The two senators whom disgraced crypto mogul Sam Bankman-Fried donated the most to both pledged to return the contributions, but newly filed campaign finance disclosures show the Democratic senators fell far short of their promises.
Take Michigan senator Debbie Stabenow. The four-term Democrat said in December she would donate the $26,600 that Bankman-Fried gave her to charity. But campaign filings do not list any such payments, nor do they show refunds to Bankman-Fried, or payments to the government relief fund for victims of Bankman-Fried’s alleged fraud.
Then there’s Sen. Maggie Hassan (D., N.H.), who said in January she would return contributions from Bankman-Fried. Hassan’s campaign last month gave $5,800 of the funds from Bankman-Fried to a victim fund set up by the U.S. Marshals Service. But Hassan appears to have held onto the $20,800 that Bankman-Fried gave the Maggie Hassan Victory Fund. The fund helps raise money for Hassan’s campaign and her political action committee, Granite Values PAC.
The revelation comes as lawmakers face increased pressure to rid themselves of donations from Bankman-Fried, who faces more than a dozen federal charges for defrauding investors of his crypto exchange, FTX, and violating campaign finance laws.
According to prosecutors, Bankman-Fried doled out more than $40 million to political candidates and committees in order to “improve his personal standing” in Washington, D.C., and “curry favor” with candidates who could pass legislation favorable to FTX. Nearly all of Bankman-Fried’s contributions were to Democrats.
The strategy worked to some degree. Bankman-Fried, who contributed $5 million in 2020 to a super PAC that supported President Joe Biden, met with top White House officials in meetings last year, the Washington Free Beaconreported.
And Stabenow, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, drafted Bankman-Fried-backed legislation that would put the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in charge of regulating the crypto industry, instead of the much larger Securities and Exchange Commission.
Stabenow, who announced in January that she would not seek reelection in 2024, is no stranger to controversial campaign donors. Her campaign took $10,000 from Sen. Bob Menendez’s super PAC, months before the New Jersey senator stood trial for corruption.
Lawmakers have embraced a variety of strategies to handle the ill-gotten crypto gains. Soon after FTX’s collapse in November, several lawmakers said they would forward campaign contributions to charity. Some refunded donations back to Bankman-Fried, while others said they would wait for direction from federal prosecutors on how to handle the donations.
In February, federal prosecutors asked campaigns to turn over the donations to the government to go into a victim relief fund.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), another top recipient of Bankman-Fried cash, donated his $5,800 in campaign contributions to charity. A spokesman for Gillibrand says she “no longer has” a $10,800 contribution that Bankman-Fried gave the Gillibrand Victory Fund.
Stabenow and Hassan did not respond to requests for comment submitted to their offices.
Montana Democrat ‘couldn’t be prouder’ to hire former environmental lobbyist as campaign manager
During his first run for Senate, Montana Democrat Jon Tester condemned lawmakers who hire lobbyists, saying that the “revolving door is going to stop with me.” Years later, Tester is seeking his fourth term in the upper chamber—with a former lobbyist leading his campaign.
Tester on April 4 said he “couldn’t be prouder” to hire former lobbyist Shelbi Dantic as his campaign manager. Dantic from 2015 to 2017 lobbied for Montana Conservation Voters, a climate nonprofit that works to transition the U.S. economy “away from oil and gas,” disclosures reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon show. Dantic’s former employer applauded the move just hours after Tester’s announcement, saying it was “DELIGHTED” to see Dantic “leading the way to reelect” Tester.
Tester’s decision to tap a former lobbyist to run his reelection bid contradicts the rhetoric that helped him get to the Senate in the first place. During his inaugural 2006 Senate campaign, Tester hammered his Republican opponent for hiring lobbyists, calling the practice “not right.” Tester even committed to a self-imposed ethics pledge, which saw him promise that any former lobbyist on his staff would be banned from working with his or her prior employer. “The fact is we have a mess back in Washington, D.C., right now because we do not have honest and ethical people back there,” Tester said at the time. “That revolving door is going to stop with me. I put forth an ethics plan that says, ‘No more.’”
As Tester’s campaign manager, however, Dantic will almost certainly work with Montana Conservation Voters. The group endorsed Tester in 2012 and 2018, and its national affiliate—the League of Conservation Voters—routinely funnels tens of thousands of dollars to the Democrat’s campaign. Last month, meanwhile, Tester headlined the Montana Conservation Voters’ Annual Member Celebration, an event that saw him heap praise on the environmental group. “I’m proud to stand with MCV in the fight to keep our state the Last Best Place,” the Democrat said. “We can always count on them to do what’s right for the Treasure State.”
This is far from the first time Tester, whose campaign did not return a request for comment, has broken his own ethics pledge. In his first decade in the Senate, Tester hired at least six former lobbyists, while 15 of his staff members left his office to join lobbying firms. Nine of those 15 staffers lobbied in favor of legislation that Tester sponsored or cosponsored, National Reviewreported in 2018. Tester took more than $600,000 from lobbyists that year, a total that only Pennsylvania Democratic senator Bob Casey Jr. topped.
More than 15 years after he first joined the Senate, Tester is still presenting himself as an outsider who fights the D.C. status quo. Tester’s official website, for example, calls the Democrat a “tireless defender of rural America and the Montana way of life,” and Tester has long insisted that he would rather cook with ingredients from his Montana farm than enjoy D.C.’s many fine dining establishments.
But Tester’s campaign spending does not match his everyman image. Since 2006, the Democrat’s campaign and leadership PAC have dropped more than a million dollars at swanky restaurants, the Free Beacon reported in March. One of Tester’s favorites, a French restaurant on Capitol Hill called Bistro Bis, boasts of its “ambiance and luxury” and status as a meeting place for “senators, congressmen, celebrities, and powerbrokers.”
Still, Tester should have no problem funding those lavish expenditures. The Democrat in March held a big-ticket fundraiser in Silicon Valley, which saw him rake in thousands of dollars from tech entrepreneurs and green energy activists.
Democrats have struggled in Montana in recent years, making Tester a top Republican target as the party looks to flip control of the Senate in 2024. Republicans Steve Daines and Greg Gianforte both cruised to double-digit wins in their respective 2020 campaigns for senator and governor, and Republicans secured a supermajority in the state legislature two years later.
NEW YORK—The FBI arrested two people on April 17 on charges of operating a secret police station in New York City on behalf of China’s regime, according to the Justice Department (DOJ).
The duo, Lu Jianwang, 61, and Chen Jinping, 59, conspired to work as agents of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and took orders from the regime in order to track down and silence Chinese dissidents living in the United States, prosecutors said.
The police station is believed to be one of more than 100 overseas stations operated by the Chinese regime in 53 countries, according to Safeguard Defenders, a Spain-based nonprofit.
The effort revealed an immense violation of U.S. sovereignty by the CCP and a flagrant violation of international law, according to U.S. District Attorney Breon Peace.
“This prosecution reveals the Chinese government’s flagrant violation of our nation’s sovereignty by establishing a secret police station in the middle of New York City,” Peace said at a news conference in Brooklyn.
“Just imagine the NYPD opening an undeclared secret police station in Beijing.”
The America ChangLe Association in New York on Oct. 6, 2022. An overseas Chinese police outpost, called the Fuzhou Police Overseas Service Station, is located inside the association building. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
Peace said that the two defendants established the secret police station in New York at the behest of the CCP and conducted transnational repression schemes in coordination with the regime’s Ministry of Public Security.
Additionally, he said, the pair sought to destroy evidence of the conspiracy when they found out the FBI was investigating the site.
“As alleged, the defendants were directed to do [China’s] bidding, including helping locate a Chinese dissident living in the United States, and obstructed our investigation by deleting their communications with a Chinese Ministry of Public Security official,” Peace said.
In addition to the charges of conspiracy and obstruction of justice, court documents allege that Lu had conducted work for the CCP regime in the United States since at least 2015.
The investigation found Lu to have a “longstanding relationship of trust” with the Chinese authorities, according to the complaint.
During Xi’s visit to the United States in 2015, Lu was asked to organize counterprotests to the demonstrations from the spiritual group Falun Gong, which has been heavily persecuted in China since 1999.
The Chinese consulate in New York directed Lu to publish materials in newspapers targeting Falun Gong, which he claimed he didn’t do. But Lu said that he helped bring members from his association on buses to Washington.
“Each association member would receive $60 from the consulate. Each bus would have a point of contact that would pay in cash from the Consulate,” he told the investigators, the complaint said. “People would not just travel from New York but also from Philadelphia. Several hundred people would go every time.”
Lu received a plaque from the regime as thanks for his efforts, the filings state.
Later, Lu helped to coordinate threats of violence against a Chinese dissident and the dissident’s family, in an attempt to force the person to return to China to be arrested by CCP authorities, according to court documents.
Lu also hired another agent through the secret police station to “track a U.S. resident on U.S. soil” and silence them on behalf of the regime in order to “protect its authoritarian worldview,” Peace said.
By “targeting members of the Chinese diaspora” through the illicit use of covert police stations, the duo “repeatedly and flagrantly violated our nation’s sovereignty,” Peace said.
In two separate cases, the DOJ announced that it’s charging 40 Chinese officials and police with conducting a coordinated harassment campaign against Chinese people living in New York City and elsewhere in the United States. All of the defendants charged in those cases currently reside in China.
Democratic New York City Councilman Robert Holden took aim at Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s leadership—or perceived lack thereof—at a New York field hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on April 17.
“I’m here to address the lawlessness that has taken over the city in recent years as a result of the failed progressive policies implemented by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg,” Holden testified before the committee.
Noting that Bragg’s first year in office had been marked by a “dramatic shift” in the prosecution of crime, Holden asserted that the district attorney’s “soft on crime” policies suggested his top priority was not protecting law-abiding citizens but keeping criminals out of jail.
“On his first day in office, Bragg issued a memo that decriminalized a broad range of offenses and reduced charges for violent crime,” the councilman said. “This was a signal for every criminal that it was open season on law-abiding citizens in New York County.”
Bragg, as well as politicians in the city council and on the state level, are contributing to what he sees as a “pro-criminal element” in New York City, Holden said.
“We’re going to have to change this,” the councilor told The Epoch Times in an interview following his testimony. “We’re going to get to a point where people are fed up in New York state and city—and they’re leaving. I know a lot of friends have left for areas other than New York City.”
Holden called for a simple solution: start enforcing accountability.
“That means if you commit a crime—you shoot a gun in New York City—you should go to jail,” Holden said. “Put the criminals in jail. Period.”
Bragg assumed office in January 2022. By the end of the year, overall index crime in the city had risen by 22.4 percent, year-over-year, according to the New York City Police Department (NYPD). Homicides, however, were down 11.3 percent—their lowest level since 2019.
Robert Holden, Democrat member of the New York City Council from the 30th District, attends the House Judiciary Committee’s “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan” field hearing as a witness at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building in New York City on April 17, 2023. (Chung I Ho/The Epoch Times)
Additionally, for the first quarter of 2023, homicides, rapes, robberies, and grand larceny all trended downward, year-over-year, though car thefts and felony assaults saw an increase.
But at Monday’s hearing, Holden noted that Bragg had made a habit of downgrading most felonies to misdemeanors and declining to prosecute others.
“Under Bragg, violent crimes such as resisting arrest, trespassing, fare evasion, prostitution are no longer prosecuted, which has led to a marked increase in criminal activity on the streets of Manhattan,” he noted.
“Serious offenses, such as knifepoint robbery, commercial and residential burglaries, weapons possession, and low-level drug dealing are being charged with lesser offenses or being plea-bargained down, resulting in shorter sentences or no jail time at all.”
According to Politifact, Bragg downgraded 52 percent of the felony cases his office reviewed in 2022 to misdemeanors. Further, for cases thus far in 2023, that percentage has increased to 54 percent.
And Holden is hardly the first person to criticize Bragg for his lenient approach to crime.
In recent days, the district attorney’s record has faced heightened scrutiny given his decision to upgrade falsification of business records charges—typically a misdemeanor in the state of New York—against former President Donald Trump to felony charges in a move that left some Trump critics scratching their heads.
“What is the legal theory that ties that very solid misdemeanor case, 34 counts of misdemeanors, to the intent to conceal another crime, which is what makes it a felony? It simply isn’t there,” former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told CNN on April 4.
However, seemingly in response to Holden’s comments, Bragg’s office shared a series of enforcement statistics on Monday via Twitter, stressing that gun and hate crime prosecutions had increased under his leadership and that, to date, homicides, shootings, robberies, burglaries, transit crime, and total index crime were down year-over-year in Manhattan.
“Under D.A. Bragg, outreach to domestic violence survivors, support of other victims and witnesses, and crisis responses by both counselors and advocates have all increased significantly,” his office added. “We also requested $1.1 million in new funding from the New York City Council to expand the Office’s Witness Aid Services Unit (WASU), which supports crime victims and witnesses.”
Bragg’s office previously criticized the Judiciary Committee hearing as a “political stunt” that would do nothing to increase public safety.
“In D.A. Bragg’s first year in office, New York City had one of the lowest murder rates in the United States (5.2)—nearly three times lower than Columbus, Ohio (15.4),” a spokesperson for Bragg’s office noted in an April 10 statement. “If Chairman Jordan really cared about public safety, he could take a short drive to Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Akron, or Toledo in his home state, instead of using taxpayer dollars to travel hundreds of miles out of his way.”
The Epoch Times has contacted Bragg’s office for further comment.
Washington, D.C. – A group of prominent economists Thursday urged congressional leaders to reject the Biden administration‘s FY 2024 proposal, calling it “irresponsible” and suggesting that, if adopted, it would set the nation on a path to economic disaster.
In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the economists lamented the “anti-growth tax increases and unsustainable budget deficits” the administration put forward in its latest budget document.
Instead of enacting the Biden budget, the 434 economists who signed the letter called for Congress to focus on the process of “reducing the federal government’s unsustainable and dangerous fiscal imbalances.”
The president’s 2024 budget plan continues the disastrous policies that have nearly half of all American – 41% in a February 2023 ABC News/Washington Post poll – saying they are worse off economically than they were two years ago when Biden came into office.
The letter, organized by economist James Carter, accuses the Biden administration of believing “the solution to America’s economic woes is more federal spending and higher taxes,” adding that polling by pollster Scott Rasmussen shows the American people concur.
Carter cites a recent national survey conducted by Rasmussen that found 76% of Americans believe the federal “government spends too much.” Only 17% believe the government “doesn’t receive enough money.”
“The bottom line,” Carter said, is that “the U.S. cannot afford to continue with policies that simply do not work.
The letter is as follows:
April 13, 2023
Dear Speaker McCarthy and Leader Schumer:
We, the undersigned economists, urge Congress to reject the anti-growth tax increases and unsustainable budget deficits put forward by the Biden Administration.
Our economy is still suffering the lingering effects of excessive government spending, massive increases in regulation, and the 40-year high inflation crushing American families. With consumer sentiment languishing and 41% of the American people saying they are worse off economically than they were two years ago, the recent failure of three banks will further shock our economy.
President Biden’s budget proposal continues these disastrous policies by calling for trillions of dollars more in taxes and spending over the next 10 years. These proposals would lock in government spending at nearly 25% of our gross domestic product compared to the less than 21% it has averaged over the last 40 years. As government commands more of the economy, private sector investment has less room to facilitate long-term growth. Meanwhile, federal receipts totaled 19.2% of national output last year, the fourth-highest total in our Nation’s history. We do not have a revenue problem; we have an enormous spending problem.
It is time for Congress to ensure we avoid future high inflation resulting from the federal government’s unsustainable fiscal path. The consequences of allowing federal debt to accumulate at its current and projected pace—with spending demands vastly outstripping the country’s ability to meet them—would be disastrous for the well-being of the country and especially for the most vulnerable Americans.
Families and small businesses have already been struggling for too long under the weight of high inflation, rising borrowing costs, crippling labor shortages, and damaging economic uncertainty. We urge Congress to reject President Biden’s irresponsible budget proposal and work together to address the country’s short-term needs while also committing itself to take steps toward reducing the federal government’s unsustainable and dangerous fiscal imbalances.
In addition to Carter, who directs the Center for American Prosperity at the America First Policy Institute, it is also signed by former presidential Council of Economic Affairs Chairman Kevin Hassett and former National Economic Council head Larry Kudlow.
Other prominent economists who signed include economist and former House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey, the Heritage Foundation’s Diana Furchgott-Roth, Johns Hopkins University’s Dr. Stephen Hanke, Trend Macrolytics Donald Luskin, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s Dan Mitchell, Duke University’s Michael Munger and Brian Westbury of First Trust Advisors L.P.
Preliminary election results announced right after an election often include the caveat that officials still need to count the overseas military ballots before finalizing results.
The general voting population in the United States promptly ignores that caveat and runs with the preliminary results. To them, overseas votes are an afterthought.
But policy changes, and a Democratic effort to register international voters, have quietly altered this longtime Republican-leaning, mostly military voting bloc into an unpredictable force with the potential for fraud and the power to sway elections.
Voters Who Never Lived in the US
Absentee voting privileges for those living outside the United States were once only for military members serving abroad. But many people living outside the country can vote, including some who have never lived in the United States.
Passed by Congress in 1986, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) allows absentee voting by members of the U.S. military and merchant marine; their family members; and U.S. citizens residing outside the United States.
It means, even if they have never lived in the United States and never intend to, people born in other countries to parents who are U.S. citizens are themselves considered U.S. citizens and may vote in U.S. elections. The states that allow voters to register and vote even if they have never lived in that state are listed below.
No Longer Mostly Military
In the past, most UOCAVA voters were connected to the military, a block that often leans Republican.
But in the 2020 election, 63 percent of UOCAVA ballot returns were non-military, while military members and their dependents made up just 37 percent of the total overseas ballot returns, according to data gathered by Verity Vote, a group of citizen volunteers with data research and investigation backgrounds who investigate elections.
Increased Overseas Voting During Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic caused the United States to advise Americans abroad to return home. Business people, study-abroad students, religious missionaries, and holiday travelers returned to the United States in great numbers.
The Department of State (DOS) ordered many employees to return home and to help them, additional rows of seats were installed on contracted airplanes. As of June 1, 2020, DOS had arranged 1,140 flights from 136 countries to bring home 101,386 Americans, a government video describing the effort shows.
Operational medicine personnel takes the temperature of a passenger boarding in Cameroon during the 2020 evacuation of U.S. Citizens to the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Photo courtesy of National Museum of American Diplomacy)
IRS records obtained by Verity Vote show at least 805,000 fewer U.S. taxpayers abroad in 2020 compared to 2019. By law, citizens abroad must adhere to tax reporting responsibilities.
“Massive repatriation, a sharp reduction in citizens living overseas, and restrictions on traveling to foreign countries, all decreased the number of U.S. citizens eligible to claim UOCAVA privileges,” the Verity Vote report said.
Yet the number of UOCAVA ballots counted in the United States in 2020 was a record high (913,734) and well above the UOCAVA ballots (671,243) counted in 2016, according to numbers in a 2020 congressional report by the Federal Voting Assistance Program, a program within the Department of Defense that oversees UOCAVA voting.
Post Card Application by Email
The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, sponsored in 2009 by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), requires all states to accept the Federal Post Card Application as both a voter registration form and an official request for an absentee ballot.
States must accept this card even in the absence of the requester’s proof of identity or citizenship.
An applicant who checks the box showing they have never lived in the United States is not required to provide a Social Security Number or a U.S.-issued driver’s license. They can still receive an absentee ballot and vote in federal races.
Instructions on the Federal Post Card Application available online ask for a U.S. address but say, “You do not need to have any current ties with this address.”
“The applicant must provide a foreign address but can choose to have the ballot delivered via email which renders the foreign address obsolete as a security feature,” the Verity Vote report said.
An email ballot is printed on a voter’s home computer and mailed in.
When you email a ballot to somebody, you are eliminating the important verification of delivering a ballot to an address where they say they are, Heather Honey of Verity Vote said during a recent voter integrity presentation at the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference in Harrisburg.
“If I request a mail ballot in Hershey [Pennsylvania], they’re going to have to mail it to Hershey. If they can’t deliver it to me, the post office is not supposed to forward it. That’s a sort of confirmation that at least it was delivered to that address,” Honey said.
“But if I say I’m in Italy, and I say, ‘Email me the ballot,’ there is no verification that I’m in Italy. There’s no verification that I’m even out of the country. I could be in Harrisburg and request the ballot. So this is a big problem.”
If anyone can get a ballot sent to an email address without verifying their identity, the system, she indicated, is ripe for fraud.
Consider these numbers from the Verity Vote report: The Federal Voting Assistance Program estimated over 41,000 UOCAVA ballots were returned from Canada, the largest number from any country, yet the Department of Defense reports fewer than 1,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Canada.
Arizona allows UOCAVA voters to return their voted ballots by email, fax, or online portal upload, creating another vulnerability as those ballots are printed and counted in counties.
Virginia law does not allow the electronic return of any voted ballots. But in 2020, Virginia reported that 19,809 of the 25,634 non-military UOCAVA ballots were received by email and counted, Verity Vote says.
Voter Registration Effort
The only two partner organizations identified by the Federal Voting Assistance Program are VotefromAbroad.org and the U.S. Vote Foundation, the Verity Vote report says.
“Vote from Abroad advises people on how to use a VPN. While this might be helpful in circumstances where foreign IP addresses are blocked by a particular jurisdiction, it also obscures the origin of ballot requests and submissions,” Verity Vote identified this vulnerability in its report.
Both organizations identify as nonpartisan, but the public disclosure on the Vote from Abroad website says it is a public service of Democrats Abroad, the “official Democratic Party arm for the 9 million Americans living outside the United States.” The first step in requesting a ballot is to fill out a form on the Vote from Abroad website. Voters share personal data that becomes accessible to the Democratic Party.
U.S. Vote Foundation’s website says it is not connected with any U.S. government organization but then says it is partly funded by state and federal research grants. Self-described as a nonprofit, nonpartisan charity, it is also supported through its provision of voter services, private foundation grants, and individual donations. Foundation grantors have included the following left-leaning organizations: The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Carnegie Corporation of New York, JEHT Foundation, The Democracy Fund, Blackrock, and the Knight Foundation.
In 2009, Pew released a report saying military voters were being denied their right to vote in 2008 due to voting impediments. The report, funded by JEHT Foundation, was used as justification by Chuck Schumer to advocate for electronic delivery of ballots to unverified non-military requestors claiming to be U.S. citizens living overseas, the Verity Vote report says.
There was plenty of political support for improving military voting.“But in reality, non-military overseas voters benefited most from the changes—a bait-and-switch,” Verity Vote said.
Results Skewed Democratic
The increase in overseas non-military ballots alone is a remarkable anomaly, and it disproportionately benefited Democratic candidates, Verity Vote said.
Most counties don’t keep records of overseas ballots, but a few counties had circumstances that revealed unexpected results in the 2020 presidential election.
“The only reported full hand recount of electronically returned UOCAVA ballots was conducted in Maricopa County, Arizona. The tally revealed a significant deviation from the razor-thin 50-50 results in the state. The presidential selection on the UOCAVA ballots favored Biden over Trump, 74 percent to 26 percent.
In Fulton County, Georgia, a hand recount of a batch of 950 UOCAVA ballots had zero votes for Donald Trump and 100 percent for Joe Biden, the Verity Vote report said.
A poll worker in a Louisiana County reported 80 percent of UOCAVA ballots were for Biden.
In Cobb County, Georgia, a poll observer challenged the authenticity of the UOCAVA ballots when she realized that 80 to 90 percent were votes for Biden.
A judge of elections in Colorado observed the UOCAVA ballots were 95 percent for Biden, the report said.
In the City of Richmond, Virginia, a poll worker who hand-tallied approximately one thousand ballots showed 85-90 percent Biden.
An employee of the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections processes ballots in Atlanta, Ga., Nov. 4, 2020. (Brandon Bell/Reuters)
“The Help America Vote Act requires states to verify the identity of voters prior to accepting ballots in federal elections. Overseas U.S. citizens are subject to the same federal law. The few overseas persons who can claim U.S. citizenship but who have never resided in the U.S. and who have never been issued a social security number, should be required to provide a passport number or some other verifiable form of identification to prove identity and eligibility,” the Verity Vote report concludes.
“It seems reckless to allow the lowest common denominator, as applied to these citizens who’ve never lived in the U.S., to dictate the level of security utilized to protect the vote.”
States that Accept ‘Never Resided’ Votes
In some states, U.S. citizens who were born abroad and have never resided in the United States are eligible to vote absentee. The following states allow these citizens to vote absentee:
As Tennessee Governor Bill Lee calls on the state legislature to propose an enhanced “order of protection” law–Democrats, media, and gun rights groups have said the governor’s “order of protection” law essentially amounts to a “red flag” law, something many Republicans have said are a nonstarter in the bright red state.
Lee, a Republican who has opposed gun restrictions as recently as last year, talked about red flag laws in response to a reporter’s question while he was signing school safety legislation last June.
“As you know, there are a lot of conversations that are happening all across the country about laws that affect gun ownership and red flag laws and waiting period laws,” he told the reporter. “And there will be those conversations all across the country, we’re not looking at gun restriction laws in my administration right now. There’s one thing to remember: criminals don’t follow laws, criminals break laws, whether they’re a gun law [or] a drug law, criminals break laws.”
Lee seemingly mentioned a change in position during a press conference earlier this week announcing his calls for extreme risk protection order (ERPO) legislation, saying legislators may have to put aside their “previously held positions” on the issue.
“I’ve certainly been speaking with leadership from both parties,” he said. “If we’re gonna get something accomplished, it’s going to require coming together, [and] laying down our previously held positions, potentially.”
When asked later in the press conference if the legislation he was asking for fell under “red flag laws,” he said “it falls under a law that I think is appropriate for our state given the circumstances we’re in.”
Republicans in Tennessee have said the difference in what Lee is asking for is that he is calling on strengthening current protection laws, which mostly apply to domestic incidents, while still ensuring due process of those who are reported to be a danger to themselves or others.
“As we look at mental health orders of protection, they must have a level of due process, protections from fraudulent claims, and a quick judicial hearing for individuals who pose imminent threats. The House is willing to work toward bipartisan solutions to protect all children at their schools, in their communities, and inside their homes,” state House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, said in a statement.
Lee in his announcement this week said the stronger order of protection laws would be led by law enforcement which has “a high standard burden of proof.”
“Due process requires clear and convincing evidence that a person that has shown that they are a real threat to themselves or to others–that person, that individual–should not have access to firearms. Our judicial system is prepared, it has years of experience in dealing with the orders of protection.”
A Rebranding of ‘Red Flag’ Laws?
“If you say red flag, it’s dead,” state Sen. Majority Leader Jack Johnson, a Republican, said in a constituent meeting which was recorded and passed to the media. “ERPO is better, and I think that term has been so bastardized–red flag laws–it’s been so tainted, so we have to rebrand that in able to get something passed.”
Days prior to the audio leaking, Johnson issued a statement saying “I am committed to protecting Tennesseans’ constitutional rights, including the right to due process. I have always been and continue to be opposed to so-called ‘red-flag laws’ because they deprive citizens of their rights without due process.”
Responding to questions from The Epoch Times to verify the authenticity of the audio, he said the audio came from an “anti-gun activist” who was “advocating for red flag laws along with other extreme gun control measures.”
Tennessee state Senator Jack Johnson at a Make America Great Again rally in Chattanooga, Tenn., on Nov. 4, 2018. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)
“He secretly recorded our 40-minute conversation where I explained to him that red flag laws are an absolute nonstarter for me and many other Tennesseans because they are in conflict with the Constitution and violate not only the 2nd Amendment but also the right to due process,” he said in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times. “The media has taken a 27-second clip out of context from an extensive conversation and is attempting to suggest that I want to deceive Tennesseans by passing a red flag law masked under a different name. That couldn’t be further from the truth.”
Johnson, the number two Republican in the state senate, went on to say he has always been and will continue to be opposed to so-called red flag laws.
“Red flag laws are particularly problematic because they have become synonymous with denying individuals’ due process by carrying out a guilty verdict without the right to a fair trial,” Johnson said in his emailed statement. “My long-held personal beliefs and my oath of office to uphold the Constitution preclude me from supporting any such unconstitutional law.”
State Rep. Jason Zachary, a Republican, said red flag laws are something that wouldn’t fly in Tennessee, and Lee’s call is for a law that protects due process.
“Let me be clear, red flag laws are not going to pass the House in the state of Tennessee, they’re simply not,” he said in a video. “So we’re going to do all we can to preserve due process.”
Gun Rights Groups and Conservatives Opposed, Say Proposals Are Essentially Red Flag Laws
The Tennessee Firearms Association, which bills itself as “Tennessee’s only no-compromise gun organization,” said what Lee proposed is essentially a red flag law and they are very opposed to the calls for those types of laws in the state.
Responding to Lee’s calls to remove access to weapons for individuals who are a threat to themselves or society and for the legislature “to bring forth … measures to do that, to strengthen our laws to separate those dangerous people from firearms,” TFA said on their website Lee’s calls were “clearly” red flag laws.
“On April 11, 2023, Governor Bill Lee called for the Tennessee Legislature to respond to the public’s emotional response to the Covenant School murders by enacting a law to make sure mentally ill people do not have access to firearms,” the group said on their website. “He did not use the term ‘Red Flag’ but that is the correct label for the kind of law that Governor Lee described as a ‘new protective order.’”
Conservative country music star John Rich also asked Johnson in a Twitter post, “why are you pushing a rebranding of red flag laws in TN?”
John Rich, part of “Big and Rich,” at his Nashville, Tennessee residence on April 26, 2015. (Rick Diamond/Getty Images for St. Jude)
A Twitter account for Conservative Christians of Tennessee responded with “Hey @SenJohnson: “Red Flag.” No red flag laws no or ever, whatever you rebrand them as.”
Democrats on Board
On Twitter and in interviews, several state Democrats praised the call for legislation from Lee, noting they have proposed their own “red flag” laws in recent years.
Democrats pointed out legislation they introduced after the Covenant School shooting, before Lee called for such laws to be presented.
The Tennessee Democratic Caucus in the Tennessee Senate responded to the notion of needing to rebrand red flag laws for them to pass in Tennessee by saying they are ready to work with both parties to pass legislation.
“The Senate Democratic Caucus stands ready to work with the governor and the majority party to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of individuals who are a threat to themselves or others,” press secretary Brandon Puttbrese said in an email to The Epoch Times. “Tennesseans are demanding this legislature take action to stop future school shootings and we should act before this session ends. The U.S. Constitution provides no safe harbor for an individual who is threatening violence against other Americans. An order of protection policy could save lives and that matters a whole lot more than branding.”
Chicago‘s far-left mayor-elect has a message for his citizens following a weekend of violence from rampaging teenagers.
Don’t blame the unruly mob.
Mayor-elect Brandon Johnson (D) criticized those blaming the criminals:
“It is not constructive to demonize youth who have otherwise been starved of opportunities in their own communities,” he said. “Our city must work together to create spaces for youth to gather safely and responsibly, under adult guidance and supervision, to ensure that every part of our city remains welcome for both residents and visitors.”
Bystanders filmed minors inciting mayhem near Chicago’s Millennium Park on Saturday night. A gunman in the crowd shot two teens. Elsewhere, participants beat at least one motorist as Chicago police officers escorted tourists to safety.
🚨#BREAKING: Chaotic Scene Unfolds in Downtown Chicago as Teenagers Vandalize Cars and Gunfire Erupts
📌#Chicago | #Illinois ⁰ There is currently a significant police response taking place in downtown Chicago due to a large group of teenagers causing chaos. They have been… pic.twitter.com/n7xhBpsTKs— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) April 16, 2023
Another gathering took place Friday night on 31st Street Beach. It ended after a teenager suffered a gunshot wound to the thigh.
After a car caught on fire during a “large group” incident at 31st Street Beach on Friday, some people insisted the fire was caused by a battery malfunction.
“You couldn’t even make it through the first paragraph without excusing the rioters,” one declared.
You couldn’t even make it through the first paragraph without excusing the rioters— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 16, 2023
“They will get more of the unrest and looting since they are not being held responsible. It is the society’s fault, so individuals can do as pleased. Shame on the insanely Woke admin,” another added.
…
Johnson, who served as Cook County Commissioner when he ran for mayor against Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas, said on his campaign website that he would “work with police and first responders to invest in community-based interventions that de-escalate conflict, reduce violence and make our neighborhoods safer.” Vallas promised on his website that he would increase the number of sworn officers and considered public safety a “basic human right.”
Johnson is set to be sworn in as Chicago’s 57th mayor on May 15.
The Delaware Democrat is possessed by trans ideology, a defiance of reality unprecedented in human history, with deadly consequences.
Transgender Day of Visibility celebrates the joy, strength, and absolute courage of some of the bravest people I know—people who have too often had to put their jobs, relationships, and lives on the line just to be their true selves.”
That was Joe Biden on March 30, three days after transgender Audrey Hale shot dead Evelyn Dieckhaus, 9, Mike Hill, 61, William Kinney, 9, Katherine Koonce, 60, Cynthia Peak, 61, and Hallie Scruggs, also 9 and the daughter of Chad Scruggs, senior pastor at the Covenant Presbyterian Church.
Haley Scruggs and Cynthia Peak had funerals that day, but Biden named not a single victim and failed to name or condemn the murderer.
In an April 6 statement, Biden says three students and three school officials were gunned down in “yet another tragic mass shooting.” But as on March 30, the Delaware Democrat failed to name the victims, identify the shooter, and condemn the shooter. Hale’s possible motive also escapes notice.
Victim Mike Hill was black, but no speculation that the white Audrey Hale could have been motivated by racism. Her targets were all Christians, but not a word about the possibility of a hate crime. Biden also failed to mention Michael Collazo and Rex Engelbert, the brave police officers who took down Hale before she could murder more children. The following week in Colorado, a man who thinks he’s a woman planned a series of similar attacks.
William Whitworth, 19, who calls himself “Lilly,” planned attacks on three schools in Colorado Springs. Whitworth had compiled a manifesto with drawings of classrooms, lists of firearms, and names of individuals to be killed.
“Years ago, gay magazines and organizations routinely conveyed the message that, as a gay man, I was part of something called ‘the gay community,’” Bawer writes. “Then at some point when I wasn’t looking, I was adopted into something called ‘the LGBTQ+ family.’” This happened even though “homosexuality and transgenderism are two utterly different phenomena.” And what now passes for transgenderism isn’t just gender dysphoria.
“We’re dealing with a transgender ideology,” Bawer explains, “according to which a man who thinks he’s a woman isn’t suffering from a mental disorder: he actually is a woman, and always has been; and a woman who thinks she’s a man really is a man, and always has been.”
Gay rights was “reformist,” Bawer argues, but the trans movement is “revolutionary in a way humankind has never experienced before. Because it’s not a revolution against any particular government or political system. It’s a revolution against reality itself.” That is indeed the case, but there’s more to it.
As Spanish artist Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes observed, “El sueño de la razon produce monstruos.” The sleep of reason produces monsters. Hippolyte Taine, historian of the French Revolution, has a different take.
“Nothing is more dangerous than a general idea in narrow and empty minds,” Taine wrote, “as they are empty, it finds no knowledge there to interfere with it; as they are narrow it is not long before it occupies the place entirely. Henceforth they no longer belong to themselves but are mastered by it; it works in them and through them, the man, in the true sense of the word, being possessed.”
The trans types, with their reason fast asleep, are possessed with the idea that thinking something makes it so. That fails to square with science, reason, and the Judeo-Christian concept of God creating people male and female. People of this time-honored belief are held to be attacking the trans types.
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images
As the April 1 “Trans Day of Vengeance” poster proclaimed, the Christians are pronounced guilty of “genocide.” That sets up a justification for attacking them, regardless of age. As potential victims might note, Audrey Hale planned the attack for months, and gunned down 9-year-old Hallie Scruggs, a pastor’s daughter.
Joe Biden wouldn’t say her name or condemn her killer. Three days after the mass murder, the Delaware Democrat said his administration would address “anti-transgender violence,” and end “the crisis of violence against transgender Americans.” For an inversion of reality, that’s hard to top. On the other hand, it is revealing.
Joe Biden is now possessed by the trans ideology. The militant trans types serve as Biden Jugend, a fake oppressed minority at war with reality and perpetually enraged.
Should conditions revert to the summer of 2020, with Black Lives Matter and Antifa rioting, arson, and murder in cities across the nation, squads of Audrey Hales could form a transaatzgruppen targeting churches and schools. Based on experience to date, the virulently anti-Christian Biden Junta would look the other way.
Review: ‘We Were Once a Family: A Story of Love, Death, and Child Removal in America’
You have to give Roxanna Asgarian credit for laying all her cards on the table. The author of We Were Once a Family: A Story of Love, Death, and Child Removal in America tells readers at the outset that “as a journalist, I was most interested in looking at who has power and who does not.” In some ways, this places Asgarian in a long tradition of muckraking reporters looking out for the little guy. But then she adds that “journalists are often taught … to get out of the way of the story. This ethic has its merits, but it has costs as well.” Asgarian has weighed the options and decided that she is not a “passive observer of injustice.”
In fairness, it is hard to be anything but outraged writing about the story of the six Hart children—Ciera (aged 12), Abigail (14), Jeremiah (14), Devonte (15), Hannah (16), and Markis (19)—who in the spring of 2018 were drugged and then driven off a cliff along the Pacific Coast Highway by their adoptive mothers. Asgarian is right that much of the reporting since then has focused on the “true crime” aspect of things—what would possess this white lesbian couple to adopt six black children, neglect them, abuse them, and then commit this horrific murder-suicide? A popular podcast called Broken Harts delved into the women’s backgrounds and their social media posts to try to understand.
Asgarian, on the other hand, went to try to find the birth parents for the children to understand why Child Protective Services removed them from their families in the first place and how they came to be placed for adoption. In some ways, the story is not atypical. The tragic tale of Sherry Davis’s life started early when her father murdered her mother in front of her and her sister. She was pregnant three years later, at age 15. She left her two children with a friend, and an abusive boyfriend kidnapped her. Those two boys were put into foster care. Then she had another child with a man who broke multiple bones in the child when he was three months old. CPS took that child away too.
Sherry went on to have three more boys and a girl—Dontay, Devonte, Jeremiah, and Ciera. The children were fathered by different men who were not involved in their lives. Sherry continued using cocaine and CPS continued to monitor her situation. There was one stable influence in their lives, an older man, Nathaniel, whom Sherry lived with sometimes but who was not the father of any of the children. The children were eventually sent to live with an aunt, Priscilla. But Priscilla had a full-time job and would sometimes call Sherry to babysit for the kids. When CPS found out, the kids were removed from Priscilla’s custody.
Some of the information Asgarian reports can be verified, but most of it cannot. When she writes that Sherry never used drugs around her children, that is Sherry’s claim. Even after the deaths of the children, it is surprisingly hard to get any information from child welfare agencies or courts on these cases because records could reveal confidential information about the family. And as harsh as it might seem to remove children from Priscilla, who, by Asgarian’s account, seemed responsible, the truth is that this is a common challenge with placing children in homes of relatives. If the situation was serious enough to separate them from their parents, what good does it do the children if the parents are allowed unfettered access to them?
Nevertheless, the caseworkers and agencies are rarely offered a perfect situation. Generally, the courts overwhelmingly favor placing children with relatives, but once Sherry voluntarily terminated her parental rights, the children became freed for adoption. Asgarian documents corrupt behavior on the part of the court that denied Priscilla custody. The old-boy network she describes in the local family court is not unique. The bizarre racist rantings of the judge are. And so is the judge’s determination to push through cases quickly. Anyone who has witnessed or experienced family court will tell you that the one certainty is endless delays.
The other set of siblings—Markis, Hannah, and Abigail—were also placed into foster care. Their mother, Tammy Scheurich, was the victim of sexual abuse (possibly by her father) at a young age. She was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and acted out by having sex with older men she met on a “party line.” She had three children with three different men by the time she was 18, whom she cared for sometimes with the help of her parents and grandparents. At one point, a doctor accused her of medical neglect because her child had ant bites, and then on another occasion she didn’t take her daughter to a hospital despite a severe respiratory infection and the doctor’s instructions to get her medical attention right away.
It is impossible to know whether Tammy’s side of things is true: She didn’t want to take her kids to a local hospital because she didn’t trust the hospital; she couldn’t get to the hospital an hour away because she didn’t have a car; and she couldn’t take an ambulance because it wouldn’t transport the other kids and she had no one to leave them with.
But Asgarian reports this all as gospel truth. Because the biological parents are the people who do not have “power” in her formulation. It is absolutely true, of course, that these parents are victims—of poverty, of addiction, of abuse by their own family members, of a bureaucracy that is ill-equipped to fix any of this. “Mothers caught up in the child welfare system are usually already struggling, whether it be due to domestic violence or substance abuse or mental illness. When the state steps in and takes children from already struggling parents, that can feel like a death blow to their self-image.” No doubt, but the question is whether we should leave children in dangerous situations to boost a parent’s self-image.
Like so many advocates for abolishing the child welfare system or ending foster care, Asgarian suggests that most of these problems could simply be solved by giving parents more financial assistance. She argues that most of these child maltreatment cases involve “neglect,” not abuse, and are therefore less dangerous. But most of the child maltreatment fatalities in this country each year are due to neglect, not abuse.
In reality, though, the people without any power are the children. The Hart children had no power to limit the damage from their biological families. It’s possible that they could have found safety and stability in Texas with relatives in the case of the Davis siblings or with another foster family in the case of Tammy’s children.
But they also had no power once they were adopted. There were plenty of red flags that Jennifer and Sarah Hart were not what they seemed to be. They had a teenaged foster child whom they summarily kicked out of their home with no notice. They had been reported by teachers for abusing the children before the adoption was finalized. In fact, they had been investigated for abuse in three different states, and Sarah was actually convicted for assaulting Abigail. They were two 25-year-old women with almost no parenting experience suddenly taking six children with varying degrees of trauma into their home at once. The state of Texas was sending them thousands of dollars in adoption subsidies for the care of these children, but no one was checking up on them.
Asgarian argues that caseworkers and others who could have done something treated the Harts differently because they were white women saving black children. Generally, this is the accusation launched against white conservative Christians who foster and adopt—everyone knows about the “white savior mentality.” But the fact that these were progressive lesbians who spent their spare time going to concerts in the woods and posting on social media about their oppression and their environmental activism also probably sent signals to the nice liberal caseworkers who could pat themselves on the back over this placement.
Though Asgarian wants to make this a story about how the children never should have been removed from their homes and placed with the Harts, the truth is that the child welfare system fails to detect the abuse and neglect of children in birth homes and in foster and adoptive homes. But the former is significantly more common. More outrageously, it allows children to remain in homes where they have already been abused and neglected. There is not enough contact between states. A parent can kill a child in one state and then give birth in a neighboring state and no one will be alerted to this history.
Unfortunately, Asgarian has turned to a group of activists like Alan Dettlaff of the University of Houston and Dorothy Roberts at the University of Pennsylvania to give her context for this story. And she swallows their take whole: The system is racist; it discriminates against poor people; we are removing kids from their homes unnecessarily.
The statistics don’t back up this story. Black children are three times as likely to die from maltreatment as white children, so it’s not surprising that black families are investigated and their children removed at higher rates. Poor people are disproportionately caught up in the child welfare system, but most cases of neglect involve substance abuse, mental illness, or other problems besides poverty.
Even the statistics that Asgarian cites don’t back up her case. She complains that black children in Texas “waited longer to be adopted” than their white counterparts. Which is why it’s clear that the case of the Harts was such an aberration. In fact, black children do wait much longer to be adopted—not because of systemic racism, or at least not the way she means it—but because caseworkers and family court staffs want to give black birth parents as many chances as possible and are often staunchly opposed to transracial adoption.
Asgarian concludes that the solution to child welfare problems lies in “a release of the urge to judge and blame parents and of wanting to punish them for their failures.” This kind of line will resonate with readers who are tired of being judged for letting their kids eat too much candy or walk to the park by themselves. But the truth is that we absolutely need to judge parents who are using cocaine and trying to supervise young children or who do not heed the advice of doctors to get their children who are having trouble breathing to a hospital or who allow their children to be physically and sexually abused by the men in their lives. And framing these judgments as a way of punishing parents instead of as a way of keeping children safe will only ensure that the powerless stay that way.
We Were Once a Family: A Story of Love, Death, and Child Removal in America by Roxanna Asgarian Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 320 pp., $28
Naomi Schaefer Riley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Independent Women’s Forum, is the author of No Way to Treat a Child: How the Foster Care System, Family Courts, and Racial Activists Are Wrecking Young Lives.
Team includes Bush’s husband and an anti-Semite who claims to be a 109 trillion-year-old psychic
Rep. Cori Bush (D., Mo.) enriched her crackpot team of private security guards with campaign funds in the first three months of 2023, according to a Federal Election Commission filing Saturday.
Bush, a defund the police activist who equates policing to “bondage” and “slavery,” doled out over $53,000 from her campaign for personal protection services in the first quarter, the filing shows. The bulk of the Missouri Democrat’s payments went to a right-wing private security firm that supports the Second Amendment. The remaining went to two individuals with a rather unconventional set of skills not often seen in the field of executive protection.
Nathaniel Davis III, who Bush paid $15,000 in the first quarter of 2023, claims to be an intergalactic master of psychic self-defense with 109 trillion years of experience. Davis says his abilities include the power to summon tornadoes at will and conduct blood rituals to make the teeth of his enemies fall out of their heads. Davis also has a penchant for spreading anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, such as the claim that the Rothschild family secretly rules the world.
Davis has been by Bush’s side for nearly three years, earning a total of $152,000 from her campaign since 2020. Citing a “non-disclosure agreement,” Davis refused to comment on his professional relationship with Bush in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon in March.
Davis also said he can’t be anti-Semitic because he’s a high priest of the Tribe of Issachar, one of the lost tribes of Israel. “That makes me Hebrew. How can I be anti-Semitic?” Davis asked the Free Beacon, adding “You’re literally dealing with the priesthood, literally.”
Bush’s campaign doled out $12,500 to her other private bodyguard, Cortney Merritts, in the first quarter. What Merritts lacks in supernatural abilities he makes up for in personal devotion to the “Squad” member—the pair secretly tied the knot in February.
Merritts and Bush have been an item since long before the lawmaker joined Congress in 2021. A military veteran, Merritts has reaped a bountiful return on his relationship with Bush, earning over $74,000 from her campaign since January 2022.
Bush’s romantic ties to Merritts were the subject of a Federal Election Commission complaint filed in March alleging that the lawmaker “used campaign funds for personal use” by enriching her lover with donated funds.
Merritts also lacks a private security license in Bush’s home city of St. Louis. However, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Private Security Section told the Free Beacon that a license is not required for someone providing executive protection services in its jurisdiction.
Bush also paid Peace Security, a right-wing private security firm that unapologetically promotes the Second Amendment, over $26,000 for protection services in the first quarter. Bush’s continued patronage of the firm contrasts with the pro-gun control agenda the lawmaker promotes in Congress.
Bush’s private security budget puts her at odds with her frequent calls to defund the police and has opened her up to charges of hypocrisy from her critics. But Bush pays no mind to her detractors, once telling them to “suck it up” because she can’t do her job safely without her private bodyguards.
“So if I end up spending $200,000, if I spend $10 more on it, you know what, I get to be here to do the work,” Bush told CBS News in 2021. “So suck it up, and defunding the police has to happen. We need to defund the police and put that money into social safety nets, because we’re trying to save lives.”
Documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon show a private company’s unprecedented effort to inject DEI into classrooms
In January 2020, Walmart approached public school administrators in Bentonville, Arkansas, about hosting diversity training sessions for the district.
“We want people to feel welcomed, comfortable, and safe living here” in Northwest Arkansas, Candice Jones, Walmart’s head of diversity, emailed district leaders, according to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. To that end, the company was offering to arrange teacher training sessions with a North Carolina-based consultancy known as the Racial Equity Institute, a group “devoted to creating racially equitable organizations and systems.”
“This would be great for teacher development and a great way to connect with the community,” Jones said.
By August, teachers were learning that “perfectionism” is “white supremacy” and that “all our systems, institutions, and outcomes emanate from the racial hierarchy on which the United States was built.”
Bentonville—the site of Walmart’s corporate headquarters—wasn’t alone.
In nearby Fayetteville, the district’s public schools embarked on a five-year “equity plan” funded and designed by Walmart-funded groups, including a DEI “research institute” at the University of Arkansas. School leaders attended trainings on the “six tenets of critical race theory,” learned that “systemic inequality = trauma,” were drilled on the harmful effects of “microaggressions,” and sat through PowerPoints on “intersectionality.”
The district also implemented a “restorative justice” program—designed to combat the allegedly “disproportionate” discipline of black students—that discouraged teachers from breaking up fights and instructed them to sit on the floor with students to “dispel any sense of hierarchy.”
This report is based on thousands of pages of documents obtained through public records requests submitted by families in Bentonville and Fayetteville. It reveals how the world’s largest retailer is transforming schools in its hometown through grants, nonprofits, and corporate outreach, laundering its ideology as a kind of noblesse oblige.
The transformation highlights the tension between democracy and DEI, which—as one Walmart and Walton-funded diversity program, “TRUE,” put it in a presentation to Fayetteville Public Schools—”sometimes must be imposed from the top down.”
These initiatives might seem out of place in Northwest Arkansas, which voted overwhelmingly for former president Donald Trump. But Walmart, long a bogeyman for liberals concerned about the power of big business, has become just as progressive as the rest of corporate America, earning a perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index in 2022.
The company is owned and controlled by the descendants of Sam Walton, who opened the first Walmart store in 1962. Once staunch Republicans with close ties to the national GOP, the Waltons have shifted left with each passing generation—and with the 2016 election, they began giving nearly as much to Democratic campaigns as to Republican ones.
That rapprochement has accompanied a shift in philanthropic priorities. Since 2018, the Waltons, who make grants directly through the Walton Family Foundation and indirectly through the Walmart Foundation, have spent millions on progressive initiatives across Arkansas—including drag shows for children and pro-bono DEI consulting.
Theaters, arts centers, health and housing nonprofits, business associations, and the Benton County government are just some of the organizations that have conducted diversity training on the Waltons’ dime. While those trainings are par for the course at big corporations—and a grant magnet for big foundations—few companies have funded DEI programs outside their walls. And even fewer have funded them in public schools.
Now, as the Waltons target classrooms in their hometown, longtime Arkansans are sounding the alarm, warning that revolution has come for a state Trump won by 28 points in 2020.
“Parents are often lulled into the belief that woke ideology won’t happen in their schools because they live in a ‘red’ state,” said Carolyn Horine, a Bentonville parent. “Trust me as someone living in a conservative area: it can happen anywhere.”
This transformation has taken place largely out of public view, aided and abetted not just by Walmart and the Waltons’ largesse but by the school districts’ lack of transparency. Fayetteville, for example, repeatedly assured parents that critical race theory was not being taught in schools even as it refused to comply with public records requests for DEI-related documents.
Families who finally got ahold of those records were left feeling betrayed. “We love Walmart around here,” said Ila Campbell, a retired history teacher who sued the Fayetteville school district after it stonewalled her records request. “They’ve used their money to better the lives of people in Arkansas. That’s why it was so disconcerting to see them funding this stuff.”
Long the dominant philanthropic force in Northwest Arkansas, the Walton empire is a case study in how cultural and corporate power interact. Local groups curry favor with the Waltons, said Jay Greene, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation who used to teach at the University of Arkansas, because they rely on the family for grants. School districts “tend to be very aware of the Waltons’ priorities,” Greene said, “and are inclined to implement them even if not directly required to do so.”
That meant Walmart was pushing on an open door when it offered to connect Bentonville school administrators with the Racial Equity Institute, the same consulting group that conducts the company’s own diversity training sessions. The district’s superintendent, Debbie Jones, and its director of secondary education, Jennifer Morrow, accepted the offer in July 2020, according to emails reviewed by the Free Beacon, scheduling a mandatory training for all teachers that August.
It is not clear whether Walmart paid for that training or merely facilitated it. What is clear is that Walmart approved its contents. One workbook from the training was emblazoned with Walmart’s logo and included a “welcome message” from the company’s diversity office, which billed the workshop as a “powerful and thought-provoking” program “facilitated by experts from the Racial Equity Institute.”
The session was a grab bag of DEI shibboleths. It listed “perfectionism,” “a sense of urgency,” and “worship of the written word” as examples of “white supremacy culture”; described “assimilation” and “tolerance” as markers of “internalized racial inferiority”; and defended racial preferences by saying that white people had “400 years of affirmative action.” Participants were asked to reflect on each teaching using the Walmart-approved workbook, which included diagrams on the distinction between “equality” and “equity.”
The district would later seek to distance itself from these lessons. In a September 2022 Facebook exchange with Horine, the Bentonville parent, Bentonville school board member Jennifer Faddis claimed that only “some staff” attended the training, adding that Bentonville “pulled out” after realizing “what was included.” The Free Beacon was not able to verify Faddis’s claim that Bentonville had extricated itself from the program, and she did not respond to a request for comment.
But at least one high school in the district, Bentonville West High, was still using the Racial Equity Institute for all-staff trainings as late as April 2021, according to planning documents from the school. And in a January 2022 email, Debbie Jones, the district’s superintendent, referred to the Racial Equity Institute as a “quality” program, saying it “wasn’t biased or trying to convince me of anything.”
Debbie Jones, Morrow, the director of secondary education, and Candice Jones, Walmart’s head of diversity, did not respond to requests for comment.
Walmart’s influence was even stronger in Fayetteville, where the district outsourced much of its DEI work to a byzantine network of Walmart and Walton family-backed groups. In 2019, the Fayetteville Public School district was chosen to participate in a $2.5 million DEI training initiative, TRUE Northwest Arkansas, funded by the Walmart Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation. The program has since expanded to include hundreds of groups in the region.
TRUE connected district leaders with Converge, a “social-justice consulting firm,” for one-on-one coaching, according to a May 2019 email. The company—which specializes in “intersectional equity analysis”—also conducted an “organizational assessment” of the district, the results of which were presented at the Walton Arts Center that July.
There has been “backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion among staff and patrons,” one slide from the presentation read. “DEI can and sometimes must be imposed from the top down.”
TRUE, which has since rebranded as TRU, did not respond to a request for comment. Walmart and the Walton Family Foundation did not respond to requests for comment.
Fayetteville also partnered with the University of Arkansas’s IDEALS Institute—another DEI program funded by Walmart and the Walton Family Foundation—to create a “Five-Year Equity Competency Plan,” which began in 2019. Years two and three of the plan were funded by a $200,000 grant from the Walmart Foundation, which paid for training sessions on “microaggressions,” “DEI leadership,” and “culturally relevant pedagogy,” according to copies of the grant application and equity plan.
Some of those trainings explicitly referenced critical race theory. In October 2019, the district brought in Sheldon Lanier, a public school administrator from Durham, North Carolina, to train district leaders on the “six tenets of critical race theory,” including “intersectionality,” “whiteness as property,” and the “permanence of racism,” according to a summary of the training. He returned in March 2021 for another training—this time on “culturally responsive instruction”—that called for the “implementation of CRT strategies” in the classroom.
Lanier and the IDEALS Institute did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Fayetteville Public Schools, Alan Wilbourn, said it was the district that decided to invite Lanier, not IDEALS, though his sessions appear to have been part of a professional development series outlined in the equity plan.
The $200,000 grant wouldn’t just fund diversity training, district leaders told Walmart in its grant application: some of the money would also go toward curbing “disproportionate discipline.” In 2019, the Arkansas Department of Education had ordered Fayetteville to review its disciplinary policies on the grounds that black and disabled students were suspended at higher rates than others in the district, according to presentations and meeting minutes reviewed by the Free Beacon. Support from Walmart would help eliminate those disparities, the grant application said.
One way the district sought to do that was by embracing “restorative justice,” an approach to school discipline that discourages punishing or even reprimanding bad behavior. By 2020, a year after the Walmart-backed equity plan began, Fayetteville High School was telling teachers to avoid the phrase “don’t touch her,” according to the school’s “Restorative Practices Handbook.” Staff were instead instructed to address physical molestation with statements like “I feel really uncomfortable,” and, if necessary, to form a “restorative circle” with students.
“To dispel any sense of hierarchy” in the circle, the handbook counsels, teachers and students should both sit on the floor.
Such policies are now widespread in the district, Fayetteville parents and teachers say, and have made it nearly impossible to remove dangerous students from the classroom. One parent said her child’s elementary school had refused to discipline students who were assaulting their peers. And an elementary school teacher said she was not allowed to tell students “no,” much less take away recess time.
“We have eliminated every possible consequence,” the teacher said, adding that administrators will sometimes reward bad behavior. “I had a child who was throwing scissors,” the teacher recalled. “When I sent him to the principal’s office, he came back five minutes later with a stick of gum.”
The IDEALS Institute was not directly involved in designing these policies, Wilbourn, the Fayetteville spokesperson, told the Free Beacon. But they reflect a key premise of the Walmart-backed equity plan: If some students are disciplined more than others, it must be because the district is biased against them—not because they act out more frequently.
Between 2019 and 2021, the district hosted several presentations on the causes of disproportionate discipline. None of them suggested that family structure—or, in the case of special needs students, emotional and intellectual handicaps—might play a role in the disparities. The main culprits were implicit bias, “cultural dissonance,” and “zero tolerance” policies, the presentations said.
Fayetteville took great pains to shield these materials from public scrutiny. It initially refused to comply with a public record request from Campbell, the retired history teacher, who in June 2021 asked for detailed information about the equity plan. The district only relented after she filed a lawsuit under Arkansas’s Freedom of Information Act, materials from the lawsuit show. A judge later ruled that the delay had violated state law and ordered Fayetteville to pay Campbell’s attorney fees.
The district also sought to allay concerns that it was teaching critical race theory. By May 2021, according to emails reviewed by the Free Beacon, parents were reaching out to teachers about the equity plan and the Waltons’ role in it—queries that prompted the district to create a fact sheet dispelling “misconceptions” about “equity and inclusion.”
“CRT is not an identified part of district curriculum,” the fact sheet said. It did not mention that the district’s diversity training had called for the “implementation of CRT strategies” earlier that year.
Some Arkansans see little hope of reining in the retail juggernaut. Walmart is not just a philanthropic powerhouse but an economic provider, bringing jobs and investment—as well as frequent campaign contributions—to its home state.
“People are afraid to go after Walmart,” Campbell said, noting that politicians on both sides of the aisle benefit from the company’s largesse.
Now, though, there are signs that the Waltons’ political influence may have peaked. Even as the family has consolidated its hold over Northwest Arkansas, it has suffered several high-profile defeats at the hands of state legislators, who are increasingly thumbing their nose at the family’s politics.
In 2021, the Waltons prevailed upon Arkansas’s then-governor, Asa Hutchinson (R.), to veto a ban on transgender surgeries for minors, only for the legislature to override the veto and sign the bill into law. And in January of this year, Hutchinson’s successor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R.), signed an executive order banning critical race theory in Arkansas schools. Though the Waltons haven’t taken a stance on that measure, it will potentially outlaw the sort of programming they have pumped into public education.
The pushback bodes ill for Arkansas’s corporate goliath, which may soon face the slingshot of the state’s voters.
The Waltons’ woke turn is “costing them influence,” Greene, the Heritage Foundation fellow, said. “And their public defeats are further diminishing their power in the state.”
A transgender teacher at a Florida middle school was allowed to remain on campus for several weeks after allegedly making disturbing comments about shooting students and “having bad thoughts.”
In a statement released on April 14, the Florida Department of Education responded to the situation regarding student safety at Fox Chapel Middle School in Hernando County, saying the teacher, Ashlee Renczkowski, has been removed from the school.
The department noted that the removal happened only after state officials raised their concerns with Hernando County School District Superintendent John Stratton Wednesday evening.
According to an incident report obtained by parental rights group “Moms for Liberty,” a school resource officer temporarily assigned to Fox Chapel Middle School was notified by Assistant Principal Kerry Thornton and Guidance Counselor Kimberly Walby on March 24 regarding Renczkowski making “concerning statements about self-harm” and possibly shooting students.
Please see the Florida Department of Education’s statement below on a school safety situation in Hernando County. pic.twitter.com/gBwNpcf4H6
— Florida Department of Education (@EducationFL) April 14, 2023
Thornton was alerted to the situation after visiting Renczkowski’s classroom and asking the teacher how the day was going, according to the report.
“Not good, I’m having bad thoughts,” Renczkowski responded.
The report also noted that Renczkowski is a biological male and is “currently in the transformation stage of becoming a woman.” In 2021, he abandoned his birth name, Alexander, and started using the name Ashlee Belle.
Thornton then contacted Walby to tell the guidance counselor that Renczkowski was on his way to her office to talk. During the conversation, Renczkowski expressed having suicidal thoughts and a desire “to shoot some students due to them not performing to their ability.” The teacher also admitted to owning three firearms, which police have since removed from his home.
However, after Renczkowski made the comments, the teacher immediately went on to say that he “would never harm a student” and also stated that he does not want to inflict self-harm, according to the report.
Renczkowski, whose wife, Fawn, also works at the middle school, also talked about being upset after learning about a social media post where people allegedly “talked negatively” about the couple’s sexual orientation and lifestyle.
The teacher also mentioned becoming triggered at times by students in the fourth-period class “not performing to their abilities” and “not trying to pass their class,” explaining further that he “does not want to see them fail.”
Threat Assessment
On March 27, Renczkowski was appointed to undergo therapy with the school district’s mental health coordinator, Sandra Hurst, who conducted a threat assessment and determined that the teacher did not meet the criteria of the Baker Act, under which police may take a person into custody and subject them to psychiatric examination if there is a likelihood that the person will harm themselves or others.
The investigation concluded that the comments were made “out of frustration,” noting that Renczkowski did not intend to inflict harm on himself or anyone else. It did not, however, divulge exactly what was said and only stated that the teacher did not meet Baker Act criteria.
In a press release (pdf) on Wednesday, the Hernando County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) confirmed it was notified about the incident, but the investigation revealed that “no criminal offense(s) occurred; therefore, no arrest(s) could be made.”
“Further, deputies found that the individual did not, at that moment, meet the required criteria for involuntary commitment under the Baker Act,” the release reads. “In an abundance of caution, the HCSO petitioned the court for a temporary Risk Protection Order (RPO). The order was granted immediately. The individual cooperated with law enforcement and immediately turned over all firearms.”
In a public statement issued on Thursday, the same day state officials announced the teacher is no longer at the school, Stratton also said Renczkowski has been removed from “all student contact,” noting that he’s fully cooperating with the investigation.
“The school district will continue to investigate the incident and require further involvement by mental health experts,” Stratton said. “As part of our investigation, we will take a hard look at all the actions that were taken on that day, and in the days following the incident, and determine if any steps were missed.”
“The school district has dedicated a tremendous amount of time and resources toward implementing outstanding school safety protocols,” he added. “As part of our safety practice, conclusions drawn from this incident may lead to consideration of additional safeguards.”
Parents Respond
Since the community learned about the potential threat, multiple concerned parents have spoken out, stressing that they believe the teacher should have never been allowed to remain at the school.
“Anybody that makes a comment like that should not be working in a school,” Mike Martini, a parent of a Fox Chapel student, told FOX13. “If a student made that comment there would be charges pressed. The child would be expelled.”
Aramis Rosario, a parent of another student attending the school told the network: “I was told that the teacher had stated they were going to shoot the kids and they were going to then kill themselves.”
“My heart dropped the moment that I heard that it was confirmed that there [were] actual weapons inside of the household,” he added.
Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) has reintroduced his China Technology Transfer Regulation Act in a bid to prevent the Chinese military from acquiring sensitive U.S. technology and intellectual property through export controls.
The bill, released on the eve of the 34th anniversary of the 1989 pro-democracy protests in the heart of Beijing, aims to control United States exports of certain technology and intellectual property important to national interests to keep it out of the hands of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The lawmaker underscored the potential harm that the United States and others could experience by pointing to what China’s regime has done in its own country to ignore egregious crimes against its people.
“More than three decades ago, the world witnessed the unbelievable strength and courage of the Chinese people in Tiananmen Square. We especially saw this on display when one man stood before a line of tanks,” Green told The Epoch Times. “Tank man”—who confronted soldiers executing a bloody suppression under the regime’s orders that June—has since become a symbol of freedom.
“This iconic moment in history proves just how much the human spirit longs for freedom, even at great cost,” he added, noting that despite the “historical importance of Tiananmen Square, most people in China do not even know the massacre occurred.”
“This is because the CCP scrubbed these events from its heavily censored internet and has kept it out of books and out of school,” Green said.
Green said the “CCP’s willingness to use technology against its own people” was one reason he wanted to introduce the bill.
“Using its advanced technology, the CCP has erased its own history,” he said. “We must not arm an authoritarian regime with technology it will use to oppress its own people.”
According to the press release from Green’s office, the CCP has used “espionage and extensive intellectual property theft” as well as a network of state-sponsored entities to gain an advantage in making technological advances.
“We must ensure we aren’t giving the CCP the tools to harm our nation or its own people,” the lawmaker said.
The Tennessee Republican also emphasized his concern about the CCP’s intentions toward the United States and other nations: “There’s no question about it; the Chinese Communist Party wants a weakened United States and an international order subservient to China’s interests. Turning a blind eye to this aggressive ambition on the world stage is a catastrophic mistake.”
Green believes that transferring United States technology to the CCP would negatively affect future generations of Americans. The lawmaker maintains that if no action is taken to prevent the use of American information, the CCP could undermine the United States by using sensitive technology from the United States.
“It’s time to protect our country from the CCP’s malign actions,” Green said in his press release. “We cannot ignore this threat. If we do, Chinese spy balloons won’t be the only threat we have to worry about.”
Many readers of this Substack have doubtless wondered why their “health care providers”—i.e., doctors, repeatedly exhorted them to get the COVID-19 vaccines and boosters. In my extended social circle, I heard many reports of doctors being downright pushy about it—as though getting the COVID-19 vaccine was the single most pressing matter of medicine and health.
Even patients who’d recently recovered from COVID-19 were urged by their doctors to get the shots, as were patients who had bad reactions to the first injection.
For a long time, Dr. McCullough and I wondered if these doctors really were that brainwashed, or was there some other explanation for their zeal?
A few days ago, fellow Substack author, Tessa Lena (Tessa Fights Robots) published this document that was apparently circulated to doctors with patients insured by Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Medicaid in the state of Kentucky.
The document raises a number of intriguing questions. I wonder: How many members might be registered in a given practice—that is, how many of those $125 bonuses per vaccinated member could a busy and efficient doctor with a good support staff receive?
Secondly, how many of these “COVID-19 Vaccine Provider Incentive Programs” were operating in the United States during 2021?
As we awakened souls try to figure out what’s going on in our bizarre world, it’s always useful to follow the money. It almost always leads to the explanation for any strange state of affairs that puzzles us.
Since 2018, industrial pork producers have been using customizable mRNA-based “vaccines” on their herds. According to drugmaker Merck, the vaccines target “existing and evolving swine pathogens, including diseases not covered by conventional swine vaccines.”
Story at a glance:
For the last couple of years, I’ve recommended not eating pork due to its high linoleic acid (LA) content, but there’s an even bigger reason to avoid it now. Since 2018, pork producers have been using customizable mRNA-based “vaccines” on their herds.
The very first RNA-based livestock vaccine, a swine influenza (H3N2) RNA shot licensed in 2012, was developed by Harrisvaccines. The company followed up with an avian influenza mRNA shot in 2015. Harrisvaccines was acquired by Merck Animal Health later that year.
CureVac developed an mRNA-based rabies shot for pigs in 2016.
The swine vaccine platform Sequivity, introduced in 2018, was developed by Merck in partnership with Moderna. Sequivity can produce endlessly customized “vaccines,” none of which undergo safety testing.
Americans have been eating pork treated with gene therapy for nearly five years already, and even more of our meat supply is about to get the same treatment. mRNA-lipid nanoparticle shots for avian influenza are in the works, as are mRNA shots for cows. Lobbyists for the Cattlemen’s Association recently confirmed they intend to use mRNA “vaccines” in cattle, which might affect both dairy and beef.
Missouri House Bill 1169 would require labeling of products that can alter your genes. It would also require companies to share information about the potential transmissibility of gene-altering interventions, and asserts that fully informed consent must be given for all vaccines, gene therapies and medical interventions.
For the last couple of years, I’ve recommended not eating pork due to its high linoleic acid (LA) content, but there’s an even bigger reason to avoid it now.
Since 2018, pork producers have been using customizable mRNA-based “vaccines” on their herds, and this has slipped completely under the radar. I myself just found out about it.
“A revolutionary swine vaccine platform, SEQUIVITY harnesses RNA particle technology to create customized prescription vaccines against strains of influenza A virus in swine, porcine circovirus (PCV), rotavirus and beyond. It’s supported by a sophisticated dashboard filled with comprehensive data and insights …
“Sequivity is a custom swine vaccine platform … Sequivity only targets swine pathogen gene sequences of interest. Doesn’t replicate or cause disease, delivering pathogen information to the immune system … There’s no need to transfer or handle live material like autogenous, killed or modified live vaccines …
“Targets existing and evolving swine pathogens, including diseases not covered by conventional swine vaccines. Allows for the creation of multivalent formulations by blending RNA particles to target multiple swine pathogens in one shot.”
First RNA ‘vaccine’ for livestock licensed in 2012
Merck was not alone in developing veterinary mRNA shots, however. They weren’t even first on the scene, although they later acquired the company that started it all.
CureVac developed an mRNA-based rabies shot for pigs in 2016. (On a side note, they began conducting human rabies shot trials in 2020 in response to the World Health Organization’s goal to achieve “zero human rabies deaths by 2030.”)
In 2016, Bayer also partnered with BioNTech to develop mRNA “vaccines” for both livestock and pets, but it doesn’t appear they ever launched anything.
So, in retrospect, it appears Americans have been eating pork treated with gene therapy for the past five years, and even more of our meat supply is about to get contaminated with the same treatment.
In addition to the avian influenza RNA shot for chickens licensed in 2015, newer mRNA-lipid nanoparticle shots for avian influenza are also in the works.
Iowa State University is also working on an mRNA shot for cows, and lobbyists for the Cattlemen’s Association recently confirmed they intend to use mRNA “vaccines” in cattle, which might affect both dairy and beef.
Merck and Moderna: Partners in mRNA jab race since 2015
The same year Merck purchased Harrisvaccines (2015), it also entered into a partnership with Moderna to develop a number of undisclosed mRNA “vaccines.” It was slated to be a three-year collaboration, with a one-year optional extension, in which Merck would perform research and development and commercialization of five potential products using Moderna’s mRNA technology.
“Moderna has agreed to design and synthesize the mRNA product candidates directed against selected targets through its mRNA Therapeutics™ platform.
“The platform builds on the discovery that modified mRNA can direct the body’s cellular machinery to produce nearly any protein of interest — ranging from native proteins to antibodies and other entirely novel protein constructs with therapeutic activity inside and outside of cells.”
Endless customization, zero safety testing
Sequivity, introduced in 2018, was one of the products that came out of that partnership. As explained by Merck (both on its website and in the video below), Sequivity is not so much a single vaccine as it is a platform that can be endlessly customized — all without additional safety analyses over and beyond the initial ridiculously inadequate testing.
As noted by Zoetis, the largest producer of veterinary drugs and vaccines:
“Sequivity has safety and efficacy studies based on the platform with a historical initial isolate, not likely the isolate that customers would be requesting in their product.”
Pathogen is collected and sent to a diagnostic lab.
The gene of interest is sequenced and sent electronically to Sequivity analysts.
A synthetic version of the gene of interest is synthesized and inserted into the RNA production platform.
The RNA particles released from incubated production cells are harvested and formulated into a customized “vaccine.”
Using this platform, a customized “vaccine” can be created in as little as eight weeks. Now, what could go wrong by not testing every new shot for safety?
In my view, there is any number of safety hazards, as every pathogen has distinct effects, and tricking the animal’s body to produce that pathogen (or a pathogenic portion of that pathogen, as done with SARS-CoV-2) can have wildly unexpected side effects.
We’ve clearly seen this with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in humans. Pfizer’s own documentation lists 158,000 recorded side effects, and many of these diseases and conditions have never before been reported in response to a vaccine.
Yet despite the obvious risks, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has gone ahead and authorized updated COVID shots to be released on an annual basis without additional safety testing, and apparently safety testing of mRNA shots used in animals was foregone nearly five years ago!
The risk of dangerous side effects is one of the reasons why not all conventional vaccines work out. Some simply cause too many problems. Now we’re to believe that the possibility for dangerous side effects doesn’t exist just because we’re forcing the body to produce the antigen internally?
If anything, the possibility for problems is higher than ever, as exposure to the antigen is continuous for a long period of time, possibly for the life of the animal.
Even organic pork producers can use mRNA shots
Unfortunately, due to search engines now only providing a short list of curated and heavily censored content, it’s been impossible to determine how many pork producers in the U.S. use Sequivity.
Without that data, I recommend erring on the safe side and avoiding pork altogether, including organic pork, as organic standards do not have any rules on the use of vaccines, mRNA-based or otherwise.
Seeing how the Sequivity platform has been around for nearly five years already, it seems reasonable to assume nearly all large-scale swine producers have made this transition.
What do the cells in mRNA-treated meat contain?
The question now is, how do mRNA shots affect the meat?
For now, this is speculative, as we do not know whether veterinary mRNA shots are substituting uridine with pseudouridine, as was done in the COVID-19 shots. But if they do, then one of the obvious concerns would be that the mRNA might end up in the final meat product that you eat because this substitution makes it extremely difficult to destroy.
“Natural RNA is made of two purines adenine and guanine and two pyrimidines cytosine and uracil.
“The replacement of uracil with its ribose ring (uridine) with N-1-methyl-pseudouridine, a synthetic product makes the genetic code for the Wuhan Spike protein better stabilized on lipid nanoparticles, long-lasting, and very efficient in terms of evading cellular destruction and able to undergo repeat reading by ribosomes for continued protein synthesis.
“Morais et al indicate that both Pfizer and Moderna chose development strategies replacing all uridine units with pseudouridine, making the entire strand completely ‘unnatural’ to the human body. Thus vaccine consultants, companies, and patients unfortunately gambled on how long mRNA would be active within the human body.
“Fertig et al found lipid nanoparticles with mRNA were measurable in plasma for — 15 days. Recently, Castruita et al demonstrated mRNA in blood out to 28 days. Röltgen et al have found mRNA in lymph nodes 60 days after injection.
“None of these studies demonstrated complete clearance of mRNA from a group of patients.
“This is worrisome since injections are recommended in some populations just a few months apart implying there will be stacking of long-lasting mRNA in the body without adequate opportunity for clearance and elimination.
“We will look back for many years and ask: how could so many people readily accept injections of heavily modified synthetic genetic code giving the body instructions to manufacture a disease promoting and lethal protein engineered in a biosecurity lab in Wuhan, China?
“Repeated administrations of mRNA studded with apparently indestructible pseudouridine may have changed the course of lives forever.”
If mRNA shots can cause significant disease in humans, how has it affected our pork supply for the last five years? And how will it affect beef and chicken in the future? Can consuming genetically manipulated meat affect your health? These are questions that currently do not have answers and must be thoroughly and comprehensively investigated.
Big Ag didn’t tell us what they were doing
One of the most frustrating aspects of this is that the industry didn’t tell us they were using novel gene therapy to spin up customized “vaccines” in weeks without any safety testing. The only reason many of us became aware of this issue in recent weeks was because attorney Tom Renz started warning about it.
“I have been talking about gene therapy vaccines being introduced into the food supply without providing people informed consent on my Twitter account … as well as pushing Missouri HB1169 which is our best bet of stopping this happening.
“This is a nightmare scenario whereby people’s genetics are potentially altered with ‘factory foods’ without them even knowing. Let me begin by putting to rest any questions as to whether this can happen. The idea of vaccines in food has been around for a long time …
“Here is an article published in the NIH (you know — by our government) talking about foods ‘under application’ to be genetically modified to become edible vaccines — FROM 2013 … The fact that food can be altered to act as a vaccine is not disputable.
“Which foods and in what ways is more of a question. It is claimed that beef, pork, etc. cannot transfer vaccination from the meat to the consumer of the meat. At initial glance that would make sense (cow DNA and people DNA is quite different and an mRNA designed for cows would probably not be able to transfer directly to people), but that is NOT the whole story.
“You have to remember that the additives in the mRNA vaccines are by no means ‘proven safe’ and we don’t even actually know what all is in these shots … Ultimately the mRNA jabs still have not undergone long-term testing because long-term testing can take 10-20 years and they have not existed that long so any claims about the safety or efficacy of the stuff that’s in them are garbage at best.
“What we do know about the mRNA vaccines is that they do not stop the spread of disease … and really do not help in any way with anything. We also do know that these jabs were demonstrated, in vitro, to alter the genetic makeup of some cells and I would say it is incredibly likely that they do the outside the Petri dish.
“Given that we are now talking about a new level of genetic engineering with unknown effects and no long-term studies, do the potential genetic changes the mRNA injections facilitate pose a long-term risk to humans that ingest the altered food? Before you say no, wouldn’t you prefer it be tested rather than being the subject of the experiment?”
Support Missouri House Bill 1169
As noted by Renz, Missouri House Bill 1169 would require the labeling of products that can alter your genes. It also asserts that fully informed consent must be given for all vaccines, gene therapies and medical interventions, and would require companies to share information about the potential transmissibility of gene-altering interventions.
The pushback by industry against this bill has been enormous, which should tell you something. It doesn’t ban anything; it only requires transparency. That, apparently, is a serious threat to industry, and the most obvious reason for that is because they’d have to admit that all sorts of foods can have gene-altering effects.
Not only might this destroy Big Ag, but it would also decimate any surreptitious attempts by Big Pharma to use the food supply as a tool to distribute vaccines unbeknownst to consumers.
As noted by Renz, “Big pharma DOES NOT WANT people to know they are going to use food to alter their genetics.”
Farmers are also being set up as the fall guys, and they need to be made aware of this.
Renz states:
“The lobbyists opposing this bill … are pushing to shut this bill down because factory mega-farmers like Bill Gates, the CCP, and others want to put vaccines in your food. These guys are supporting the big money but this will come at the expense of the family farmers.
“The problem is that the major factory farmers like Gates have legal teams that can set up defense shields against the torts that may come if the food supply starts poisoning people …
“Meanwhile, the small farmers will be at risk of being sued if it turns out that the food they are selling is unsafe despite the fact that most of them will not necessarily know what is happening.
“If the corn growers, soybean, cattle, and pork associations actually cared about the farmers they would be demanding the seed companies and vaccine manufacturers indemnify the small farmers for these products rather than opposing a bill that would force them to tell the farmers what they are doing.
“The corruption regarding this bill is amazing. Ultimately the labeling requirement would likely serve to protect farmers from being sued because the makers of seed and vaccines would have to make sure the farmers knew if they were putting potential gene therapies into their products. The opposition from the ag lobby is not to help the farmers, it is to help their own pockets.”
As noted by Renz, if this bill is passed in Missouri, it could help protect the food supply of the entire U.S.
In the meantime, I recommend avoiding all pork products, including organic ones, as they not only have high levels of the omega-6 fat, linoleic acid, because of the grains they are fed, but virtually all have been contaminated with the mRNA vaccines for the past five years.
“Squad” member Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., was blasted as a “total fraud” online after her infamous “accent” video re-emerged.
The video first caused issues for Ocasio-Cortez in 2019 when she appeared to use an “accent” at the Rev. Al Sharpton‘s National Action Network convention that year.
The Democrat socialist congresswoman was responding to critics who pointed to her past employment as a bartender that she categorized as attempts at delegitimizing her as a lawmaker.
The footage of her speech made its way around the Internet again this week when the Twitter account End Wokeness reposted the video cut with a recent video she made about former President Trump where she was not using the accent.
End Wokeness blasted Ocasio-Cortez as a “total fraud” and pointed out her “accent before and after.”
“When Donald Trump tapped into this idea of Make America Great Again, there was times of economic opportunity,” Ocasio-Cortez said in the video. “Wages rose until the 1970s.”
“I’m proud to be a bartender. Ain’t nothing wrong with that,” Ocasio-Cortez said in 2019. “There’s nothing wrong with working retail, folding clothes for other people to buy. There is nothing wrong with preparing the food that your neighbors will eat. There is nothing wrong with driving the buses that take your family to work. There is nothing wrong with being a working person in the United States of America and there is everything dignified about it.”
A number of conservative commentators reacted to the video of AOC and added their own critiques of the lawmaker.
According to Fox News, the Democrat lawmaker’s speech was not well-received in 2019, with the congresswoman being compared to failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whose dialect appeared to change for different audiences on the campaign trail.
Ocasio-Cortez took to Twitter to respond to the criticism, citing her upbringing in the Bronx and explaining that she talks differently when she’s “fired up.”
“As much as the right wants to distort & deflect, I am from the Bronx. I act & talk like it, *especially* when I’m fired up and especially when I’m home,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “It is so hurtful to see how every aspect of my life is weaponized against me, yet somehow asserted as false at the same time.”
During the 54-year-old actress’ interview with Times of India, the LGBTQ activist described her role in the movie as “a Queer character in the film who’s somebody that the kids look up to, which I think is really amazing,” and said it’s “absolutely” time for a lead LGBTQ character in a Disney movie.
“I would love to see them everywhere,” Cho said. “I would love to see trans characters and different types of people in roles of like Disney Princess, Disney Prince and Disney everything.”
“I think this would be really important and it’s a move towards the future,” she added. “It’s a move towards who we are. I think it’s really admirable and really exciting.”
The TV-14 movie first aired on Disney Channel on March 30 and was somewhat edited for broadcast, the outlet noted. A “slightly longer” version of the film then streamed on Disney+ “with some more explicit dialogue,” according to IMDb.
Disney’s films and series have increasingly included trans and non-binary characters.
Cho added Disney’s commitment to inclusion was a major part of why she wanted to take the role.
Recently there has been criticism of the idea of Christian Nationalism from some corners of ostensibly conservative evangelical church. For instance, Executive Vice President of G3 Ministries, Scott Aniol posted the following:
This is an extremely common take among many well-meaning Christian leaders (and among those who are far less sincere). And it is sincerely wrong.
It is an opinion borne out of the very short-lived period in American society where Christianity had clearly lost its hold on the institutions that shaped American culture and social mores, but anti-Christian ideology had not yet replaced it. This is a period of time that commentator Aaron Renn describes as “Neutral World.”
From the late 80s until the early 2000s, liberalism reigned supreme. The idea that there was a neutral “marketplace of ideas” dominated the landscape, and evangelical Christians operated accordingly. Gone were the days of simply assuming everyone held to Christian moral principles. Instead, Christians made their appeals to a thoroughly secular—though not yet anti-Christian—people. Within such a paradigm, the idea that the death of nominally Christian culture seemed like a good thing. Society kept on chugging along without being overtly Christian, and since there was no societal benefit to professing faith in Christ, only genuine Christians would do so.
For those who have a fundamental commitment to the basic principles of liberalism, this was an ideal world. Many well-meaning, conservative evangelicals approach faith like enlightenment liberals. It is something you have to rationally assent to as a free individual, not something that is imposed upon you by outside influences with authority over you. And with that attitude toward faith in mind, living in a “neutral” marketplace of ideas, where people would be allowed to freely and rationally apprehend the truths of the Christian faith was the ideal situation. For that brief moment in time in Neutral World, individualistic, rationalistic Christianity was in its heyday.
But those days were never going to last. Once the institutions that undergirded our entire society shed even their nominal Christianity, an anti-Christian Negative World was inevitable. Neutral World was like those few seconds when Wile E. Coyote had run off the cliff but hadn’t looked down yet. You might even remember the militant “New Atheists,” men like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens in the waning days of Neutral World. It may seem quaint now, but in those days, they actually would argue that you don’t need Christian morality for the society we (then) had. That stuff was simply common to mankind, born out of universal human solidarity. As laughable as such ideas proved to be, many Christian leaders who still operate from the standpoint of Neutral World not only believed it then but still believe it now. They think if they refuse to open their eyes to Negative World around them, it doesn’t exist. They think they can be Wile E. Coyotes who have the ability to fly because they never look down. But when they finally do look down, there won’t be any getting up from this fall.
Anti-Christian Negative World is here. The society that Neutral World-enjoyers thought could “be good without God” has collapsed. The very same week that a trans girl murdered six Christians, every major institution in America celebrated and outdid each other in proclaiming their support for this group. Every form of sexual perversion is celebrated, and any criticism of it is all but illegal. Every sociological statistic that signifies societal health is in freefall. The young people brought up in this social chaos are more depressed and suicidal, and drug-addicted than any generation that preceded them. Our major cities are unlivable, and crime is trending toward surpassing historic highs, even bearing in mind the numbers are almost certainly being cooked. And this sociological chaos we are experiencing only seems to be the beginning. No one in his right mind has any reason to think things won’t get much worse. We have been put through the New Atheist “can we be good without God?” sociological experiment, and the conclusion is a resounding “no!” Negative World is here, and it is not going anywhere soon.
The basis for Neutral World Christianity cannot hold up in Negative World. The idea that human beings are tabula rasae that are completely empty vacuums whose sincere beliefs are not shaped (much less imposed) from the outside is rendered an absurdity. The experience of the last three years has demonstrated this with absolute clarity. Those who held that Enlightenment liberal ideas — being only those which were voluntarily arrived at — could be a “sincere” belief have been forever refuted.
What is undeniable today is the fact that just because a belief is imposed upon someone does not mean that a person, therefore, does not sincerely believe it. The belief that a cloth mask would protect you from a deadly respiratory virus became both a religious dogma and a very sincere belief for millions of people. This was a belief that was imposed by force. The idea that America was an incorrigibly racist society where police indiscriminately executed black men and were in need of radical restructuring was a belief that was imposed by force. It is a belief that tens of millions of people nevertheless hold sincerely. The belief that homosexuality is benign and no different than heterosexuality and that men and women can transition into the opposite sex is a belief that was imposed on our society; nevertheless, tens of millions today sincerely believe it.
The fact is that human beings are not blank slates and never were. From the moment of your birth, human beings with authority over you impose beliefs upon you. Under normative circumstances, most people believe the same things their parents do because their parents impose those beliefs upon them. This doesn’t mean your parents were consciously and actively indoctrinating a particular ideology upon you. It simply means that their authority is real and that through this authority, they are teaching you what is right and what is wrong, what you should love and what you should hate. This is how God built the world. It is implicit in the Fifth Commandment. And the institutions that have power over the society in which you live operate along similar principles. The universities, the economic powers, and the political rulers cannot not wield cultural and religious influence. It is a question of “which” religion they will influence their people to hold, not “whether” they will influence them. The idea of religious neutrality was always a liberal pipe dream. And the adoption of the religion of wokeness by America’s institutions has made that obvious to all but the most irreparably deluded.
What Negative World calls for is a much more aggressive Christian faith. A Christianity that does not fear Christendom but embraces it. The Neutral World Christian leader recoils at the idea of nations that have formally adopted Christianity as their religion. “That’s not authentic! That’s not genuine! You are producing false converts!” He screams. The Christian leader that has properly adapted to Negative World has no such fears. He knows that the choice is between institutions imposing Christian morality on your society or institutions imposing anti-Christian morality on your society. The choice is between the King of Nineveh declaring the entire city must fast at the preaching of Jonah (Jonah 3:1-10) or between the Woke Globalist Overlords castrating your sons, lopping off the breasts of your daughters.
There never was an option for a neutral public square. That was an illusion. And it was only even briefly possible because of millennia of Christian capital built up by our ancestors. Once the gospel has discipled a nation, there is no going back to some other way of life. A world without the Christian faith governing our institutions is a world where revolutionary and destructive counterfeit Christianity reigns supreme. That is fundamentally what wokeness is, a Christian heresy, a Christ-less Christianity. It is a world at war with reality itself.
It is impossible to overstate just how utterly foolish it is to think that the problem of a few people thinking they are Christians when they are not is worth ushering in the destruction of a civilization that our ancestors spent many lifetimes building. It is like a doctor euthanizing his patient because he had a bad ingrown toenail. It is not just malpractice; it is criminal. Of course, Christendom is not perfect. No serious person would argue that it is. But the most tender mercies of post-Christian wokedom will make the very worst problems of Christendom seem like blessings.
The Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:8, “For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?” The highest priority of Christian leaders today must be to provide a vision for our people. The Neutral World vision of “persecution is great for the church, so just embrace it” is not only an unclear sound, it is dangerously wrong and naive. Persecution can be a refining fire, but it also can produce the destructions of the church that will take centuries to recover from. The Christian faith was all but totally destroyed in East Germany because of less than 50 years of Communist rule (see right). How many thousands of people would have otherwise lived faithful Christian lives and avoided the temporal misery of Communism and the eternal misery of damnation if this had not been the case? What’s worse is that persecution not only destroys the faith but also incentivizes collaboration with the ruling regime. Which is worse, nominal Christianity under Christendom producing a false profession in some individuals or an anti-Christian society producing false churches that shipwreck the faith of millions?
Instead of attempting to put the toothpaste back in the tube of a secular, neutral public square, we must give our people a vision of a triumphant Christianity once again. The Neutral World Christian likes the idea of LARPing as an earlier era Christian suffering under Roman persecution, but the persecution wasn’t just pointless suffering. Rather than Constantine’s conversion being the great tragedy that undermined the suffering of faithful Christians for all those years, his conversion was the point of their blood being poured out. Jesus Christ is the King of kings and Lord of lords. That means the emperor of the world was always supposed to bend the knee to Him. That must be the vision we provide our people with today. Your suffering is not meaningless or for vague “personal growth.” Your suffering will produce fruit. And the fruit of it is this: every knee shall bow and tongue confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord.”
Andrew Isker is the pastor of 4th Street Evangelical Church in Waseca, MN. He is a graduate of Minnesota State University and Greyfriar’s Hall Ministerial Training School, and he has served churches in Missouri, West Virginia, and Minnesota. He is the author (with Andrew Torba) of Christian Nationalism, and the author of the forthcoming book, The Boniface Option. Andrew, his wife Kara, and their five children reside in his hometown of Waseca, MN. He can be found on Gab @BonifaceOption.
LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman has secretly paid E. Jean Carroll’s legal bills since 2020
A tech billionaire with a history of funding Democratic disinformation operations and associating with notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein has secretly funded a sexual assault lawsuit against former president Donald Trump.
LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman since 2020 has paid the legal bills for former journalist E. Jean Carroll through his nonprofit, American Future Republic, Trump’s lawyers revealed in a court filing Thursday. Carroll sued Trump for defamation after he denied her allegation that he sexually assaulted her at a Bergdorf Goodman store in the mid-1990s. The trial for the lawsuit is scheduled to start this month.
Hoffman’s involvement could further paint Carroll’s lawsuit as a partisan attack. A major Democratic donor, Hoffman in 2020 gave $1.5 million to a super PAC supporting Joe Biden and has said he would “‘spend as much as [he] possibly can’ to avoid another Trump presidency.” Carroll’s lawsuit could also be clouded by Hoffman’s affiliation with Epstein, whom he hosted in 2015 at a fundraising dinner for MIT Media Lab. The tech titan later apologized for “helping to repair” Epstein’s image.
Trump’s lawyers asserted that Hoffman’s past antics raise “significant questions” as to Carroll’s credibility and whether the lawsuit is a “‘hoax’ that was commenced and/or continued to advance a political agenda.” They asked the judge handling the lawsuit to delay trial for one month and to allow for discovery related to Hoffman’s support for Carroll. Hoffman has maintained access to the White House throughout the lawsuit. Visitor logs show he met twice with an assistant to top Biden adviser Anita Dunn.
Hoffman, who serves on the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Board, has funded several questionable political operations to boost Democrats. He financed a group that created fake social media accounts to trick Republican voters during the 2017 Alabama Senate special election. Hoffman was an early supporter of ACRONYM, a liberal dark money group behind Courier Newsroom, a network of liberal websites misleadingly designed to look like legitimate local news outlets.
Hoffman contributed to Integrity First for America, a progressive legal group that gave $620,000 to the legal defense fund for Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm behind an infamous dossier that falsely claimed the Kremlin has videos of Trump with prostitutes in Moscow.
Dmitri Mehlhorn, a political adviser for Hoffman, said in a statement that Hoffman’s financial support for Carroll’s lawsuit was made through an unidentified organization that independently chooses whose legal cases to fund. Mehlhorn claimed he and Hoffman “had no prior knowledge” that the group would choose Carroll’s case.
Mehlhorn did not identify the organization, but details match Integrity First for America, the legal group that contributed to Fusion GPS’s legal defense fund.
Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, formed Integrity First for America in 2017 to “step up the legal pressure on President Donald Trump’s business empire.” Integrity First paid Kaplan’s law firm nearly $4.4 million from 2017 to 2019, accordingtotax filings.
Kaplan, who also represented Trump’s niece, Mary Trump, in her failed lawsuit over millions of dollars in family inheritance, has been at the center of other sex scandals. She was forced to resign as head of the feminist group Time’s Up after revelations that she advised then-New York governor Andrew Cuomo (D.) on an op-ed he planned to write smearing a woman who accused him of sexual harassment.
Data on US funding for CCP-tied entities are ‘incomplete and sometimes inaccurate’
The U.S. government does not know how much taxpayer money is being funneled to China each year due to “incomplete and sometimes inaccurate” data, according to a federal watchdog report.
The American government from 2017 to 2021 allocated at least $48 million for partnerships with Chinese Communist Party-controlled entities, including more than $10 million for China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which played a central role in misleading the world about the origins of the coronavirus. But “the full extent of this funding remains unclear,” according to a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the government’s top watchdog group.
Much of this money was awarded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Chinese universities and government-controlled research centers. Partnerships at these institutions have been under the congressional microscope since the start of the coronavirus pandemic and the determination that the virus likely leaked from a Communist Party laboratory that received U.S. funding. Michael Sobolik, a veteran China analyst and fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council think tank, said the federal government should be increasing its efforts to account for every taxpayer dollar sent to China and CCP-linked entities.
“It’s standard practice for U.S. government contractors to not report small subawards. That makes sense generally, but it presents some problems in the China context,” Sobolik said. “Washington owes it to the American taxpayer to account for every dollar spent within the borders of our greatest geopolitical adversary.”
Peking University, which maintains a partnership with the Communist Party’s defense industry and nuclear weapons program, received nearly $6 million from the U.S. government during the years covered by the report. “Peking also conducts classified work on semiconductors, satellite communications, flight propulsion, and computer science,” the Washington Free Beaconreported in 2021.
Other CCP schools, including Wuhan University, Fudan University, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, received six-figure cash awards from the U.S. government over the course of the four years tracked in the report. This funding in particular could raise red flags since Chinese schools feed the Communist Party’s military sector, including its spy operations and research on advanced weapons.
At least 15 Chinese universities “have been implicated in cyberattacks, illegal exports, or espionage,” according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
More than $809,000 was also awarded to individual Chinese recipients, whose identities are not disclosed.
All told, “U.S. agencies reported obligating approximately $22.8 million through assistance awards and approximately $25.2 million through contracts,” according to the report.
Federal investigators found that entities receiving U.S. cash often did not report smaller expenditures in China, which makes it difficult to pinpoint overall funding figures. U.S. companies that receive federal funds, for instance, can contract with entities located in China. Those figures are not tracked, according to investigators who worked on the report, who said they found inconsistencies in the reporting of these expenditures.
Funding data are also incomplete because subawards under $30,000 do not need to be reported back to the federal government, meaning that the primary recipients of U.S. dollars are not required to tell the government about limited spending in China. Because of these guidelines, “the full extent of such funding [to China] is unknown because of limitations related to the completeness and accuracy of subaward data reported in government systems.” Essentially, as federal money got channeled further down the chain, reporting on how it was spent and where it went became less clear.
Around 94 percent of the federal funds that were awarded to China came from NIH, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and the State Department, according to the report.
The State Department, for instance, paid $4.3 million to “a company in China to obtain internet services at the U.S embassy and consulates throughout mainland China.”
The U.S. Postal Service is pushing back against a pressure campaign from Democrats to turn thousands of post offices into a network of electric car charging stations for the public, saying the plan would slow down mail operations and conflict with its mission to provide “prompt, reliable, and efficient postal services.”
House Democrats want to install public electric vehicle chargers at thousands of post offices, turning USPS into a nationwide charging network—a proposal that has reportedly “excited” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.
“We already own the property, the postal service has these vehicles and we could make them available to the public as well,” said Rep. Marcy Kaptur in 2021 (D., Ohio).
The news comes as the cash-strapped and understaffed agency has faced demands from the Biden administration to increase its investment in green energy. Last month, the USPS said it would buy over 9,000 electric vehicles for its fleet and 14,000 charging stations.
But USPS officials warned that the plan to make such stations public would “conflict with or complicate the execution of USPS’s mission” of providing timely mail services, according to a congressional report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) on Thursday.
“USPS officials said hosting public chargers could conflict with the high importance USPS places on reduced wait times in retail facilities,” said the report.
The postal service has been in a financial crisis for years and is struggling with massive staffing shortages that have caused mail delays. USPS reported a $2 billion net loss in the last fiscal year. The agency said providing public charging stations would create more financial hardships and overburden its workforce.
USPS told the GAO that its retail employees “may not have the capacity or skills to plan and operate public charging programs” and they “would likely have to respond to charging equipment problems while also being responsible for carrying out their normal job duties.”
USPS said it is prohibited from earning revenue from non-mail services, so there would be “no potential financial benefits” for operating public chargers.
But “stakeholders” interviewed by the GAO—which included the Department of Energy, electric vehicle companies, and advocacy groups—argued that the plan would benefit the USPS by enhancing its “environmental reputation” and increasing its “community relevance.”
The GAO report still urged USPS to install private EV chargers at its facilities for its workforce, saying this would help the agency “plan for potential future needs in a financially responsible manner.”
Missouri attorney general Andrew Bailey (R.) on Thursday issued an emergency rule that establishes extensive safeguards on providing transgender medical interventions to both adults and children.
The emergency rule, citing dozens of scientific studies and reports, concluded that because gender transition interventions are “experimental” and pose “significant side effects,” state law requires “substantial guardrails” around such procedures. Those guardrails, the rule states, include ensuring patients have undergone at least 15 hourly psychiatric assessment sessions over the course of 18 months, informing patients explicitly that the “use of puberty blocker drugs or cross-sex hormones” to treat gender dysphoria “is experimental and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration,” and requiring those who receive such treatments to get medical follow-ups for 15 years.
The act comes as Bailey continues his investigation into St. Louis Children’s Hospital’s Transgender Clinic. His office launched the investigation in early February in response to a whistleblower’s report of “egregious abuses and potential malpractice regarding minors.”
While 11 other states prohibit pediatric transgender treatments, citing similar concerns over significant side effects and a lack of solid scientific support, this is the first state rule addressing adult patients.
“The regulation is necessary due to the skyrocketing number of gender transition interventions, despite rising concerns in the medical community that these interventions lack clinical evidence of safety or success,” Bailey said in his statement announcing the rule, citing studies by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare. The Swedish board recently declared that “the risks” of these interventions “currently outweigh the possible benefits.”
“When even progressive countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the United Kingdom have all sharply curtailed these procedures,” Bailey said, “it’s time for the United States to course-correct.”
The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ advocacy group, are among the pro-trans activist groups decrying the rule and threatening legal action. They say that Bailey’s rule is “distorted” and “misleading,” citing the American Medical Association’s and American Academy of Pediatrics’s endorsements of “gender-affirming care”—a euphemism for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-change surgeries.
Bailey on March 20 issued a temporary rule that set strict perimeters for minors receiving “gender-affirming care,” but the rule was set to expire in September. The new rule is effective April 27, 2023, and expires February 6, 2024.
“Even Europe recognizes that mutilating children for the sake of a woke, leftist agenda has irreversible consequences, and countries like Sweden, Norway, and the United Kingdom have all sharply curtailed these procedures,” Bailey said in March. “I am dedicated to using every legal tool at my disposal to stand in the gap and protect children from being subject to inhumane science experiments.”
Republican-led states say they will not partner with a self-proclaimed “nonpartisan” health policy group that works to shape state policy after the Washington Free Beacon reported that the group pushes left-wing policies, including “health equity” and “antiracism” training.
The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), a Maine-based nonprofit that claims to be an independent state policymaker group working on “advancing health policy innovations,” has increasingly aligned itself with the Democratic Party and pushes states to enact liberal policies.
Mississippi governor Tate Reeves (R.) told the Free Beacon that NASHP can no longer be “taken seriously” after reports that during a September 2022 conference, the group pushed states to invest in “equity” programs such as bias training, race-based hiring, and rationing of resources based on race.
“It becomes incredibly difficult for groups like the NASHP and other organizations to be trusted, taken seriously, and believed to be credible when they become steeped in politics and often focus more on progressive activism than the actual promotion of subject matter expertise,” Reeves said.
NASHP was also an influential supporter of extending Obamacare subsidies. Democrats pointed to NASHP as an unbiased source despite the group’s deep ties to their party, including millions of dollars in dark money funding from liberal groups and a revolving door with Democratic campaigns and offices.
Both Mississippi and another solidly conservative state, Arkansas, say they have no interest in working with the group.
Alexa Henning, the communications director for Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R.), said the state “has no affiliation with this group and doesn’t plan on participating in any of its events” in the future.
“We are not interested in collaborating with any left-wing groups that operate with a false veneer of objectivity,” Hunter Estes, the communications director for Reeves, said.
Virginia attorney general Jason Miyares (R.) last year told the Free Beacon that the group can’t be trusted as a nonpartisan source of information.
“It’s disturbing to see the National Academy for State Health Policy, which claims to be nonpartisan, embrace a partisan liberal agenda,” Miyares said. “States should closely examine NASHP’s rhetoric and activities and not embrace more division and divisiveness, particularly around public health.”
When asked for comment, NASHP said its “work is guided” by members who are “both Republican and Democratic state leaders.”
“NASHP is a nonpartisan organization that has a long history of almost 40 years working with state leaders from all 50 states and D.C.,” the group said.
NASHP’s partisanship is deeper than just policy proposals. Employees of the group donate nearly exclusively to Democrats: More than 96 percent of donations by individuals listing the group as their employer went to Democrats. Trish Riley, who has led the group for much of the past four decades, has donated more than $50,000 exclusively to Democratic candidates since 1992, according to documents reviewed by the Free Beacon. Riley has been described in local outlets as a “veteran party activist.”
Liberal dark money groups fill the group’s coffers. Arnold Ventures, which funds liberal campaigns and advocacy groups, since 2016 has donated almost $8 million to NASHP’s “Center for Health Policy Development.” NASHP takes this funding and then pays it to partisan organizations like Avenue Solutions, which received $654,000. Avenue Solutions is a lobbying firm that refers to itself as an “all-female, all-Democratic firm.”
NASHP is also a revolving door for activists between jobs with the Democratic Party. Several staffers have worked for former Democratic governors Ralph Northam (Va.), Terry McAuliffe (Va.), and John Baldacci (Maine). Other employees have moved on to the liberal think tank Center for American Progress and to NARAL Pro-Choice America.
NASHP’s activities are the latest example of left-wing advocates using nonprofit policy groups to push ideologies on state governments. In May 2022, a group called Accountable Tech, which poses as a “small nonprofit taking on Big Tech companies,” ran ads attacking Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Another group, Opportunity Wisconsin, ran ads attacking Republican senator Ron Johnson (Wis.). Neither group actually existed, however; they were trademarked names under the North Fund, a dark money group that pushes leftist causes on states.
Two Biden administration officials will attend an “ethics summit” next week with a TikTok executive who reportedly took part in the social media company’s efforts to hunt down leaks about its ties to China.
The Biden administration’s assistant secretary for export enforcement at the Commerce Department, Matthew Axelrod, the and Glenn Leon, the chief of the Justice Department’s fraud section, will speak at the Ethisphere Global Ethics Summit in Atlanta—alongside TikTok’s head of global legal compliance, Catherine Razzano.
Razzano was involved in an internal investigation led by TikTok parent ByteDance to root out leaks of internal information about the company, according to Forbes. The investigation, known as Project Raven, ultimately led to surveillance of at least two American journalists. The Justice Department is reportedly investigating the Chinese companies over the matter.
House Republicans are crying foul over Axelrod’s participation in the summit. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers (R., Wash.), the chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, said in a letter to Axelrod on Friday he has “an ethical responsibility” to use the ethics forum to raise awareness about TikTok’s “threats to our national security and privacy.”
The Biden officials are attending the summit amid TikTok’s aggressive lobbying campaign to beat back a ban on the app in the United States. Support has grown for a ban because of concerns that the Chinese government could surveil Americans through the app, and use it to spread pro-Beijing propaganda.
TikTok has hired a cavalry of lobbyists and PR firms, including the Democratic consulting firm SKDK, to fight the ban. There are some indications that the onslaught is working, as the Washington Free Beaconreported. A growing number of Democrats have accused Republicans of racism for promoting the TikTok ban. Others in the party oppose a ban because of TikTok’s popularity with young and liberal voters.
Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, whose agency will oversee any regulation of TikTok, has expressed reservations about banning the app because it would hurt the Democratic party by alienating TikTok’s user base, which skews young and liberal.
“The politician in me thinks you’re gonna literally lose every voter under 35, forever,” Raimondo said last month.
TikTok has bolstered its image through partnerships with a variety of trade groups and advocacy groups, such as the National PTA and Ad Council. It does the same through Ethisphere Institute, which touts its ethics summit as “a place for companies and delegates to learn, develop and share ideas that elevate our field and lead to greater business integrity.”
Etisphere oversees the Business Ethics Leadership Alliance, which counts TikTok as a member. Razzano serves on the alliance’s executive steering committee.
Razzano is perhaps a peculiar choice to discuss business ethics. According to Forbes, she had knowledge of ByteDance and TikTok’s efforts to find a source behind leaks about the company’s links to China. ByteDance employees ultimately obtained user data on at least two journalists, including a Forbes reporter who covers TikTok.
A ByteDance spokesperson told Forbes that Razzano was not aware of the surveillance of journalists until October, but was aware of Project Raven at its inception. The Justice Department is investigating ByteDance over the surveillance, according to reports.
The Justice Department did not respond to questions about whether Leon, the department official attending the ethics conference, is involved in the ByteDance probe. The Commerce Department did not respond to inquiries about Axelrod’s involvement in matters related to TikTok.
Washington State could soon require youth shelters to hide minors who run away from home in order to obtain an abortion or sex change operations without parental consent.
The Washington House of Representatives this week passedSenate Bill 5599, which would eliminate a law that requires youth shelters to alert parents when their child checks in, unless there is evidence the child is being abused. The proposal would widen the scope of what constitutes a “compelling reason” to conceal a minor to include youths seeking sex change operations or “reproductive health services,” like abortion. The bill, which the Senate passed in March, now goes to Gov. Jay Inslee’s (D.) desk for a signature.
This is the latest blue state effort to help minors obtain controversial medical procedures without parental consent. Lawmakers in Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado have all passed legislation designed to make their states “safe havens” for youths seeking sex changes or abortions. California Democrats recently advanced a bill that would allow children as young as 12 check into a group home without parent consent.
These measures come as transgender activists, social media personalities, and therapists encourage minors to sever ties with their parents if they don’t support medical transitions. Democratic state Rep. Tana Senn issued a similar call to “youth across our nation” during the House’s vote on the bill.
“I am saying tonight to them that I see you, that I affirm you, that I hear you, that I love you,” Senn said from the House floor. “With this passage of the bill we are saying that Washington State does too.”
Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh pushed back on this rosy picture, noting that he’s heard from “thousands of concerned Washingtonians about this attack on parents’ rights and families.”
“Sponsors and supporters of this bill have overstepped the constitution and case law in promoting this policy, which would allow state bureaucrats to hide minor children from custodial parents and legal guardians,” Walsh said, adding that among the bill’s “many flaws,” it assumes “families that don’t ‘affirm’ a child’s short-term desires are being abusive.”
The bill’s author, state Sen. Marko Liias, has justified his proposal by claiming that puberty blockers and sex change procedures have “been proven to lower rates of adverse mental health outcomes, build self-esteem, and improve the overall quality of life for transgender and gender diverse youth.”
Liias cites in support of his claim a Biden administration fact sheet, which draws on data from transgender activist groups like the Trevor Project. But research increasingly shows that while people may feel a slight mood boost when they begin taking hormones, most of those gains disappear after three years.
More than 99 percent of illegal migrants who used a Biden administration app to seek an exception to a Trump-era immigration policy received it, according to a report, news that contradicts leftwing criticism that Joe Biden is being too tough in his border policy.
Nearly all migrants who used the Biden administration’s CPB One app to ask for an exemption from Title 42, a soon-to-expire pandemic rule that allows agents to turn migrants away, received it, Fox News reported. More than 75,000 applications have been processed or will be by April 25.
Less than 1 percent of the migrants who secure appointments through the app are rejected. Migrants are then often allowed to enter the United States with a notice to appear at future appointments.
The report comes after left-leaning media criticized Biden for the app, with the New York Times saying using it causes stress for migrants. More than 70 Democrats sent Biden a letter in January criticizing his “disappointing” border policy for rejecting illegal immigrants’ asylum claims.
Yet the new report shows migrants are able to get exceptions with virtually no chance of denial. The app is set to be expanded in use when Title 42 expires on May 11 with the end of the public emergency declaration from the pandemic.
The development comes as Biden seeks to give DACA recipients access to Medicaid while migrant encounters have hit record highs on both borders in recent months.
It’s been more than a week since the indictment of former President Donald Trump dominated the news cycle.
What happened to the story?
As of the late afternoon on April 13, the name “Trump” appeared nowhere on the front page of Google News.
There and elsewhere, the arrest of 21-year-old Jack Teixeira, accused of leaking classified national defense material, claimed the limited attention spans of those in the Journalist-American community.
Trump and the indictment didn’t make the very top of The New York Times’ digital front page. Yet, the title of a subsection about a quarter of the way down, “The Trump Investigations,” offers some clues as to how Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s controversial case may be recast—namely, as one of many legal quagmires through which the ex-commander-in-chief must trudge.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in New York City on Jan. 13, 2023. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Fox News was accused in March of a soft ban on Trump appearing on its channel, yet hosted on April 12 Trump’s first interview since his indictment, which it featured partway down its digital front page. An article on Bragg also made the cut.
The former president was almost a total non-entity on the digital front page of CNN, famously dismissed by Trump as “Fake News CNN.”
It’s part of a noticeable pattern over the past week. Although coverage of Trump has fluctuated, it has generally trended downward. Yet, the legacy media’s “indispensable man” has never fully exited the news cycle.
Weak Case Driving Coverage Downward: News Analyst
Kevin Tober, a news analyst with the conservative Media Research Center, has been monitoring coverage of Trump.
His March 28 article, written before Trump’s indictment was released, noted that the four big Sunday news roundtable shows obsessed over that story while ignoring key new stories that could hurt President Joe Biden.
Those revelations included emails from Biden’s vice presidency suggesting that members of the Biden family sought to downplay coverage of Hunter Biden’s Burisma Holdings board membership in 2015, along with subpoenas from the House Oversight Committee that appear to link the Bidens to payouts from a Chinese energy company.
President Joe Biden (L) waves alongside his son Hunter Biden after attending mass at Holy Spirit Catholic Church in Johns Island, S.C., on Aug. 13, 2022. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images)
Tober has a theory about why the indictment has faded from view.
“I think the media looked at what’s in the indictment, and they realized there’s nothing there,” he told The Epoch Times in an April 12 interview.
“Even they are embarrassed to be hyping this,” he added.
Once the indictment was unsealed, legal experts quickly identified numerous flaws in it. Those issues range from the way it blends state and federal laws to its vagueness concerning Trump’s alleged second crime.
Yet, even if the media is quietly backing away from a weak case, its powerful megaphone may have served the intended purpose.
Pro-Trump commentator John Doyle argued in an April 7 video that people who don’t follow the news closely will see the former president more negatively on average because of the indictment.
“They’re just going to remember that, you know, every time they turned on the news in the gym, whatever, it seemed like Trump was wrapped up in some scandal, which will just make them more likely to think, ‘Well, they finally got him,’” Doyle said.
The media, Tober said, is “always quick to report on anti-conservative or anti-Republican stories.”
In his view, one of the media’s biggest tricks is omitting or downplaying inconvenient information, sometimes in response to explicit instructions.
He cited CBS News’ ban on the word “transgender” in its coverage of the shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville, as reported by the New York Post.
‘The Current Thing’
One useful concept for making sense of the news cycle originated over a year ago as a spinoff of the “non-playable character” (NPC) meme—”The Current Thing.”
The Current Thing is often the top story for days, weeks, or even months at a time. And not only are you forced to think about it—you’d better support it or risk paying the social price.
An early example comes from 2012, with the crusade against African warlord Joseph Kony.
More recently, The Current Thing has ranged from COVID-19 to the war in Ukraine.
Demonstrators gather at the Lincoln Memorial to stand in solidarity with Ukraine and protest against the rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine before marching to the White House in Washington on Feb. 20, 2022. Attendees called for President Joe Biden to take a stronger stance on deterring Russia from invading Ukraine and demanded the end of Russia’s occupation of Crimea. (Kenny Holston/Getty Images)
For many, The Current Thing is becoming harder and harder to escape with each passing year.
“The Current Thing, at a fundamental level, is a distraction. Any distraction,” said Adam Ellwanger, an English professor at the University of Houston-Downtown, in an April 14 interview with The Epoch Times. “American society is at a very late stage in its degradation.”
Ellwanger wrote about what he sees as the elite-driven nature of The Current Thing for The American Conservative in 2022.
“Current Thingism is about freezing the public gaze on ONE problem, in the hope that they remain oblivious—or indifferent—to the rest, and thus remain ignorant of the bigger picture,” Ellwanger added. “Because the establishment is thoroughly leftist, the issues that become The Current Thing are ones that are conducive to advancing the agenda of the political and cultural left.”
For a few days, Trump’s indictment was The Current Thing.
Yet, as Tober noted, the story lost momentum over the following week, though didn’t disappear completely.
The indictment-related stories that did emerge illustrate another powerful weapon in the media’s arsenal—namely, the framing of a specific story and the latest Current Thing.
On April 11, for example, Bragg’s lawsuit against Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) dominated many headlines.
Jordan’s original subpoena, the trigger for Bragg’s reaction, hadn’t commanded anything resembling the same amount of attention.
“Framing is very often ideological,” Tober said.
Some argue that The Current Thing is more a product of financial incentives than of political belief. After all, journalists make money from the public’s attention. Why wouldn’t they capitalize on a snowballing story, regardless of ideology?
Despite its legendary self-obsession, the media itself might not give you the best answers.
“The media kind of goes back and forth like a ping-pong ball. They follow whatever the new thing is, the new controversy,” Tober said.
This writer ran a test using the most unscientific method possible: a Twitter poll.
What factor mostly determines “the current thing”? (Please retweet this one.)
In the eyes of those who answered, ideology edges out money in establishing The Current Thing, leaving chance or other factors in the dust.
In fairness, it’s pretty hard to imagine that our media presents—and polices—the latest big stories without taking politics into consideration.
The current Current Thing, Texieira’s arrest, has been publicized as a national security risk for the United States and a possible justification for expanded government monitoring of social media by the Biden administration.
Jack Teixeira, in T-shirt and shorts, being taken into custody by armed tactical agents in Dighton, Mass., on April 13, 2023. (WCVB-TV via AP)
It comes just weeks after Congress proposed the RESTRICT Act, a putatively anti-TikTok bill that could greatly expand the government’s ability to clamp down on online communications.
The explosive content of the leaks, and what they reveal about the United States’ involvement in Ukraine, has remained a relative afterthought.
Trump vs ‘The Current Thing’
Trump has long had a complicated relationship with the media and its Current Things.
Even as he supposedly “craved media approval,” the real estate mogul and reality show star had a knack for disrupting the press’s narratives while leading the country.
He also captured clicks and eyeballs for legacy and non-legacy outlets alike.
“They [the media] just can’t get over their obsession with the president,” Tober said.
Even today, he said, “it’s always Trump, Trump, Trump” on the news.
“We always joke, ‘Well, who’s the president right now?’”
Former U.S. President Donald Trump greets supporters as he arrives at an event at Mar-a-Lago in West Palm Beach, Florida, on April 4, 2023. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Many Current Things in the past few years have been driven wholly or in part by Trump.
Like other Republican leaders before him, he’s provided a focal point for leftist ire. In some ways, the Trump phenomenon—perpetually seen as an emergency, forever dominating the news cycle, and always demanding a politically safe response—was the most durable Current Thing of the past few years.
Yet, in Ellwanger’s view, Trump has offered Americans a path away from The Current Thing.
“He seeks to move the public’s attention away from The Current Thing in order to see the broader degradation,” he said.
“If the public were to get that broader panorama, they would recognize that some radical alternative is needed to the current establishment. Which, of course, would empower Trump. Therefore, he remains Public Enemy #1 according to Current Thingism.”
As of early Friday, Teixeira and the bombshell documents continued to dominate headlines, leaving the man from Mar-a-Lago in the shadows.
It’s hard to believe that will last, particularly given the unprecedented nature of what has happened with Trump.
The Current Thing comes and goes, but Americans’ polarized responses to the indictment of a former president don’t seem likely to vanish without a trace.
The Epoch Times has obtained exclusive video of the firebombing of the pregnancy resource center that was attacked last June by suspected pro-abortion militants in Buffalo, New York.
The video has been at the center of a controversy between CompassCare, the Christian pregnancy center, and the police who refused to return the video to the clinic.
The video was returned under an agreement between the clinic and the Town of Amherst.Play Video
Pro-life Group Rejects Demands By Police
According to CompassCare, the town initially wanted the crisis pregnancy center to agree to a provision that the video couldn’t be released for two years; an indemnity from CompassCare for the damages that might arise to the pro-life organization by the Amhurst Police Department’s failure to investigate; and the ability to sue CompassCare over any violations of confidentiality provisions of the settlement.
“As the victim of the crime, CompassCare refused all settlement terms, not willing to be re-victimized by a lawsuit from law enforcement for exercising our First Amendment right to freedom of speech,” CompassCare CEO Rev. James Harding told The Epoch Times about the resolution of the lawsuit.
“After rejecting all settlement terms restricting CompassCare or adding liability to CompassCare, we suggested the judge order a determination. At that point, the Amherst P.D. removed all restrictions on settlement terms, releasing a copy to CompassCare on Thursday April 6, 305 days after the firebombing,” added Harden.
City attorney, Stanley J. Sliwa, said previously that the release of the video would unnecessarily jeopardize the investigation.
Town Attorney’s Remarks
In a September 2022, interview with The Epoch Times, Sliwa appeared to suggest that publicity of the police investigation would stoke political violence from the right.
“You’re aware of all the nut jobs out there with guns and AK-47s, bombing and killing people because they have certain political views,” Sliwa told The Epoch Times.
“The police department is trying to keep a lid on that and trying to keep the investigation as quiet as possible in order to ensure that these people don’t go further underground, as they may already be,” he added.
When asked about which people with AK-47s were engaging in violence over political views he was referring to, the city attorney said it was “people that are part and parcel of the revolt against the United States government” on Jan. 6, 2021.
Congresswoman Claudia Tenney and CompassCare CEO Rev. Jim Harden at the reopening of the CompassCare Pregnancy Services center in Amherst, N.Y., on Aug. 1, 2022. (Photo courtesy of CompassCare)
For their part, CompassCare claims that both the Amherst police and the FBI have dragged their feet, pointing to politically-tinged comments like those by Sliwa as proof.
They have also said the FBI “inserted itself” into investigations regarding attacks on crisis pregnancy centers to hinder the investigations.
“The Amherst Police repeatedly declined multiple requests from the CompassCare CEO to view the video, deferring to the FBI. CompassCare has been insisting since early last summer that the FBI inserted itself in local investigations, slow walking those investigation into the pro-abortion Antifa attacks,” Harden told The Epoch Times.
Rubio Decries Targeting of Christians
Sen. Marco Rubio, (R-Fla.) went even further, telling The Epoch Times, that President Joe Biden’s administration has “targeted” Christians.
“Instead of prosecuting criminals that vandalized churches and assaulted members of the clergy, the Biden Administration is spying on Catholic churches and targeting pro-life advocates,” Rubio said.
“This is the weaponization of government they claim to fear but now use against their political enemies. And no one in the old legacy media cares,” he added.
Other prominent conservative and Christian leaders are becoming more alarmed by what they describe as the “one-sided approach” that the Biden administration has used in investigating domestic, politically-motivated violence.
“It is shameful that the investigation into the bombing of the Buffalo pregnancy care center has stalled and law enforcement seems uninterested in finding the violent perpetrators. Federal and local law enforcement agents there should be embarrassed that they have not made an arrest when Jane’s Revenge claimed credit for the horrific attack,” said Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), a conservative advocacy group, told The Epoch Times.
“The FBI did nothing to help find the vandal who tore up Concerned Women for America’s national headquarters including urinating on our front door. Yet, the FBI raided the home of [a] pro-life father who was praying outside an abortion clinic and today we learn the Department of Justice recommended no jail time for an individual who defaced a Catholic Church with profane graffiti, destroyed a statue of the Virgin Mary, assaulted a church worker, and resisted arrest,” she added.
Attacks
Harden claims that there have been 300 attacks on pro-life groups, while Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), author of a bill to protect crisis pregnancy centers, said that there have been about 100 attacks, including attacks on churches.
Both were appalled at revelations by Garret O’Boyle, a suspended Kansas-based FBI special agent, and Steve Friend, a former Florida-based FBI special agent, who said that domestic terror “threat tags” were used to scrutinize pro-life groups.
Threat tags are issued by the Department of Justice on individuals and groups that the FBI wants to collect more information about, in order to address the “scope” posed by the individuals or groups for domestic terror, drug trafficking, and or human trafficking.
Last week, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee said that the FBI used at least one undercover agent to try to infiltrate Catholic churches to investigate whether the churches were showing signs of religious extremism.
“Justice does not seem to be blind when it comes to law enforcement’s response to attacks on conservatives and Christians and you have to wonder what is driving this one-sided approach to the law,” concluded CWA’s Nance.
The Epoch Times has reached out to the White House, DOJ, and FBI for comment.
A Supreme Court ruling on April 14 made it easier to challenge the reach of two powerful federal agencies—the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
In its new red tape-cutting decision that is a defeat for the Biden administration, the Supreme Court took steps to rein in the so-called administrative state and reaffirm the separation of powers doctrine that prevents any specific branch of the government from exercising the core functions of another. The idea behind the doctrine is to discourage the concentration of power and make sure there are checks and balances.
Critics of the administrative state claim that in-house adjudications carried out by agencies are unfair because the tribunals, unlike regular courts, lack fixed evidentiary rules, allowing the agencies to function as prosecutor, judge, and jury. They argue that the tribunals are unconstitutional because they are not politically accountable.
The litigants challenging the agencies argued they should be able to contest the way the tribunals are constituted in federal courts without first having to launch a lengthy, expensive challenge within the administrative system.
But the Biden administration argued that challengers may only proceed to court after losing in potentially expensive, protracted agency proceedings.
The new ruling encompasses two cases: Axon Enterprise Inc. v. FTC, court file 21-86, and SEC v. Cochran, court file 21-1239.
Scottsdale, Arizona-based Axon makes body cameras and digital evidence management systems for law enforcement.
Axon purchased an insolvent competitor, Vievu LLC, for around $13 million in 2018. A month later the FTC sent Axon a letter indicating the acquisition raised antitrust concerns. Axon claimed it was subjected to “extensive and expensive investigatory proceedings,” and after 18 months of this “with no end in sight, Axon offered to walk away from its acquisition entirely,” but this did not satisfy the FTC.
Axon offered to unload its Vievu assets and provide millions of dollars in working capital to “a divestiture buyer,” but instead the FTC demanded that Axon transform Vievu “into a ‘clone’ of Axon using Axon’s intellectual property,” and threatened Axon with “an administrative proceeding” if it failed to do so.
Michelle Cochran is a certified public accountant in Texas.
In 2016, the SEC brought an enforcement action against Cochran, claiming she violated the Exchange Act by failing to comply with auditing standards issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board when performing quarterly reviews and annual audits between 2010 and 2013.
An SEC administrative law judge (ALJ) fined Cochran $22,500 and banned her from practicing before the SEC for 5 years. Cochran objected but before the agency could rule on her objection, the Supreme Court held in Lucia v. SEC (2018) that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, who must be appointed by the president, a court of law, or a department head.
Cochran’s case was reassigned to a new ALJ. Cochran sued in federal court to halt the SEC’s administrative enforcement proceedings against her, arguing that because the agency’s ALJs enjoy multiple layers of for-cause removal protection, they are unconstitutionally insulated from the president’s power to fire federal officials. She also argued that the SEC violated her due process rights by failing to follow its own rules and procedures.
On April 14, the Supreme Court ruled (pdf) unanimously against the agencies. The court’s opinion was written by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not join the court’s opinion; instead, he concurred in the judgment of the court but filed a separate opinion explaining his reasons for supporting the end result.
Kagan noted that both Axon and Cochran challenged the constitutional authority of federal agencies, claiming that ALJs are “insufficiently accountable to the President, in violation of separation-of-powers principles.”
The challenges are “fundamental, even existential,” as the litigants argue that “the agencies, as currently structured, are unconstitutional in much of their work.” The function of the court here is not to resolve those challenges but “to decide where they may be heard,” the justice wrote.
Objections to agency decisions follow a prescribed procedure laid out in statute. A party first makes a claim before the agency and then, if needed, to a federal court of appeals, she wrote.
But here Axon and Cochran “sidestepped that review scheme” and went to federal district court to halt the administrative proceedings.
Kagan said the district courts have jurisdiction to hear the legal challenges.
“The ordinary statutory review scheme does not preclude a district court from entertaining these extraordinary claims,” she wrote.
The court reversed the decisions of the two federal courts of appeal involved and remanded the cases for “further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The Epoch Times reached out to Axon attorney Paul Clement and the U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the two agencies, for comment, but had not received a reply from either as of press time.
A new study by German scientists has found that populations of a group of aquatic birds known as red-throated loons or “divers” have declined by more than 90 percent in the North Sea after offshore wind farms were built there.
The findings of the study, titled “Large-scale effects of offshore wind farms on seabirds of high conservation concern,” were published in Nature on April 13.
The study authors noted that “wind energy, specifically the installation of offshore wind farms (OWFs), has made a substantial contribution to renewable energy production in recent decades, with the North Sea currently being the key area for OWFs worldwide.”
Researchers set out to analyze multiple data sources to quantify the effects of such wind farms on seabirds from the family Gaviidae (loons) in the German North Sea.
The scientists used data collected from ships, aircraft, and digital aerial surveys collected between 2000 and 2017 that were harmonized and combined for joint analysis to examine changes in populations of loons after the wind farms were built.
They found that the “distribution and abundance of loons changed substantially from the period before to the period after OWF construction,” with populations of red-throated loons declining by 94 percent within a 1-kilometer zone of the wind farms and by 52 percent within 10 kilometers of the wind farms.
‘Negative Effects on Population Trends’
Total population estimates for all wind farm clusters (multiple OWF sites in direct vicinity) declined by almost a third, from 34,865 individuals before construction to 24,672 individuals after they were built, researchers found.
“The observed redistribution was a large-scale effect, with birds aggregating within the study area at large distances from the OWFs,” the study authors noted. “Although renewable energies will be needed to provide a large share of our energy demands in the future, it is necessary to minimize the costs in terms of less-adaptable species, to avoid amplifying the biodiversity crisis.”
The study authors noted that it is difficult to establish what the population consequences are for the loons or how the displacement will affect individuals and populations.
“Nevertheless, reduced availability of prime habitat and the consequently inferior foraging options may represent risks for loon populations through reduced body condition, delayed departure to breeding areas, and lower reproductive success, with negative effects on population trends,” they wrote.
“The observed decline in numbers from before to after the establishment of the OWFs indicates a strong negative pressure on loons in the southeastern North Sea,” they concluded.
Dead Whales Washing Up
The latest findings come as an increased number of whales have washed up dead on the U.S. east coast in recent months, prompting a group of mayors in the state of New Jersey to call for an immediate moratorium on offshore wind farms in the area until federal and state agencies can investigate the deaths and “confidently determine” that offshore wind activities are not contributing to them.
As more and more countries are turning to renewable forms of energy and phasing out fossil fuels, an increased number of wind farms are propping up.
According to a global electricity review by independent energy think tank Ember on Wednesday, electricity generation from wind grew by 17 percent in 2022, representing 7.6 percent of global electricity generation.
Over sixty countries now generate more than 10 percent of their electricity from wind and solar, according to the report.
In May last year, the nations of Germany, Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands announced plans to build a total of 150 gigawatts of offshore wind energy in the North Sea by 2050.
“This worries us substantially,” Stefan Garthe, a co-author of the latest study findings and a marine ecology professor at Kiel University in Germany, told the Straits Times.”While we acknowledge the urgent need for renewable energy, we face the problem that wind farms hardly provide any benefit for seabirds.”
The study authors said further research is needed to help understand which marine waters are best suited for establishing offshore wind farms without sacrificing species-conservation targets and that decision to construct such farms should take into account the existing biodiversity crisis.
“This would provide a kind of compromise between renewable energy installation and prevention of biodiversity loss,” Garthe said.
Billionaire businessman says parents and doctors who ‘sterilize a child’ should go to ‘prison for life’
Tesla founder and Twitter CEO Elon Musk doubled down on his previous criticism of adults who allow minors to undergo gender transition procedures on April 14, stating that the sterilization of children through such procedures should be punishable with life imprisonment.
“Any parent or doctor who sterilizes a child before they are a consenting adult should go to prison for life,” Musk wrote on Twitter.
The tech billionaire’s comment came in response to another user’s post mocking an MSNBC opinion piece criticizing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for his policies relating to parental rights, among other issues.
Any parent or doctor who sterilizes a child before they are a consenting adult should go to prison for life
Musk, who has a child that identifies as transgender, has been outspoken in his disapproval of gender-transitioning minors in the past.
Just last month, in another Twitter exchange, he took aim at adults who encourage children to undergo such procedures, holding that they were feeding kids “propaganda.”
“Moreover, every child goes through an identity crisis before their personality/identity crystallizes,” he added. “Therefore, we shouldn’t allow severe, irreversible surgery or sterilizing drugs that they may regret until at least age 18.”
Musk’s open critiques have met with backlash from those who feel children are capable of making such decisions for themselves.
Taking notice of Musk’s latest comments on the matter on Friday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) stepped in to voice her support.
“I agree,” she said. “That’s why I introduced the Protect Children’s Innocence Act that makes it a felony to perform gender affirming care on children under the age of 18.”
The “Protect Children’s Innocence Act” would make gender transition procedures—including surgeries, puberty-blocking drugs, and cross-sex hormones—on minors a felony. Greene introduced the legislation last year, but it was never voted on.
“It couldn’t pass last Congress because, like I said, Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House, and she doesn’t believe in gender at all,” Greene said. “But we have a new Speaker in our Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and I’m going to be introducing my bill … that will make it a felony to perform anything to do with gender-affirming care on children.
She added: “This isn’t just a right-wing extremist idea, everyone, that we should protect children from making a horrible mistake, because many of these kids do realize it’s a mistake and they hate what they’ve done to themselves. … There’s independents, Democrats, Republicans all over America that agree that we need to let kids be kids.”
I asked ChatGPT to build me a list of tasks for understanding the negative impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns. Wow… it went to town.
For those of you who may not be nerdy enough to care – ChatGPT is an AI chatbot – allowing you to ask questions in natural language style and it will reply in-kind. It’s a huge plus in overcoming writer’s block and it’s even passed multiple MBA exams.
It’s also likely to impact your job. Best get wise to this:
So I decided to try a variation called BabyAGI (a cute and creepy name if you know the acronym) which performs automated tasks using ChatGPT as a basis.
I asked it: “Prove that COVID-19 lockdowns caused serious harms”
It spit out a major task list to get started:
Research the economic impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns on vulnerable populations.
Analyze data to assess the effects of COVID-19 lockdowns on the public health outcomes.
Identify social and psychological harms associated with lockdowns.
Examine the impact of lockdowns on public services and infrastructure.
Investigate the long-term consequences of lockdowns.
Analyze the effects of lockdowns on civil liberties and human rights.
Assess the effects of lockdowns on employment and the labor market.
Determine the effects of lockdowns on education and child development.
Compare the benefits and harms of lockdowns.
Synthesize research findings to draw conclusions about the effects of COVID-19 lockdowns.\
More on this later but it’s initial conclusion:
My analysis of the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on public health outcomes in different countries has revealed several serious harms. Firstly, lockdowns have caused significant mental health problems such as depression and anxiety in many countries. Studies have shown that these mental health issues have been exacerbated by isolation and fear of the virus, leading to higher levels of stress, fatigue, and sleep disorders.
Secondly, lockdowns have disrupted access to medical care in many countries. A recent study in the UK found that the number of people admitted to hospital for conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, and cancer reduced significantly during the lockdown. This has had a major impact on people’s health, leading to an increase in mortality from these conditions.
Thirdly, lockdowns have caused an increase in poverty and food insecurity in many countries. This is due to the loss of jobs and reduced income for many people, resulting in them being unable to afford adequate nutrition and other basic necessities.
Finally, lockdowns have also caused an increase in child abuse in some countries. Reports from the US and UK have found that the number of reports of child abuse and neglect have increased since the start of the pandemic, due to the lack of access to social services and support provided by schools and other organizations.
Overall, my analysis has shown that COVID-19 lockdowns have had serious negative impacts on public health outcomes in many countries.
Then it started spitting out even MORE task lists. Some of these I have NEVER even thought about:
10: Analyze the impact of lockdowns on the economy.
11: Analyze the effectiveness of financial support provided to households and businesses affected by the lockdown.
12: Assess the impact of targeted measures to protect the most vulnerable groups during the lockdown.
13: Investigate the effectiveness of public health protocols such as wearing masks and social distancing during the lockdown.
14: Evaluate the impact of investing in public health infrastructure during the lockdown.
15: Examine the effectiveness of safety measures provided to essential workers during the lockdown.
16: Examine the effects of lockdowns on small businesses and the economy.
17: Assess the effects of lockdowns on mental health and well-being.
18: Investigate the effects of lockdowns on public opinion.
19: Analyze the long-term effects of the COVID-19 lockdowns on employment and job security.
20: Examine the impact of lockdowns on access to healthcare services.
21: Compare the effectiveness of different government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.
22: Evaluate the impact of lockdowns on the global economy.
23: Investigate the effects of lockdowns on public health outcomes.
24: Analyze the impact of lockdowns on the health of vulnerable populations.
25: Examine the impact of lockdowns on access to healthcare for low-income households.
26: Assess the impact of lockdowns on public mental health services.
27: Investigate the effects of lockdowns on public health resources.
28: Compare the effectiveness of different strategies to mitigate the economic impact of lockdowns on businesses.
29: Analyze the impact of lockdowns on access to social services.
30: Examine the effects of lockdowns on public health resources and infrastructure.
31: Investigate the impact of lockdowns on public transportation.
32: Assess the impact of lockdowns on access to education.
33: Compare the effectiveness of different strategies used to mitigate the social and psychological impacts of lockdowns.
34: Evaluate the impact of lockdowns on the mental health of vulnerable.
35: Assess the impact of lockdowns on educational institutions.
36: Examine the impact of lockdowns on access to essential services.
37: Compare the effectiveness of different strategies used to mitigate the economic effects of lockdowns.
38: Investigate the effects of lockdowns on public health infrastructure.
39: Investigate the effects of lockdowns on public safety.
40: Examine the long-term effects of lockdowns on economic growth.
41: Analyze the impact of lockdowns on access to healthcare for vulnerable populations.
42: Compare the effectiveness of different strategies used to mitigate the psychological impacts of lockdowns.
43: Evaluate the effectiveness of public health measures such as wearing masks and social distancing during the lockdown.
44: Investigate the impact of lockdowns on access to essential services for low-income households.
45: Examine the impact of lockdowns on access to education for vulnerable populations.
46: Analyze the impact of lockdowns on public health resources and infrastructure for vulnerable populations.
47: Assess the impact of targeted measures to protect the most vulnerable groups during the lockdown on public health outcomes.
48: Investigate the impact of lockdowns on public opinion of the elderly.
49: Evaluate the impact of lockdowns on access to healthcare for low-income households on mental health and well-being.
This article originally appeared in Rational Ground. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News. Republished with permission.
For years now, the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border has been escalating thanks to the malfeasance of the Biden Administration. Now, adversaries outside the Western hemisphere are exploiting Biden’s weakness at the border in ways that could have dire consequences for America in the years to come.
Thousands of Chinese nationals have crossed the border illegally over the past few months and many more are on their way, according to a report last month from Axios. The number of Chinese who crossed the border during the first three months of 2023 is more than double the number who crossed in all of 2022.
Just like those who show up at our border from other countries, some of these Chinese citizens may be legitimately seeking refuge from persecution. However, given China‘s aggressive moves against U.S. interests on numerous fronts, the threat that some of these migrants could pose to the United States cannot be dismissed. China’s regime under Communist Party leader Xi Jinping is repressive, and has only become worse in recent years. The brutal COVID-19 lockdowns in the country has led many Chinese nationals to flee. There is no doubt that the hardship many of them face is tragic, but that alone does not explain this massive surge of Chinese citizens showing up at the U.S. border.
As Rep. Vincente Gonzales (D-TX) said in a comment to Axios, “the word is out” about the wide open U.S. border.
“If you can get to our southern border, you have pretty good shot at getting in, and it has changed the demographics,” he commented.
Gonzales’ point about the changing demographics of aliens coming to the U.S. border is important. When most people think of illegal immigration, they think of migrants from Latin American countries flooding the U.S. border. While that is often the case, aliens from faraway lands have also begun showing up to take advantage of the Biden Administration’s negligence. With the word out about America’s unenforced border, citizens from countries far from our shores have begun showing up at the border in growing numbers. This is not only concerning because it adds to the number of illegal aliens who are already overwhelming our immigration system, but it also raises significant national security concerns.
As a top foreign adversary and competitor to the U.S., China is always looking for an advantage in their quest to surpass the U.S. as the world’s hegemon. Thanks to the Biden Administration’s dereliction of duty at the border, they may have found one.
Because of the porous U.S. border, a record number of Americans have died of fentanyl poisoning in recent years. Most fentanyl is initially developed in China before being transported to Mexico, and ultimately making its way across the southern border, where it has been killing tens of thousands of Americans on a yearly basis. Given China’s role in fueling the fentanyl crisis, anyone trying to enter the United States illegally from China demands a higher level of scrutiny.
In addition to the fentanyl threat, there is also the matter of more traditional national security concerns such as espionage. Given how easy it has become for foreign nationals to enter the U.S. illegally, it is reasonable to be concerned that the Chinese government may exploit these vulnerabilities by embedding spies within the growing number of asylum seekers. We know that China has gone as far to plant spies in Congressional offices in recent years, so why wouldn’t they take advantage of the Biden Administration’s anti-border policies for the same purposes?
China has become the U.S.’s biggest foreign adversary, and opening the floodgates for Chinese citizens to enter the U.S. illegally is the last thing we need added to our worsening immigration problems. To take this threat seriously is not xenophobia, but defending our nation at a time when so many of our leaders are failing to do so.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has come to the defense of the “white, male, christian” man suspected of leaking dozens of highly classified Pentagon documents.
Jack Teixeira, 21, joined the Massachusetts Air National Guard in 2019, serving as a cybersecurity systems journeyman. Teixeira obtained access to the highest level of classified information on issues from U.S. infiltration of Russian intelligence services to strained Ukrainian air defenses, which he allegedly posted online.
The Georgia firebrand’s defense of the young guardsman came shortly after his arrest and hours before his appearance in Boston’s federal courthouse.
“Jake Teixeira is white, male, christian, and antiwar. That makes him an enemy to the Biden regime,” Greene said on Twitter:
“Ask yourself who is the real enemy? A young low level national guardsmen? Or the administration that is waging war in Ukraine, a non-NATO nation, against nuclear Russia without war powers?”
“They couldn’t find the Supreme Court leaker who put Supreme Court Justices lives in danger, but magically, they can find 21-year-old low level National Guardsman “responsible” for exposing the truth about Ukraine,” she added.
Critics from the left and right responded that the guardsman’s race and religion weren’t a factor in his arrest; breaking his enlistment oath and providing aid and comfort to the enemy was. Calls for Greene’s removal from the Committee on Homeland Security spread rapidly.
She received support from Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who said the leaks prove U.S. troops are “fighting Russian soldiers.” Carlson didn’t provide evidence to back that claim.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy hasn’t commented on the controversy.
A former Biden Administration Energy Department official has narrowly avoided jail time this week in connection to a grand larceny case.
According to Fox News, In early December Las Vegas prosecutors charged Sam Brinton with grand larceny of an item valued between $1,200 and $5,000. Police accused Brinton of stealing a suitcase with a total estimated worth of $3,670 on July 6 at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas. The bag contained jewelry valued at $1,700, clothing worth $850 and makeup valued at $500.
According to Clark County, Nevada, criminal court records, Brinton was ordered to pay $3,670.74 to the victim in the case and $500 in additional fees including a criminal fine. Clark County Judge Ann Zimmerman then handed Brinton a 180-day suspended jail sentence, a sentence that doesn’t need to be served, and ordered Brinton to “stay out of trouble.”
Zimmerman also determined Brinton was guilty of theft of an item with the value less than $1,200. Earlier, Brinton pleaded “no contest” to the charges, waiving the right to a trial.
According to the court filing, after the suitcase’s owner alerted police, officers reviewed video surveillance of the carousel and identified Brinton taking the luggage before removing its tag identifying the owner. Law enforcement also observed Brinton using the luggage during at least two other trips to Washington, D.C., on Sept. 18 and Oct. 9.
Brinton reportedly received a call from authorities on Oct. 9th and denied taking the bag.
“If I had taken the wrong bag, I am happy to return it, but I don’t have any clothes for another individual,” Brinton told the officer. “That was my clothes when I opened the bag.”
Two hours after the phone call, Brinton called the officer back and apologized for not being “completely honest.” But Brinton said it was a mistake and blamed being tired for taking the wrong bag at the carousel.
An Arizona mother received an unexpected phone call from her daughter, only it wasn’t actually her daughter calling.
Jennifer DeStefano’s 15-year-old daughter called her while out of town on a ski trip, so DeStefano didn’t assume anything was out of the ordinary.
“I pick up the phone, and I hear my daughter’s voice, ‘Mom!’ and she’s sobbing,” DeStefano told a local news station affiliated with CBS.
Responding to her daughter’s voice asking, “What happened?” Her daughter replied: “‘Mom, I messed up,’ and she’s sobbing and crying,” DeStefano told the outlet.
Some phone scams claim to be from a financial services organization and ask you to update information—but don’t do it! This may be a phishing attack aimed at stealing your personal information. (BestForBest/Shutterstock)
DeStefano then begins to panic as she hears a man’s voice in the background.
“I hear a man’s voice say, ‘Put your head back. Lie down,’ DeStefano said, confused as to what was actually happening to her daughter.
“This man gets on the phone, and he’s like, ‘Listen here. I’ve got your daughter. This is how it’s going to go down. You call the police, you call anybody, I’m going to pop her so full of drugs. I’m going to have my way with her, and I’m going to drop her off in Mexico,” DeStefano explains.
The frightened mother begins shaking as she can hear her daughter yelling, “Help me, Mom. Please help me. Help me,” DeStefano said.
Despite the frightening call, DeStefano’s daughter’s voice was a clone created by artificial intelligence.
How are AI Voice Clones Created
Subbarao Kambhampati, a computer science professor at Arizona State University specializing in AI, explained how realistic and confusing it can be to detect a deep fake voice.
“You can no longer trust your ears,” Kambhampati said in an interview with WKYT.
With the constantly advancing technology, voice cloning makes it easier for individuals to create another personality and voiceover.
“In the beginning, it would require a larger amount of samples. Now there are ways in which you can do this with just three seconds of your voice. Three seconds. And with the three seconds, it can come close to how exactly you sound,” Kambhampati said.
Protecting Yourself From Scam Attacks
According to the Federal Trade Commission, scammers will often ask victims to wire money, send cryptocurrency, or pay the ransom with gift cards. This way the scammer can easily get away with the money without being traced.
Dan Mayo, the assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s Phoenix office, alerted the public about scammers scouting for victims through public social media profiles.
“You’ve got to keep that stuff locked down. The problem is, if you have it public, you’re allowing yourself to be scammed by people like this because they’re going to be looking for public profiles that have as much information as possible on you, and when they get a hold of that, they’re going to dig into you,” Mayo told WKYT.
Mayo provides some insights on how you can recognize if you’re being targeted for a scam and what to look out for.
“If the phone number is coming from an area code you’re unfamiliar with, that should be one red flag,” Mayo said. “Second red flag; international numbers. Sometimes they will call from those as well. The third red flag; they will not allow you to get off the phone and talk to your significant other. That’s a problem.”
With AI voice cloning on the rise, Mayo says the FBI is keeping track of scammers’ every move.
“However, there are some people who give in to these and they end up sending the money to these individuals,” Mayo said. “Trust me, the FBI is looking into these people, and we find them.”
The AI voice clone of DeStefano’s daughter never raised a doubt that the voice she was talking with wasn’t truly her daughter.
“It was never a question of who is this? It was completely her voice. It was her inflection. It was the way she would have cried,” DeStefano said. “I never doubted for one second it was her. That’s the freaky part that really got me to my core.”
Safe and Sound
DeStefano was able to quickly confirm her daughter was safe from family members.
“She was upstairs in her room going, ‘What? What’s going on?’” DeStefano said. “Then I get angry, obviously, with these guys. This is not something you play around with.”
DeStefano posted a warning message to all social media users on her Facebook.
“The only way to stop this is with public awareness!!,” she said. “Also, have a family emergency word or question that only you know so you can validate you are not being scammed with AI! Stay safe!!!”
Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.) has introduced legislation that would allow former President Donald Trump to move the criminal case against him to a federal court.
“I’m proud to introduce the No More Political Prosecutions Act. Politically motivated prosecutors should not be able to wield unwarranted power and target our nation’s top leaders for their own personal gain,” said Fry in an April 11 statement.
He added, “This legislation will prevent the political prosecutions of Presidents and Vice Presidents and thwart corrupt prosecutors’ agendas.”
The bill (H.R.2553) would amend existing federal law to grant current and former presidents and vice presidents the option to move civil and criminal cases against them from state courts to federal courts.
The legislation has since been referred to the Judiciary Committee, on which Fry sits. The South Carolina congressman also sits on the Oversight Committee.
Fry’s bill marks the first legislative response since Trump was indicted in New York on April 4. The former president was charged with 34 accounts of falsifying business records related to hush payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Former President Donald Trump appears in court at the Manhattan Criminal Court in New York on April 4, 2023. (Steven Hirsch/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and stated that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has “no case” against him. The charges were handed down by a grand jury empaneled by Bragg.
According to Fox News, a Republican aide on Judiciary Committee said the GOP is “absolutely” looking at moving the legislation onto the House floor.
Venues
Like many Republicans, Fry has criticized Bragg for bringing the charges against Trump.
“Today’s arraignment is an attack on the rule of law and will sadly erode confidence in our judicial system for so many Americans,” Fry wrote on Twitter on April 4. “Alvin Bragg is a Soros-funded, far-left local prosecutor interested in doing nothing more than politically persecuting President Trump,” referring to left-wing billionaire financier George Soros.
“This is a dangerous precedent and a grim day for our democracy,” Fry added. “I stand with President Trump.”
A day later, the congressman shared on Twitter an op-ed by Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. He wrote that he agreed with the professor’s arguments and said that Trump’s trial should be held outside of the Democrat-dominated borough of Manhattan.
“So now we have a case brought by a prosecutor who campaigned on bagging Trump, to be tried before a jury selected from a district that elected Bragg in part for that reason—a district that also voted against Trump 84.5 % to 14.5%” in the 2020 presidential election, Fry wrote, quoting Turley.
Trump’s attorney Jim Trusty also recently raised concerns about the venue of the trial.
“The issue with venue is that Manhattan was like 87 percent pro-Joe Biden the last election. It’s a real stronghold of liberalism, of activism, and that infects the whole process,” Trusty told ABC’s “This Week” on April 9.
However, Trusty added that his client’s legal team is focusing on dismissing the indictment and is a “long way out from worrying about” changing venues to a more balanced district like Staten Island.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) presides over a hearing of the Weaponization of the Federal Government Subcommittee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington on Feb. 9, 2023. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Polls
House Republicans are probing Bragg’s prosecution of Trump.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has sought documents and testimony from Matthew Colangelo, senior counsel to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
Jordan has also subpoenaed Mark Pomerantz, a former Manhattan prosecutor who pushed for Trump’s indictment.
A recent survey conducted by Morning Consult, which polled 1,981 registered voters between April 5 and April 8, found that 45 percent of voters supported the GOP congressional investigation of Bragg’s grand jury investigation of Trump, while 35 percent disapproved. Twenty percent said they “don’t know” or did not have an opinion.
When broken down by party affiliation, 63 percent of Republicans and 34 percent of Democrats supported the GOP efforts.
Independent voters were split on this issue—39 percent supported, 32 percent disapproved, and 29 percent did not know or did not have an opinion.
Trump has continued to enjoy enormous support among Republican primary voters. According to a separate survey by Morning Consult, Trump had the support of 56 percent of potential Republican primary voters, with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis coming in second with 23 percent of support.
“That 33-percentage-point lead over the past several days marks Trump’s largest since Morning Consult’s tracking of the hypothetical matchup began in December,” the survey says.
The survey was conducted from April 7 to April 9 and 3,608 potential GOP primary voters were polled.
Gaga, whose real name is Stefani Germanotta, is an award-winning singer-songwriter with 13 Grammy Awards who has sold over 170 million records, including the hit single “Poker Face” and an album of traditional standards with legendary vocalist Tony Bennett.
In announcing her appointment, the White House drew attention to her philanthropy and “staunch support of LGBTQI+ rights and mental health,” as well as her work combatting the problem of on-campus sexual assault.
Biden’s other nominee for co-chair is Oscar- and Emmy-winning producer Bruce Cohen who is responsible for such films as “American Beauty” and the Broadway musical version of the film “Big Fish,” which he also produced.
Other notables whom Biden has chosen to serve on the committee advising the president on cultural policy include former “ER” star George Clooney, “Alias” lead Jennifer Garner, “Friends” creator Marta Kauffman, Eagles’ guitarist Joe Walsh, “How to Get Away With Murder” creator-producer Shonda Rimes, and Kerry Washington, who at one time starred as crisis management consultant Olivia Pope in “Scandal,” a program set in Washington, D.C.
The committee was established in 1982 by presidential executive order, with the first lady traditionally serving as honorary co-chair. Its members advise the president and the heads of U.S. cultural agencies on policy, philanthropic and private sector engagement and other efforts to enhance federal support for the arts, humanities and museum and library services.
Private committee members like Lady Gaga, the White House said, include prominent artists, scholars and philanthropists who have demonstrated a serious commitment to the arts and humanities. Public members represent the heads of key federal agencies with a role in culture, including the Chairs of the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, the Librarian of Congress, the Secretary of the Smithsonian and the Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services, among others.
The hysterical reaction by Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords lobbying group, and the Brady gun control group to the recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez which declared Minnesota‘s restriction on handgun permits only for those over age 21 unconstitutional is proof these organizations are interested only in banning handgun ownership by young adults.
Everytown, Brady, and the Giffords group all claim to support background checks and training, yet they want to keep young adults, who have the training and can pass background checks, from having guns. This is hypocritical dishonesty.
Their alleged concerns are unfounded, and they know it. Two years ago in Kansas, lawmakers overrode Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto of HB 2058, which creates a special concealed carry permit for young adults, with training and background check requirements. So far, there have been no issues.
In Montana, the age of majority has been 18 since a state constitutional change in 1978. There have been no issues in Big Sky Country as a result, either.
What these experiences prove is that the gun prohibition lobby has a head-in-the-sand approach. They want the rest of us to bury our heads to recent history. In Minnesota, a handgun permit doubles as a permit to acquire a handgun. This permit also allows an individual to carry a rifle or shotgun in public under various circumstances.”
Another example is California, where for many years prior to the enactment of the 1968 Gun Control Act, the minimum age for a Dealer’s Record of Sale for handguns was 18 with most of the people going through the process being women. While there were other issues with 18–21-year-olds with handguns, the individuals who went through the process were acquiring handguns registered to them after going through the waiting period background check system. They were not a problem. When California adopted through-dealer processing on intra-state private party transactions in the state, California had to create a work-around, just as was judicially mandated in Virginia to address 18-to-20-year-olds.
The Second Amendment Foundation has several cases in progress challenging laws that discriminate against anyone under age 21 where handguns are concerned. This is an issue that must be addressed because young adults are considered mature enough to vote, join the military and possibly be killed in combat, get married, sign contracts, start businesses and even own their own homes. Yet they cannot legally purchase handguns for personal protection.
The importance of Judge Menendez’s decision is also highlighted by unique Minnesota factors. One, a handgun permit acts a permit to acquire a handgun under Minnesota law. And, two, the handgun permit allows an individual to carry rifle and shotguns in public under various circumstances so as to not rely on various other exemptions.
Everytown and the Brady Campaign should pay more attention to the views of the Founder of the Democratic Farm Labor Party Hubert Humphrey and Eleanor Roosevelt on the importance of the Second Amendment. And they should remember that it was not only 18-20-year-olds but women – particularly women of color – who are exercising these rights.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has long been Hollywood royalty. He is also a moderate Republican, who once served as governor of California. Although his political days are behind him, Schwarzenegger continues to be an example of what you can achieve, when you roll up your sleeves and get to work.
It seems the Terminator was sick and tired of his own city refusing to get the job done. So, he snapped a few videos of him doing something the local government should have done. Those clips have since gone viral, triggering the liberal city into making excuses.
From Fox News:
After being hailed a hero for filling in a pothole in his Brentwood, California, community, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s good deed has not gone unpunished, with the city claiming he interrupted scheduled maintenance for a service trench…
A representative for Schwarzenegger believes the city is “being careful with their wording to imply Arnold prevented their gas line work without directly saying it, because it’s not true.”
Bull crap. The movie star went to work to fill in pots in his local community. He showed the left what work actually looks like. And to cover their butts, the city claimed what clearly looked like a pothole was a “service trench.”
Um… call me crazy, but service trenches look like… service trenches. Meaning a carefully dug-up patch of land–where work is being done. Schwarzenegger wouldn’t have confused a service trench with a pothole.
His representative went on to point out that the city didn’t mention the second pothole he filled in. Maybe they sent him a letter of thanks for that one?
According to reports, Schwarzenegger filled in the potholes after they have been causing problems for travelers… for weeks. Why would the city leave a service trench open, without doing any work?
Do you smell the rat? Maybe it was a service trench at one time, but clearly the city forgot about it. They had much more important things to worry about, such as how they could raise taxes on local residents. Making sure those taxes went to fix the city streets? Of course not!
Why are Democrats so bad at doing the very jobs they are elected to? City government is supposed to look after the city. But government officials are much better at covering their asses, than doing the work they were assigned to.
Perhaps Schwarzenegger needs to teach them a few more lessons?
Key Takeaways:
Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger filled in two potholes in his local community.
The videos went viral and the city claimed he filled in a service trench.
The potholes had been a hazard to travelers for weeks, with the city ignoring them.
The nation is still strongly divided, and next year’s elections are likely to reflect that, with a further move to the left by no means assured.
ast week’s election results represented some consolidation of leftist gains since 2018, once again affirming the power of public employee unions and the abortion lobby. What will happen later this year and in 2024, however, may be quite different.
Left-of-center candidates did well this time around. The farthest-left candidates won in important races in Chicago and Wisconsin, the latter considered a swing state in presidential elections. In Denver, Democrats took the two slots for a June 6 mayoral runoff election, with the top Republican candidate finishing a distant fourth.
Off-year elections reflect the clout of big-money institutions such as public employee unions, advocacy organizations, and large corporations, with the first-named being the most powerful of all in municipal elections.
Accordingly, Chicagoans elected Brandon Johnson, a candidate to the left of incumbent Lori Lightfoot, a radical progressive whose failures in crime control and education caused her to miss the runoff election held April 4. Johnson defeated Paul Vallas, a lifelong Democrat and former CEO of the Chicago Public Schools and other public school systems.
Johnson, a Cook County commissioner and former teacher and union organizer, received powerful support from the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and other progressive organizations. Johnson “raised some $10.1 million through March 31, and 91% came from unions, more than half from the CTU, according to the Illinois Policy Institute,” the Wall Street Journalreports.
Johnson has been highly critical of the police, saying in a 2020 radio interview defunding is “an actual, real political goal.” Vallas, by contrast, had called for the addition of hundreds of police officers and efforts to restore morale. Johnson promised to add or promote 200 officers. In addition, Johnson strongly opposes education reform, whereas Vallas supports it.
Fox News analyst Gianno Caldwellcharacterized Johnson’s election as “horrific” and said the incoming mayor “stands to be worse than” Lightfoot, speaking on the network’s show “Your World.” “[This] to me was the signing of thousands of death certificates of people who don’t have to die because of the policies which he’s advocated for,” Caldwell said. Caldwell’s teenage brother was murdered in Chicago last year.
Just north of Chicago, a state court race received national attention—and a record amount of campaign contributions.
Wisconsin has a strict abortion ban (no abortions except to save a prospective mother’s life), as an 1849 law was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dodd decision last year. The Wisconsin Supreme Court had a one-vote conservative majority, and a conservative is vacating the seat contested last week.
Candidate Janet Protasiewicz, a Milwaukee County judge, campaigned on a pledge to strike down the state’s (duly enacted) abortion law. Protasiewicz also supported a referendum that would make it easier to increase or deny bail, thus eroding the difference with her opponent on crime prevention.
Protasiewicz won by 10 percentage points against a GOP candidate whom Democrats spent $1 million in the primary to nominate over a more formidable contender. The two candidates for the court seat spent more than $45 million—almost three times the previous record nationwide—much of which came from out of state. The result shows the political power of the abortion issue and, critically, the campaign contribution advantage it provides for candidates in favor of abortion. It also confirms the power of the public employee unions, who were solidly behind Protasiewicz.
Meanwhile, the Republican candidate won a hotly contested election in the Milwaukee suburbs, giving the GOP a supermajority in the state senate. The Republicans are just two seats shy of a supermajority in the state assembly.
In Denver, the most-progressive candidates fell short in the races for mayor and city council seats, with the Denver magazine 5280 saying, “it seems like many Denver voters had a hard time bending far-left.”
The leftist press (apologies for the redundancy) are spinning the recent elections as a big win for the Democratic Party and a good omen for the latter’s prospects in the 2024 elections. The substantial Republican majorities in the Wisconsin legislature indicate that such triumphalism may be premature, as does the lack of traction for far-leftists in Denver.
Overall, the week’s elections generally continued recent trends. Government employee unions and abortion advocacy groups remain powerful in blue cities and in statewide elections in the swing states, but there is much public support for more conservative social and economic policies. The nation is still strongly divided, and next year’s elections are likely to reflect that, with a further move to the left by no means assured.
Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe said that people should “trust kids” when they decide they want to change their gender.
Radcliffe said it is “condescending” for adults to doubt a child’s ability to make a competent decision to change gender, the Timesreported Wednesday. The actor made the remarks during a discussion with transgender people hosted by the LGBT nonprofit group the Trevor Project, discussing the controversy around children identifying as trans.
“But there are also people who do have a slightly condescending but well-meaning attitude of like, ‘Well, people are young and like, you know, that is a huge decision.’ I’d love to hear from all of you about, like, why we can trust kids to tell us who they are.”
HBO Max is working with Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling to roll out a TV adaptation of the series, which has already caught backlash from critics over the author’s views on transgenderism.
“We don’t want any new Harry Potter content if noted transphobe J.K. Rowling is involved,” Out magazine tweeted.
“This faithful adaptation of harry potter, announced with absolutely bullshit craven disdain for rowling’s political impact, is bad,” a Vulture critic wrote.
Rowling has received threats online for comments on transgenderism.
“I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives,” the author tweeted in 2020. “It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”
Drone strikes, ballistic missiles, and rocket launches show country’s military is stronger than ever
Iranian attacks on the United States and its allies hit record highs in 2021 and 2022 as the Biden administration relaxed sanctions on the country, according to a congressional report obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Iran launched a record shattering 750 attacks on American personnel and allies during the Biden administration’s first year in office and more than 600 in 2022, surpassing figures of around 500 per year in 2019 and 2020, according to the report, which sheds light on Tehran’s expanding global terrorism enterprise. The attacks—which include hundreds of drone strikes, ballistic missiles, and rocket launches—indicate that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the country’s paramilitary fighting force, is stronger than ever under the Biden administration.
“Emboldened by weak American leadership, the IRGC has in recent years become more reckless and provocative, threatening America’s allies and partners and bringing the entire Middle East closer to war,” former secretary of state Mike Pompeo said in the report, which was unveiled on Thursday as part of a larger congressional effort to increase international pressure on the IRGC. Rep. Claudia Tenney (R., N.Y.) assembled the report with the help of Pompeo and other former senior U.S. officials to help push American allies into designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization, as the United States did in 2019.
The report reveals that the IRGC has nearly 650,000 troops stationed across all of its sectors with a budget of around $5 billion annually. The findings suggest the Biden administration’s efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal have made Tehran more destructive. And with new reports indicating the U.S. administration is negotiating a partial return to the nuclear deal that will nix scores of sanctions on Iran, the IRGC is likely to emerge as a top beneficiary.
Along with the report, Tenney is introducing a congressional resolution that urges “the European Union to expeditiously designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization,” according to a copy of the measure obtained by the Free Beacon.
The effort is certain to attract bipartisan support in the Republican-controlled House, where lawmakers have already been eying ways to further isolate Tehran over its lethal support to Russia for its war in Ukraine. House Republicans and Democrats are already working to sanction Iran’s senior leadership for human rights crimes, and leaders from both parties, including the White House, have expressed support for cracking down on the Tehran-Moscow military pipeline. Senate Republicans also are pushing European allies to move forward on a long-stalled bid to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization, the Free Beacon first reported in March, though Democrats in the upper chamber have not publicly taken a position on the issue.
The IRGC is more involved than previously known in the Tehran-Moscow military pipeline, a finding that is likely to fuel congressional action, particularly as reports emerge that both Russia and China are secretly securing deals to provide Iran with the fuel needed to power its ballistic missiles.
“The IRGC is leading the effort to share military technology for use in Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,” according to the report, which says Tehran is also “providing Russia with ballistic missiles for its war in Ukraine.”
The IRGC is likely to be instrumental in a February announcement that Iran will get $1 billion to build a drone factory in Russia that will “produce up to 6,000 Iranian-designed drones to use against Ukraine,” according to the report.
The IRGC’s principal role in suppressing a wave of anti-regime protests also is detailed in the report.
Since the protests began last year after the killing of a 22-year-old woman at the hands of Iran’s morality police, the IRGC has helped arrest more than 19,000 Iranians and kill at least 529, including 71 children, according to the report.
“The IRGC has played an integral role in suppressing these protests and carrying out these arrests, killings, and executions,” it says. “This is in addition to numerous reports and documented evidence of the IRGC using child soldiers as part of the Basij to help suppress the protests.” The murder of children and their use in the military are both war crimes under international law.
Outside of Iran’s borders, the IRGC “has inserted itself into virtually every conflict in the Middle East, from Syria and Lebanon to Yemen and Iraq,” the report says. “It is, without question, the most destabilizing force in the region”—and is directly responsible for the deaths of more than 600 U.S. service members, primarily in Iraq. The IRGC also provides weapons and training to the region’s leading terror groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
IRGC cells are active in America, Europe, and South America, according to the report, which outlines the group’s recent efforts to assassinate U.S. officials and kidnap dissidents, including those residing in America.
“The IRGC,” the report says, “is not merely a threat to the Iranian people or just the people of the Middle East—it poses a global threat to peace and security.”
PBS News on Wednesday announced it left Twitter after the social network labeled it “government-funded media,” the same day NPR announced its exit over the same reason.
“PBS stopped tweeting from our account when we learned of the change and we have no plans to resume at this time,” PBS spokesman Jason Phelps told Bloomberg.
Twitter CEO Elon Musk has pointed to the outlet’s funding from federal agencies as justifying the description, which was originally “state-affiliated media.”
PBS said the “simplistic label” gives “the inaccurate impression that PBS is wholly funded by the federal government.”
“PBS is primarily funded by the public and philanthropic organizations, with only a small portion of our funding coming from entities affiliated with government,” the company said.
NPR announced Wednesday it was no longer updating its 52 Twitter accounts in protest, calling it an “inaccurate label.”
“Guess they won’t mind losing federal funding in that case,” Musk said in a tweet.
“We are officially deemphasizing Twitter across the organization,” NPR said in a statement.
It’s the latest development in Musk’s ongoing spat with mainstream media. In an interview this week, Musk cornered a BBC reporter who claimed hate content on Twitter “is on the rise.” The reporter failed to provide an example of such content and Musk said he “lied.”
The 21-year-old National Guardsman suspected of leaking troves of classified U.S. intelligence documents was arrested Thursday by FBI agents at his home in Dighton, Mass.
Aerial footage showed the suspect, Jack Teixeira, surrendering to authorities who pointed rifles at him from behind the cover of an armored vehicle.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said the FBI arrested Teixeira “in connection with an investigation into alleged unauthorized removal, retention, and transmission of classified national defense information.”
Media outlets including the Washington Post and New York Times pinned Teixeira as the source of the leak, alleging he shared the documents, which included sensitive reports on the war in Ukraine and accounts of the United States’ spying on allies, with friends on a messaging app called Discord. It’s unclear how Teixeira, who is a member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard, would have gotten hold of the documents.
Teixeira’s arrest comes hours after Joe Biden told reporters that federal authorities are “getting close” to identifying the leaker. “There is a full-blown investigation going on with the intelligence community and Justice Department and they are getting close,” Biden said Thursday while abroad in Ireland.
The intelligence leak, described as the most damaging in a decade, has complicated U.S. relations with allies, including South Korea, where citizens have expressed outrage over reports that the documents show the United States spied on senior South Korean officials.
Kim Gardner, the George Soros-backed district attorney of St. Louis, is fighting efforts to remove her for failure to prosecute criminals, blaming her subordinates for any “possible mistakes.”
Gardner filed a motion to dismiss Missouri attorney general Andrew Bailey’s lawsuit for her removal, arguing that she was not “personally” responsible for failures in her office, the St. Louis Post-Dispatchreported. A judge will hear the arguments on April 18.
“Not a single one of the actions alleged is ascribed to Ms. Gardner, herself, personally,” her motion states. “All that is alleged are possible mistakes by subordinates and otherwise ordinary prosecutorial conduct.”
Bailey claimed that Gardner had “lost the trust of the people” by not prosecuting cases. Bailey sought to remove Gardner in February after a suspected robber and repeat offender who had violated his parole conditions caused a crash, leaving a teenage girl severely and permanently injured.
In 2017, Gardner teamed up with a Soros-backed group, the Vera Institute of Justice, which works to end “mass incarceration” and “racial oppression” in the criminal justice system. A Fox News investigation found that 35.8 percent of cases under Gardner’s supervision in 2020 were not prosecuted.
A report from the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund revealed in 2022 that Soros spent over $40 million in the past decade to elect 75 liberal prosecutors, including Gardner, in half of America’s largest jurisdictions.
“Soros’s funding and installation of these district attorneys is fundamentally dismantling the criminal justice system as we know it,” the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund president told the Washington Free Beacon.
California Rep. Katie Porter (D.) allegedly subjected her ex-husband to a torrent of verbal and physical abuse, one time dumping a pot of boiling mashed potatoes on his head.
Porter’s ex-husband, Matthew Hoffman, recounted the abuse in decade-old divorce filings that the Daily Mail resurfaced this week. Hoffman says Porter verbally and physically abused him, often in front of their young children. Hoffman claims that Porter in 2006 dumped a ceramic bowl of hot mashed potatoes on his head while berating him, saying, “Can’t you read the f***ing directions,” an incident he says left his scalp burned.
The startling allegations could haunt Porter as she vies to replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.). While the California progressive says Hoffman’s claims are “absolutely not accurate,” they could bolster stories from her former staffers who say it’s “widely known” that she’s “abusive.” Ex-Porter staffers have accused the congresswoman of berating them, making racist comments, and firing employees for contracting the coronavirus. Porter’s office has one of the highest turnover rates in the House of Representatives.
Porter offered a much different picture of her relationship with Hoffman, whom she divorced in 2013 after a decade of marriage. The congresswoman, who secured a restraining order against Hoffman shortly after their divorce, claims that her ex-husband physically and verbally abused her, accusations that landed him in jail.
The pair have offered strikingly different accounts of the same events, most notably an alleged altercation that took place on April 24, 2013. Porter claims her ex-husband that day pushed her, called her a “dumb bitch” in front of the children, and punched and shattered a plastic light switch. Porter filed for a restraining order, and Hoffman was arrested.
In Hoffman’s version of the same events, he asked Porter to leave the house that morning so that he could have time alone with the children, according to their informal visitation schedule. He said that she refused to go and instead taunted him and began brushing her teeth “very slowly” in the bathroom. He acknowledged that he yelled, grabbed the toothbrush from her hand, and banged the bathroom light switch, at which point Porter called her assistant to fetch her as well as the kids.
When Hoffman asked Porter where she was taking the kids, Porter “ran at me and hit me in the arm, causing a large bruise,” Hoffman said. He added that the children remained in his care most of the day, saying, “Her actions support that contention” that he was not physically abusive.
According to a police report from that evening, Porter went to law enforcement because she was “scared that she would have to face Hoffman’s agitated state,” though law enforcement noted that she did not have a visible injury. The police report also said the couple’s seven-year-old son, Luke, said in an interview that in the past his father had kicked him and hit Porter.
In a later filing, Hoffman said he regretted accusing Porter of abuse, a fact noted by Porter’s campaign. The couple’s final divorce agreement required Porter to pay alimony to Hoffman and gave the pair joint custody of the children.
U.S. Agency for Global Media is funded entirely by the United States government
The head of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, a news agency funded entirely by the United States government, claimed Thursday that it is “very misleading” for Twitter to designate the organization as “government-funded.”
Amanda Bennett, the CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, rejected the label during a State Department briefing when asked about Twitter’s designation of Voice of America, a subsidiary of the agency, as “government-funded media.” Twitter added the label to several American outlets, including NPR, which is partially funded by the government.
“We completely reject the implications of the label ‘government-funded,’” said Bennett, according to a State Department transcript. “Of course we’re government-funded, but it’s potentially misleading.”
Bennett, a former director of Voice of America, claimed that the label could be misconstrued as “government-controlled.” She insisted that the U.S. Agency for Global Media and its subsidiaries are “independent” and “not government-controlled.”
Bennett’s case may be a tough sell. The Biden administration allocated $840 million in funds to the U.S. Agency for Global Media this fiscal year. The agency, which operates in 62 countries, is tasked with “telling America’s story and countering anti-American propaganda.” Voice of America says its mission is to “represent America” and to “present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively.”
The agency has faced criticism of late over what critics say is its biased coverage of world events and its subservience to President Joe Biden. Republicans have investigated Voice of America over its biased coverage of Iran. Voice of America came under fire during the 2020 presidential campaign after its bureau in Pakistan published a video of Biden asking for the support of Muslim voters.
The U.S. Agency for Global Media recently paid the Poynter Institute, a liberal journalism academy, to train its reporters how to be “balanced and bias-free,” the Washington Free Beaconreported.
A California judge on Wednesday fined a Silicon Valley church over a million dollars for allowing worshippers to attend services maskless and in person during the coronavirus pandemic.
Superior Court judge Evette Pennypacker ordered Calvary Chapel San Jose to pay $1.2 million in fines to Santa Clara County for violating the county’s COVID-19 restrictions. Pennypacker’s decision is the latest development in a lengthy legal battle between the church and the county, which imposed some of California’s most stringent pandemic restrictions.
In her ruling, Pennypacker said that “it should appear clear to all—regardless of religious affiliation—that wearing a mask while worshipping” helps “protect others while still exercising your right to religious freedom.”
Pennypacker’s ruling cuts against an increasing consensus that mask mandates had neither legal nor scientific merit. The Supreme Court in 2021 struck down California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D.) ban on indoor worship services, which lasted longer than the state’s forced closure of strip clubs. A February study that found masks did almost nothing to stop the spread of respiratory viruses, such as COVID-19, has been called “the scientific nail in the coffin for mask mandates.”
The church’s legal saga began in May 2020, two months after it was shuttered in the initial wave of COVID lockdowns. Pastor Mike McClure announced he would open his doors to congregants, many of whom say the ability to attend church saved them from addiction, despair, and possibly death. Calvary Chapel’s lawyers said they are appealing Pennypacker’s decision to a California appellate court.
The church has filed a separate federal lawsuit against Santa Clara officials that is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Court documents in both cases reveal that Santa Clara County mounted rigorous surveillance of the church and its individual members, even tracking members’ movements through cell phone data and paying researchers to analyze the results.
“It’s the county’s job to take care of its residents and protect the public health,” Santa Clara county counsel James Williams said in a statement praising Pennypacker’s ruling. “The county’s lawsuit seeks to hold Calvary accountable for knowingly violating numerous public health orders during the height of the pandemic.”
One of Santa Clara County’s public health orders established an enforcement squad that investigated businesses for potential violations of health department orders. County officials also encouraged residents to report on one another.
Lawyers representing the church said Pennypacker’s reasoning gives them ample fodder for their appeal.
“This case will not likely end until the U.S. Supreme Court rebukes Santa Clara County again,” said Robert Tyler, the president of the religious liberty firm Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which is arguing the case. “The opinion is very deficient in its analysis and provides for an excellent appeal.”
Santa Clara County officials originally demanded that Calvary pay $2.8 million in fines.
A Nashville flower shop refused to serve a Republican National Committee fundraiser, blaming the GOP for the recent shooting at a Christian school in the city.
Owners of the FLWR Shop published on Instagram their letter to the RNC, which detailed their reasoning for denying service to the GOP fundraising event, Fox News reported.
“We immediately declined this ‘opportunity,’ and we want to take this moment to publicly clarify our stance,” the FLWR Shop wrote in its letter.
“We will not be accepting any of your money,” the shops owners wrote. “The blood of the 3 beautiful babies we lost in Nashville is on that money.”
The store also suggested that others “say no to taking money or jobs from the Republican party” until they change gun laws.
The FLWR Shop nevertheless claimed not to discriminate against conservatives, saying “we respect their views and appreciate their business,” but that “at this moment I cannot ignore the work that the RNC has done to create this tragedy and so many others just like it.”
On March 27, a transgender shooter murdered six people, including three children, in the Covenant School in Nashville.
Democrats in the Tennessee State House disrupted the chamber in a gun reform demonstration following the shooting, in what some have labeled an insurrection. The House voted last week to expel two of the members, who were later reinstated.
In January, a Colorado appeals court ruled that Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips broke the law by refusing to make a birthday cake celebrating a gender transition. Phillips won a case before the Supreme Court in 2018 after refusing to make a custom wedding cake for a gay couple.
The Global Disinformation Index says disclosing its donors would lead to ‘harassment’
A State Department-funded disinformation group that works to blacklist media outlets for having “opaque ownership structures” is fighting to keep its donors and leaders in the dark, a violation of its own transparency recommendations.
The Global Disinformation Index made the unprecedented move of redacting the name of its largest donor, as well as those of its board members, executives, and accountants, in IRS tax filings for two affiliated nonprofit groups, the Washington Examinerreported. A lawyer for the index said the redactions were necessary because the group’s leaders were victims of a “harassment campaign” following reports that the group colluded with advertisers to hurt conservative media organizations.
The Global Disinformation Index’s lack of operational and funding transparency could open it up to charges of hypocrisy by Republican lawmakers investigating the State Department for funding the group in 2020 and 2021. The group, which is based in Great Britain but operates American affiliates, published a report in December that penalized news outlets for failing to identify their financial and editorial decision-makers, claiming that “opaque ownership structures” hamper the public’s ability to monitor news organizations for editorial and financial conflicts of interest.
According to its own standards, the index’s “opaque” funding and leadership structures make it impossible for the public to monitor the organization’s potential editorial and financial conflicts of interest.
The Global Disinformation Index also penalized media outlets that don’t publicly disclose their revenue sources, saying funding transparency is necessary to “monitor the incentives and conflicts of interest that can arise from opaque revenue sources.” Ironically, the AN Foundation, the group’s affiliated private charity, omitted from its 2021 tax filing the name of its largest donor who that year gave $115,000 to the group. Private foundations such as the AN Foundation are required to publicly disclose their largest contributors, according to the IRS.
The Global Disinformation Index did not return requests for comment.
A lawyer representing the Global Disinformation Index, the AN Foundation, and the associated Disinformation Index, Inc., cited an obscure federal law allowing nonprofits to withhold information from their Form 990 tax returns if they believe bad actors are engaged in a “coordinated effort to disrupt” their operations.
“The index’s personnel and their families have received multiple threats and hacking attacks, including threats of violence against their children,” the attorney, Marcus Owens, told the Examiner. “As such, the organization is working [with] appropriate law enforcement authorities, telecommunications, and Internet organizations [and] has appropriately withheld information that could lead to furtherance of this behavior.”
But charity experts told the Examiner that the law does not allow the Global Disinformation Index to redact the names of its leaders and funding sources from its Form 990 disclosures.
“This exception does not provide for redactions and would not apply merely because certain board members or staff are individually the target of harassment campaigns unrelated to requests for Forms 990,” said nonprofit attorney Jeff Tenenbaum.
Another nonprofit attorney, Alan Dye, highlighted the unprecedented nature of the index’s redactions.
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a 990 that excludes the names of officers and directors,” he said. “And I’ve looked at hundreds.”
Admin says investment will help achieve ‘environmental justice,’ fight climate change
The Biden administration is spending up to $1 billion in taxpayer funds to promote “equitable access to trees,” an effort it says will “advance environmental justice” and fight climate change.
Joe Biden’s Agriculture Department on Wednesday announced the funding, which it called a “historic investment in our nation’s urban tree canopy.” The money is available to universities, nonprofits, and states working to “increase tree cover in urban spaces and boost equitable access to nature” and “advance environmental justice by mitigating the impact of climate change on communities who lack tree cover.” California, for example, is set to receive $43 million, the program’s largest allocation.
Biden has already allocated hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to tackle what he calls the “climate crisis” with “the urgency that science demands.” In many cases, however, that spending has gone beyond more traditional investments into alternative energy infrastructure and technology. After Biden in January 2021 issued an executive order calling on all government agencies to “combat the climate crisis with bold, progressive action,” federal entities that have seemingly little to do with the issue—such as the Department of Veterans Affairs—released plans meant to increase “climate adaptation and resilience.”
But not all of Biden’s climate spending will stay in the United States. The Democrat’s U.S. Agency for International Development last year unveiled its 2022-2030 climate strategy, which outlines a $150 billion “whole-of-agency approach” to building an “equitable world with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.” The effort includes a pledge to inspire and support young climate activists in developing countries—and help those activists address the “broad range of climate-related mental health conditions” they may suffer from, including “eco-anxiety.” In March, meanwhile, the agency announced a grant notice seeking proposals for a “Disability-Inclusive Climate Action” project in Tajikistan, which aims to ensure disabled people in the Central Asian nation are included “in the development of climate change response and mitigation policies.”
Biden’s Agriculture Department says its equitable tree access investments “go beyond planting trees in tree wells” and will “support lasting community relationships and engagements that strengthen communities.” The spending is part of the administration’s Justice40 Initiative, which calls for “40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution.”
The department’s Wednesday announcement includes supportive quotes from New Jersey Democratic senator Cory Booker, who is best known for forcing his girlfriend to endorse his failed presidential bid, and senior adviser to the president for Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation John Podesta, who has praised China’s efforts to combat climate change and encouraged the communist nation to “build American infrastructure.”
“This historic investment will help us tackle the most pernicious effects of climate change, move us closer to remedying environmental justice in our communities, and pay dividends for generations to come,” Booker said.
The state of Texas is updating its bar application to include questions about whether applicants have engaged in “incivility and violations of school policies,” according to a letter from the Texas Supreme Court obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. The change is a direct response to an incident at Stanford Law School last month in which students shouted down a federal judge.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) wrote to the bar in March suggesting the change, arguing that Stanford Law School graduates should “be made to answer, in writing, whether they participated in the shameful harassment” of Fifth Circuit appellate judge Kyle Duncan, who was subjected to vulgar heckling when he attempted to deliver prepared remarks. The bar responded in early April, indicating that it planned to ask all applicants “directly” about their involvement in disruptive protests.
Texas’s board of bar examiners made the change after concluding that schools like Stanford—which did not discipline a single heckler—cannot be trusted to attest to an applicant’s character. The state “has historically relied on law schools to report disciplinary matters that should be considered in determining an applicant’s character and fitness for admission to the Texas bar,” Nathan Hecht, the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, wrote on behalf of the bar examiners, who evaluate applications to the bar. “School reactions to recent violations of free-speech policies suggest that reliance is not justified.”
All lawyers must pass a “character and fitness” check that screens for values like honesty and civility. If those checks become more focused on disruptive conduct, they could make law students think twice before engaging in that conduct.
“Texas lawyers are expected to adhere to the Texas Lawyer’s Creed,” Hecht wrote, “promising to ‘treat counsel, opposing parties, the Court, and members of the Court staff with courtesy and civility.’ The admission process should examine whether applicants can be expected to fulfill this promise.”
Stanford students told Duncan, among other things, “We hope your daughters get raped!” The new bar questions are the latest effort to impose consequences in Stanford’s stead.
“I salute Chief Justice Hecht for his efforts to uphold the integrity of the Texas Bar, which is second to none,” Cruz told the Free Beacon. “And by applying rigorous standards for new lawyers, it will remain that way. Other state bar associations ought to follow suit.”
Cruz and Hecht aren’t the only ones looking to leverage the bar against disruptors. John Banzhaf, a distinguished public interest lawyer with a long history of liberal activism, said last month that he plans to file bar complaints against the students who disrupted Duncan, some of whom, such as Denni Arnold, have been identified.
It’s just one wave in the tsunami of backlash against Stanford, from both elected officials and Duncan’s fellow judges. House Republicans are now pressing the American Bar Association to investigate the law school, saying it is not in compliance with accreditation standards that require it to promote free speech. And two circuit court judges, James Ho and Elizabeth Branch, announced this month that they will no longer hire clerks from Stanford Law School, broadening the boycott they began of Yale last year.
“Rules aren’t rules without consequences,” Ho said in a speech. “And students who practice intolerance don’t belong in the legal profession.”
As many as 18,000 dairy cows were killed and one person was critically injured during a possible explosion and fire in Texas, officials said Tuesday.
The incident occurred at the South Fork Dairy Farm located in Dimmit, Texas, the Castro County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. Officials say the cause of the fire is still under investigation.
“Upon arrival it was determined that one person was trapped inside and fire crews were able to locate the person and remove them from the building,” said the Castro County Sheriff’s Office on Tuesday. “The person was flown to the UMC Hospital in Lubbock. All employees were accounted for.”
Castro County Sheriff Salvador Rivera told local media that witnesses saw “an explosion that spread into a fire and spread into the building where the dairy cattle are held.” He noted that only a small number of cows survived.
“Your count probably is close to that. There’s some that survived, there’s some that are probably injured to the point where they’ll have to be destroyed,” he said. While some reports indicated that an explosion triggered the fire, Rivera told AgFax that it’s not clear what sparked the blaze.
Dimmit’s mayor, Roger Malone, estimated to USA Today that around 18,000 cows died in the incident. “How do you dispose of 18,000 carcasses?” he asked. “That’s something you just don’t run into very much.”
“It’s mind-boggling,” he added. “I don’t think it’s ever happened before around here. It’s a real tragedy.”
According to the Animal Welfare Institute, the explosion appears to be the largest mass casualty incident involving cattle in U.S. history, or at least since the group started tracking mass animal deaths. The previous high occurred in 2020 at an upstate New York farm in which 400 cows died, Allie Granger, a policy associate at the institute, told USA Today.
The Texas explosion and fire “is the deadliest fire involving cattle we know of,” she told the outlet. “In the past, we have seen fires involving several hundred cows at a time, but nothing anything near this level of mortality.”
A spokesperson for Castro County Sheriff’s office told The Epoch Times earlier this week that the cause of the explosion is still under investigation. South Fork Dairy Farm couldn’t be reached for comment.
“The speculation was probably what they call a honey badger, which is a vacuum that sucks the manure and water out and possibly that it got overheated and probably the methane and things like that ignited and spread out and exploded and the fire,” Rivera told local news outlet KSAT-TV.
There has been speculation that recent fires and explosions at other facilities, including food processing plants, are attacks on critical U.S. infrastructure. An EpochTV investigation published last year found that most incidents cited of facilities allegedly catching fire in 2022 didn’t occur that year. Many were instead lumped in from previous years.
But last year, the FBI’s Cyber Division issued a warning about potential cyberattacks on agricultural cooperatives and food plants amid increasing media coverage of recent fires and explosions across the United States.
“Ransomware actors may be more likely to attack agricultural cooperatives during critical planting and harvest seasons, disrupting operations, causing financial loss, and negatively impacting the food supply chain,” the FBI’s notice said, adding that ransomware attacks in 2021 and early 2022 could disrupt the planting season by targeting “the supply of seeds and fertilizer.”
“A significant disruption of grain production could impact the entire food chain, since grain is not only consumed by humans but also used for animal feed. In addition, a significant disruption of grain and corn production could impact commodities trading and stocks,” it added.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) has introduced two bills to defund the Manhattan District Attorney’s (DA) Office following the indictment of President Donald Trump.
Trump was indicted in early April on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. But critics have called the case “weak,” suggesting political motives behind the move.
In a comment emailed to the Epoch Times about the bills, Biggs wrote:
“As the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, I will not allow District Attorney Alvin Bragg to misuse federal resources sent by Congress to fund the weaponized prosecution of a former U.S. president, while blatantly ignoring soaring crime in New York City.
“Bragg has repeatedly made clear his top priority as District Attorney is to leverage the legal system to target conservatives,” Biggs said. “I will use every tool I have to protect conservatives and to restore impartiality in our judicial institutions.”
Biggs introduced two bills on April 13 intended to address these concerns.
The first bill, the Accountability for Lawless Violence In Our Neighborhoods Act, or the ALVIN Act, would prohibit federal funds from being awarded to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and requires the Office to repay federal funds granted after Jan. 1, 2022.
The second bill, the No Federal Funds for Political Prosecutions Act, would prohibit state or local law enforcement agencies from using funds or property seized through asset forfeiture to investigate or prosecute the president, vice president, or a candidate for the office of president in a criminal case.
Biggs added that it was concerning to see the Manhattan DA’s office wasting federal resources for political purposes instead of addressing serious crimes in the city.
“[W]ith an almost insurmountable national debt that exceeds $31 trillion, the nation simply cannot afford to support Mr. Bragg’s politicization of the criminal justice system,” Biggs said.
New York City, like most other metropolitan areas across the United States, has seen a major spike in violent crimes over the past two years.
Following the death of George Floyd, fringe positions like defunding the police and minimizing penalties for violent crime became more mainstream among many left-wing prosecutors and DAs.
As DA, Bragg has reduced more than half of the felony charges that came through his office to misdemeanors. Republicans say this approach to law enforcement is in part responsible for the massive increase in violent crime.
Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has indicated his own opposition to the prosecution of Trump. Thus, the bill could stand for a vote in the lower chamber.
Prospects for the bills are less sanguine in the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority. Democrats are likely to oppose the legislation, as they have accused Republicans of attempting to meddle in a legal matter.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sided with conservative investors this week in their request to investigate what they say is PayPal’s systematic political and religious discrimination against customers.
Over the objections of PayPal’s management, the SEC allowed a proposal by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) to go to a shareholder vote at the company’s next annual meeting. This decision follows a similar decision on March 29, in which the SEC green-lighted a proposal regarding alleged political and religious discrimination at JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank.
In an April 10 letter to PayPal’s attorneys, the SEC stated that NCPPR’s proposal “requests that the board conduct an evaluation and issue a report within the next year evaluating how it oversees risks related to discrimination against individuals based on their race, color, religion (including religious views), sex, national origin, or political views, and whether such discrimination may impact individuals’ exercise of their constitutionally protected civil rights.”
Responding to PayPal’s request to block the proposal from going to a shareholder vote, the SEC stated: “We are unable to concur in your view that the Company may exclude the Proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(7). In our view, the Proposal transcends ordinary business matters.”
PayPal had argued that its shareholders should not consider NCPPR’s request because the issue of viewpoint discrimination is part of the company’s “ordinary business operations” and that “the proposal seeks to ‘micro-manage’ the company by probing too deeply into matters of a complex nature upon which shareholders, as a group, would not be in a position to make an informed judgment.”
The NCPPR proposal stated, among other things, that “companies that provide banking or financial services are essential pillars of the marketplace. On account of their unique and pivotal role in America’s economy, many federal and state laws already prohibit them from discriminating when providing financial services to the public. And the UN Declaration of Human Rights, consistent with many other laws and the U.S. Constitution, recognizes that ‘everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.’”
Conservatives Charge Viewpoint Discrimination
“We know from news stories that PayPal has been discriminating on the basis of viewpoints, shutting down accounts that differ from their ‘woke’ political principles,” Scott Shepard, a director at NCPPR and co-author of the proposal, told The Epoch Times. “We’re giving them a chance with this to consider ways to rectify those problems.”
PayPal has scored well in terms of its support for progressive causes. Standard & Poor’s ranked it a 49 out of 100 in the social-justice category of its environmental, social, and governance (ESG) score, more than double the industry average of 22, though below the industry best of 90. Its overall ESG rating increased steadily from 18 in 2018 to 58 today.
The logo of online payment company PayPal during LeWeb 2013 event in Saint-Denis near Paris on Dec.10, 2013. (Eric PiermontI /AFP via Getty Images)
PayPal scored a perfect 100 percent on the Corporate Equality Index (CEI), published by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). The HRC publishes various corporate indices that it says are “benchmarks of LGBTQ-inclusive policies, practices, and benefits of our nation’s employers.” Noting left-wing philanthropist George Soros’s funding of the HRC, some analysts have suggested that campaigns such as Bud Light’s endorsement of trans activist Dylan Mulvaney were part of a standard corporate practice of pursuing high scores from ESG rating agencies and progressive organizations like the HRC. Anheuser-Busch, the brewer of Bud Light beer, scored 100 on HRC’s Corporate Equality Index.
The NCPPR proposal suggested that PayPal also take note of the Viewpoint Diversity Index, which is produced by the Alliance Defending Freedom and measures “corporate respect for religious and ideological diversity.” According to this metric, PayPal scores 5 out of 100 in terms of respecting customers and vendors freedom of expression and belief and has an overall viewpoint diversity score of 7 out of 100.
JPMorgan, whose shareholders will be voting May 16 on a proposal to investigate political and religious discrimination, also scored a perfect 100 on the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index.
Regarding companies’ CEI scores, Shepard said that “they can only get the scores they received if they’ve been taking hard-left positions in the culture wars.” JPMorgan Chase scored 15 out of 100 on the Viewpoint Diversity Index.
Asset Managers, Proxy Agents Control Corporate Votes
Neither the PayPal nor the JPMorgan proposal is likely to get majority support from shareholders because proxy agents like ISS and Glass Lewis will recommend against them, he said, and asset managers like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street habitually vote against them. According to a Harvard study, institutional asset managers–like mutual funds, index funds and pension funds–own about 70 percent of all corporate shares, compared to 30 percent that are owned by individual shareholders.
ISS and Glass Lewis are the two largest proxy voting agents and together represent an estimated 97 percent share of the industry. Proxy agents advise asset managers and other shareholders how they should vote at corporate shareholder meetings and often vote on shareholders’ behalf.
According to Glass Lewis’s ESG Initiatives, it advocates that corporations disclose and manage their climate-change practices, stating “in instances where we find either of these disclosures to be absent or significantly lacking, we may recommend voting against responsible directors.” Glass Lewis also recommends that shareholders support racial equity audits.
“The Shadow State” clip showing the component parts of ESG. (Epoch Original)
Despite its long odds of success, NCPPR continues to put conservative voting proposals in front of corporate shareholders, requesting an examination of policies that may be discriminatory.
“It does put these corporations on the spot by explaining to them in an official, public way, that they’re failing in their fiduciary duties by throwing away customers because of their executives’ personal preferences and in ways that create, among other things, litigation liability for them,” Shepard said.
NCPPR has put similar shareholder proposals in front of MasterCard, Capital One and Charles Schwab. All of those will go to a shareholder vote without intervention from the SEC because management of those companies, while not supporting the proposals, did not challenge them.
The Epoch Times requested PayPal’s comment for this article, but PayPal has not responded.
A senior House Republican leader said Wednesday that passing a “strong” debt limit bill should be the GOP’s top legislative priority and called for a vote on the measure in April, arguing that “the time for action is now.”
Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), who chairs the Republican Study Committee (RSC), set the end-of-month deadline for a vote on the bill in a Wednesday letter to his GOP colleagues (pdf).
“Passage of a strong debt limit bill before the end of the April legislative session must be the chamber’s top priority,” Hern wrote. “We must work night and day to get it passed to show the American people we can be trusted and force the Senate and White House to answer for their dereliction of duty.”
Hern’s appeal to the RSC’s 176 members comes amid a debt ceiling deadlock between House Speaker Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Joe Biden, as the United States inches closer to a possible debt default.
Hern’s letter did not specify what the RSC wants to include in the debt limiting measure, but the group released a “Debt Limit Playbook” (pdf) in March that outlines their priorities, which focus on discretionary spending cuts.
House lawmakers face a tight window to meet Hern’s request for a vote by the end of April after they return from Easter recess next week.
Debt Ceiling Standoff
Both Democrats and Republicans have warned that failure to meet the country’s debt obligation would be disastrous for the economy. But while Republicans have pushed for Democrat commitments to cut spending in exchange for agreeing to lift the $31.4 trillion borrowing cap, Biden has so far insisted on a clean bill to raise the debt limit.
The United States hit the $31.4 trillion borrowing limit earlier this year, forcing the Treasury Department to deploy a series of “extraordinary measures” to keep setting U.S. debt obligations and avoid a national debt default.
However, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury’s extraordinary measures will run out sometime between July and September this year unless Congress raises the debt cap.
Rather than negotiate with the GOP on spending cuts as part of raising the debt ceiling, Biden and his Democrat allies in Congress have demanded that Republicans make their spending-cut proposals public.
“I shared my budget with the American people on March 9, 2023,” the president wrote in a letter to McCarthy earlier this month. “My hope is that House Republicans can present the American public with your budget plan before the Congress leaves for the Easter recess so that we can have an in-depth conversation when you return,” Biden added.
Joe Biden adjusts his microphone during a meeting with the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology in the State Dining Room of the White House, in Washington on April 4, 2023. (Patrick Semansky/ AP Photo)
Biden said that he’s prepared to consider Republican proposals for spending cuts as part of a budget plan, but that such discussions must be separate from “prompt action on the Congress’ basic obligation to pay the nation’s bills an avoid economic catastrophe.”
McCarthy told Biden in a letter of his own that the president’s refusal to negotiate spending cuts to get GOP backing on raising the debt ceiling “could prevent America from meeting its obligations and hold dire ramifications for the entire nation.”
“With each passing day, I am incredibly concerned that you are putting an already fragile economy in jeopardy by insisting upon your extreme position of refusing to negotiate any meaningful changes to out-of-control government spending alongside an increase of the debt limit,” McCarthy wrote.
Republicans have taken issue with Biden’s big-ticket spending, blaming it for sending inflation to multi-decade highs.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) answers questions during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on July 29, 2022 in Washington. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Spending Cuts
Since taking office, Biden has signed off on trillions in spending, including the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the $745 billion Inflation Reduction Act, and, most recently, a $1.7 trillion omnibus package passed at the end of the last Congress.
Hern said in his letter that American voters “are sick of the persistent hardships inflicted by Democrats’ excessive spending and oppressive policies.”
“They gave us a mandate: tame inflation, deliver affordable energy and a strong economy, stop spending their future away, and rein in the woke and weaponized government,” Hern added.
The RSC’s “Debt Limit Playbook” sets forth their agenda for spending curbs. The proposal includes rolling back the recent growth in discretionary spending, reducing regulatory obstacles to domestic energy production, looking for ways to cut down on government waste, and creating measures for long-term fiscal control.
Biden has accused Republicans of targeting mandatory spending programs like Social Security and Medicare, while the GOP has insisted their focus is solely on cutting back on non-defense discretionary spending.
Meanwhile, McCarthy said recently that investors should be worried about the deadlock in Washington over raising the debt ceiling.
“Unfortunately, I tried to sit down with the president and the president doesn’t want to communicate,” McCarthy told Bloomberg TV, adding that since a meeting with Biden on Feb. 1, the only communication between the two on the debt ceiling has been via an exchange of letters.
McCarthy said Republicans were working on a proposal for raising the debt ceiling. Asked whether he plans to speak to investors about the GOP proposal in order to reassure markets, McCarthy said that Wall Street is right to be worried.
“They should be concerned,” McCarthy said, adding that Biden hasn’t wanted to meet and that communication between the two has basically ground to a standstill.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposed emissions standards for automobiles and trucks are raising eyebrows in the auto industry and Washington alike.
“EPA’s proposed emissions plan is aggressive by any measure. By that I mean it sets automotive electrification goals in the next few years that are … very high,” John Bozzella, president and CEO of the automaker trade organization Alliance for Automotive Innovation, wrote in an April 12 blog post.
The federal standards would tightly restrict emissions from new vehicles. That would effectively force automakers to boost their sales of electric vehicles (EVs).
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan testifies before the Senate Appropriations Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on April 20, 2021. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The agency’s proposal anticipates that under the new standards, two-thirds of new light-duty vehicles sold in the United States would be electric by the model year 2032.
It also predicts that 46 percent of new medium-duty vehicles sold in the United States would be electric by that model year.
The EPA claims that its standards would lower carbon dioxide emissions by 10 billion tons.
Agency administrator Michael Regan described the standards as the “strongest ever” during an April 12 press conference.
“The proposal exceeds the administration’s own 50 percent electrification target,” Bozzella wrote, noting that his industry is “fully committed to an electric and low-carbon transportation future.”
Not Enough Chargers
Less than two weeks ago, the IRS and the Treasury Department issued complex guidance on EV tax credits that could make it harder for consumers to benefit from those financial incentives.
Bozzella, who began his career working for then-New York Mayor David Dinkins, a Democrat, said the guidance would reduce the number of vehicles qualifying for tax credits. That would seem to disincentivize EV adoption even as the administration steps up other measures intended to facilitate more EV purchases.
Bozzella also said the 100,000 public, nonproprietary EV chargers in the United States are “not enough.”
An April 6 memo from the automotive alliance stated that electrification would take a “massive, 100-year change to the U.S. industrial base and the way Americans drive.”
Groups outside of the auto industry also voiced concerns.
Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, a consumer protection organization, said the standards are “the same thing BlackRock and ESG extremists like Larry Fink are doing with U.S. pensions and retirement dollars.”
“The American people won’t stand for it,” he said.
“The Environmental Protection Agency will make cars unaffordable by following California’s lead towards a complete ban on gas-powered vehicles,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) speaks at a House Republican press conference on energy policy at the U.S. Capitol on March 08, 2022. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
California’s 2022 plan would outlaw gas-powered vehicle sales in the state by 2035.
“[Biden’s] misguided policies are hurting American families while helping China,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the ranking Republican member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
“The ‘electrification of everything’ is not a solution. It’s a road to higher prices and fewer choices.”
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), the ranking Republican member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, highlighted some potentially significant issues for the United States as the domestic EV fleet expands.
“These misguided emissions standards were made without considering the supply chain challenges American automakers are still facing, the lack of sufficiently operational electric vehicle charging infrastructure, or the fact that it takes nearly a decade to permit a mine to extract the minerals needed to make electric vehicles, forcing businesses to look to China for these raw materials,” Capito said.
Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), who chairs the House Committee on Natural Resources, said in a statement to The Epoch Times that “EVs should be part of the equation, not the entire solution.”
The White House on March 22, 2023. (Richard Moore/The Epoch Times)
He suggested that Americans would be better served by H.R. 1, an energy bill championed by Republicans that passed the House in March.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said the bill will be “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber, and the White House on March 27 said Biden would veto it “in its current form.”
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Tesla, and Ford didn’t respond by press time to requests by The Epoch Times for comment. Toyota directed The Epoch Times to Bozzella’s April 12 blog post.
SAE International, an engineering professional association with close ties to the automotive sector, had no comment.
The United States is not King Midas, and the gold is running out.
For much of the post-World War II era, America has been expected by many of its citizens to be a benevolent King Midas to the rest of the world. We have attained unprecedented levels of prosperity, and we are expected to share that with anyone seeking to improve their conditions.
While such philanthropy may cause hearts to swell with good feelings, it often comes at a steep price. At a time when America is showing all the characteristics of an empire in decline, that price has now become a crippling burden.
One of the most irksome talking points anti-borders activists repeat endlessly is that “America is the wealthiest country on Earth.” This is based on data showing the United States has the highest concentration of millionaires and the largest gross domestic product.
There is trouble, however, below that hyper-affluent upper level. The share of American adults who live in middle-class households has shrunk by 11 percent in the last 50 years. The gross federal debt sits at an all-time high of over $31 trillion. China is working aggressively to supplant the United States as the global superpower and is attacking our currency, military supremacy, and access to vital natural resources, among other areas. Our current leadership seems interested not in reversing America’s deterioration, but rather in managing it better than the opposition party.
Now add excessive immigration to these problems. Instead of “making America stronger,” as clueless sanctuary mayors dutifully insist immigration does, today it is only making America poorer and more balkanized.
A recent New York Times report found that the children of immigrants, those here both legally and illegally, now make up four-in-nine of all poor children living in the United States. This comes at a time when homelessness is reaching crisis levels in many of our larger cities. How many homeless Americans, many of whom are often military veterans suffering from mental illness, now have to compete with illegal aliens for limited shelter space and city resources to stay alive?
It should not be surprising that mayors who virtue signal their cities’ sanctuary status are also dealing with the highest levels of homelessness, crime, crowding, and drug addiction. Taking on seemingly infinite numbers of migrants costs a lot of money. When that happens, money is diverted from other programs.
New York City, currently the most dangerous sanctuary community in America, has been complaining about the costs of illegal immigration since Governors Greg Abbott (R-Texas) and Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) began busing illegal aliens there. Unable to pay the costs of his sanctuary rhetoric, Mayor Eric Adams has been forced to slash a combined $1.1 billion from the city budget each year for the next four years.
The honorable thing for Adams to do in this situation would be to admit his mistake regarding sanctuary policies and change course. Instead, he has reaffirmed his support for the policies and sent a $654 million bill to the federal government.
Did the residents of states like Nebraska and Mississippi vote for Gotham to become a sanctuary city? They did not, but now they are being told to pay for the fashionable noblesse oblige of New York’s political class. Why are such passionate advocates for anti-borders policies so quick to make anyone but themselves pay for them?
While the same activists claim illegal aliens pay taxes, the net effect of illegal immigration is a huge loss for the country. That is evidenced by the $150.7 billion total fiscal cost of illegal immigration on U.S. taxpayers.
We live in a time when many other institutions in America are struggling with insufficient resources. Our schools, healthcare systems, drug treatment centers, and transportation infrastructure—to name just a few—are all suffering from a lack of funding. An infusion of more than $150 billion would make a huge difference toward addressing those problems. Instead, we throw that money into an abyss, as mandated by radical activists and unscrupulous politicians looking to cement their hold on power through policies that make their constituents feel good but spend other people’s money.
The reality is that America’s salad days of the late 20th century are over. We no longer have the luxury of trying to solve global poverty by importing poverty here in never-ending numbers. While we should keep the door open for legitimate refugees suffering persecution by their governments, we must deal in self-preservation first. America is not King Midas, and the gold is running out.
State and local countermeasures against critical race theory (CRT)—a quasi-Marxist framework that views the United States as systemically racist—are on the rise in 2023, at a pace equal to or faster than that of 2021 and 2022, according to a new report (pdf) released by CRT Forward, an initiative advocating for CRT in schools at the University of California–Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law.
Anti-CRT measures in higher education and pushback on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies are also trending higher in 2023, according to LaToya Baldwin Clark, a co-author of the report and an assistant law professor at UCLA, at a webinar releasing the report’s findings on April 12.
A webinar releasing the findings from a report on critical race theory by CRT Forward, on April 12, 2023. (CRT Forward/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation and an expert on CRT, said the UCLA report is “fascinating.”
“What it does is it quantifies the impact that the resistance to CRT has been,” he told The Epoch Times.
“About two weeks ago, Ibram X. Kendi went on CNN and complained that their momentum had been crushed by organized resistance. And there was a panel that included Robin DiAngelo; they complained about the same thing,” Gonzalez noted of two major CRT authors.
“They said they had great hopes in 2020 and the beginning of 2021. But then, they encountered this level of resistance from the American people and their elected representatives. And the tide is changing. So I think this is what this report is about.
“I think that the conservatives should not say mission accomplished. There’s a lot to be done, a lot, a lot. But I think conservatives should be comforted by the fact that there has been significant resistance.”
According to the UCLA report, 563 measures were introduced at the state and local levels in 2021 and 2022 to restrict CRT in either classroom teaching or curricular materials; among them, 241 became adopted policies. Measures recorded in the report include legislation, resolutions, regulations, official statements, and policies; they affect 22 million children, about half of the 50.8 million U.S. public school students, Clark said.
She also said that she foresaw more state-level scrutiny of DEI spending in 2023, which in her words, were “very bureaucratic, burdensome ways of trying to get school districts and teachers not to teach CRT or anti-racism because they don’t want to then be subjected to all of these procedural bureaucratic requirements going down the line.”
Although red states adopted many more state-level measures than blue states, the numbers of adopted local measures are very similar between red and blue states. Gonzalez said this is because of blue states’ many conservatives in various localities.
‘Divisive Concepts’
The year 2020 saw an escalated push of CRT in the United States after the death of George Floyd, a black man, after a white Minneapolis officer kneeled on his neck for minutes during an arrest. At the webinar, Clark called the rise of “racial demands for justice and equality” in that year the “2020 uprising” and “2020 revolutions.”
Gonzalez, meanwhile, referred to it as the “2020 insurrection,” during which many cultural institutions adopted the CRT view that the United States is systemically racist.
“[The left] didn’t realize what they were doing; they actually went too far in 2020,” he said. “They thought they had the country in their hands and they were going to be able to dismantle the country. And what they did was wake the American population.”
He also said that he had spoken to many people across the nation as he traveled during and after the pandemic.
“What I encountered was the institutions of civic society rising up and saying, ‘No. No, we don’t like this. We don’t want this.’ And I think that changed the climate of opinion in the country.
“Obviously, in any democracy, that’s going to have an electoral impact and an impact on legislators, especially at the state level. And what they have done is that they have reacted by trying to shield the country from this attempt to transform it.
“This UCLA report confirms that there has been this resistance to the transformation of America, to the dismantling of America, to the destruction of America’s cultural infrastructure.”
Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, in Washington on Sept. 22, 2020. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
The report traced the large-scale anti-CRT movement to former President Donald Trump’s executive order (EO) in September 2020. Although quickly rescinded by President Joe Biden in January 2021, the “divisive concepts” descriptions in the EO have been repeatedly used in anti-CRT measures, according to both presenters at the webinar, Clark and senior attorney Emerson Sykes at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Clark acknowledged that the pushback on CRT existed before the September 2020 EO.
“And [the EO] wasn’t something that [Trump] just thought of on his own. There were many conservative operatives, conservative organizations, and people who were pushing the Trump administration to do something along the lines of what they did.”
‘New and Innovative Ways’
Sykes touted the ACLU’s legal success in halting Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” or “Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act” in universities and workplaces. The Act prohibits schools and workplaces from including CRT in their teachings and training.
After Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the legislation into law in April 2022 with an effective date of July 1, U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker granted a preliminary injunction in August, blocking the restriction on companies’ CRT training. Then, in November, he granted another injunction and suspended the part of the legislation concerning colleges. However, the law is still effective in K-12 schools.
Sykes explained that such lawsuits were few because the legal system is protective of students in K-12 schools and wary of indoctrination. In addition, it was challenging to find plaintiffs “with Ron DeSantis going on TV every day, coming up with new and innovative ways” of warning educators not to teach CRT.
In response to a question about whether CRT or a different version of CRT from conservatives’ understanding was taught in schools, Clark said, “I don’t think that it is a good strategic move to say CRT is not being taught in schools.”
She suggested framing the issue not as anti-CRT but as resisting racial progress. Now that the tracking mechanism of the CRT Forward project is in place, she says, “part of the strategy has been … to keep [CRT] top of mind … when it comes to the 2024 election.”
Our enemies do not fear us, our allies judge us unreliable, and neutrals assume America is in descent and too dangerous to join.
Why is French President Emmanuel Macron cozying up to China while trashing his oldest ally, the United States?
Why is there suddenly talk of discarding the dollar as the global currency?
Why are Japan and India shrugging that they cannot follow the United States’ lead in boycotting Russian oil?
Why is the president of Brazil traveling to China to pursue what he calls a “beautiful relationship”?
Why is Israel suddenly facing attacks from its enemies in all directions?
What happened to Turkey? Why is it threatening fellow NATO member Greece? Is it still a NATO ally, a mere neutral, or a de facto enemy?
Why are there suddenly nonstop Chinese threats toward Taiwan?
Why did Saudi Arabia conclude a new pact with Iran, its former archenemy?
Why is Egypt sending rockets to Russia to be used in Ukraine?
Since when did the Russians talk nonstop about the potential use of a tactical nuclear weapon?
Why is Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador bragging that millions of Mexicans have entered the United States, most of them illegally? And why is he interfering in U.S. elections by urging his expatriates to vote for Democrats?
Why and how, in just two years, have ad confused and often incoherent Joe Biden and his team created such global chaos?
Let us answer by listing 10 ways by which America lost all deterrence.
1) Joe Biden abruptly pulled all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. He left behind to the Taliban hundreds of Americans and thousands of pro-American Afghans. Biden abandoned billions of dollars in U.S. equipment, the largest air base in central Asia—recently retrofitted at a cost of $300 million—and a $1 billion embassy. Our government called such a debacle a success. The world disagreed and saw only humiliation.
2) The Biden Administration allowed a Chinese high-altitude spy balloon to traverse the continental United States, spying on key American military installations. The Chinese were defiant when caught and offered no apologies. In response, the Pentagon and the administration simply lied about the extent that China had surveilled top-secret sites.
3) In March 2021, at an Anchorage, Alaska mini-summit, Chinese diplomats unleashed a relentless barrage at their stunned and mostly silent American counterparts. They lectured the timid Biden Administration diplomats about American toxicity and hypocrisy. And they have defiantly refused to explain why and how their virology lab birthed the COVID virus that has killed tens of millions worldwide.
4) In June 2021, in response to Russian cyber-attacks against the United States, Biden meekly asked Putin to at least make off-limits certain critical American infrastructure.
5) When asked what he would do if Russia invaded Ukraine, Biden replied that the reaction would depend on whether the Russians conducted a “minor incursion.”
6) Between 2021 and 2022, Joe Biden serially insulted and bragged that he would not meet Muhammad bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, and one of our oldest and most valuable allies in the Middle East.
7) For much of 2021, the Biden Administration made it known that it was eager and ready to offer concessions to re-enter the dangerous Iran nuclear deal—at a time when Iran has joined China and Russia in a new geostrategic partnership.
8) Almost immediately upon inauguration, the administration moved the United States away from Israel, restored financial aid to radical Palestinians, and both publicly and privately alienated the current Netanyahu government.
9) In serial fashion, Biden stopped all construction on the border wall and opened the border. He made it known that illegal aliens were welcome to enter the United States unlawfully. Some 6-7 million did. He reinstated “catch and release.” And he did nothing about the Mexican cartel importation of fentanyl that has recently killed over 100,000 Americans per year.
10) In the last two years, the Pentagon has embarked on a woke agenda. The army is short by 15,000 in its annual recruitment quota. The defense budget has not kept up with inflation. One of the greatest intelligence leaks in U.S. history just occurred from the Pentagon.
The Pentagon refused to admit culpability and misled the country about Afghanistan and the Chinese spy balloon flight. The current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called his Chinese communist counterpart and head of the People’s Liberation Army to advise him that the U.S. military would warn the Chinese if it determined an order from its commander-in-chief Trump was inappropriate.
This list of these self-inflicted disasters could be easily expanded.
But the examples explain well enough why our emboldened enemies do not fear us, our triangulating allies judge us unreliable, and calculating neutrals assume America is in descent and too dangerous to join.
Yet without America, the result is a new Chinese order in which, to quote the historian Thucydides, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
For far too long, material support for Ukraine has been based on an appeal to our emotions.
he Department of Defense earlier this month announced a massive new military aid package for Ukraine valued at $2.6 billion, including $500 million worth of ammunition for U.S.-provided High Mobility Rocket Artillery Systems (HIMARS), air defense interceptors, artillery rounds, anti-armor systems, small arms, main battle tanks, heavy equipment transport vehicles, and maintenance support, all drawn from U.S. stockpiles. There are also serious discussions about providing F-16 aircraft.
This is only the latest installment. Since the Russian invasion a year ago, the United States has provided Ukraine with over $32 billion in security assistance (equipment, training, maintenance, and support), to which must be added the costs for U.S. operations and maintenance required over 20,000 additional U.S. troops in Europe to support the war effort and deter Russian attacks on NATO territory.
Although American sentiment generally comes down on the side of Ukraine as it resists Russian aggression, such a sentiment does not justify a blank check to Kyiv. But this is exactly what the Biden Administration is offering. According to U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, “this new security assistance will allow Ukraine to continue to bravely defend itself against Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified war . . . Russia alone could end its war today. Until Russia does, the United States and our allies and partners will stand united with Ukraine for as long as it takes.”
“For as long as it takes” is a phrase devoid of strategic thinking. Indeed, a lack of strategic thinking has characterized U.S. support to Ukraine from the beginning.
“Strategy” is best understood as the interaction of three factors, all assessed in the context of risk assessment: ends, the goals or objectives set by national policy that the strategic actor seeks to achieve; means, the resources available to the strategic actor; and ways, the strategic actor’s plan of action for utilizing the means available.
A good strategy articulates a clear set of achievable goals, identifies concrete threats to those goals, and then, given available resources, recommends the employment of the necessary instruments to meet and overcome those threats while minimizing their consequences.
In thinking strategically about Ukraine, we should be asking three fundamental questions: 1) is our approach to Ukraine consistent with U.S. grand strategy? 2) Is there a logical relationship between U.S. means available to U.S. goals? And 3) is our strategic concept not only logical but also realistic? In other words, what is the probability of success? Given the length and cost of the war, this last question is critical.
One factor notably absent the Biden Administration’s approach to Ukraine is the rigorous prioritization necessary as a foundation of successful strategy. Frederick the Great captured the essence of this factor when he wrote, “Little minds try to defend everything at once, but sensible people look at the main point only; they parry the worst blows and stand a little hurt if thereby they avoid a greater one. If you try to hold everything, you hold nothing.”
U.S. interests are global, but we have always established geographical priorities. During World War II, we prioritized the European Theater of Operations over the Pacific despite the fact that it was the Japanese attack that drew us into the conflict. During the Cold War, U.S. strategy in support of containing the Soviet Union focused first on Europe, next on the Pacific, and finally on the Greater Middle East. The end of the Cold War, 9/11 and the post-9/11 wars shifted our attention to the Middle East. The end of “the end of history” and the return of great power conflict, especially the rise of China, means the Indo-Pacific region has emerged as our most important geostrategic region.
As in the past, the United States can manage strategic interests in multiple regions today. The problem arises when challenges to our interests arise simultaneously. The question becomes how to establish priorities and assess opportunity costs associated with choosing one course of action—or region—over another. Despite the Biden Administration’s claim that U.S. security assistance of Ukraine “in no way” affects the provision of arms to Taiwan, the former places a significant resource demand on the United States that constitutes a major opportunity cost in terms of U.S. strategy in the Indo-Pacific.
The administration’s defenders claim that such a concern is overstated because military support to Ukraine and Taiwan is funded differently, the former by excess defense stockpiles and the latter by foreign military sales. While technically correct, the reality is that any change in authorization and the drawdown of stockpiles is likely to cause future competition for arms and other opportunity costs.
The United States has chosen to pursue a proxy war with Russia. On the one hand, that reduces the risk that a direct war would entail. But even proxy wars require strategic guidance. Unfortunately, U.S. policy makers have repeatedly failed to articulate our strategic objectives in Ukraine. At the outset, defense of the U.N. Charter and “democracy” seemed to be the primary goals. The objective appeared to be limited, a negotiated peace that ended the carnage. But lately, a “Ukraine victory coalition” that seeks to permanently weaken Russia has become dominant in Washington. It is this coalition that seeks a blank check for Ukraine, apparently without regard to the costs and risks associated with such a strategic goal.
Those risks are substantial: a possible direct confrontation between Russia and the United States and NATO; the creation of a dangerous anti-U.S. alignment that not only forges deeper ties between Russia and China but also includes a number of other states including India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran; and financial problems associated with increased inflationary pressures.
In addition, a recently leaked classified document suggests that many of the assumptions upon which an optimistic outcome of our proxy war are based are false or mistaken. An analysis of this document, which appears to be legitimate, suggests that the U.S. military is increasingly concerned that the situation in Ukraine is degrading rapidly, that the Ukrainian military is burning through artillery and air defense munitions far faster than they can be replaced, and that there is little or no likelihood that the Ukrainians can launch any sort of a counteroffensive later this year.
Of course the entire rationale for proxy war is that rather than confronting an enemy directly, an actor can reduce his cost and risk by supplying his enemy’s enemy. But the leaked report suggests Ukraine has become a black hole for the United States and NATO. Rather than being a cheap way to drain the Russians, we are draining our own stocks, which reverses the strategic logic of our support for Ukraine. As one commentator has written, “the proxy has become a parasite.”
Although Ukraine has the right to appeal to the United States for assistance in repelling Russian aggression, American citizens have a legitimate expectation that Ukrainian interests do not come at the expense of U.S. interests. Giving Ukraine a blank check, as some wish us to do, is the very opposite of a prudent U.S. foreign policy. For far too long, material support for Ukraine has been based on an appeal to our emotions. Instead, assistance to Ukraine must be assessed in the cold light of sound strategic reasoning.
As everyone knows baseball has been going downhill since Babe Ruth stopped pitching. But now we have a new problem, climate change is making home runs easier. If only Babe had been able to be here to hit these days, right?
This is the latest insistence, climate change is going to change baseball. Gizmodo reports:
Climate Change Is Making Baseball Worse
Baseball players are hitting more home runs. Is it sheer talent, or warmer air?
Going, Going, Gone: Study Says Climate Change Juicing Homers
Climate change is making major league sluggers into hotter hitters, sending an extra 50 or so home runs a year over the fences.
By their measure, we must stop having an advanced industrial civilization so that we can eat our peanuts in peace.
But the science itself isn’t very good. Warmer air does mean it’s easier to hit a ball further. But does warmer air inside a stadium have to do with climate change? Not so much. We have this thing called the urban heat effect – cities are warmer than the countryside. And we know this is true, we know it so much that the standard temperature measures are adjusted for this. This piece of science doesn’t do that, however. So, we don’t actually know whether this is climate change or bigger cities. This science is, shall we say, less than perfect science when compared with other climate change science.
But what the science does say is that there are many causes of these more homers. Better players, or fitter ones at least, better tactics, and so on. All of which do produce more homers. In fact, the science paper says that only 1% of the increase in home runs might be attributable to climate change.
There are more home runs these days. One percent of them might, maybe, be climate-change-related. So, what do Gizmodo and NowThis run with? Climate change is ruining baseball – rather than being a tiny influence at most.
As to why they run it that way we’ll have to make some assumptions. Ours is that climate change has become the modern religion so much that it’s become the equivalent of making sacrifices to the volcano God when it gets angry. Further, any and every event must be described in terms of climate change in order to keep the story running.
Or, as we might put it, modern journalism mis- and dis- informs by linking absolutely everything to climate change in order to mislead us about the problem.
One of the things that would convince us more here is if people weren’t quite so desperate to attribute absolutely everything to climate change.
This article originally appeared in Accuracy in Media. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News. Republished with permission.
Hakeem Jeffries caught in lie over past support for anti-Semitic family member
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) once claimed he had only a “vague recollection” of and hadn’t looked at the anti-Semitic speeches made by his uncle in the 1990s, but a 1992 editorial by the Democratic leader uncovered by CNN shows he defended his uncle, his comments, and notorious anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
Jeffries’s uncle, Leonard Jeffries, faced backlash in the 1990s for his comments accusing “rich Jews” of being responsible for the slave trade and alleging the existence of “a conspiracy, planned and plotted” by Jewish executives in Hollywood to portray black people poorly. Farrakhan is an infamous anti-Semite who has defended Adolf Hitler and assailed the “stranglehold that Jews have on this government.”
In the unearthed article, the Democratic leader defended his uncle’s ideologies after inviting him to speak on his campus at Binghamton University.
“Dr. Leonard Jeffries and Minister Louis Farrakhan have come under intense fire,” Jeffries wrote in 1992. “Where do you think their interests lie?” He claimed his uncle “has challenged the existing white supremist [sic] educational system and long standing distortion of history.”
“His reward has been a media lynching complete with character assassinations and inflammatory erroneous accusations,” Jeffries added.
Jeffries also compared black conservatives to “House Negroes” during American slavery, calling them “tokens” and “opportunists.”
“The House Negro of the slavery era and the Black conservative of today are both opportunists interested in securing some measure of happiness for themselves within the existing social order,” Jeffries wrote.
Jeffries’s office told CNN he has “consistently been clear that he does not share the controversial views espoused by his uncle over thirty years ago.”
The Democratic leader told the Wall Street Journal when he first took office in the House in 2013 that he had “a vague recollection” of the controversies and was away at school and not paying attention.
Jeffries also defended his uncle’s campus speech at a 1992 press conference after a Jewish group protested, CNN reported:
In February 1992, Hakeem Jeffries was a senior at Binghamton University in upstate New York and a board member of the Black Student Union. The BSU extended an invitation for the embattled professor to speak on campus for an undisclosed fee, drawing outrage from some students on campus and members of the Jewish Student Union.
The BSU said the profits from the event would go to a foundation in an honor of a student killed in an auto accident.
After a Jewish student group called on the BSU to cancel the professor’s speaking engagement, Jeffries led a news conference defending his uncle and his speaking engagement.
“We have no intention of canceling a presentation that contains factual information, proven through scholarly documents and texts,” read Hakeem Jeffries from a statement reported in the student newspaper the Pipe Dream. “The proper way to way to debate scholarship is with scholarship–not with high-tech lynchings, media assassinations, character desecrations and venomous attacks.”
Democratic representative Katie Porter (Calif.) complained to talk show host Stephen Colbert about the struggles of working with conservative congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.). The Democrat’s staffers say Porter is the difficult one to work with.
“I think we should be more honest with the American people about Congress [being] a mess. … The truth is it’s hard. It is hard to go to work every day with Marjorie Taylor Greene as a colleague,” Porter told Colbert on a Tuesday Late Show episode.
But Porter, who is running to replace 89-year-old Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.) in 2024, is not so easy to work with either, according to her staffers, who raised complaints about the congresswoman last year. Sasha Georgiades, a Navy veteran and former Wounded Warrior fellow for Porter, told Fox News that Porter made “rude and racist comments” to staffers and “ridiculed people for reporting sexual harassment.”
“She has made multiple staffers cry and people are generally so anxious to even staff her because if ANYTHING goes wrong she flips out on whatever staffer is present,” Georgiades said. “She just talks to staffers however she wants.”
Text messages that surfaced in December show Porter berating Georgiades for contracting COVID-19, and Georgiades alleges that the congresswoman also “made fun of individuals whose parents passed away from COVID.” Porter’s office denied Georgiades’s allegations.
Shortly after the messages leaked, anonymous Porter staffers posted complaints to Dear White Staffers, a Twitter and Instagram account for Capitol Hill staffers.
“Thinks she knows better and talks s— about other members, leadership, staffers, local [elected officials], etc., at full volume, in public, and to literally [anyone] who will listen,” one post reads.
“I regret if this employee feels disgruntled,” Porter said in defense against the accusations in an interview with Pod Save America. “I’m willing to expect people to work hard. I work hard, and I think that’s what the American people should expect.”
Republican senator Marco Rubio (Fla.) called for an investigation into the Democratic campaign fundraiser ActBlue after it reportedly collected donations fraudulently listed under the names of elderly Americans without their knowledge.
Rubio demanded that the Federal Election Commission investigate the fundraising company and urged the FEC to require credit card CVV codes from donors to prevent fraud, Fox News reported.
“It should come as no surprise that ActBlue serves as [a] vessel for fraud, considering the intentional lack of security engrained within their donation processes and systems,” Rubio wrote in a letter to the FEC.
The Florida senator expressed concern over “thousands of dollars in political donations” that were listed with the names and addresses of Americans who say they never made the donations.
“In knowing that foreign actors use fake accounts to exploit donation systems that do not have robust verification processes and systems in place, most individual campaigns and political action committees (PACs) require CVV numbers as part of making an online donation,” Rubio continued. “However, in breaking with most organizations, ActBlue does not require CVV numbers as a requirement for donating, and thus lending itself as a facilitator of fraud.”
Last week, ActBlue cut 17 percent of its workforce to reduce costs, prompting a critical response from its workers’ union.
“Prioritizing executive profit over rank and file workers’ livelihoods does not live up to [ActBlue’s] progressive values,” the union said in a statement.
The indictment of former president Donald Trump—unprecedented in U.S. history and based on what many experts say are flimsy foundations—has stoked fresh fears about the politicization of the justice system. But it has also highlighted a trend that began long before Trump’s arraignment: the politicization of top-flight law firms.
Todd Blanche, a longtime partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft, resigned last week from the elite firm to represent Trump, who was indicted on April 4 by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg (D.). Though Cadwalader has been tight-lipped about the circumstances of Blanche’s departure, Blanche himself said something interesting. “Obviously,” his parting email indicated, “doing this as a partner at Cadwalader was not an option, so I have had to make the difficult choice to leave the firm.” Within hours, Cadwalader had scrubbed Blanche’s bio from the firm’s website. Neither Blanche nor Cadwalader responded to requests for comment.
The resignation, and the ultimatum from Cadwalader that it implied, was not a one-off. Like their corporate clients, top law firms have taken a sharp left turn over the past decade, joining groups like the Law Firm Antiracism Alliance and even hosting drag queens for Pride Month. That flight from the political center, lawyers and legal commentators say, has made “Big Law” much less willing to take conservative clients—especially when their last name is Trump.
“Trump is toxic for most big firms,” said Adam Mortara, a former partner at Bartlit Beck who served as the lead trial lawyer for the plaintiffs in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Supreme Court case that could outlaw affirmative action. “Lawyers can’t get him or other right-wing clients past their partners.”
Top attorneys now face a choice between cushy partnerships and conservative clients, whom white-shoe law firms won’t represent. That has in turn fueled an imbalance of power within the legal system, as America’s biggest and best-heeled firms increasingly do the bidding of one political party.
Big Law has no qualms about representing Democrats in distress: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Anita Hill are just a few of the liberals who have navigated sordid controversies with the help of top firms, including Williams & Connolly, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom, and Covington & Burling. And its pro-bono work is hardly nonpartisan: On issues like affirmative action and abortion, Big Law’s amicus briefs almost always support the left.
“Conservative cases and clients tend to create more problems than progressive cases and clients,” said legal analyst David Lat. “As a result, lawyers who do want to take on conservative clients often end up leaving their firms, with varying degrees of voluntariness.”
Blanche is not the only lawyer who has left a large firm for Trump. Christopher Kise last year resigned from Foley & Lardner to represent the embattled former president in the wake of the FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago, prompting the firm to scrub Kise’s name from its website.
Other firms have pushed out partners for representing garden-variety conservatives. The superstar Supreme Court litigator Paul Clement resigned from his law firm, King and Spalding, in 2011 after it refused to let him represent the GOP-controlled House of Representatives in its bid to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act. A decade later, he left another white-shoe firm, Kirkland & Ellis, after it announced that it would no longer do gun-rights litigation—the same day the Supreme Court ruled in Clement’s favor on a major Second Amendment case.
It is hardly unheard of for lawyers to turn down business they deem dangerous or harmful. Large firms have long been gun-shy about representing tobacco companies, for example, and in 2021, Big Law steered clear of challenges to COVID vaccine mandates.
But no client has proven quite as polarizing as Trump. A former White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, knew of at least three major firms that barred their star litigators from representing the former president. And a lawyer who worked in the Trump White House said that Big Law’s reaction to Trump was unprecedented.
“Under our system of justice, everyone is entitled to zealous representation of counsel,” the lawyer said. “That norm now has a carveout: everyone except Donald Trump.”
In 2017, Trump approached Hogan Lovells, one of the largest and wealthiest firms in the world, about representing him in a personal capacity, according to a former partner at the firm. Though Hogan couldn’t have represented Trump even if it wanted—it was already representing a challenge to the then-president’s travel ban, making any association with him a conflict of interest—there was “strident opposition” within the firm to having Trump as a client, the former partner said.
The Trumphobia can’t be explained by an aversion to controversy. Big firms routinely wade into polarizing issues like abortion and trans rights—the “Transgender Name Change Clinic” is one of Cadwalader’s pro-bono clients—while some, such as Paul Weiss, have done extensive litigation opposing the death penalty, a policy most Americans support.
“A few firms are equal opportunity avoiders of controversy,” said the managing partner of a large law office, who requested anonymity to speak freely. “But in general, it’s easier to take controversial clients on the left.”
That double standard is sometimes defended on business grounds. If a law firm defends Trump, the thinking goes, other clients, especially large corporations, may cut ties with the firm in protest, thereby hurting the firm’s bottom line.
“We aren’t going to do things that adversely affect profits,” the managing partner said. “There’s very little upside to taking clients that might offend our Fortune 1000 clients.”
But others say the economic argument has been weaponized by partisans at big law firms, which use the specter of losing business—even when no client has threatened to withdraw—to enforce orthodoxy in partner meetings.
“The idea that clients get mad about stuff is more a trope than a reality,” Mortara said. “Progressive lawyers bring up client pressure to get their way, but it’s really a political objection.”
Granted, Trump is an extra charged lightning rod. Lawyers have been repelled not just by the ideological ick factor but also by the former president’s well-known failure to pay his legal bills, even to trusted consiglieri like Rudy Giuliani. And attorneys across the political spectrum chafed at Trump’s rhetoric about the 2020 election: Benjamin Ginsberg, a top GOP elections lawyer, left Jones Day over its work with Trump.
The firm’s critics argued that it was aiding and abetting an unprecedented attack on democracy by taking up Trump’s election lawsuits. With the stakes so high—and with most experts dismissing the lawsuits as baseless—some lawyers said there was an ethical duty not to represent Trump as he sought to overturn the election.
But events since then suggest that Big Law’s Trumphobia is less principled than partisan. Bragg’s indictment has flipped the familiar script: Even liberals are saying that it is now Trump’s opponents who are flouting democratic norms on the basis of baroque legal theories.
Elite firms are nonetheless passing on the chance to prevent that precedent from being set. For some lawyers, the reticence suggests that Big Law’s politicization is hollowing out another legal norm: the idea that everyone, no matter how hated, deserves an attorney.
“That ideal is gone,” a former Justice Department official said. “You can’t do that anymore in D.C.”
Retail giant Walmart announced Tuesday that it is closing down of its stores in the Chicago area because none of the stores have been profitable and “lose tens of millions of dollars” annually, according to a news release.
After about two decades of continual losses, Walmart said that it also invested “hundreds of millions” of dollars into the four locations, according to the release. However, that still hasn’t helped the firm turn a profit in the area, it said.
“The simplest explanation is that collectively our Chicago stores have not been profitable since we opened the first one nearly 17 years ago—these stores lose tens of millions of dollars a year, and their annual losses nearly doubled in just the last five years,” the press release said. But Walmart said that after millions of dollars in investments and “many different strategies,” it has to cut its losses in the area.
“Over the years, we have tried many different strategies to improve the business performance of these locations, including building smaller stores, localizing product assortment and offering services beyond traditional retail,” Walmart’s release said. “We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the city, including $70 million in the last couple years to upgrade our stores and build two new Walmart Health facilities and a Walmart Academy training center.”
Walmart said that the four locations will be shut down on Sunday, April 16, “to the public.” Pharmacies at the four locations will remain open for another 30 days, the Arkansas-based company added.
The locations that are being closed are as follows: #5781 Chatham Supercenter, the Walmart Health center, and the Walmart Academy, 8431 S. Stewart Ave.; #3166 Kenwood Neighborhood Market, 4720 S. Cottage Grove Ave.; #5645 Lakeview Neighborhood Market, 2844 N. Broadway St.; and #5646 Little Village Neighborhood Market, 2551 W. Cermak Road.
“We will work with local leaders to help find reuse options for these buildings, so they remain important parts of their communities, including the Walmart Academy, which we intend to donate to the community to help further strengthen Chatham and the surrounding neighborhoods,” the news release said.
Walmart still has at least four other stores located around Chicago, the firm said. However, those locations may not remain there much longer, the news release suggested.
“The remaining four Chicago stores continue to face the same business difficulties,” Walmart said, “but we think this decision gives us the best chance to help keep them open and serving the community.”
The news release said that workers at the soon-to-be shuttered locations are now eligible to transfer their jobs to “any other” Walmart or Sam’s Club location and that all associates will be paid until Aug. 11, 2023—unless they transfer. Representatives from other Walmart or Sam’s Club facilities “will be in each of these stores to help” workers transfer, it said.
While Walmart did not make reference to Chicago’s high violent crime numbers, a handful of big corporations have moved their headquarters or offices away from the Windy City in recent years. They included Tyson Foods, Boeing, Caterpillar, Citadel, and others.
The head of Citadel, billionaire Ken Griffin, specifically cited Chicago’s crime rate as a reason to leave during an interview with the Wall Street Journal last year. Citadel and Griffin ultimately relocated to Miami, Florida.
“If people aren’t safe here, they’re not going to live here,” he told the paper. “I’ve had multiple colleagues mugged at gunpoint. I’ve had a colleague stabbed on the way to work. Countless issues of burglary. I mean, that’s a really difficult backdrop with which to draw talent to your city from.”
Earlier this year, former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, a Democrat, lost her bid for reelection amid claims that she could not address the city’s high crime numbers. Chicago has reported around 700 murders each year for 2020, 2021, and 2022.
Just hours before Walmart’s announcement, the Democratic National Committee announced Chicago would host its 2024 Democratic National Convention, said a release from the DNC. President Joe Biden said in the release that the city is a “great choice” to host the event, where “Democrats will gather to showcase our historic progress” around the economy.
Outside of Chicago, Walmart closed its final two stores in Portland, Oregon, due to a wave of retail theft. And on Tuesday, Whole Foods said it was shutting down its flagship store in San Francisco due to soaring thefts.
The Epoch Times has contacted the mayor’s office for comment.
Elon Musk has defended Twitter’s decision to terminate a policy where posts on the platform would be accompanied by a “misleading information” warning label if the content related to COVID-19, saying the pandemic “is no longer an issue.”
The microblogging service, which was taken over by the billionaire industrialist last year, said in a report that, effective Nov. 23, 2022, Twitter is “no longer enforcing the COVID-19 misleading information policy.”
Musk commented on the matter during an interview with BBC reporter James Clayton that was broadcasted on April 11. In the confrontational interview, Musk pivoted Clayton’s question when the journalist asked the Tesla executive about the platform’s warning labels for false and misleading tweets related to COVID-19.
“Has the BBC changed its COVID misinformation?” Musk reacted fiercely to the reporter’s question.
In response, Clayton said that he was asking Musk about Twitter’s policies as the interviewer stressed that the discussion is about the social media company, not about the broadcasting corporation.
“The BBC does not set the rules upon Twitter, so I’m asking you,” Clayton said. “You changed the labels, the COVID misinformation labels, there used to be a policy, but it then disappeared—why do that?” he added.
“Look, COVID is no longer an issue,” Musk responded. “Does the BBC hold itself at all responsible for misinformation regarding masking and side-effects of vaccinations, and not reporting on that at all,” the SpaceX founder added.
Musk went on to say that the BBC allowed itself to be “put under pressure by the British government to change its editorial policy.”
“Are you aware of that?” Musk asked Clayton, who did not answer the question. Instead, he shifted the conversation to a different topic, while also noting that he’s not a BBC representative and is unable to speak on behalf of the company’s editorial policy.
NTD reached out to the BBC for comment.
Musk has been a longtime critic of COVID-19 vaccine mandates, lockdowns, as well as other measures enforced by the government. In May 2020, the 51-year-old sent Tesla employees back to work at the automaker’s plant in California in defiance of local shelter-in-place orders, which he described as “forcible imprisoning.”
“Tesla is restarting production today against Alameda County rules. I will be on the line with everyone else. If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me,” Musk said in a post on Twitter at the time.
During an interview with TIME in December 2021, Musk said he and his eligible children are vaccinated against COVID-19 and that “the science is unequivocal,” but he also stressed that he is against COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
Twitter’s policy, which was introduced to curb the spread of “harmful misinformation” related to the pandemic, resulted in nearly 100,000 pieces of content being removed from the platform and led to more than 11,000 account suspensions between January 2020 and September 2022.
Since taking over Twitter, Musk has vowed to dial back the platform’s censorship policies which many conservatives have alleged are discriminatory and amount to suppression of free speech. At the same time, Musk pledged that he would not allow Twitter to become a “free-for-all hellscape” where anything could be said, “with no consequences.”
Doctors Sound the Alarm
Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the first COVID-19 vaccines in late 2020, governments around the world and much of the media have insisted that the medicines developed in record time are “safe and effective.”
However, numerous studies and medical experts have disagreed with the government’s official messaging, suggesting COVID-19 vaccines can lead to an excess risk of spike protein-induced diseases.
Dr. Joseph Fraiman, an emergency physician based in Louisiana and the lead author of a peer-reviewed study that reexamined the original Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccines, told the National Citizen’s Inquiry (NCI) on March 17 that the vaccines have been associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest in about one in every 565 people.
“That is quite a high number of serious adverse effects from a vaccine. We typically have withdrawn vaccines for one in 10,000,” said Fraiman, who spoke virtually at the event on the second day of the hearing held in Canada.
The authors found that the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines were, respectively, associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest in 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated, or one in 565.
German Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach, meanwhile, said last month that adverse reactions can occur at a rate of “one in 10,000 [doses],” adding that COVID-19 vaccines have caused “severe disabilities” to German citizens. However, the country’s top health official also noted that he believes the benefits still outweigh the risks, saying: “It’s not like [vaccine] injury is common.”
“I’ve always been aware of the numbers and they’ve remained relatively stable … one in 10,000 [are injured],” Lauterbach said, citing official data (pdf) from the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut that was released in December 2022. It has to be noted that the health minister said COVID-19 vaccines can cause serious injury in one in every 10,000 doses, not people.
Lawmakers and critics are sounding the alarm, but the White House supports the agenda
The United Nations is seeking vast new powers and stronger “global governance” tools to deal with international emergencies such as pandemics and economic crises, a new U.N. policy brief has revealed, and the Biden administration appears to support the proposal.
The plan to create an “Emergency Platform,” which would involve a set of protocols activated during crises that could affect billions of people, has already drawn strong concern and criticism from U.S. policymakers and analysts.
Among those expressing concern is House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), whose committee oversees U.S. foreign policy and involvement in international organizations.
“We must be sure that any global protocol or platform operated by the U.N. respects U.S. national sovereignty and U.S. taxpayer dollars,” McCaul told The Epoch Times.
House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas) during a hearing on Capitol Hill on April 28, 2022. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
He also noted his concern that the proposed platform expands the authority and funding of the U.N. and the definitions of “emergency” and “crisis” to include, for instance, climate change.
U.N. documents and statements released in March by key leaders of the global organization make clear that climate change is a major piece of the U.N. emergencies agenda.
Other critics who spoke with The Epoch Times expressed concern about the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) within the U.N., the global organization’s well-documented corruption problems, and its track record of dealing with previous emergencies.
“Allowing the U.N. to deal with this is the equivalent of putting the CCP in charge of global emergencies,” former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations Kevin Moley told The Epoch Times.
“The challenges we face can only be addressed through stronger international cooperation,” Guterres declared, calling for “strengthening global governance” for current and future generations.
The policy brief builds on an earlier “Common Agenda” document and comes as U.N. leaders outline the plans for a “Summit of the Future” set to be held during the General Assembly’s annual high-level meeting in September.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres speaks during the 53rd annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 18, 2023. (Gian Ehrenzeller/Keystone via AP)
If it gets a green light from member states, the global emergency protocols would be “triggered automatically” in case of a global crisis, “regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved,” the U.N. chief said.
The protocols would bring all sorts of institutions together, including national governments, international institutions, and the private sector. Ultimately, all would have to recognize the “primary role of intergovernmental organs [such as U.N. agencies] in decision-making,” the document states.
“The Emergency Platform, once convened, would be a tool for the United Nations system to implement decisions taken by relevant organs,” according to the policy brief.
State Department Supportive
A spokesman for the U.S. State Department suggested that the Biden administration backs the plan.
“The administration has made clear its firm belief that U.S. national security is best served by engaging actively and comprehensively with the UN and other international organizations,” the spokesman told The Epoch Times in an e-mailed statement about the proposal.
“The U.N. is only as effective, transparent, and accountable as its membership demands, and the U.S. works tirelessly to ensure the U.N. meets those demands.”
The U.S. State Department in Washington on Nov. 26, 2017. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
The U.N. proposal was unveiled as multibillionaire Bill Gates, one of the most prominent voices during the COVID-19 crisis and a major financier of the World Health Organization (WHO) and vaccines, called for a global “fire department” to address international health emergencies.
Writing in The New York Times last month, Gates said a “Global Health Emergency Corps” could “spring into action at a moment’s notice when danger emerges.”
“The Global Health Emergency Corps will represent massive progress toward a pandemic-free future,” Gates wrote in the op-ed. “The question is whether we have the foresight to invest in that future now before it’s too late.”
UN Emergencies Protocol
Guterres, who is asking governments to approve his plan later this year, said risks are growing and becoming more complex.
“Enhanced international cooperation is the only way we can adequately respond to these shocks, and the United Nations is the only organization with the reach and legitimacy to convene at the highest level and galvanize global action,” he said. “We must keep strengthening the multilateral system so that it is fit to face the challenges of tomorrow.”
Exactly what would constitute an emergency that would trigger the U.N. emergency response wasn’t made clear.
However, the document states that crises without “global consequences” would “not necessarily” be categorized as an emergency requiring U.N. intervention. In other words, some crises that don’t have global consequences might trigger a U.N. response.
The flag of the World Health Organization (WHO) at its headquarters in Geneva on March 5, 2021. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)
The report gives two examples of recent global crises that struck in the 21st century and that U.N. leaders believe support the case for coordinated global responses: the COVID-19 pandemic and the “cost of living crisis” of 2022.
Rather than offering specifics, the policy brief offers broad categories and types of emergencies that might activate the global protocols. These include climate or environmental events; environmental degradation; pandemics; accidental or deliberate release of biological agents; disruptions in the flow of goods, people, or finance; disruptions in cyberspace or “global digital connectivity;” a major event in “outer space;” and “unforeseen risks (‘black swan’ events).”
Frequently cited throughout the document is the global response to COVID-19. The U.N. chief, who famously led the Socialist International before taking his current post, said that a stronger and a more coordinated U.N. response would have resulted in more people receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
WHO leaders’ ongoing efforts to strengthen the U.N. health agency with a new international pandemic treaty and changes to International Health Regulations are touted as key mechanisms for emergencies.
A nurse receives a COVID-19 vaccination in Orange, Calif., on Dec. 16, 2020. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)
Upon activation of the emergency protocols, government leaders, U.N. agencies, international financial institutions, the private sector, civil society, and experts would all be convened by the U.N. to respond.
The U.N. secretary-general would decide when to activate the protocols. He would also identify all participants and oversee their contributions to the response, the policy brief explains. Contributions mentioned in the document include everything from providing money to changing government policy.
Agenda 2030 a Priority
Among the reasons for the urgency, the U.N. stated that international emergencies could undermine progress toward achieving the controversial Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, referred to by U.N. leaders as the “master plan for humanity.”
The 17 goals, which cover practically every area of life and have come under fire from critics, were signed by virtually all national governments in 2015, with strong support from the Obama administration and the CCP.
Although the U.S. Senate hasn’t ratified the global agreement as required for all treaties, it’s nonetheless being implemented worldwide, as policies in business and government are aligned with the agenda.
“Once a complex global shock occurs, a more timely, predictable, and effective international response could potentially mitigate some of the impacts on the Sustainable Development Goals and allow the process of recovery to start sooner,” the document states. “The proposal to agree on protocols to convene an Emergency Platform aims to achieve this.”
The impetus for the emergencies plan was a pledge by U.N. member states during the global organization’s 75th anniversary to strengthen “global governance.”
Other components of this strengthening—policies that parallel much of the “Great Reset” announced in 2020 by Guterres and others, such as Klaus Schwab, at the World Economic Forum—include a renewed “social contract.” The WEF is a “strategic partner” of the U.N. in implementing Agenda 2030, especially in terms of getting the private sector onboard globally.
The U.N. emergency-response plan was released in tandem with another report on “Our Common Future” calling for a new “Special Envoy for Future Generations,” the creation of a “Futures Lab,” dramatic shifts in policy toward what the U.N. calls “sustainable development,” and more.
The report calls for enshrining policies that U.N. leaders say will preserve the planet for the future, “at the global level, where some of the most consequential decisions for humanity are taken.”
Critics Point to CCP, Corruption, and COVID
One major concern surrounding the crisis-response proposal among U.S. leaders is the strong influence of the CCP within the U.N.—influence that was felt clearly during the pandemic and that CCP critics say could be even more dangerous in future global emergencies.
Moley, who served in key roles at the international level during multiple U.S. administrations, rejected the U.N. plan.
“This U.N. plan flies in the face of the experience we just had with the latest pandemic, which shows why we should reiterate sovereignty, not give more away,” he told The Epoch Times in a phone interview.
Moley, who oversaw the U.S. relationship with international organizations during his time in the Trump administration, has long sounded the alarm about the CCP’s surging influence within the U.N., a process he says has been supported by both the Obama and Biden administrations. He called it an existential threat to the United States.
World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attends a news conference organized by Geneva Association of United Nations Correspondents (ACANU) amid the COVID-19 outbreak, caused by the novel coronavirus, at the WHO headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, on July 3, 2020. (Fabrice Coffrini/Pool via Reuters)
The powerful influence of the CCP and its mostly “authoritarian” and “crony democracy” allies over the U.N. system represents a major danger when it comes to proposals to grant the global outfit more power, Moley said.
“As long as the controlling interests of the U.N. are in the hands of the CCP and aided and abetted by the G77 [an alliance of 134 governments including the CCP], this cannot be allowed,” he said.
As a result of the CCP’s well-documented control over key U.N. agencies and even its powerful influence over most member states, approving the emergencies protocol plan would be tantamount to putting the communist regime in charge of global crises, according to Moley.
Considering that the CCP is a “criminal conspiracy” more than a government and the fact that its agents now dominate vast swaths of the U.N., this is a “recipe for disaster,” he said.
“We need to look at anything sponsored by the U.N. with great skepticism. But unfortunately, our State Department—especially now—does not look at it skeptically. Instead, they look at the United States skeptically.”
Soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army march outside the Forbidden City, near Tiananmen Square in Beijing on May 20, 2020. (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)
Rather than going along with the U.N. plan, Moley called for completely revamping the U.S. State Department.
“It needs to be taken down to the ground floor,” he said, pointing to obstruction from career bureaucrats throughout Trump’s tenure.
“As long as the State Department remains as currently constituted, we do not have diplomats speaking for America, but for [billionaire financier George] Soros [and his] Open Society foundations, globalism, and all that does to undermine American sovereignty,” he said.
Another critic, international lawyer and former U.N. internal investigator-turned-whistleblower Peter Gallo, noted the organization’s long history of corruption, politicization, and scandal, including cases in which humanitarian aid was diverted or even weaponized for political purposes.
More alarming, though, is what Gallo described as the “sexual exploitation and human trafficking of victims of such disasters.”
“U.N. personnel have an egregious record of involvement in that exploitation themselves—and the organization has a shameful record of covering up allegations of sexual misconduct rather than properly investigating them,” Gallo said.
Gallo and other former U.N. officials, using U.N. data, estimate that more than 60,000 women and children were raped and sexually abused by U.N. personnel during the decade-long tenure of Ban Ki-moon, the previous secretary-general. Gallo said he believes that is a “very conservative estimate.”
A member of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti patrols in the Cite Soleil slum of Port-au-Prince on March 11, 2014. (HECTOR RETAMAL/AFP via Getty Images)
“There is no evidence of anything being any better under António Guterres,” Gallo added, citing impunity for perpetrators and attacks on the U.N. whistleblowers who have tried to stop it.
Considering all that, Gallo suggested that it’s a mistake for governments to consider trusting the U.N. with even more power to oversee emergency responses.
Disputed Claims
Investigative journalist and WHO expert James Roguski, meanwhile, blasted the U.N. and contested many of the claims made in its policy brief on emergency protocols.
For instance, Roguski ridiculed the implication that Africans suffered from not receiving enough COVID-19 vaccines from the West.
“In reality, 16 times as many deaths per capita were attributed to COVID in North and South America and Europe when compared to Africa,” he told The Epoch Times, citing WHO data while calling the U.N. claims a “blatant lie.” Roguski gained national prominence for his reporting on the WHO’s plans to consolidate power over global health matters.
“In my humble opinion, the globalist organizations have failed to learn a great number of very important lessons during the past three-plus years,” he said.
Health care professionals prepare to screen people for the coronavirus at a testing site erected by the Maryland National Guard in a parking lot at FedEx Field in Landover, Md., on March 30, 2020. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Pointing to COVID-19 policies championed by the WHO and other U.N. agencies that he said were detrimental and, in some cases, “undeniably harmful and deadly,” Roguski called for a different approach.
“They have failed to learn that centralized control performed far worse than individualized and creative health treatments that saved tens of thousands of lives,” he said.
“We the People need to push back against the relentless push for centralized, bureaucratic control that the globalists offer as the solution to the world’s problems. We need to stand up and speak up in support of individual freedoms and national sovereignty.”
U.N. Secretary-General Guterres and his spokesman, Stéphane Dujarric, didn’t respond by press time to a request from The Epoch Times for comment.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s urgent request to enter a restraining order against Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) was rejected on April 11, the same day it was filed.
U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, turned down Bragg’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Jordan.
“The Court declines to enter the proposed Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause,” Vyskocil said, noting that she had not yet received several documents that were referenced in Bragg’s filings.
She ordered Jordan and other defendants in the case to respond to the lawsuit and scheduled a hearing for April 19.
Earlier Tuesday, Bragg sued Jordan for allegedly infringing on state sovereignty. Jordan has subpoenaed a former Bragg deputy and demanded documents from Bragg’s office regarding the prosecution of former President Donald Trump, a Republican who was indicted by a grand jury after being presented with charges by the Democrat district attorney.
Jordan “has no power under the Constitution to oversee state and local criminal matters,” Bragg’s suit stated.
Bragg’s office also asked the court to enter an order that would block Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee, which Jordan chairs, from enforcing the subpoena to former Manhattan prosecutor Mark Pomerantz and prohibit Pomerantz from complying with it.
“The Judiciary Committee’s subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz marks the first time in our nation’s history that Congress has used its compulsory process to interfere with an ongoing state criminal case. The District Attorney is likely to succeed on the merits because the subpoena exceeds Congress’s authority and obstructs New York’s sovereign right to enforce its criminal law,” prosecutors said in a filing in support of their motion for a temporary restraining order.
“The subpoena would also irreparably injure the District Attorney by, among other things, interfering with an ongoing criminal case, compromising grand jury secrecy and the attorney-client privilege, and disrupting his preparation for trial. Finally, the balance of the equities and the public interest favor the District Attorney because the subpoena undercuts federalism principles and the fair administration of justice by injecting politics into a state criminal case,” they added.
Defendants have not yet lodged any filings.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) speaks in Baltimore, Md., on Sept. 12, 2019. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
‘They’re Obstructing’
Jordan said on Fox News that Bragg is obstructing a legitimate congressional investigation.
“They’re obstructing our investigation,” Jordan said. “We have a constitutional duty to get to the facts, particularly when you have a district attorney interfering with the most important election we have, which is the election of the commander-in-chief; the president of the United States.”
Trump, who was president until early 2021, is running for a second term in 2024.
Bragg has asserted that Jordan and other members of Congress lack the authority to probe the Trump prosecution but Jordan disagreed, pointing to how federal funds were used to investigate Trump.
“First, they indict a president for no crime. Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it,” Jordan said in a statement.
Pomerantz, the former prosecutor, left Bragg’s office because he was upset Bragg was not preparing to bring charges against Trump, Pomerantz wrote in his book.
Jordan said in a letter accompanying the subpoena to the former prosecutor that Pomerantz had “no basis to decline to testify” because of the book.
“Based on your unique role as a special assistant district attorney leading the investigation into President Trump’s finances, you are uniquely situated to provide information that is relevant and necessary to inform the Committee’s oversight and potential legislative reforms,” Jordan wrote.
Jordan noted the book’s contents as he questioned the new lawsuit.
“He takes us to court because we want to talk to someone who left the DA’s office a year ago, who went out and wrote a book on this very subject,” Jordan said on Fox.
It’s unclear if Pomerantz will comply with the subpoena. Jordan initially requested voluntary cooperation, but Pomerantz said in a letter that Bragg’s office “has instructed me to not provide any information or materials in response to your request.”
Jordan has also said that a subpoena for Bragg himself is an option. “Everything’s on the table,” he said in one interview.
A federal appeals court has ruled Kentucky must pay more than $270,000 in attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs who sued the state over Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s COVID-19 lockdown policies.
Plaintiffs Randall Daniel, TJ Roberts and Sally O’Boyle sued the Beshear administration in 2020 over orders they received to quarantine after they attended an Easter church service. The trio argued the administration had violated their constitutional rights.
In a legally complex decision, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction barring the Beshear administration from enforcing its lockdown policies against the churchgoers, and then dismissed the lawsuit against the Beshear administration as a moot issue. The plaintiff churchgoers subsequently sought attorneys’ fees in the case, but the Beshear administration fought the effort—arguing that the plaintiffs were not the prevailing legal party in the lawsuit.
On Monday, a panel of three judges on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district ruling (pdf) that the Beshear administration should pay $272,142.50 to the plaintiffs for their attorney’s fees.
“Three years ago today, [Beshear] told the people of Kentucky that they are not allowed to attend church during a Good Friday press conference. Beshear told the people of Kentucky that church goers will have their licenses taken down and they will be forced to quarantine, and face jail time. I ignored that order along with dozens of brave Christians and worshipped the Lord,” Roberts said in a statement on Monday. “Beshear followed through on these threats, so I called [attorney Chris Weist] and we sued the governor in federal court. Thanks to Chris, Tom Bruns, and Robert A Winter Jr., we won and the right to worship was affirmed in the 6th Circuit.
“Today, three years after these insane lockdowns, the governor owes my attorneys more than 272 Thousand Dollars, more than a quarter million tax dollars, for this case alone,” Roberts added.
While the 2020 lawsuit named Beshear in his official capacity as governor, the repayment of the attorneys’ fees will come from public taxpayer funds.
“I know a lot of people who are outraged that the TAXPAYER is on the hook for ANDY’S constitutional violation,” Roberts wrote. “I share this outrage, but this outrage must be aimed at Beshear,” Roberts wrote. “If the people of Kentucky want to quit being taxed to pay for these court judgments, Kentucky MUST elect a governor who will actually follow the constitution.”
Following the appeals court decision, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) also responded on Twitter. “Kentucky Governor Beshear nailed for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees over his unconstitutional ban of church services due to COVID. Too bad it comes out of the taxpayers pockets and not his.”
NTD News reached out to Beshear’s office for comment but did not receive a response before this article was published.
Kentucky’s Lockdowns
As COVID-19 cases began to emerge in the United States in early 2020, various state and local governments began advising people to remain at home and to practice social distancing, while declaring some business, cultural, and religious activities to be non-essential.
On March 19, 2020, Beshear issued an executive order (pdf) banning mass gatherings, “including, but not limited to, community, civic, public, leisure, faith-based, or sporting events; parades; concerts; festivals; conventions; fundraisers; and similar activities.”
On April 10, 2020, just two days before Easter, Beshear announced that authorities would be recording the license plates of people attending mass gatherings in the state. They would then turn the plate information over to local health departments, which would then visit people at their homes and present them with orders to quarantine for 14 days. Those receiving the quarantine orders would also be notified that their actions constituted a misdemeanor offense for violating Beshear’s COVID-19 executive orders.
“If you’re going to expose yourself to this virus and you make that decision to do it, it’s not fair to everybody else out there that you might spread it to,” Beshear said.
Explaining his decision to stop in-person church gatherings and other in-person events, Beshear claimed that a COVID-19 outbreak in Hopkins County that sickened dozens and resulted in multiple deaths was traced to a church service in the county in mid-March of 2020.
Daniel, Roberts and O’Boyle were among those individuals who defied Beshear’s quarantine warning and attended a service at the Maryville Baptist Church. After the trio filed their lawsuit, Beshear defended his lockdown decisions.
In his initial response to the lawsuit, Beshear said [50:37], “Here in Kentucky, there are so many different ways to worship, and all but one church in this commonwealth are engaged in them. You can do it virtually, and you can do it in a drive-in service, and in many states they are not allowing those drive-in services like we are. And so this opportunity to worship, which is so important, is still there. We just ask people to choose one of the versions that doesn’t spread the coronavirus, and I think that that’s what our faith calls us to do.”
ANALYSIS – While Joe Biden‘s progressive Pentagon leadership team pushes back on the well-founded attacks on its woke agenda, congressional Republicans vow to eliminate this neo-Marxist cancer from our military.
Team Biden insists the initiatives are simply about ‘diversifying’ the armed forces.
“The purpose of those programs is ‘e pluribus unum,’ to build teamwork,” said Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley at a House Armed Services Committee hearing, quoting the Latin motto of the U.S. meaning “out of many, one.”
But we all know that this is absolute nonsense.
It is the opposite of America’s motto.
It promotes divisions over unity.
Still, much of the media, including military related outlets like Military.com continue to shill for Team Biden’s disastrous policies with its implicit bias in favor of what they call diversity: “The woke term is often used [by Republicans] against efforts to make the military more welcoming to women, minorities and other historically marginalized populations.”
No, it is not that. Woke is progressive social justice code for efforts pushing a socialist inspired program to racially divide our troops and alienate conservative white Christian men in the military, while hopefully recruiting everyone but them.
This includes divisive Critical Race Theory (CRT) based indoctrination against whites and racial and gender discrimination in favor of minorities against straight white men in the name of ‘equity.’
It also means an aggressive push for the radical transgender (transexual and transvestite) agenda, forcing taxpayers to fund extreme, years-long medical procedures, including sex change surgeries, chemical castration, mastectomies and drug therapies.
Then there are the drag shows on base.
And let’s not forget the new push to force taxpayers to pay for abortions and abortion-related leave and travel by service women.
The GOP has also cited the Pentagon’s prioritizing preparations for climate change and the now-scuttled COVID-19 vaccine mandate as well as Biden’s decision to delay shooting down a Chinese spy balloon as part of the administration’s woke, and weak, defense policies.
Republicans accuse the Department of Defense of promoting diversity and inclusion in the armed forces at the expense of military readiness:
But Team Biden has an answer to that.
Meet Shawn Skelly, a former Navy commander, now Biden’s assistant secretary of defense for readiness.
Skelly used to be a male naval aviator. Or biologically still is, but now he identifies, looks and acts like a woman.
As Politico reported: “She is the DoD’s highest-ranking openly transgender official, and the second to hold an office [in federal service] that requires Senate confirmation. The first was Rachel Levine, who serves as assistant secretary of health.”
He (or she) says that the GOP anti-woke campaign is what’s hurting the military’s warfighting capabilities.
Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., disagrees. “When I talk to people and say, ‘Well, why aren’t you looking to join the military?’ A lot of them say, ‘Well, the military has been over-politicized. Well, the military has gone woke,’” he said at a recent hearing with all the senior enlisted military leaders.
“They’re saying that this new focus, this new shift, this new kind of woke ideology is not impacting recruitment and not impacting our readiness and lethality? I have a hard time believing that.”
Most Republican lawmakers argue that personnel policies like diversity training, racial justice education and events like a recent drag show on a military base alienate the biggest base of the military’s recruits and distract from the forces’ main mission: fighting wars and protecting America.
Among Republicans’ most cited examples of wokeness distracting the military is the extremism stand-down that Austin ordered in the early days of the Biden administration after it became clear that people with ties to the military participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Republicans say the hours the military spent on the stand-down were disproportionate to the fewer than 100 cases of “prohibited extremism activity” a Pentagon extremism working group said it found in December 2021.
That’s a lot of time trying to convince troops that they are extremists and racists that could’ve been spent training and preparing for the inevitable coming war with China.
Referring to the GOP’s anti-woke Pentagon efforts, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., promised that “there’ll be some legislation.” Still, he added, it’s too early in the process to say exactly what the language in the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, will be.
Just after Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Milley testified before the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Michael Waltz, R-Fla., who chairs the panel’s readiness subcommittee, helped unveil a report at the Heritage Foundation that blamed diversity initiatives for recruiting struggles.
Waltz promised that lawmakers “will do all we can to codify” the report’s recommendations in legislation. He added that he’ll “run through brick walls until we get it done.”
The fact that Chicagoans have elected not a reformer, but a deformer, suggests that inner-city residents still don’t get it—or they don’t care.
It has been repeatedly proven already that going soft on crime only leads to more crime, and that on top of the fact that fewer acts are even reported as crime. The dems knew this and figured by not charging criminals it would appear crime is going down. Instead, it is going up higher and faster than even their traitorous minds could conceive. [US Patriot]
Mark down Tuesday, April 4, as the night Chicago died.
That’s when we learned that Second City voters narrowly elected Brandon Johnson as their next mayor. This is a city that was flattened during the reign of Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who lost in the first round of voting for Chicago mayor because she didn’t finish in one of the top two spots. Lightfoot, elected in 2019 after a career as a federal prosecutor who then held several appointed positions in Chicago, shut down the city for more than a year during COVID-19. She also bankrupted small businesses, allowed rioters to burn down whole neighborhoods, presided over the worst crime wave in 50 years, and let the schools go to hell.
Now, the voters have selected Johnson. Elected to the Cook County Board of Commissioners in 2018, Johnson narrowly won the mayoralty of America’s third-most-populous city on April 4 over Paul Vallas, a former Chicago schools CEO and a Democrat who presented himself as a political moderate compared to the far-left Johnson.
The incoming mayor may turn out to be a worse mayor than Lightfoot. Johnson’s occupation is an organizer for the teachers’ unions. The unions spent several million dollars on the race. They got their man.
What this means is that Chicago’s municipal government will now be a fully owned subsidiary of the Chicago Teachers Union. (Can you imagine what the union contracts are going to look like?) This is a city where, in roughly two dozen schools, zero children can read or write at proficiency level.
Johnson said that crime and shoplifting from local schools are societal problems. And he may continue Lightfoot’s policy of not prosecuting people who rob stores—often owned by minorities.
It’s not just Chicago that has become a war zone. Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco were not so long ago the crown jewels of the West Coast. They were said to be progressive cities that worked. No more. Now, they are unlivable. San Francisco is overrun with homeless people on seemingly every downtown street corner, feces on the sidewalks, and trash everywhere.
In Portland, major businesses are pulling out in the aftermath of the takeover of the radical anarchists during COVID-19. Crime is so rampant that Walmart recently said “adios,” shutting down its last store. Rains PDX, a clothing store in Portland, shut down last November after a string of break-ins made it impossible to stay open. This printed sign pasted on the door says it all:
“Small businesses (and large) cannot sustain doing business, in our city’s current state. We have no protection, or recourse, against the criminal behavior that goes unpunished. Do not be fooled into thinking that insurance companies cover losses. We have sustained 15 break-ins . . . We have not received any financial reimbursement since the 3rd.”
For the first time, Seattle is losing population. To be “progressive,” Seattle is imposing a massive capital gains tax increase—socking it to the rich. So they are fleeing the city and Washington state.
One of the nation’s top demographers, Wendell Cox, has been analyzing the just-released Census Bureau data on county population. He found that “during the late 2010s and before the pandemic, population growth and domestic migration transitioned toward smaller metropolitan areas from larger ones. That outmigration is accelerating.”
The nation’s 10 largest counties have lost more than 1 million residents since 2019. The biggest losers have been the counties that are home to New York and San Francisco and Chicago’s Cook County. Even Los Angeles County, the nation’s most populous county, with just under 10 million people, is now contracting.
Welcome to the real-world impact of progressivism. Instead of worker paradises, the Left has transitioned our once-shining cities into slums, murder zones, homeless encampments, and boarded-up stores. They have become cults of economic and political quackery—and tragically, few Democrats have the courage to speak out. They are worried about being called racists when the reality is that the victims—of terrible public schools, high murder rates, and an anti-business creed—are the minorities they say they care so much about.
The three poisons of America’s leftist cities are 1) high taxes, 2) schools that don’t educate, and 3) crime running rampant. As mayors such as Rudy Giuliani of New York City proved in the 1990s after the Big Apple had been driven to its knees, all it takes is committed leadership to fix these problems. Things can change quickly, as they did in Manhattan.
The fact that Chicagoans have elected not a reformer, but a deformer, suggests that inner-city residents still don’t get it—or they don’t care. Or they are all on the payroll of the city governments that are going bankrupt. Alas, our cities can’t be saved if the voters in these metropolises don’t want to be saved.
Francesca Albanese said Israeli response to Palestinian attacks is unjustified
A United Nations official tasked with overseeing an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes publicly stated that the Jewish state does not have a right to defend itself against terrorism, leading to calls from international activists for the official to be fired.
Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, claimed over the weekend that Israel’s efforts to combat a deadly wave of Palestinian terror strikes are unjustified, writing on Twitter, “Israel has a right to defend itself, but can’t claim it when it comes to the people it oppresses/whose lands it colonizes.”
Her comments come amid a deadly spurt of Palestinian violence that has killed several Israeli civilians and put the nation on high alert. Albanese, who is overseeing the United Nations’ investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes, is under fire from pro-Israel activists who accuse her of pushing her “relentless, systematic, and unhinged bias against Israel,” according to a letter sent Tuesday by the International Legal Forum (ILF). The forum, a group of more than 4,000 lawyers, is calling on the United Nations to fire Albanese for her “anti-Semitism and virulent bias.”
Albanese is “endorsing the murder of Israeli civilians, including children,” the ILF wrote, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Albanese has repeatedly claimed that “Israel is colonizing” Palestinian lands andemploying “blatantly excessive and unjustified force” against Muslims. In her role as the U.N. special rapporteur, Albanese has often clashed with pro-Israel organizations and lent her support to the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which wages economic warfare on Israel. Groups like ILF say that Albanese’s anti-Israel bias discredits the United Nations and undermines what is supposed to be a neutral investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes. The Solomon-Observatory on Discrimination, an Italian-based NGO combating antisemitism, also endorsed the letter.
“It is unfathomable that such a statement would ever be made by a U.N. representative,” the organization wrote.
Arsen Ostrovsky, the International Legal Forum’s CEO, said, “Enough is enough: How much longer can the U.N., which professes at every chance its sacred commitment to combating racial hatred and intolerance, continue to turn its back to Albanese’s relentless Jew-hatred and anti-Semitism?”
Albanese is no stranger to controversy. She has accused the “Jewish lobby” of controlling U.S. foreign policy, an age-old anti-Semitic canard, and compared Israelis to Nazis, according to ILF and NGO Monitor, a watchdog group.
In February, a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers called on the United Nations to cut ties with Albanese, citing her “strong bias against Israel.”
“Ms. Albanese has repeatedly refused to condemn terrorist attacks against Israelis while continuing her condemnations of Israel,” the lawmakers wrote. “For an official tasked with serving as an independent, neutral, and expert voice on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, her inexcusable silence against terrorism targeting Israelis and her outrageous and prejudicial remarks clearly reflect the irredeemable bias of her mandate.”
The U.N. office overseeing Albanese’s work did not respond to a request for comment.
The Montgomery County School District in Maryland has removed parents’ rights to opt their children out of certain parts of the curriculum and has made LGBTQ-themed books required reading.
The district has made multiple controversial books mandatory reading for its English language arts curriculum as part of an “LGBTQ-inclusive reading list.”
“MCPS keeps painting these books as rainbow unicorn which they are not,” Moms for Liberty Montgomery chapter president Lindsey Smith told Fox News.
Smith said her three-year-old was assigned a book called “Pride Puppy” and an ABC book with images of drag queens under “Q for Queen.”
The report explains, “while several parents requested a policy to opt out of these books, a recently updated policy by the school board insisted that students will be required to ‘engage’ with these materials. In addition, parents will no longer be required to be informed on which books will be included on the lists.”
“Students and families may not choose to opt out of engaging with any instructional materials, other than ‘Family Life and Human Sexuality Unit of Instruction’ which is specifically permitted by Maryland law. As such, teachers will not send home letters to inform families when inclusive books are read in the future,” MCPS’ policy reads.
It’s not just conservatives who oppose the required materials.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Montgomery County Muslim Council also oppose the district’s decision.
“We’re trying to be respectful of these groups and their rights, but at the same time, we’re saying our rights need to be represented based off of our belief systems,” Montgomery County Muslim Council President Asif Husain told Fox News.
CAIR has launched a petition demanding parental notification of certain books and restoring the option to opt-out.
“By introducing sexually-themed lessons and materials as part of the school curriculum without advance parental notice, an opt-out option or another reasonable religious accommodation, MCPS is violating the rights of parents and guardians, and undermining Maryland state law, which requires parents or guardians to have the option to remove their children from ‘Family Life and Human Sexuality’ content,” the petition says.
Concerned parents will be speaking out at board meetings, according to Smith.
“We just are parents who see the push to indoctrinate young kids on sexual identity and push this gender ideology on young kids, who just want to play dress up, play and learn. It’s not about academia, so why are we teaching it? Only 31% of our kids in the highest ‘academia’ county can pass math in the newest data released,” Smith told Fox News Digital. “Many parents feel this has nothing to do with equity and inclusion because why aren’t other groups in their community represented?”
When President Donald Trump won the election, MCPS offered a “special curriculum” to “help students cope” with the election results.
A second mass casualty incident in as many days has occurred in America.
This time the attack occurred in Washington, D.C., when an unidentified gunman opened fire on bystanders outside a funeral home at 12:17 p.m., minutes after a funeral service for a homicide victim had ended.
The gunman shot four people, fatally hitting one, before fleeing the scene. Metropolitan Police Department Police Chief Robert Contee told reporters he believed the victims were “specifically targeted” but didn’t know why.
Speaking at a press conference, Chief Contee requested help from Good Samaritans, “At this point, the Metropolitan Police Department is asking for the community’s help. We’re asking for anyone who has information to please call us anonymously at (202) 727-9099 or you may text us anonymously at 50411,” he said. “At this point, it appears that several people who were in the block were specifically targeted. We’re unsure why that is. We’re unsure why these people were targeted, more or less why they were targeted at a funeral. We don’t understand that. We’re looking for community help.”
“How low can you be of a human being to target other people at a funeral?” Chief Contee said at a press conference after the shooting on Tuesday.
Chief Contee says MPD is asking for the community’s help and requesting that anyone with information call police at (202)-727-9099 or text an anonymous tip to 50411.
41st and Benning Rd NE and 36th and Blaine Rd NE are both closed due to police activity.
POLICE ACTIVITY TRAFFIC ADVISORY: 41st and Benning, NE CLOSED AND 36th And Blaine, NE CLOSED please avoid the area until further notice.
ProPublica’s investigation into years’ worth of expensive gifts, luxury travel and more from long-time GOP donor Harlan Crow to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginni Thomas, should be a wake-up call on the need for stronger ethics rules on the nation’s highest court.
What we got instead was the usual Team Red, Team Blue nonsense that only erodes everyone else’s faith in the political process.
Perhaps that’s to be expected. Crow’s bankrolling of many of the right’s institutions and individuals built a constituency for him that has every incentive to defend his actions. As for Thomas, he’s the conservative rock that has refused to move in the face of decades of extraordinary attacks from the left and its hangers-on. The ProPublica piece was just one more episode in that long, ugly chain of slanders.
On the left, it was a clear-cut case of graft, and grifting, a stunning example (complete with pictures) of the deep rot inside the right as a whole, the Supreme Court as an institution and Thomas in particular.
And that’s before we got the stories about Mr. Crow’s bizarre collection of Nazi artifacts.
Let’s stay focused, shall we?
The Supreme Court is supposed to adhere to stricter disclosure guidelines on personal gifts, travel, and more, that recently took effect. Thomas said he was told he didn’t have to disclose such largesse because it was from a close personal friend.
Try using that excuse on your taxes sometime and see what happens.
It’s clear that some, if not all, of what Thomas got from Crow would fall under the new disclosure rules. But the Supreme Court, as the final arbiter of the rules, gets to decide how closely it will follow them. Thomas says he will follow the new rules.
All fine and good.
But there’s the larger issue about potential conflicts of interest that may arise between individual justices, their generous gift-givers and cases before the court. In an NPR interview, Northwestern University Law professor emeritus Steven Lubet said:
The Supreme Court is the only court in the United States that has never adopted a written code of ethics. Every other court has a written code. The U.S. Supreme Court has strenuously resisted announcing what its own standards of ethics are. That should be remedied. They should adopt a code of conduct. At the very least, this will let the public know what the justices expect of themselves, and there will be transparency that we have not had in the past.
That is what we should take away from this entire episode. The Supreme Court absolutely must be held to a written, enforceable ethics standard. That it doesn’t raises questions about the institution, the quality of justice, perhaps even its legitimacy.
Yes, ethics is dull, tedious, and of little interest to anyone outside the ethics office. But as James Madison wisely wrote in Federalist No. 51:
But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
It’s still true…and applies to Supreme Court justices, too.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
Another Louisiana lawmaker has left the Democratic Party. The announcement comes less than a month after a colleague in the same legislature gave the House GOP a supermajority by switching parties.
It come days after a North Carolina Democrat, Tricia Cotham, switched parties, giving Republicans a veto-proof majority in the North Carolina House of Representatives. At a press conference, Cotham concluded that her former party “has become unrecognizable to me and others across the state.”
With the news Monday night, state Rep. Jeremy LaCombe became the third Democrat to abandon their party in a month, handing decisive majorities to the GOP in two conservative states run by Democrat governors.
Republicans in the state House recently gained a supermajority – a crucial threshold for overriding vetoes and passing tax measures – because another Democrat, Rep. Francis Thompson of Delhi, switched to the GOP. In that case, the state GOP held a press event touting the news.
Thompson left the Democratic Party following 50 years of electoral service.
LaCombe’s switch was lower profile. He confirmed the move Monday, but didn’t state his reasons.
His decision comes as the Republican-led Legislature convenes in Baton Rouge for its regular legislative session, during which lawmakers will tackle insurance issues, decide where to spend an influx of additional tax dollars and take on a host of culture-war issues in an election year.
…
Louisiana was once dominated by Democrats, but in recent years the GOP has assumed immense power. While Edwards won two improbable terms as governor, all other statewide elected officials are Republicans. The GOP holds a supermajority in both chambers of the Legislature, and they asserted their power by drawing district maps that favor Republicans in last year’s redistricting cycle.
Demographic changes and explosive population growth make North Carolina more competitive than Louisiana, but the GOP retains a clear advantage.
With Cotham’s formalized party switch complete, North Carolina Republicans have introduced several previously dead-on-arrival bills.
The Biden administration, months before the Mar-a-Lago raid, asked the federal agency in charge of keeping the nation’s records to let the FBI pore over documents from former President Donald Trump’s home, a newly disclosed letter shows.
The White House Counsel’s Office sent the request to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in April, acting Archivist Debra Wall later told Evan Corcoran, a lawyer for Trump.
“On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel’s Office—affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum—formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes,” Wall said in the letter, which was first published by Just the News. NARA released a copy on Aug. 23.
The boxes were transferred to NARA in mid-January from Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida resort, after months of negotiations, NARA has said. David Ferriero, the archivist until May, previously told a House of Representatives panel that the boxes contained classified documents, although Trump has maintained he declassified the materials and cooperated with NARA.
Among the materials, according to Wall’s letter: over 100 documents, or more than 700 pages, with classification markings, including some with the highest levels of classification.
The Justice Department’s (DOJ) National Security Division informed Corcoran on April 29 that it had opened a criminal investigation, according to the letter, and that it sought access to the materials for the probe.
Access Granted, but Not Immediately
Trump’s lawyers asked for and received an extension of the production date, and NARA didn’t immediately give the FBI access to the materials. Corcoran, meanwhile, informed Wall that counsel needed more time to review the materials to see whether any were subject to Trump’s executive privilege, and that the letter should be considered “a protective assertion of executive privilege made by counsel for the former President.”
Presented with the claims, Biden deferred to Wall’s determination, the acting archivist said. Wall then asked for the DOJ’s advice. Christopher Schroeder, an assistant attorney general appointed by President Joe Biden, said that it was unprecedented for a former president to assert executive privilege “against an incumbent President to prevent the latter from obtaining from NARA Presidential records belonging to the Federal Government where ‘such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available,’” Wall said, citing U.S. code.
The Supreme Court’s decision against Richard Nixon in 1977, when he invoked privilege over certain records “strongly suggests” that Trump couldn’t successfully invoke privilege, Wall added.
She opted to reject Trump’s claim, and said NARA would provide the FBI access to the records starting as soon as May 12—two days after the letter was sent.
NARA declined to comment on the letter.
The DOJ, the White House, and Corcoran didn’t respond to requests for comment.
The White House has said it was not aware of the raid before it took place.
Trump said on Truth Social that the letter and other newly disclosed documents show the White House had knowledge of the investigation.
The documents “reveal they knew everything, in fact led the charge – a political NO, NO!” he said.
Within three months, the FBI had asked for and received a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago, and raided the residence on Aug. 8. Agents removed boxes of materials and other items, including some listed as classified. Unsealed warrant documents showed the government believes Trump violated several laws, including on related to handling defense materials.
The warrant affidavit remains sealed, and Trump has asked for an independent party to be appointed to sift through the seized materials and separate privileged items.
So just how much money are we all spending on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – or DEI – in colleges? That diversity that has a howling mob threaten, shout down and even physically strike Riley Gaines as she gives a talk on campus?
Or as AIM has asked, how many women do we need to attack to advance feminism?
And why are we paying for this?
The answer is too much, as physical violence toward women is never acceptable. But we are paying for it more each year.
The real reason for the rising cost of college is that the administration is swallowing ever more of the money. The number of professors on campus trends downward even as college costs rise. It’s the paper-shufflers eating the extra money. The DEI offices are one of the fastest-growing segments of those rising costs.
At the University of Florida, $5.3 million is spent on diversity programs. The average college has 41 people on its diversity team. That’s actually 4 times the number working on getting disabled students their legal rights in reasonable accommodations. That’s also 3.4 diversity staff (not including actual diversity problems like disability and so on) for every 100 tenured or tenure track staff.
It’s even possible that the diversity costs reduce diversity on campus. The higher college costs from having to pay all these people mean that fewer poorer – the more diverse of course – can afford to go to college. These costs are not small. Back in 2009, the University of California at Berkeley was paying the diversity chief $194,000 and the University of Virginia its equivalent $395,000.
Even the reported costs are an understatement. At the University of Wisconsin, the true cost is more like $40 million than the reported $25 million. And that 40 is around $1,000 per student per year. Who, other than the bureaucrats clearing their paychecks, thinks that’s worth it?
The University of Michigan employs 163 people on their DEI “work” (a full report here). That’s why the head of that work gets $431,000 a year – more staff means more importance to a manager. University of California at Davis was spending $2.2 million a year just on DEI staff costs back in 2017.
As Riley Gaines just found out. Although San Francisco State University does add the word “students” to that we tend to feel that seeing a woman shouted down and assaulted might not make other women on campus feel quite so included and welcomed. But on the plus side, they do get 1 out of 1 on a survey of how diverse they are. This shows that what they’re doing – being diverse, welcoming and all that – isn’t what we normally think those words mean. A perfect score for a college campus that not only allows a woman to be attacked but allows that because her views are not universally held?
Or again from San Francisco State: “we prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion in our classrooms and workplace “ but apparently not the physical safety of invited visitors nor any diversity of thought or opinion.
As it happens, San Francisco State must reduce expenditure by $36 million over five years. Abolishing the DEI bureaucracy would cover that nicely. Guess what isn’t even up for discussion, even as reducing the teaching staff is already penciled in?
For an example of what the money goes on at SFSU: “JEDI PIE – The Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Pedagogies for Inclusive Excellence (PIE) Institute builds a community of JEDI protagonists by developing anti-racist pedagogy and dismantling white supremacy in online teaching.” No, we are not kidding, we wish we were. More of this here.
There are many problems with the mere idea of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, practices, and offices. They’re significant portions of college budgets these days, and one of the reasons why college costs continue to rise. And the one thing they don’t do is promote diversity, equity, or inclusion in the only way that an intellectual environment should, in intellectual beliefs. That is the purpose of college, to go and think, the DEI offices and practices are expressly designed to stop people from thinking and to hew ever closer to the one politically approved line.
As Riley Gaines shows. By arriving on campus to express a view alternative to that meant by modern diversity she is shouted down and assaulted. Even if DEI were free that would still be too expensive.
Or, to say it again, as AIM’s Adam Guillette has asked “How many women do we need to attack to advance feminism?”
One is too many.
This article originally appeared in Accuracy in Media. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News. Republished with permission.
A former assistant to President Joe Biden revealed to congressional investigators that the Biden White House may have been aware of mishandled classified documents in Biden’s former private office months earlier than previously disclosed.
The presence of unsecured classified materials in an office jointly run by Biden and the University of Pennsylvania was not disclosed to law enforcement until November of 2022, just days before the crucial midterm elections.
But new testimony from Kathy Chung, who served as assistant to Joe Biden when he was vice president, reveals the Biden White House made efforts to recover the materials in May, months earlier than previously testified, and that the materials were not in one secure location, but multiple unsecured locations.
The new information may indicate a possible effort to hide the revelations from voters during an election in which Democrats sought to make an issue of former President Donald Trump‘s alleged mishandling of classified materials.
“I thank Kathy Chung for her cooperation with the Oversight Committee’s investigation into President Biden’s mishandling of classified documents. She provided startling information that undermines the Biden White House’s narrative on the matter,” said House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., whose committee conducted a transcribed interview with Chung.
“Today we learned that when Joe Biden left the vice presidency, boxes containing classified documents, vice presidential records, and other items were stored in three different locations around the Washington, D.C. area, including an office near the White House, an office in Chinatown, and eventually the Penn Biden Center,” said Comer.
“At some point, the boxes containing classified materials were transported by personal vehicles to an office location. The boxes were not in a ‘locked closet’ at the Penn Biden Center and remained accessible to Penn Biden employees as well as potentially others with access to the office space. We need to find out who had access to these documents,” said Comer.
“We also learned today that then-White House Counsel Dana Remus tasked Kathy Chung with retrieving these boxes from the Penn Biden Center as early as May 2022. This story does not begin in November 2022, as represented by President Biden’s attorney,” Comer added.
“In the coming days, the Oversight Committee will follow up with persons of interest in this investigation,” Comer concluded.
The Arizona border county lawman has already made a name for himself as a vanguard of law and order amid a rise in fentanyl trafficking and ongoing concerns from illegal immigration.
Now, Lamb’s diving headfirst into a three-way race in a critical battleground state by submitting the necessary paperwork to run for U.S. Senate.
Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema currently holds the highly coveted seat. Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego previously announced his campaign to challenge Sinema.
Democrats hold a 51-49 majority in the Senate, made possible by Sinema and another independent who caucus with them.
It’s likely other Republicans will enter the race. Gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake repeatedly flirts with the idea.
Over the last few years, Lamb has worked to raise his profile with the GOP base, making regular appearances on Fox News, focusing on immigration and criticizing Covid-19 vaccine requirements.
…
Ahead of a potentially crowded and contentious primary, Lamb is viewed favorably by some top Republicans, GOP sources have told CNN. Meanwhile, Abe Hamadeh, formerly the Republican nominee for Arizona attorney general, is also weighing a run. Both Lamb and Hamadeh met recently with National Republican Senatorial Committee officials.
Two other Republicans, Jim Lamon and Karrin Taylor Robson – who ran in 2022 for Senate and governor respectively – are also considering jumping into the race, sources familiar with the matter say.
…
Sinema has not yet announced her plans for 2024, but The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that her team is preparing for reelection.
he Republican-led House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to FBI Director Christopher Wray on Monday, after learning that the Bureau planned to enlist sources at so-called “mainline” (Novus Ordo) Catholic parishes to inform on purportedly radicalized fellow parishioners.
In his letter to Wray, the committee’s chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), revealed for the first time that the FBI “relied on information derived from at least one undercover agent to produce its analysis and that the FBI proposed that its agents engage in outreach to Catholic parishes to develop sources among the clergy and church leadership to inform on Americans practicing their faith,” Jordan wrote. “This shocking information reinforces our need for all responsive documents,” he added.
#BREAKING: We now know the FBI, relying on information derived from at least one 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 employee, sought to use local religious organizations as “new avenues for tripwire and source development.” pic.twitter.com/97veIGtvq4
— Weaponization Committee (@Weaponization) April 10, 2023
The new information came to Chairman Jordan and Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) in response to repeated document requests regarding the Bureau’s interest in spying on traditionalist Catholics.
“We have repeatedly sought information from the FBI relating to a January 23, 2023 document generated by the Richmond Field Office entitled ‘Interest of Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists in Radical-Traditionalist Catholic Ideology Almost Certainly Presents New Mitigation Opportunities’ (FBI’s Richmond document),” Jordan wrote.
The congressman described the FBI’s March 23, 2023 response as “substandard and partial,” with many “significant redactions” that “prevented the Committee from fully assessing the content and context of the documents.”
Nevertheless, the limited information the committee received revealed that the FBI had relied on information derived from at least one undercover employee, who sought to use local religious organizations as “new avenues for tripwire and source development.”
“For example, in a section of the document entitled ‘Opportunities,’ the FBI wrote: ‘In addition to [redaction], engage in outreach to the leadership of other [Society of Saint Pius X] chapels in the FBI Richmond [area of responsibility] to sensitize these congregations to the warning signs of radicalization and to enlist their assistance to serve as suspicious activity tripwires,” the Ohio Republican wrote.
The Society of Saint Pius X is an international fraternity of traditionalist Catholic priests. According to the document, the FBI also planned to spy on “mainline” Catholic parishes in the Richmond area.
The FBI similarly noted two other opportunities to engage in outreach with religious institutions in the Richmond area, citing a desire “to sensitize the congregation to the warning signs of radicalization and enlist their assistance to serve as suspicious activity tripwires.”
This outreach plan even included contacting so-called “mainline Catholic parishes” and the local “diocesan leadership.” The FBI also expressed an interest in “leverag[ing] existing sources and/or initiat[ing] Type 5 Assessments to develop new sources with the placement and access” to report on suspicious activity.
“Type 5 Assessments” are “organized preliminary investigative activities that must have an authorized purpose and a clear scope,” FBI whistleblower Kyle Seraphin explained on Twitter. “This type of assessment is designed to create a pool of potential sources to recruit and objective weigh them in the value they provide in access and placement. The assessment includes background workups on the potential sources to determine routes to approach and recruit them as well as the likelihood they would be susceptible to recruitment.”
“This information is outrageous and only reinforces the Committee’s need for all FBI material responsive to our request,” the congressman wrote. “The documents produced to date show how the FBI sought to enlist Catholic houses of worship as potential sources to monitor and report on their parishioners. Americans attend church to worship and congregate for their spiritual and personal betterment. They must be free to exercise their fundamental First Amendment rights without worrying that the FBI may have planted so-called “tripwire” sources or other informants in their houses of worship.”
Jordan noted that the appalling proposal to develop informants in Catholic churches was “reviewed and approved by two senior intelligence analysts and even the local Chief Division Counsel.”
Moreover, the Bureau’s plan to spy on Catholics was not limited to just the Richmond area.
Whistleblowers have allegedly advised the committee that the FBI distributed this document to field offices all across the country.
“In light of this information and the serious consequences for the free exercise of Americans’ First Amendment rights, Chairman Jordan issued a subpoena today to FBI Director Wray for all documents related to the FBI’s actions,” a press release from the House Judiciary Committee Republicans said.
Christopher Dunham, Acting Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs said on March 23 that the “Domain Perspective (report) did not meet the FBI’s exacting standards and was withdrawn,” and “Upon learning of the document, FBI Headquarters removed it from our internal system. The FBI also initiated a review — which is now ongoing.”
Dunham added that “the FBI is not anti-Catholic in any way, shape, or form, and does not target people of any faith because of their religious beliefs.” And he told Jordan that the FBI “does not categorize investigations as domestic terrorism based on the religious beliefs—to include Catholicism—of the subject involved.”
According to a Bureau spokesperson, Wray was “aghast” when asked about the anti-Catholic field report by the Senate Intelligence Committee in early March. He said that the bureau had “immediately” withdrawn the field report and said of the analysis that “it does not reflect FBI standards.”
“We do not and will not target people for religious beliefs, and we do not and will not monitor people’s religious practices,” Wray told the panel on March 8. “That’s not acceptable.”
FBI Whistleblower Steve Friend told American Greatness he believes these top FBI officials lied and the latest revelations are proof that the Bureau “is beyond redemption.”
Friend, 37, was suspended in September of 2022—“stripped of his gun and badge, and escorted out of the FBI field office in Daytona Beach, Fla.”—after he made allegations about FBI misconduct in a whistleblower complaint. Friend had conscientiously objected to taking part in the Bureau’s harassment of conservative Americans.
The whistleblower said he was punished after he complained to his superiors about having to be involved in J6 investigations that were “violating citizens’ Sixth Amendment rights due to overzealous charging by the DOJ and biased jury pools in Washington, DC.”
The former special agent now works for the Center for Renewing America as a Fellow on Domestic Intelligence and Security Services.
“The FBI lied to the American people when it told us the original intelligence report from the Richmond Division was the misguided efforts of a solitary low-level analyst,” Friend said. “This new revelation demonstrates the depths which a politically weaponized federal law enforcement agency will descend to deceive the very citizens it exists to serve. The FBI deployed undercover assets to assess and recruit informants. It endeavored to develop a roster of individuals willing to inform on their fellow parishioners simply for holding traditional Catholic values. The FBI is beyond redemption.”
Philip K. Howard argues that they are and should be abolished.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.”
The above caveat about government unions—usually known by the kinder and gentler “public-employee unions” (PEUs)—was not issued by Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump. The statement was made by progressive icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
But FDR wasn’t the only Democrat opposed to government unionization. George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO for 24 years, once said, “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” Both men understood that the very nature of government makes it wrong for its leaders to enter into negotiations with any union. When government unions negotiate, they often sit across the table from people they helped put in office with generous campaign contributions. And when these unions go on strike, they walk out on the taxpayer.
PEU leaders fully understand their advantage. Victor Gotbaum, president of District Council 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) in New York City, bragged in 1975, “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.” Los Angeles teacher union honcho Alex Caputo-Pearl clearly agreed, writing on his union’s blog in 2019, “We have a unique power—we elect our bosses. It would be difficult to think of workers anywhere else who elect their bosses. We do. We must take advantage of it.”
Clearly, the PEUs are, by their nature, political. In fact, the National Education Association spent twice as much on politics in 2021 as it did on representing its members—$66 million compared to $32 million, according to the union’s LM2, a report that must be filed with the U.S. Department of Labor. Additionally, Open Secrets reports that over 99 percent of the union’s political spending went to Democrats. This is especially galling because Fox News, citing OpenSecrets.org, reports that donations from the two national teachers’ unions have long been on the rise and grew from $4.3 million in 2004 to more than $32 million in 2016. (It’s worth noting that the teachers’ union spending doesn’t represent their rank and file politically. A 2017 EdWeek poll found that 43 percent of teachers described themselves as politically moderate, 29 percent as liberal, and 27 percent as conservative.)
And now a new book suggests we take an unprecedented step to change this egregious scenario. In Not Accountable: Rethinking the Constitutionality of Public Employee Unions, Philip K. Howard, who has been described as a “radical centrist,” and is the author of 1995’s The Death of Common Sense, a New York Times bestseller, argues that teachers’ unions and, in fact, all public-employee unions, should be ruled unconstitutional because they have thoroughly undermined the country’s democratic form of government.
In City Journal,Steven Malanga has written a spot-on review of the book in which he deftly sums up the problem created by the formation of PEUs:
from labor leaders threatening to un-elect recalcitrant politicians, to public-employee contracts that protect bad teachers and cops from getting fired, to policy decisions made to create union jobs rather than produce good government, to the emergence of government unions as the biggest advocates for tax increases and the biggest opponents of restraining budgets, to the absolute financial mess many local governments, and taxpayers, face with public pensions.
It doesn’t take Howard much time to come to his conclusion in this brief read. He describes our current situation as an “unconstitutional mess” and maintains that the courts should intervene. At the federal level, he argues, “the legislation that protects public-employee unions violates Article II of the Constitution, which proclaims that ‘the executive power shall be vested in a President.’”
Howard explains, “More federal employees die on the job than are terminated for poor performance. Regular stories emerge of employees who cannot be terminated despite outrageous behavior—such as the EPA employee who spent the day surfing porn sites.”
He describes what makes public and private unions very different. “Their incentives are different, because public workers are not at risk of overreach. If a private union asks for inefficient work rules, the company will go out of business or move to another place and they will lose their jobs. But government can’t move.”
Here, Howard makes a crucial distinction:
Political organizing by public sector unions is assumed to be lawful because the First Amendment allows everyone else to organize politically. But public employees, unlike all outside interest groups, have an ethical responsibility to serve the public, not negotiate against it. Moreover, union political organization is aimed at influencing the political leaders with whom unions are bargaining. Public employees use political power to skew and sometimes corrupt constitutional government, to their own benefit and almost always to the harm of the public.
Ultimately, Howard concludes that organized political activity by public employee unions should be ruled unconstitutional. “Public employees individually will still be free to engage in political activity and expression, but not to mobilize the resources of, literally, millions of public employees against the public good.”
He clarifies that public employees should be entitled to represent their personal interests, for example, in fair compensation. “A public employee should be allowed, as this ethical guidance in Massachusetts states, to ‘represent his own personal interests . . . on the same terms and conditions that would apply to other similarly situated members of the public.’”
Howard sums up the landscape this way:
Instead of promoting excellence, public unions prevent accountability for abusive cops, inept teachers, and ineffective public employees.
Union work rules are designed for inefficiency and avoiding merit—for example, padding of job crews with featherbedding and make-work requirements, prohibitions on pitching in, and seniority over quality.
Union pension rules are written to be gamed against the public interest—for example, spiking of overtime to enable pensioners to inflate their pensions.
Massive political donations and support are distributed so that elected leaders answer to unions, not voters.
You know you have stuck the right nerve when Randi Weingarten goes after you. In her recent pack of lies, “Kids Do Better In Schools With Teachers Unions,” she accuses Howard of deploying “a barrage of empty right-wing rhetoric to claim unions use ‘brutal’ tactics to achieve their ‘demands’ and that they ‘enforce a culture of entitlement’ in which ‘employees are ostracized if they strive to do more than a bare minimum.’ Tell that to teachers as they arrive at school early to give students extra help or head to their second job after the school day ends.”
No, Randi, tell that to FDR and George Meany.
Clearly, Howard is on to something. As I have long contended, teachers’ unions and other government unions, need to be outlawed. My only hope is that there are enough honest and committed people in power to make this happen.
Jeff Jackson has gained millions of followers by posting candid videos discussing the inner workings of Congress
A freshman Democratic congressman who rose to prominence with his prolific TikTok posts disregarded House ethics rules as he built a massive following on the Chinese spyware app, a watchdog group charged in a complaint Monday.
Freshman congressman Jeff Jackson (D., N.C.) has quickly solidified himself as the most “TikTok-famous” House member during his first three months in office, cultivating 1.6 million followers by posting candid videos discussing the inner workings of Congress. But Jackson uses the same account to promote his political campaign, “clearly” putting him in violation of longstanding House ethics rules that prohibit members of Congress from using official resources for campaign purposes, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) said in its complaint to the Office of Congressional Ethics.
Jackson’s alleged abuse of taxpayer resources to build his TikTok following comes as the platform faces a bipartisan reckoning in Congress and the threat of a forced sale over its ties to the Chinese Communist Party. The House of Representatives in December ordered lawmakers and their staffs to delete TikTok from any House-issued phones due to “security risks.” Days later, President Joe Biden signed a Republican-backed bill banning the use of TikTok on any government-issued devices.
Undeterred by those warnings, Jackson has posted 15 videos to his TikTok account so far in 2023, each garnering an average of nearly 4.2 million views. Jackson used images from the House floor in at least six of those videos, FACT alleged in its complaint.
“The laws and ethics rules prohibiting members from using official resources for political purposes are clear and longstanding,” FACT executive director Kendra Arnold told the Washington Free Beacon. “Not only do these ethics rules protect taxpayer funds, but they also protect the integrity of the government and maintain citizens’ trust. Any time a member does not comply with these laws is troubling and should concern citizens.”
Jackson isn’t the only Democratic lawmaker alleged to have abused taxpayer resources on the path to TikTok stardom. FACT has filed similar complaints against Democratic representatives Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.), and Wiley Nickel (N.C.).
Omar, Bowman, and their fellow “Squad” members have said that a unilateral TikTok ban would violate the First Amendment and that critics of the app are motivated by “xenophobia around China.”
Jackson, however, has tried to avoid coming down on either side of the debate.
The North Carolina freshman told NBC News in March that FBI director Christopher Wray’s warnings about data privacy and algorithmic concerns posed by TikTok “are going to be very hard to resolve as long as this remains a Chinese-owned company” and that the app should be banned if a change of ownership can’t be negotiated.
But Jackson later said in a March 27 TikTok post that the security concerns apply to many other social media networks and that Congress bears the bulk of the blame for having “gotten us into this situation” by failing to pass a data privacy law. “TikTok became the symbol for a lot of general concern,” Jackson said in the video, which received 3.8 million views.
Jackson in an April interview with Roll Call defended his continued use of TikTok, saying he only uses the platform from a secure device with no other applications installed. The North Carolina Democrat has said in several interviews that using TikTok is worth the risk, because he receives so many more views on the platform than he does on American-run social media networks.
“It just happens to be the case that you get way more views on TikTok than you do on Instagram or Facebook. Like 10 times as many,” Jackson told NBC News. “I have been able to reach a lot of people, and at the same time I think the security concerns are real.”
Experts say impending EPA proposal would kill jobs and spark supply chain issues
The Biden administration is set to unveil new environmental regulations that would force U.S. automakers to sell electric vehicles over their gas-powered counterparts, a move experts say will kill jobs and bring major supply chain issues.
Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency will announce on Wednesday a proposed rule to limit tailpipe emissions. That rule, according to the New York Times, will impose a strict emissions limit on vehicles sold—so strict that it will force automakers to ensure that two-thirds of the vehicles they sell are electric by 2032. “This is a massive undertaking,” said Alliance for Automotive Innovation president John Bozzella, who represents U.S. automakers. “It is nothing short of complete transformation of the automotive industrial base and the automotive market.”
If the rule is enacted, it would mark a significant escalation in both electric vehicle sales and U.S. environmental standards. Just 6 percent of vehicles sold last year were electric, and Biden in August 2021 signed an executive order calling for half of all U.S. car sales to be electric by 2030, well below the proposal’s two-thirds benchmark. The rule would also prompt layoffs for autoworkers in states such as Michigan and Ohio, experts say, because electric cars take considerably fewer workers to build than gas-powered cars.
“We’ve dealt with the loss of jobs before through technology,” United Auto Workers leader Mark DePaoli told the Times, “but when you talk about the speed of this, it’s hard to fathom that we won’t lose jobs.”
In addition to auto industry layoffs, Biden’s aggressive transition to electric vehicles would bring major supply chain and infrastructure challenges. China has an iron grip on the minerals required to build electric vehicle batteries, control that helped the communist nation produce 75 percent of the world’s lithium batteries in 2021. Widespread electric vehicle use would also require expensive investments in charging stations and power grids, which must withstand skyrocketing demand should millions of Americans plug in their cars rather than fill them up with gas.
Biden has attempted to address some of those problems by signing bills that allocate tens of billions of dollars in green energy spending. But even with that spending, plenty of bumps remain on the road to electric vehicles. The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, for example, provided $7.5 billion to build roughly 500,000 charging stations—well below the more than 2 million stations experts say are needed to support the electric vehicle revolution. Power grid investments would likely be even more expensive, given that California alone must spend a whopping $9.3 billion to prepare its power grid for a green energy transition, the state’s utility operator said last week.
Still, the pricey challenges associated with an electric vehicle transition have not stopped green energy advocates from arguing in favor of government standards that effectively mandate such a transition. Instead, the uncertainties associated with the electric vehicle market and supply chain only reinforce the need for government action, International Council on Clean Transportation executive director Drew Kodjak contented, as private companies and consumers may not flock to electric vehicles on their own.
“Everyone who’s watched this movie knows that the market is fickle,” Kodjak said in an interview with the Times. “What if there’s a market downturn? What if the battery minerals don’t pan out? Without these firm standards that have a clear trajectory on timing, none of the players can be sure that this will happen.”
The Environmental Protection Agency said in a Friday statement that it’s working to “accelerate the transition to a zero-emissions transportation future” but did not confirm the proposal’s details. The agency’s administrator, Michael Regan, is expected to announce the rule during a Wednesday event in Washington, D.C.
The IRS has issued proposed regulations that would abolish certain tax shelters.
The agency’s proposed rulemaking would classify certain types of insurance arrangements that let small businesses benefit from tax breaks as either “listed transactions” or “transactions of interest,” making it easier for the IRS to disallow certain claimed tax benefits.
“Listed transactions” are abusive tax transactions, and “transactions of interest” are ones that have the potential for tax avoidance or evasion. Both must be reported to the IRS.
The insurance arrangements that the IRS is targeting are called “micro-captive transactions.” These are insurance arrangements in which small businesses create their own insurance companies (called “captive” insurance companies) to cover potential losses or liabilities. These micro-captive insurance companies are eligible for certain tax benefits, such as the ability to pay tax only on their investment income.
Tax law generally allows businesses to create “captive” insurance companies to protect against insurance risks and permits some small non-life insurance companies (“micro-captives”) to pay taxes only on their investment income. But the IRS has claimed that some of these are actually “abusive tax shelters.”
The IRS stated that some promoters, accountants, or wealth planners have been known to encourage businesses to participate in abusive micro-captive structures that lack many of the attributes of genuine insurance for the main purpose of reducing taxes.
“The IRS has consistently disallowed the tax benefits claimed by taxpayers in abusive micro-captive structures. Some taxpayers have challenged the IRS position disallowing these micro-captive tax benefits in court, but none has been successful,” the IRS stated.
The tax agency previously identified certain micro-captive transactions as transactions of interest in a notice. However, courts ruled that the IRS lacks the authority to make this classification via notice and that it must instead identify such transactions by following the notification and public comment procedures that apply to regulations.
Although the IRS disagreed with the court decisions (pdf), it said it has decided to follow the procedures that apply to proposed regulations “to ensure that these decisions do not disrupt the IRS’s ongoing efforts to combat abusive tax shelters throughout the nation.”
The IRS plans to finalize the regulations in 2023 following public comment. Although the proposed rule hasn’t yet been published in the Federal Register, the IRS has provided a pre-publication version (pdf) for review by the public.
The proposed rule basically overlaps with an earlier IRS notice that was challenged by courts.
For example, it identifies micro-captive transactions as transactions of interest if the liabilities incurred by the captive insurer are less than 70 percent of the premiums earned minus policyholder dividends.
The new proposal comes days after the IRS released a new funding plan (pdf), in which it identified certain transactions as being at high risk of noncompliance and vowed to ramp up enforcement.
Enforcement Crackdown
The IRS said in the newly released plan that it would increase enforcement regarding digital asset transactions and certain other types of transactions.
“The IRS tracks many known, high-risk issues in noncompliance, such as digital asset transactions, listed transactions, and certain international issues. These issues arise in multiple taxpayer segments, and data analysis show a higher potential for noncompliance,” the IRS wrote in the plan.
“We will prioritize resources to increase enforcement activities, including criminal investigation as appropriate.”
The tax agency stated in the plan that it will develop an information platform to support digital asset reporting and analytics tools with the aim of bolstering digital asset compliance.
Digital assets include convertible virtual currency, cryptocurrency, stablecoins, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and other digital representations of value, according to the IRS.
Digital assets are considered property by the IRS, which requires taxpayers to report taxable gains or losses from transactions involving such assets.
‘Soft Notice’ Instead of Tax Audits
Although the IRS vowed to ramp up enforcement of certain transactions and said it’s planning to get tough on wealthier tax dodgers, it stated that it would soften its enforcement efforts for ordinary filers.
The agency stated that it’s rolling out a new program of “tailored post-filing treatments” to resolve issues and omissions on tax returns to provide an opportunity to remedy them before proceeding to a tax audit.
The IRS will use “advanced analytics” to distinguish taxpayers who made good-faith mistakes on their tax returns from those trying to avoid paying what they owe.
The program would then notify the honest-but-errant taxpayers in a way that gives them an opportunity to self-correct.
“We will address issues identified after filing that require IRS intervention promptly and in ways tailored to the specific circumstances of the taxpayer, such as a soft notice to encourage self-correction instead of an audit,” the agency stated.
“Notification could start with a soft notice, for example, and move to an audit if no action is taken or the issue remains unresolved.”
The IRS stated that resorting to “less-intrusive treatments” would give taxpayers who want to be compliant a quick and easy way to correct issues that have emerged after they’ve filed their tax returns while helping to prevent “unnecessary audits.”
The IRS stated that it hopes, as a result of the new initiative, to see a higher incidence of taxpayers correcting or self-correcting issues and a reduction in repeat noncompliance.
The IRS also expects the initiative to boost the incidence of taxpayers paying what they owe.
Dear Friend, Some stories are so wild they are hard to believe. Yet Jessica Bates’s story isn’t fiction. Jessica is a Christian and a mom of five children. A few years ago, she and her late husband were in a car crash. Her husband died on impact. After hearing a radio broadcast, Jessica knew the Lord was calling her to adopt children in need. She desires to open her home to children, specifically a sibling pair who need a family to call their own. But the State of Oregon wants to exclude her from adopting or fostering.
Jessica is asking only for the chance to serve others and access a state program on an equal playing field. This is something the Constitution demands.
But Oregon disagrees.
In fact, the Oregon Department of Human Services rules state that anyone seeking to adopt must set aside their biblical beliefs to promote contrary views on gender and sexuality.
This means parents must agree to use a child’s preferred pronouns, take children to LGBT-affirming events like Pride parades, and facilitate a child’s access to dangerous medical interventions like sterilizing puberty blockers.
But Jessica wants to lovingly care for and accept children in need without contradicting her Christian faith. Is that too much to ask?
Oregon is now refusing to allow certain Christians to adopt, while at the same time, they accommodate people of different religious and cultural backgrounds and try to pair children with families who are well suited to each other. It’s a blatant act of religious discrimination.
Last year, the Department reported having nearly 8,000 children touch Oregon’s foster care system. Many of these children are waiting for their forever homes.
Make no mistake: Oregon officials are keeping children from loving homes to push radical gender ideology. This harmful practice must end.
That’s why Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Jessica in a lawsuit against Oregon’s Department of Human Services—to stop its religious discrimination and protect the right of Christians to adopt.
Thank you for prayerfully considering standing up for “the least of these.”
Alliance Defending Freedom P.S. Jessica Bates just wants to provide a loving forever home for children in need. But Oregon officials say she and others like her are categorically unfit to care for children because of their religious beliefs about gender and human sexuality. There’s a word for this: discrimination. Will you help fuel Jessica’s case and others with a gift of $25, $50, or $100 today? Thanks to a limited-time matching grant, your gift will be doubled dollar for dollar—while matching funds last. Thank you!
The FBI has a glossary of terms it associates with extremist, involuntary celibate individuals (incels) and members of religiously or ethnically motivated violent extremism (RMVE), including popular internet slang such as “based” and “redpilled.”
The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project recently obtained copies of FBI training materials relating to involuntary celibate violent extremists (IVEs) and RMVEs. Among the documents the conservative think tank received was a glossary of terms the FBI lists as indicators of IVE and RMVE affiliations.
The FBI document, which references events as recently as 2019, states: “Indicators of IVE ideology may comprise constitutionally protected conduct, and no single indicator should be the sole basis for determining IVE or criminal activity. The following indicators of IVE ideology may constitute a basis for reporting or law enforcement action when observed with suspicious criminal or potentially violent activity.”
Some of the terms in the FBI documents have more overt connections with racially charged or extremist rhetoric, such as “RaHoWa” as a shorthand for “racial holy war” and specific references to extremist incels, such as Elliot Rodger, who carried out a mass killing in Isla Vista, California, in 2014. The FBI glossary also includes terms associated with a variety of popular internet memes such as “red pill/blue pill,” “based,” “Chad,” and “Stacy.”
‘Redpilled’ and ‘Based’
The concept of the red pill grew out of a motif in the 1999 film “The Matrix,” in which the main character swallows a red pill that awakens him to the reality that the contemporary society he had been living in was a carefully constructed simulation managed by an army of machines and computers that enslaved humanity. The red pill concept continues to be popular through online memes and slang, in which the idea represents the acceptance of an uncomfortable reality with the rejection of comfortable lies or flawed narratives.
In the FBI’s definition of “red pill” in relation to IVEs, the term “refers to a belief shared by many online communities that society is corrupt, and that the believer is a victim of this corruption.” In the context of RMVE ideology, the FBI states, “taking the red pill or becoming ‘redpilled’ indicates the adoption of racist, anti-Semitic, or fascist beliefs.”
Related to the concept of the red pill is the “blue pill.” In “The Matrix,” when the main character is given a chance to take the red pill, he also has the option to take a blue pill, which allows him to ignore the possibility that reality isn’t what he perceives. In contrast to the “red pill,” the term “blue pill” can refer to either unintentional ignorance or a willful decision to ignore harsh reality.
Associated with the red pill-blue pill dichotomy is the “black pill,” often described as a nihilistic worldview or sense of hopelessness that societal problems can’t be solved. According to the FBI’s definition, the “black pill” term “is specific to Incels, refers to a belief that this [corruption of society] can only be changed through massive societal restructuring, often including violence.”
Among its glossary of RMVE terms, the FBI includes “based.” The FBI defines “based” as a term used to “refer to someone who has been converted to racist ideology, or as a way of indicating ideological agreement.”
In popular internet parlance, “based” can refer to individuals who are regarded as cool for their defiance of social norms or someone willing to speak a controversial truth without fear of being socially ostracized. The Rapper Lil B, who also goes by the alter ego “TheBasedGod,” said in a 2010 interview with Complex: “‘Based’ means being yourself. Not being scared of what people think about you. Not being afraid to do what you want to do. Being positive.”
The FBI document includes the terms “Chad” and “Stacy.” Aside from being a given name, Chad represents internet slang and a variety of memes that commonly depict a highly confident, physically fit, and attractive male. Stacy represents the female counterpart to Chad. According to the FBI document, “incels unsuccessfully compete against Chads for attention,” and Stacy “chooses Chad over incels.”
In 2018, self-identified incel Alek Minassian ran over 10 people with a van in Toronto. Just before the attack, Minassian posted on the internet message board 4Chan, stating: “The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys! All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!”
The FBI stated that it had no comment when asked about these IVE and RMVE extremism documents.
How the FBI Watches Americans
The release of these FBI documents regarding IVEs and RMVEs comes as the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has been investigating the potential “weaponization” of the government.
Last year, Project Veritas published documents purporting to show an FBI memo on militia violent extremism (MVE). The alleged FBI document described references to the Second Amendment, the Revolutionary War, the Betsy Ross American Flag, and the “Don’t Tread on Me” Gadsden flag as potential indicators of MVE behavior. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demanded answers from FBI Director Christopher Wray about the document and raised allegations that the agency has become politicized against conservatives (pdf).
The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, led by Jordan, published a report (pdf) in March indicating that the FBI had initiated 25 “Guardian Assessments” related to parents protesting or voicing concerns about the activities of their local school boards. The committee report stated that FBI whistleblowers shared claims that “the FBI investigated a mom because she belonged to a ‘right-wing mom’s group’ and ‘is a gun owner’ and a dad because ‘he rails against the government.’”
The House Judiciary Committee announced on April 10 it will hold a field hearing in New York City on April 17 to discuss Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, just weeks after the unprecedented indictment and arraignment of former President Donald Trump in Bragg’s district.
The hearing is titled “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan.”
Bragg has come under fire, mainly from conservatives and the GOP, for what those critics say are “soft on crime” policies. The hearing, according to the committee, “will examine how Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s pro-crime, anti-victim policies have led to an increase in violent crime and a dangerous community for New York City residents.”
Bragg’s office has fired back at the scheduled hearing, calling it a “political stunt.”
“This hearing won’t engage in actual efforts to increase public safety, such as supporting national gun legislation and shutting down the iron pipeline,” a spokesperson for the office said in a statement posted on Twitter.
Shortly after taking office, Bragg issued a memo to his staffers stating that the district attorney’s office will not prosecute, among numerous offenses, marijuana misdemeanors, public transportation fare evasion, most trespassing violations, resisting arrest, and prostitution. Bragg also announced the downgrading of certain offenses including possession of a non-firearm weapon, both residential and commercial burglaries, and drug cases.
Republicans have pointed out the incongruence of Bragg’s leniency for these crimes versus his prosecution of Trump for allegedly falsifying business records.
Trump was arraigned on April 4 on a 34-count indictment, to which he pleaded not guilty, over his alleged role in the payment of hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign. On his social media site, Truth Social, Trump has called Bragg’s prosecution a “WITCH HUNT” and said that the district attorney should “INDICT HIMSELF.”
“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said Bragg in a statement released by his office.
“Manhattan is home to the country’s most significant business market. We cannot allow New York businesses to manipulate their records to cover up criminal conduct,” he continued. “As the statement of facts describes, the trail of money and lies exposes a pattern that, the People allege, violates one of New York’s basic and fundamental business laws.
“As this office has done time and time again, we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law.”
GOP Probes
A field hearing occurs when a committee holds a hearing outside of its committee room on Capitol Hill. The House Judiciary hearing is scheduled to be held at the Javits Federal Building in Manhattan.
Since a New York grand jury voted on March 30 to indict Trump, Republicans have vowed to hold Bragg accountable.
“Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election. As he routinely frees violent criminals to terrorize the public, he weaponized our sacred system of justice against President Donald Trump. The American people will not tolerate this injustice, and the House of Representatives will hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account,” said House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in a Twitter post.
House GOP lawmakers have started a probe into Bragg and his office over the Trump investigation, which Bragg has characterized as congressional overreach.
Bragg’s office fired back on March 31 at House GOP committee chairmen over their two letters to him regarding his investigation of former President Donald Trump.
The March 20 and March 25 letters to Bragg were written by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), and House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil (R-Wis.).
This article was updated to include a statement from Bragg’s office.
Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) has said that defunding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could be an option if the Biden administration dismisses a court ruling that suspended approval of the abortion pill mifepristone.
Gonzales, who sits on the Appropriations Committee, said House Republicans might decide to use the “power of the purse” to hold the administration accountable.
“It’s very dangerous when you have the administration, the Biden administration, coming out and saying they may not uphold a ruling,” Gonzales said during an interview for CNN’s “State of the Union” on April 9.
“As an appropriator on the House Republican side, I look at it, the House Republicans have the power of the purse.
“And if the administration wants to not lead this ruling, not live up to this ruling, then we’re going to have a problem. And it may come to a point where House Republicans on the appropriation side have to defund FDA programs that don’t make sense.”
Gonzales, the father of six children who calls himself a “prolific pro-lifer,” emphasized that it is important not to undermine court decisions.
“I think it’s important that we have to get back and allow our institutions to lead. We can’t undermine them when we don’t agree with things that are there, whether it’s on the state level,” he explained.
As an example, he pointed to how marijuana is legal in California and other places but not in Texas.
“If those are the kind of things that your community wants, then work it through your state, work it through the federal level,” he added. “But we have to uphold our institutions. It’s dangerous when we erode them.”
Rulings
On April 7, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee in Texas, signed an injunction directing the FDA to stay mifepristone’s approval.
“The Court does not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly,” reads the judge’s decision Friday. “But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns—in violation of its statutory duty—based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions.”
A woman looks at an abortion pill—RU-486, or mifepristone—displayed on a smartphone in Arlington, Va., on May 8, 2020. (Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)
On the same day, President Joe Biden issued a statement saying his administration “will fight this ruling.”
“If this ruling were to stand, then there will be virtually no prescription, approved by the FDA, that would be safe from these kinds of political, ideological attacks,” Biden added.
Attorney General Merrick Garland also issued a statement saying he “strongly disagrees” with the court ruling and that the Justice Department will continue to “defend the FDA’s decision.”
The FDA appealed the court decision on Saturday, insisting that the abortion drug was “safe and effective.”
“FDA approved Mifeprex more than 20 years ago based on a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence available and determined that it was safe and effective,” the agency said in a statement. “FDA stands behind its determination.”
On Sunday, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra told CNN that “everything is on the table,” suggesting that the administration might defy the judge’s court order.
In a separate ruling on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Rice, an Obama appointee in Spokane, Washington, ordered the FDA not to make any changes that would restrict access to mifepristone. The ruling applied in 17 states and the District of Columbia, where Democrats sued in an effort to expand access to the abortion drug.
Reactions
Kacsmaryk’s ruling has drawn criticism from many Democrats.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) issued a statement calling the ruling “appalling.”
“But this ruling wasn’t about the safety of the drug or protecting patients,” she wrote. “This was clearly about overriding the FDA’s processes and expertise to attack women’s reproductive rights. Science, not an extreme right-wing ideology, should determine which drugs are available to women seeking an abortion.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) walks to the Senate Chambers during a series of votes at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington on Feb. 13, 2023. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called the ruling “lawless” and warned that women in the United States “could lose access to a safe and legal medication,” according to a statement.
“I urge the Biden administration to use every legal and regulatory tool in its power to keep this drug available,” Warren stated.
However, some advocacy groups have welcomed the Texas judge’s decision.
March for Life President Jeanne Mancini called the ruling “a major step forward for women and girls whose health and safety have been jeopardized for decades by the FDA’s rushed, flawed and politicized approval of these dangerous drugs.”
CatholicVote President Brian Burch called the ruling long overdue in a statement.
“For decades the FDA has abdicated its solemn duty to protect women and girls, putting politics above health and safety,” Burch stated.
“Many peer-reviewed studies and major international studies have documented the grave dangers involved in taking these drugs,” Burch added. “It is time to hold the FDA accountable for ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence, and require them to do what is in the best interest of women and girls across the country.”
The Republican-controlled Texas Senate passed key bills to ban medical gender modification for children and outlaw drag queen performances in front of minors, including Drag Queen Story Hour.
SB 12 and SB 14 were part of Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s priorities for the 88th Legislative session. Patrick holds one of the most powerful positions in Texas as head of the Senate.
The bills passed on April 4 will now head to the House, where they will go to a committee.
The legislation is part of a nationwide push by conservatives to give power back to parents and protect children from sexualization.
Protesters at a Matt Walsh’s “Rally to End Child Mutilation” hold a sign for transgender rights Oct. 21, 2022 in Nashville, Tennessee. (Bobby Sanchez for The Epoch Times)
Those on the left say allowing children to switch genders helps them mentally and drag performances are art that is protected by the First Amendment.
SB 14, sponsored by Sen. Donna Campbell (R), who is a medical doctor, would end gender modification in Texas. It passed the Senate after a contentious amendment was stripped.
The amendment would have grandfathered non-surgical gender modification for children who started treatment 90 days before the bill would become law.
SB 14 prohibits health care providers from performing sex change surgeries or prescribing puberty blockers to minors unless medically necessary.
Doctors would lose their medical licenses should they break the law under the bill.
Additionally, SB 14 prohibits public money from being used or distributed to providers, medical schools, hospitals, or physicians who provide these surgeries or drugs.
Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick speaks after Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced the reopening of more Texas businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic at a press conference at the Texas State Capitol in Austin on Monday, May 18, 2020. (Lynda M. Gonzalez-Pool/Getty Images)
SB 12, which would ban drag shows in front of children, was sponsored by Sen. Bryan Hughes (R) and his companion bill SB 1601 would halt Drag Queen Story Hours by defunding municipal libraries that host them.
SB 12 would ban male performers exhibiting as a female, or female performers exhibiting as a male who use “clothing, makeup, or other similar physical markers and who sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise, performs before an audience,” appealing to prurient sexual interests.
It would make sexually oriented performances on public property, a business, or in front of children illegal. Breaking the law could result in a Class A misdemeanor with a fine of up to $10,000.
Conservatives applauded all three bills.
Patrick put out statements applauding the Senate’s passage of his legislative priorities.
“As Lt. Governor, I believe the practice of child gender modification is abhorrent and must be stopped in Texas,” Patrick wrote.
Patrick attributed the drag queen legislation as a way to stop radical left-wing attempts to sexualize children.
“Children, who cannot make decisions on their own, must be protected from these sexually-oriented drag shows now occurring more and more in front of them,” he wrote.
Texas Sen. Bryan Hughes proposed bills banning drag shows for children. (Courtesy of Texas Senate)
The Texas GOP lauded SB 14 in a statement calling it one of the “strongest bills in the country banning the chemical castration and surgical mutilation of children.”
GOP Texas Chairman Matt Rinaldi said the legislation would stop “misguided” adults who have sacrificed children “at the altar of political ideology.”
However, the Republican-controlled Texas legislature failed to pass a law banning gender modification for minors during the 2021 legislative session.
Patrick pointed to 2021 when the Texas Senate passed two bills banning child gender modification last session in 2021, but none passed the Texas House.
Some Republican lawmakers have questioned why a transgender modification bill in the Texas House didn’t pass the last session and was allowed to die.
Both bills received pushback from pro-trans protesters, medical associations, and Democrats.
Transgender supporters gathered on March 3 outside the Austin capitol to oppose the bill.
Sen. Jose Menedez (D) spoke against it, saying it hurt children who believe they are a different gender than at birth.
“I worry about the harm,” Menedez said. “The Trevor Project reported that after our never-ending sessions of 2021 that more than two-thirds of LGBT youth said that recent efforts by states to limit the rights of transgender and nonbinary people had negatively impacted their health.”
Drag queens went to the state capital to protest during the “Youth Capital Takeover.” Drag queen Nadine Hughes used the protest as an opportunity to perform in the Capitol Rotunda.
Some Democrats argued that not all drag queen shows were inherently sexual and were part of free speech.
Democratic Senators questioned the bill asking if it wasn’t already against the law or if it banned any cross-dressing.
The Republican bill’s sponsor, Hughes, clarified that no law bans sexualized drag shows performed for children, which is why the bill is needed.
He added that movies such as “Mrs. Doubtfire” wouldn’t be outlawed because the movie wasn’t of prurient interest.
A 22-year-old Army National Guard member has suffered an array of health issues—including two heart attacks that pushed her to the brink of death—after receiving two doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.
Karolina Stancik once considered herself “very healthy,” playing multiple sports from adolescence through early adulthood. At 21 years old, she chose to serve the country by joining the U.S. Army in February 2021.
“We were told that it was going to be required and we should take it before we shipped out to basic training,” she said, which was before Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s August 2021 announcement of the military vaccine mandate.
This messaging, according to Stancik, made the new recruits feel like, “You’re a bad person if you don’t get the vaccine, and you don’t care about the people around you.”
“As a young, new soldier, I and a lot of others around me, did what we were told,” Stancik said.
“We were too new to know all the rules and possible loopholes,” she added. “I pretty much blindly took it because I didn’t know you could get exemptions” for medical or religious reasons.
Stancik ended up taking the Moderna vaccine in March and April 2021; since then, “life has been an uphill battle,” she said.
First, came the breathing issues.
“I was dealing with what doctors considered asthma at the time without a diagnosis, and I had never had any lung issues at any other point in my life,” she said.
Stancik also experienced what felt like a cold or sinus infection, pressure in her head, and dizziness.
Next came a fever, as well as numbness and tingling throughout her body. But she was told by a doctor that these symptoms were normal.
At one point, her command threatened to accuse her of insubordination for not participating in physical training. However, “a doctor’s order kept me from getting in trouble with my command,” she said. The Epoch Times viewed that order, as well as other medical documentation and Stancik’s Army permanent medical profile, to corroborate her claims.
Problems with visual processing and what she described as neurological issues began in October 2021. These included numbness, tingling, stabbing pains throughout her body, loss of motor function, tremors, and more.
“It all progressively got worse, and never stopped,” Stancik said.
In October 2021, she found herself in an emergency room, following her first heart attack. Things only escalated after that as she started experiencing nausea, a high heart rate, stabbing pains, and blacking out, she said. In February 2022, she had a second heart attack.
In addition to these two heart attacks, Stancik said she’s been diagnosed with severe asthma and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a blood circulation disorder that causes a higher heart rate when transitioning from sitting or lying down to standing up.
In November 2022, her doctor told her she had “signs of a mini-stroke,” she said. After that incident and the onset of impaired eyesight, she was finally advised to see a neurologist. She’s now waiting for the results of tests for neuropathy, dysautonomia, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and others.
Stancik’s neurological problems have continued this year.
“As I wait for results about my neurological issues, I’m also experiencing increasing problems with my visual processing,” she said.
With health issues on the rise, she said, “Half together is put together for me right now.”
Medical Care Costs on the Rise
Meanwhile, TRICARE, the military medical system, is no longer paying her medical bills because the Army has removed her from active duty.
“The bills are stacking up,” she said. “I’m getting billed for everything that follows my active-duty service.”
In February 2022, Stancik was recommended for medical retirement and is awaiting a determination.
There have been recurring costs of bloodwork analysis, doctor’s visits, and cardiology care, for example. She’s also being billed for neurology appointments.
“For cardiology, I was getting billed $225 for every single visit, so I had to stop going so often,” she said.
“The experience has left me feeling pissed off, sad, and discouraged at times, but I know I’m not the only who took the vaccine and who is suffering,” she said. “My duty now, while I have the capacity to do it, is to speak out for those who need to be spoken for.
“Many soldiers were injured by the vaccine, and the Army just doesn’t care,” she said. “And because of this, I’m suppressing my anger to turn it into something positive to be a voice for them.”
Stancik says that her views don’t reflect those of the Department of Defense or the Department of the Army. Moderna and Army officials didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.
A St. Louis judge sanctioned St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s office last week for allegedly withholding evidence in a double-murder case, while allowing the suspect out on bond, amid rising criticism about left-wing prosecutors allowing crime to flourish in major U.S. cities.
Alex Heflin, 23, was held without bond since January after he was initially charged with two counts of second-degree murder and armed criminal action, local media reported. But those charges were recently reduced to involuntary and voluntary manslaughter before he was released, while his April 17 trial has been postponed until June 12.
Judge Theresa Counts Burke ruled in favor of Heflin’s lawyers after they filed a motion accusing a prosecutor under Gardner of violating discovery rules. They alleged that her office did not turn over evidence, including a 911 call recording and DNA evidence.
“The court finds that there have been repeated delays by the state in obtaining discovery and providing it to the defense,” Burke wrote, according to local reports. “There has been a lack of diligence on the part of the state in following up and providing discovery to the defendant in a timely fashion. As a result of the state’s actions and lack of diligence, the court grants defendant’s second motion for sanctions.”
Under Burke’s order, Heflin will have to remain on GPS monitoring. She also ordered the circuit attorney’s office to hand over their list of witnesses within 24 hours, provide DNA test results within 24 hours, or ask a crime lab for the DNA results.
The Epoch Times has contacted Gardner’s office for comment.
In a statement, Gardner said that it is working with police “to bring justice on behalf of the people of the City of St. Louis, victims, and their families.” It added that her office “is dedicated to doing everything in its power to hold the defendant accountable … and will continue to work to ensure justice is served.
While the St. Louis Police Department did not comment on the case and said it is working with Garnder’s office, the St. Louis Police Officers’ Association accused Gardner of misconduct.
“The St. Louis Police Officers’ Association would like to address the unfounded claims made against our members in a recent news article concerning State vs. Heflin. Kim Gardner’s office has once again failed to accept responsibility for the mistakes made within her office and chose instead to blame the hard-working men and women of the St. Louis Police Department,” the statement said. “These repeated problems are due to the incompetence of the Circuit Attorney’s office, not from the actions of police officers.”
The union added that “in this case, all the evidence had been turned over to the Circuit Attorney’s office for nearly a year prior to trial. Police officers shouldn’t be made scapegoats for an overworked, backlogged, and mismanaged Circuit Attorney’s Office.”
It comes days after Gardner, a Democrat, said she will run for reelection in 2024—even as she tries to fend off an effort by Missouri’s attorney general to force her out of office. Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey in February filed a lawsuit asking a judge to remove Gardner from office, accusing her of incompetence.
Bailey cited a low rate of convictions in homicide cases, accused Gardner of failing to keep crime victims and their families updated, and said her office is too slow to take up cases brought by police.
Gardner, 47, was elected in 2016 and reelected in 2020. She is among several left-wing Democratic prosecutors across the country who have taken steps such as ending the prosecution of certain crimes and seeking mental health treatment over incarceration for non-violent criminals.
Republicans have accused her of receiving money from groups tied to left-wing billionaire financier George Soros, who was accused of providing funding to left-wing groups during the Black Lives Matter-related unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, nearly 10 years ago. In 2016, she received campaign funding from Soros’s Safety and Justice Committee, according to the Missouri Times, while in 2017, she worked with The Vera Institute of Justice, which itself received $11 million from Soros’s Open Society Foundations, it was reported.
Soros has been accused of providing funding to other left-wing district attorneys, which was highlighted by tech billionaire Elon Musk last month. “Soros figured out a clever arbitrage opportunity: The many small political contests, such as DAs & judges, have much higher impact per dollar spent than the big races, so it is far easier to sway the outcome,” he wrote in response to claims that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg received Soros cash.
In 2018, the Supreme Court of Missouri ordered Gardner to be disciplined for misconduct in the 2018 prosecution of then-Gov. Eric Greitens, a Republican.
The Justice Department has launched an investigation into a possible leak of secret Pentagon documents that seem to detail U.S. and NATO aid to Ukraine, as well as front-line troop and armament positions, that were shared widely on social media.
The documents, dated between Feb. 23 and March 1 and shared on platforms like Twitter and Telegram, appear to show maps and details about deliveries of weapons.
Some of the documents had markings classifying them as “Secret” and “Top Secret,” with some showing what looks like locations for front-line Russian and Ukrainian military units and artillery guns.
Bellingcat analyst Aric Toler posted on Twitter images suggesting that the documents may have been altered.
In at least one case, the documents appear to have been altered to show much lower Russian troop fatality numbers than the 200,000 killed and wounded that U.S. officials have publicly estimated.
That alteration, in particular, has led to speculation that Russia could be behind the leak.
“As many of these were pictures of documents, it appears that it was a deliberate leak done by someone that wished to damage the Ukraine, U.S., and NATO efforts,” Mick Mulroy, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, told ABC.
“Russia’s obvious manipulation of some facts has made it more difficult to determine what is real and what is not,” said Mulroy. “Something that may help somewhat limit the damage overall ironically.”
Mulroy addressed the matter of the investigation into the leak, saying he expects the probe to be “very thorough in finding out how this happened and who was responsible.”
DOJ Probe
Ukraine has claimed that the documents are fake and part of a Russian disinformation campaign, while the Pentagon said the matter is being looked into.
Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said in a statement Friday that the Department of Defense had made a “formal referral” to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to probe the apparent leak.
The DOJ said in a statement Friday that “We have been in communication with the Department of Defense related to this matter and have begun an investigation.”
Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh speaks during an on-camera press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., on April 3, 2023. (U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jack Sanders/U.S. Department of Defense)
Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the chief of Ukraine’s presidential office, said in a statement that the posts looked like a Russian disinformation operation to sow doubts about Ukraine’s predicted counter-offensive.
“The aim of secret data ‘leaks’ is obvious: divert attention, cast doubts & mutual suspicions, sow discord,” he said in a post on Twitter. “It’s an ordinary game of [Russian] secret services. To take open briefings, add fake info or certain parts of interceptions & publish them on social networks legalizing the ‘leak.’”
In an earlier post on Telegram, Podolyak said Russia was “looking for any way to intercept the information initiative, to try to influence the scenario plans of Ukraine’s counteroffensive.
“This has nothing to do with Ukraine’s real plans,” he continued, adding that “as for the real counteroffensive plans, the Russian troops will certainly be the first to get acquainted with them.”
“I would assume that will happen very soon,” he added.
Counter-Offensive
Ukraine managed to beat back Russian forces from Kyiv last year before liberating parts of the country’s northeast and south, but Moscow’s forces still occupy swathes of Ukrainian territory in the east and south, as well as Crimea.
Russian forces have managed to make slow but decisive gains in recent weeks, especially in the eastern Donetsk region.
At the same time, there have been growing indications that a Ukrainian counter-offensive is imminent.
Speaking at NATO headquarters in Brussels on April 5, Secretary of State Antony Blinken called on allies to remain “focused intensely on the weeks and months ahead … as Ukraine prepares for a counter-offensive, again, to try to retake more of its territory.”
One of the documents appears to describe a timeline for a Ukrainian “spring offensive,” although the documents don’t seem to indicate how or where Ukrainian forces might launch their attack.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters in Moscow on Friday that Russian military planners would take into account Blinken’s remarks about a possible Ukrainian counter-offensive in the coming weeks.
“They [the Russian military] thoroughly track down all relevant information and take it into account when planning the progress of the special military operation,” Peskov said, according to Russian state media Tass.
The Kremlin calls its invasion of Ukraine a “special military operation” aimed at degrading Ukraine’s military potential and removing from power Kyiv’s political leadership, which Moscow calls “Nazis.”
FUNNY HOW THIS HAS ALL SEEMED TO HAPPEN IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, EH?
A “staggering” one in six people now suffer infertility issues, the World Health Organization (WHO) has admitted.
“Globally, an estimated one out of every six people are affected by the inability to have a child at some point in their life,” confirmed Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the controversial director-general of the United Nations agency, in the foreword to its new report on infertility.
Dr. Pascale Allotey, director of the Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research Department at the WHO, called the figure “staggering” and declared infertility “a major and a widespread health issue”.
The WHO found the issue is somewhat more prevalent in so-called high-income countries, at 17.8 per cent, than in low- and middle-income countries, at 16.5 per cent.
Tedros offered few comments on the underlying causes of the crisis, describing them in vague terms as “varied and often complex” before moving on to pet issues of dubious relevance such as the agency’s “health and gender equality targets” – but the findings come as men appear to be suffering alarming drops in sperm counts and testosterone levels.
‘Spermageddon’.
Writing for The National Pulse in November, anonymous health campaigner ‘Raw Egg Nationalist’ cautioned against an impending “spermageddon” scenario — citing research even covered by the likes of CNN — showing sperm counts falling by over 50 percent in fewer than 50 years, to the point that the “median man” may have a sperm count near zero as soon as 2050.
“Our findings serve as a canary in a coal mine. We have a serious problem on our hands that, if not mitigated, could threaten mankind’s survival,” warned lead researcher Hagai Levine of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Testosterone levels are also falling — although self-appointed “fact-checkers” have begun splitting hairs over the details since conservatives began to sound alarm bells over the situation — with researchers reporting a significant decline among American adolescents and young men between 1999 and 2016.
Cause for Celebration?
The WHO report comes at a time when the number of people having families — and the size of those families — is shrinking through much of the West, in any case.
The number of 30-year-old women in England and Wales who remain childless — or “child-free”, as the anti-natal Guardian puts it — is now over 50 per cent for the first time since records began.
The figure would likely be even higher if the increasing number of women from a migration background were excluded, given they often marry and form families at a younger age than the wider population.
For some, however, these developments may be cause for celebration, with the likes of the aforementioned Guardian publishing editorials telling people to have fewer children to fight climate change, and the state-backed BBC in Britain and NPR in America pushing articles featuring people who have heeded that call.
French President Emmanuel Macron said this weekend that European are not looking to be “caught up in crises that are not ours,” while claiming he is intent on “[reducing Europe’s] dependency on the United States,” to avoid being dragged into a conflict between the US and China.
POLITICO, which issued a bizarre disclaimer on its interview with the French President, reported the comments in a major blow for the Biden government. The corporate media had previously claimed that the presidency of Donald Trump would cause blowback from international allies, but the largest foreign policy problems have, in fact, emerged under Biden.
POLITICO’s disclaimer read:
As is common in France and many other European countries, the French President’s office, known as the Elysée Palace, insisted on checking and “proofreading” all the president’s quotes to be published in this article as a condition of granting the interview. This violates POLITICO’s editorial standards and policy, but we agreed to the terms in order to speak directly with the French president. POLITICO insisted that it cannot deceive its readers and would not publish anything the president did not say…
The practice is not, in fact, “common.”
Le Snub.
President Macron has long been a strong proponent of European “strategic autonomy,” which would see further the European Union integrate both militarily and politically purposes. These plans would create, according to Macron, a “third superpower” to rival the US and China.
This point was repeatedly made by Brexiteers such as Nigel Farage, who warned in 2015 about Europe’s intention to splinter off with its own, transnational armed forces.
If a confrontation between two superpowers escalates too quickly, argued Macron, “[Europeans] won’t have the time or the resources to finance our strategic autonomy and will become vassals, whereas we can build a third pole if we have a few years.”
European Strategic Autonomy is a policy widely encouraged by the Chinese Communist regime due to its detrimental to the United States’ global sphere of influence. The United States and Europe are recognized as natural allies, yet a more autonomous Europe would inevitably undermine the strategic pull of the U.S., a pivot brought about by Biden’s foreign policy weakness.
Europe, argues Marcon, must resist the pressure to become merely “America’s followers.”
