almost half of small business owners said their businesses are on the brink of closing after inflation last month hit another record high.

A report published Thursday by the Alignable Research Center found that 47 percent of small business owners say they may close by the fall, marking a 12-point increase from last summer, when only 35 percent of business owners said they were at risk. More than half, meanwhile, said they expect to make less money than they did last year.

More than 60 percent of respondents said inflation has damaged their business more than the COVID-19 pandemic, the report showed. Inflation shot up to 9.1 percent in June, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Economists, including former Obama administration officials, have said resident Joe Biden’s nearly $2 trillion stimulus package contributed significantly to skyrocketing inflation.

Other causes of financial instability, respondents said, include increased gas prices, rent hikes, labor issues, the broken supply chain, reduced consumer spending, rising interest rates, fears of recession, and continued pandemic recovery.

Retailers, construction firms, and car dealerships were among the hardest hit small businesses. Half of restaurant owners said their businesses are in danger. Of small business owners in general, almost 60 percent agreed the summer of 2022 has been economically challenging.

“Small businesses do not like high inflation since it raises their costs and squeezes their profit margins,” American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Desmond Lachman told the Washington Free Beacon. “This forces them to have to raise prices, which might be difficult to do both because they might get pushback from their consumers and because they might lose market share. The high degree of uncertainty associated with high inflation makes it difficult for small businesses to plan and operate.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The Congressional Workers Union announced today eight Democratic offices will be the first to unionize.

“For far too long, congressional staff have dealt with unsafe working conditions, unlivable wages, and vast inequity in our workplaces,” a Monday press release stated. “Having a seat at the bargaining table through a union will ensure we have a voice in decisions that impact our workplace.” The Congressional Workers Union’s website says the unionization effort was prompted by “problematic work conditions,” including insufficient pay, high turnover, and “pervasive” sexual harassment.

Eighty-five staffers from the offices of Reps. Cori Bush (D., Mo.), Chuy Garcia (D., Ill.), Ro Khanna (D., Calif.), Andy Levin (D., Mich.), Ted Lieu (D., Calif.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.), and Melanie Stansbury (D., N.M.) moved to join the new union.

Some of those members are multimillionaires. Lieu, a lawyer and real estate investor, has a reported 2018 net worth of $3.5 million, according to OpenSecrets. Levin owns an energy company and has a net worth of almost $3.95 million. The median salary for House staffers is $59,000.

Democrats hemorrhaged staff at a rate 24 percent higher than Republicans in 2021, the Hill reported in March.

A former chief of staff to Garcia resigned in 2019 following allegations that he laughed in the face of a female staffer after she disclosed she had been sexual harassed when both were working on Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I., Vt.) 2016 presidential campaign. Bush and Ocasio-Cortez both claim to have been victims of sexual harassment.

Levin led the charge to pass the resolution making congressional unionizing legal. The resolution passed in May, but a Senate version has yet to pass. Now, House staffers cannot be fired, demoted, or otherwise punished for unionizing, a development that opened the door for Monday’s announcement.

The union’s website says a few negotiation goals are more flexible telework options, comprehensive health and safety protocols, and improved severance policies. In April, after resident Joe Biden urged Americans to return to in-person work during his State of the Union address, the Washington Free Beacon reported in March Democrats on Capitol Hill had failed to end their work-from-home policies, preferring to extend teleworking policies indefinitely.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The Biden administration is poised to give Iran “more than a hundred billion dollars” in cash windfalls if it signs a new nuclear deal, according to former ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who also hinted to a group of pro-Israel activists on Monday that she will run for president in 2024.

With negotiations over a revamped nuclear deal ongoing, Haley warned an audience of pro-Israel activists that the Biden administration is preparing to unload billions of dollars to Tehran—money that “will fund terrorist attacks on Israel and America.”

Biden has “made clear that he’ll do almost anything to get the ayatollahs to sign on the dotted line,” Haley said in a speech before the Christians United for Israel organization during its annual gathering in Washington, D.C. “And do you know who Biden allowed our lead negotiator on the Iran deal to be? Russia.” An advanced transcript of her remarks was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Haley said that with Moscow’s help, the Biden administration is laying the groundwork for Iran to obtain “missiles and nukes to destroy both Israel and America.”

Haley’s speech, which focused heavily on Israel and the threats posed by both Iran and Russia, comes amid speculation that she will throw her hat into the ring for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination—rumors that she appeared to confirm in her speech. It also laid the groundwork for a foreign policy approach that would refocus America on countering Iran and its growing alliance with Russia.

“Anything Joe Biden signs [with Iran] will all but guarantee that Iran gets the bomb. No deal is better than a bad deal,” she said. “And if this president signs any sort of deal, I’ll make you a promise. … The next president will shred it—on her first day in office.”

In addition to advocating for increased U.S. military aid to Israel to help it confront Iran, Haley discussed the war in Ukraine and blamed the Biden administration’s failures in Afghanistan for fueling Russian president Vladimir Putin’s invasion.

“If America hadn’t failed so miserably in Afghanistan, there never would have been a war in Ukraine,” she said. “Putin saw the strongest country in history leave Bagram Air Force Base in the middle of the night—without even telling our allies who stood shoulder to shoulder with us for decades.”

The bungled U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is why “Putin made his move. It’s the price we pay for American weakness. And now countless Ukrainians are paying for our mistake with their lives,” Haley said.

Other world dictators learned a similar lesson when the United States ran out of Afghanistan, according to Haley.

“Putin wasn’t the only one who saw a green light in Afghanistan. So did Kim Jong Un in North Korea. So did Xi Jinping in Communist China,”
she said. “And last but not least, our surrender in Afghanistan was the gift that keeps on giving for Iran. When Kabul fell, the ayatollahs celebrated.”

Haley also criticized Biden’s recent trip to the Middle East, including Israel, where he announced a $300 million cash infusion to the Palestinian government. The Free Beacon exclusively reported last week that a large portion of this cash is funding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, known as UNRWA, which has a history of inciting violence against Jews.

“The money has no conditions, no strings, nothing. The Palestinians can keep stoking hatred of Israel,” Haley said of the renewed funding. “They can keep paying the families of terrorists, which encourages more suicide bombings. Basically, the Palestinians can use America’s money to attack America’s ally. It’s a disgrace.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The financial services firm facing accusations that it promotes Israel boycotts relies on research produced by “a leader” in the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) and other anti-Israel sources, according to an analyst tracking the situation.

The research arm of Morningstar Inc., a firm that advises investors, relies on research produced by a pro-BDS organization called Who Profits, which is known to push Israel boycotts, according to Richard Goldberg, a former U.S. national security official and Middle East expert who recently published an independent analysis on the matter for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank.

Morningstar is already fighting charges that its research arm, Sustainalytics, downgrades companies that help Israel combat terrorism, thereby bolstering the BDS movement’s drive to economically damage the Jewish state. Sustainalytics employees who were interviewed as part of an investigation into anti-Israel bias at the firm indicated they have a close relationship with and rely on research produced by Who Profits, which has been cited by a watchdog organization as one of the leading pro-BDS nonprofit groups. The findings related to Who Profits raise new questions about how deeply Sustainalytics relies on organizations with direct ties to the BDS movement.

“Morningstar’s ratings system uniquely relies on a group that’s at the forefront of the BDS movement to blacklist Israel-connected companies,” said Goldberg.

Who Profits “maintains a public database of businesses that are often targeted in international BDS campaigns,” according to NGO Monitor, a watchdog group that monitors pro-BDS outfits. The reliance on Who Profits and other anti-Israel groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, is raising questions about Morningstar’s commitment to rooting out anti-Israel bias in its ratings products, Goldberg said.

Who Profits “is a leader in BDS efforts against Israeli and foreign companies,” according to NGO Monitor, and was founded “in response to the Palestinian call for boycott[s]” against Israel. The organization is dedicated to “exposing the commercial involvement of Israeli and international corporations in the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Syrian lands,” according to information published on its own website.

Goldberg analyzed evidence presented in a 134-page review of Morningstar’s methods conducted by the law firm White & Case that cleared Morningstar of any wrongdoing.

Sustainalytics employees interviewed as part of the White & Case report indicated that Who Profits “was used primarily for background information, and was consistently balanced against other sources.” Others said the relationship is deeper, with Sustainalytics “research analysts often rely[ing] upon Who Profits for what they view as unique, boots on-the-ground research regarding corporate involvement in the region, in part because Who Profits is one of the few organizations that actually operates on the ground in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict areas.”

The White & Case report also found that “communications between Sustainalytics employees and representatives of Who Profits suggest that the relationship between the entities is close, relative to Sustainalytics’ relationships with other organizations.”

Sustainalytics ratings products also rely on information produced by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which have faced accusations of anti-Israel bias and of unfairly labeling Israel as an apartheid state.

The Washington Free Beacon previously reported on concerns that Sustainalytics may place a company on its investment “watchlist” for the “supply of arms” to Israel or other nations involved in conflicts. By downgrading companies that supply the Israel Defense Forces, for instance, Sustainalytics could be relying on metrics that negatively impact Israel more than others.

Gerald Steinberg, NGO Monitor’s founder, said the BDS movement is increasingly trying to manipulate firms that conduct corporate responsibility ratings, known in the industry as CSR ratings.

“As the NGOs leading the BDS movement increasingly try to manipulate CSR firms into advancing their agenda, these firms must be vigilant in vetting these sources,” Steinberg said. “Corporate due diligence is vital to ensure that ratings under the facade of human rights are not based on false claims by ideological activists and organizations.”

A Morningstar spokesman would not address questions related to Sustainalytics’s reliance on Who Profits, but said the company does not in any way endorse or support the BDS movement. Morningstar also said in recent months that it is discontinuing certain services that were found to unfairly target Israel and adjusting others to remove instances of anti-Israel bias.

As Morningstar attempts to distance itself from the BDS movement, a group of leading Jewish organizations raised concerns the reforms do not go far enough. The Jewish Federations of North America, an umbrella organization that represents top Jewish groups across the country, says Sustainalytics’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings unfairly target Israel. ESG ratings examine a company based on its social values and tend to unfairly target Israel as a result of its conflict with the Palestinians.

The White & Case report “makes clear that built-in bias against Israel infects Sustainalytics’ methodology and sources, and thus, its other ESG ratings products,” the Jewish group wrote in a letter sent to Morningstar’s top executives. “This bias is not only unfair and harmful to Israeli companies and those doing business in and with Israel, but such bias also threatens to tarnish the ESG ratings framework itself.”

“Morningstar should take the opportunity to cleanse its products of all anti-Israel bias and set an example of fairness and reliability for all companies providing ESG ratings, which represent one-third of dollars managed globally,” the organization said, echoing concerns from others in the pro-Israel advocacy world.

FDD’s Goldberg maintains that the biased metrics employed by Sustainalytics could amount to support for the BDS movement and trigger state and federal anti-BDS laws.

“We now have a mountain of evidence that Morningstar’s ESG subsidiary is engaged in a boycott of Israel through its sources and methods,” Goldberg said. “It’s time for states and Congress to intervene.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Measures to make regime pay US terror victims shot down

Congressional Democrats killed a handful of measures that would have stopped the Biden administration from providing U.S. taxpayer funds to the hardline Iranian regime and increased economic sanctions on the country.

Democrats running the House Rules Committee last week shot down seven Republican-led measures targeting Iran. Republican foreign policy leaders were pushing for the measures to be included in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the sprawling annual funding bill for national security priorities.

Congressional sources who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon said House Democrats rejected the measures to help the Biden administration in its push to secure a revamped version of the 2015 nuclear accord. Those negotiations are ongoing, and the White House is pushing its allies in Congress to avoid passing any measures that may upset the hardline regime and erode progress in talks.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) “opposed the original JCPOA, and I hoped congressional Democrats might come to their senses and oppose Biden’s disastrous Iran reboot,” Rep. Jim Banks (R., Ind.) told the Free Beacon, referring to the nuclear deal by its official acronym.

Banks said he expected at least some Democrats who have been critical of the Iran nuclear deal to back measures that would stop the Biden administration from awarding Tehran with taxpayer funds.

“But Democrats’ foreign policy is even weaker now than it was during the Obama years,” Banks said. “House Democrats voted to pave the way towards a JCPOA 2.0 that will enrich terrorists and bring Iran even closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon. It’s not just Joe Biden—the whole party is to blame.”

Banks and his Republican colleagues attempted to pass what they described as a common-sense measure to block the Pentagon from sending any taxpayer dollars to the Iranian regime. The measure would have stopped any funds allocated in the fiscal year 2023 NDAA from going to “the government of Iran,” “any person owned or controlled by the government of Iran,” and “any person identified on the list of specially designated nationals,” according to a copy of the rejected amendment.

Another measure the Republicans expected to receive Democratic support would have terminated the president’s authority to waive sanctions on Russians who work on Iran’s contested nuclear program. Even with a bipartisan opposition to Russia’s unprovoked war in Ukraine, Democrats rejected this provision.

Other measures would have sanctioned the Iranian supreme leader’s office for human rights abuses and required the Biden administration to submit a report to Congress on Iranians who could be targeted with additional sanctions.

Democrats also rejected a measure that expressed support for forcing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the paramilitary fighting force that has killed hundreds of Americans, to pay compensation to its victims. The resolution also expressed support for keeping the IRGC on the U.S. terrorist lists. The Biden administration was rumored to be considering dropping the designation as part of a concessions package to Tehran in nuclear talks. Biden during his first visit to the Middle East last week said dropping the designation is no longer under consideration.

One measure that was killed would have stopped funds from being allocated to any effort aimed at removing Iran from terrorist financing watchlists, and another would have mandated congressional reports on Iran’s illicit oil trade, which has skyrocketed since the Biden administration relaxed sanctions.

Meanwhile, Iranian leaders announced over the weekend that the country officially has the technical know-how to produce an atomic bomb, a disclosure that has increased calls for the Biden administration to cease diplomacy and begin sanctioning Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

‘There’s nobody suggesting there’s unchecked inflation on the way—no serious economist.’

Exactly one year ago today, on July 19, 2021, resident Joe Biden delivered a momentous address on the state of the U.S. economy. The speech, in retrospect, was a chilling portent of the economic calamity that has befallen this great country as a result of Biden’s failed leadership.

Biden’s remarks came several months after Democrats rammed through the $1.9 trillion package known as the American Rescue Plan. Some experts had warned that injecting so much money into the economy could lead to runaway inflation. The White House scoffed at such concerns. At the time of Biden’s speech, prices were already beginning to rise. The president took the opportunity to tell Americans to stop complaining.

“As our economy has come roaring back, we’ve seen some price increases,” Biden said. “Some folks have raised worries that this could be a sign of persistent inflation, but that’s not our view. Our experts believe, and the data shows, that most of the price increases we’ve seen were expected and [are] expected to be temporary.”

They weren’t. Prices have steadily increased since the summer of 2021. The inflation rate went from 5.4 percent in July 2021 to 7.5 percent in January 2022. Last month it surpassed 9 percent, the highest inflation rate since November 1981. Gas prices have soared to record highs.

In his speech one year ago, Biden explained that while inflation wasn’t a serious problem at the time, his administration was prepared to act if necessary. “Now, I want to be clear,” he said. “My administration understands that if we were to ever experience unchecked inflation over the long term, that would pose real challenges to our economy.  So while we’re confident that isn’t what we are seeing today, we’re going to remain vigilant about any response that is needed.”

They weren’t prepared—probably because they refused to believe it could happen. “There’s nobody suggesting there’s unchecked inflation on the way—no serious economist,” Biden said last year in response to a reporter’s question. “I mean, look, the stock market is higher than it has been in all of history.”

The stock market has declined roughly 13 percent since Biden’s speech. Fears of an economic recession continue to mount. Perhaps the best indication that we’re about to experience a recession is the fact that the Biden administration keeps “confidently” insisting otherwise.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Authorities said the 20-year-old shooter who opened fire in an Indiana mall on July 17 waited inside a bathroom for an hour before fatally shooting three people and injuring two others before an armed bystander shot and killed him.

Greenwood Police Department Chief Jim Ison said during a July 18 press conference that the shooter was in the Greenwood Park Mall bathroom for one hour and two minutes before he entered the food court area and fired shots.

He said investigators believe that Jonathan Douglas Sapirman, 20, spent that time preparing and possibly assembling a disassembled rifle that he had brought in his backpack. He ended up firing 24 rounds within two minutes.

The deceased victims were identified as Pedro Pineda, 56; his wife, Rosa Mirian Rivera de Pineda, 37; and Victor Gomez, 30, by the Johnson County Coroner’s Office, according to Ison.

Sapirman was identified as the shooter by Ison and the Johnson County Coroner’s Office. He identified the good Samaritan as Elisjsha Dicken, 22, who was said to be shopping with his girlfriend and “lawfully carrying” a handgun in the mall.

“Many more people would’ve died last night if not for a responsible armed citizen that took action very quickly, within the first two minutes of this shooting,” Ison said.

Dicken’s “actions were nothing short of heroic,” according to Ison, who noted that Dicken was armed with a 9-millimeter pistol.

“He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun, was very proficient in that, very tactically sound,” Ison said. “And as he moved to close in on the suspect, he was also motioning for people to exit behind him.”

In a July 18 press conference, officials said Sapirman had no criminal history but had a record as a juvenile. The shooter purchased the rifle he used on March 8 and purchased another rifle, which was found in the bathroom, on March 9, authorities said, noting that he was also armed with a handgun.

Although police don’t know a motive for the attack, Sapirman’s relatives told investigators that he recently received notice that he was being evicted from his apartment, although Ison said authorities were still trying to confirm if that was the case. Relatives also said Sapirman resigned from a warehouse job in May, he said.

Gun rights groups said on July 18 that the good Samaritan’s actions are an example of why it’s important to allow Americans to carry firearms in public. The Supreme Court recently struck down a New York law that placed limits on who can carry guns outside the home.

“We will say it again: The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” the National Rifle Association (NRA) wrote in a Twitter post.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A trio of U.S. senators is requesting a security review of a farmland purchase by a Chinese agribusiness with a founder who has links to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), raising concerns about the property’s proximity to a U.S. military installation.

Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) are asking the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)—an interagency group that screens foreign investments for security risks—to review the Fufeng Group’s purchase of 370 acres of farmland near the Grand Forks Air Force Base for potential “national security implications.”

“This property is approximately 12 miles from Grand Forks Air Force Base, which has led to concern that Fufeng operations could provide cover for PRC [the People’s Republic of China] surveillance or interference with the missions located at that installation, given Fufeng Group’s reported ties to the Chinese Communist Party,” the senators wrote in a July 14 letter addressed to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen.

“PRC investments in the United States demand scrutiny. We therefore urge you, through CFIUS, to determine whether this project has national security implications and inform us when such a review is completed.”

Fufeng is a manufacturer of bio-fermented, corn-derived products, which are used in end products ranging from animal feed to pharmaceuticals. A Hong Kong-listed company, the group has multiple subsidiaries around the world, but most of its production facilities can be found in northeast China.

Fufeng’s chairman, Li Xuechun, was a provincial-level representative in China’s rubber-stamp legislature system—the People’s Congress—in 2008 and 2013 in northeastern Shandong Province and has been a CCP member since 1985, according to Chinese media reports.

Li was awarded the “model worker” award and an “outstanding” award for entrepreneurs by Shandong provincial authorities in 2003. According to geopolitical analyst Ross Kennedy, the awards revealed Li to have embodied “the synthesis of economic and political goals of the Shandong region and the CCP.”

Considering Fufeng’s connections to an adversarial regime and the sensitive nature of the U.S. military installation, Cramer says the corn mill’s location is too close for comfort.

“There’s one very specific concern that has a lot of people focused on it, and that is that it’s in fairly close proximity to the Grand Forks Air Force Base. The Grand Forks Air Force Base is a very important ISR mission,” he told NTD, a sister media outlet of The Epoch Times, referring to the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance activities at the base.

Cramer also noted that the Chinese regime is “very strategic” about the acquisitions of overseas assets, demonstrating a “willingness to use economic enticement to gain access to very important assets, whether it’s a port in Sri Lanka or an airport in Uganda.”

“China has been a predatory investor for a long time,” he said.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) agrees with his Republican colleagues.

“The Senate Intelligence Committee has been loudly sounding the alarm about the counterintelligence threat posed by the PRC,” Warner told CNBC. “We should be seriously concerned about Chinese investment in locations close to sensitive sites, such as military bases around the U.S.”

According to a May report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, an influential congressional advisory body, the Air Force facility “houses some of the United States’ top intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.”

The commission found the mill’s location “particularly convenient for monitoring air traffic flows in and out of the base, among other security-related concerns.”

A representative of Fufeng USA, the subsidiary of Fufeng Group that has been leading the development and discussions with the City of Grand Forks, North Dakota, dismissed such security concerns.

“I know we’re not going to be asked to be collecting any intelligence on Grand Forks Air Force Base,” Eric Chutorash, chief operating officer of Fufeng USA, told local media outlets in March. “I can’t stress it any more than that. Me personally, I wouldn’t provide it. I don’t believe the team being built there would provide it.”

Brandon Bochenski, mayor of Grand Forks, has touted the economic benefits of the project while maintaining that the city has been working with authorities for direction.

“We have been in contact with our Governor, ND [North Dakota] state agencies, U.S. Senators, and U.S. House Representative regarding the project,” Bochenski previously told The Epoch Times in an email.

“We see economic benefits of a new wet-corn milling facility in the region. We are doing as much due diligence as possible and look to the appropriate federal agencies for national security insights and direction.”

The Pentagon declined to comment, and the Treasury didn’t respond to an inquiry from The Epoch Times.

J.M. Phelps contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The office of Indiana’s attorney general says he didn’t defame the Indianapolis doctor who performed an abortion for a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim in June.

“No false or misleading statements have been made,” a spokesperson for Attorney General Todd Rokita, a Republican, told The Epoch Times via email.

Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an obstetrician-gynecologist with the Indiana University School of Medicine, carried out the abortion on June 30, according to records obtained by The Epoch Times. She reported it to state health authorities within three days, as state law requires, although it remains unclear if she followed other mandatory reporting requirements by notifying the Indiana Department of Child Services.

Prior to the records being released, Rokita had said that he was investigating Bernard for potential failure to report.

“The failure to do so constitutes a crime in Indiana, and her behavior could also affect her licensure. Additionally, if a HIPAA violation did occur, that may affect next steps as well. I will not relent in the pursuit of the truth,” Rokita said in an earlier statement.

HIPAA, or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, is a federal law that prohibits the disclosure of some details about patients.

Indiana University said a review concluded that Bernard didn’t violate any laws, and the doctor’s lawyer subsequently sent a cease-and-desist letter to Rokita.

“Please immediately cease and desist making any false or misleading statements about Dr. Bernard,” Kathleen DeLaney, the lawyer, told the attorney general.

She said that Rokita’s initial comments made during a Fox News appearance “cast Dr. Bernard in a false light and allege misconduct in her profession,” and criticized the statements made after the record release that the investigation into the doctor was still ongoing.

The statements “have the potential to incite harassment or violence from the public which could prevent Dr. Bernard, an Indiana licensed physician, from providing care to her patents [sic] safely,” DeLaney wrote.

Rokita’s spokesperson said that the letter, like any correspondence, “will be reviewed if and when it arrives.”

Man Arrested

The man arrested for allegedly raping the 10-year-old girl, meanwhile, remains jailed in Franklin County, Ohio, according to jail records. Gerson Fuentes, described as an illegal immigrant by local and federal authorities, confessed to raping the minor, according to court documents. Testing of DNA taken from the suspect is pending.

The public defender’s office in the county, which is representing Fuentes, hasn’t responded to requests for comment.

Fuentes is 27. Bernard had listed the age of the father of the unborn child as 17. Her lawyer hasn’t responded to requests for comment.

Fuentes was charged with raping a person under the age of 13 years and faces life in prison if convicted.

His next court appearance is scheduled for July 22.

Source: The Epoch Times

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is withholding records related to high-profile investigations, including the probe into resident Joe Biden’s son, according to a new lawsuit.

Protect the Public’s Trust, a watchdog group, is seeking records seeking ethics waivers and determinations on allowing potentially conflicted employees to work on cases, but has been stymied.

The group submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) records request on June 1, 2021, but didn’t receive a response for more than a year, according to the suit.

After inquiring about the status of the request on June 10, the watchdog received an acknowledgment that had been sent to the wrong email address. But the records still haven’t been sent, nor have key determinations about which records will be provided, which violates federal law.

Based on the DOJ’s recent email, “it appears that the Department has no intention of responding to Plaintiff’s request anytime soon,” Protect the Public’s Trust said in the filing in federal court in Washington. “Given these facts, it appears that absent litigation the Department has not and does not intend to meet its statutory obligations to provide the requested records.”

The documents would help shed light on potential conflicts of interest, including whether Joe Biden-appointee Nicholas McQuaid, a top DOJ official, is at all involved with the investigation into Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, according to the watchdog.

McQuaid’s former colleague is representing Hunter Biden, who has said that he’s under investigation for tax-related issues. Documents obtained by The Epoch Times indicate that the probe touches on Hunter Biden’s business dealings with China.

Susan Hennessey was hired in 2021 from CNN to be a lawyer at the DOJ. Before she was hired, she described the investigation from special counsel John Durham, which has uncovered more details about the effort to spy on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and his associates in 2016, as “partisan silliness.”

“Have these officials been granted waivers to participate in these matters, which would likely fall into their portfolios?” Protect the Public’s Trust said in a statement. “By its refusal to properly respond to this FOIA request, as required by law, DOJ is hiding this information from the American public.”

The DOJ didn’t respond to a request for comment but has said that it doesn’t comment on pending lawsuits.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, a Biden appointee, issued a memorandum to agencies across the federal government that he said would “strengthen the federal government’s commitment to the fair and effective administration of FOIA.”

“Transparency in government operations is a priority of this Administration and this Department. We stand ready to work with each of you to make real the Freedom of Information Act’s promise of a government that is open and accountable to the American people,” he said at the time.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

JUST AS WASHINGTON BEGINS TO TAKE THE TIKTOK THREAT SERIOUSLY, THE DEMOCRATS JOIN THE PLATFORM.

The Democratic National Committee has officially joined TikTok, a controversial social media platform with deep ties to the Chinese Communist Party, despite advising their own campaigns against joining the Chinese-owned app during the 2020 election cycle.

“We continue to advise campaign staff to refrain from using TikTok on personal devices. If you are using TikTok for campaign work, we recommend using a separate phone and account,” the DNC security team instructed its candidates two years ago.

Despite the warning, the Democratic Party has completed an about-face on the platform, at the same time Washington, D.C. begins to take seriously the threat of spying through the app.

The DNC’s stark reversal comes amidst evidence revealing that the TikTok parent company employs former Chinese Communist Party officials, including individuals with military ties, to executive roles and even grants party members preferential treatment in hiring processes.

The app’s founder also pledged to use ByteDance to “promote socialist core values” and devotion to the Chinese Communist Party in 2018.

TikTok’s threat to national security and data privacy – previously acknowledged by the DNC – prompted the Trump administration to attempt to ban the platform from operating in the U.S. – an effort recently quashed by the Biden White House.

The committee maintains it is employing security precautions such as dedicating individual devices that are isolated from “other DNC assets/processes/businesses as a mitigation to the privacy risk.” The DNC attributed its decision to an effort to reach more voters, particularly younger generations.

The move comes amidst a massive lobbying campaign mounted by TikTok and its parent company ByteDance. Many of the lobbyists and firms hired by the company have ties to Democratic politics and leaders such as Nancy Pelosi.

MUST READ: Would-Be British PM Rishi Sunak’s Family Runs A China-Linked, World Economic Forum Partner Company Pushing Digital ID and Social Credit Scores.

Internally, TikTok has also hired several Democratic Party alumni, including Obama administration National Security Council members to run its Trust and Safety operations.

TikTok also funds several fact-checking organizations used by other social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, which frequently exercise their censorship capabilities against conservative users and stories critical of the Chinese Communist Party.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) still does not have an account on the platform.

“We do not have any plans to give the Chinese Communist Party our data, nor do we plan to use their spyware,” said RNC spokesperson Nathan Brand.

The lieutenant who was the acting police chief on duty the day of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, has been placed on administrative leave, following a report that found systemic failures by law enforcement who responded to the incident.

Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin confirmed in a statement published on July 17 that Lt. Mariano Pargas had been placed on leave. McLaughlin noted that the city has a responsibility to evaluate how the Uvalde Police Department responded to the shooting incident, including Pargas’s role as acting chief.

“This administrative leave is to investigate whether Lt. Pargas was responsible for taking command on May 24th, what specific actions Lt. Pargas took to establish that command, and whether it was even feasible, given all the agencies involved and other possible policy violations,” McLaughlin wrote in the statement.

The statement didn’t provide details as to whether Pargas was placed on paid or unpaid leave.

The announcement came just hours after the Texas state House of Representatives on July 17 published a 77-page report noting that there were failures across the board by some of the roughly 400 law enforcement officers who responded to the May 24 mass shooting, including Pargas.

“There is no one to whom we can attribute malice or ill motives. Instead, we found systemic failures and egregious poor decision making,” the report said.

It also pointed to “shortcomings and failures of the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District [CISD] and of various agencies and officers of law enforcement” and “an overall lackadaisical approach.”

‘Void of Leadership’

Pargas told the committee that “he figured” CISD police Chief Pete Arredondo had jurisdiction over the incident and that he “must have been coordinating the law enforcement response—and that the Uvalde Police were there to assist,” the report states.

The committee, in its report, also determined that Arredondo, who was one of the first responders on the scene, “failed to perform or to transfer to another person the role of incident commander” on the day of the shooting, which left 19 students and two teachers dead.

“This was an essential duty he had assigned to himself in the plan mentioned above, yet it was not effectively performed by anyone,” the report states. “The void of leadership could have contributed to the loss of life as injured victims waited over an hour for help, and the attacker continued to sporadically fire his weapon.”

Arredondo was placed on leave in June following growing criticism over his failure not to immediately breach the classroom where gunman Salvador Ramos was fatally shooting students at the Texas school.

The committee wrote in its report that law enforcement failed to quickly confront Ramos on the day of the shooting, which saw law enforcement officers take more than 75 minutes to neutralize the shooter after he entered the building.

Missing Key

In June, Arredondo told The Texas Tribune that a missing key to a locked classroom door was the reason law enforcement officers took more than 70 minutes to take down Ramos.

“The only thing that was important to me at this time was to save as many teachers and children as possible,” he said.

But in its report, the committee noted that “in this crisis, no responder seized the initiative to establish an incident command post.”

“Despite an obvious atmosphere of chaos, the ranking officers of other responding agencies did not approach the Uvalde CISD chief of police or anyone else perceived to be in command to point out the lack of and need for a command post, or to offer that specific assistance,” the report states.

“Given the information known about victims who survived through the time of the breach and who later died on the way to the hospital, it is plausible that some victims could have survived if they had not had to wait 73 additional minutes for rescue.”

Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw also told a state Senate hearing in June that police officers wasted time that day searching for the classroom door key without ever testing to see if the door was locked. According to the report, “none of the Border Patrol agents who used a key and ultimately opened the door were wearing body cameras which might have shed additional light on this question” of whether the door was actually locked.

“There is reason to question whether the door was actually locked,” the report reads (pdf).

In his statement published on July 17, McLaughlin said he agreed with the committee’s review of the mass shooting incident and its finding that there was a “failure of command,” but said the city has further questions regarding that day, such as who was responsible for taking command and what specific actions were taken by each agency on the day.

The Uvalde mayor’s office didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for additional comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Washington’s mayor is criticizing two border states for busing illegal immigrants to the nation’s capital, which bills itself as a sanctuary city.

For months, Texas and Arizona authorities have been offering free rides to illegal aliens who have claimed asylum, citing a lack of resources in dealing with the immigrants and the hope that sending them to Washington will help convince Resident Joe Biden to increase immigration enforcement amid a record number of arrests at the border.

But Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser, who is a Democrat, isn’t on board.

“This is a very significant issue. We have, for sure, called on the federal government to work across state lines to prevent people from really being tricked into getting on buses. We think they’re largely asylum-seekers who are going to final destinations that are not Washington, D.C.,” she said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on July 17.

“I worked with the White House to make sure that FEMA provided a grant to a local organization that is providing services to folks. But I fear that they’re being tricked into nationwide bus trips when their final destinations are places all over the United States of America.”

Ranae Eze, press secretary for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, told The Epoch Times via email that “the only lie is the Biden Administration telling the American people that our border is closed.”

“With our nation’s capital now experiencing a fraction of the disaster created by resident Biden’s reckless open border policies that our state faces every single day, maybe he’ll finally do his job and secure the border,” she wrote.

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, another Republican, wrote on Twitter: “Welcome to our world, @MayorBowser. Now work with your party, your Congress, and your President to do something about it.”

Complaints

Thousands of illegal aliens have been sent to Washington from the two states this year, beginning in April. Getting on the buses is a choice, according to officials in the states. But some of the immigrants complained to WUSA-TV that promises made by officials before getting on the buses weren’t fulfilled.

Ana Karina Arce Polano, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, told the broadcaster that she was told her family would be transported to Colorado via Washington, but that they didn’t end up being offered transportation to Colorado.

“We arrived here with faith to give them a better life, and it turns out that we do not even have a place to sleep and no way to get where we want to go,” Polano said.

Another illegal alien said she was told that her family would be given a ride to Chicago after arriving in Washington, but that hasn’t happened.

“If anyone is being misled, we certainly want to know about it,” Ducey spokesman CJ Karamargin told WUSA-TV.

Sister Sharlet Wagner, executive director of the Catholic Charities-run Newcomer Network, told NTD previously that most of the illegal immigrants were traveling to places beyond Washington.

“Most of them do have family or friends in the place where they really want to go. We’re happy to help them if they want to stay here. Most are choosing to move on,” she said.

Federal authorities have said that states aren’t “adequately coordinating” with them or local authorities. They also said that most immigrants who aren’t expelled via Title 42, a pandemic-era order, are released into the U.S. interior with notices to appear in court.

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesman told The Epoch Times, “Through its Southwest Border Coordination Center, DHS is executing carefully designed plans to manage the processing and transport of noncitizens arriving at the border.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times