Pacific military command adopts software tool to monitor Chinese anger

From Washington Times.com (Dec. 21, 2021):

The Pentagon’s Indo-Pacific Command recently unveiled a software application that military officials say will monitor Chinese military anger at U.S. activities in the region in a bid to reduce tensions.

Some analysts warn that the application represents a step back toward U.S. policies to appease China, whose communist leaders have used fears of upsetting Beijing to manipulate U.S. decision-makers.

The software tool is designed to systematically gauge Chinese military reactions to U.S. actions in the region, such as arms sales to Taiwan, naval and aerial maneuvers in disputed maritime zones, and congressional visits, defense officials and spokesmen said. The software measures U.S.-Chinese “strategic friction,” said a defense official who spoke to Reuters aboard a flight with Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks last week.

The computer-based software evaluates information from early 2020 on significant activities that could trigger tensions in U.S.-Chinese relations. Military leaders and Pentagon policymakers will use it to predict how Beijing will respond to U.S. actions. The software is part of the Biden administration’s policy of seeking to curb Chinese aggression while preventing at all costs an open conflict between the world’s two most powerful countries and two biggest economies.

“With the spectrum of conflict and the challenge sets spanning down into the gray zone, what you see is the need to be looking at a far broader set of indicators, weaving that together and then understanding the threat interaction,” Ms. Hicks told Reuters in discussing the software.

An Indo-Pacific Command official said the tool will be used to avoid inadvertently provoking a conflict with China.

“U.S. Indo-Pacific Command ensures security and stability throughout the Indo-Pacific,” the official told The Washington Times. The command’s combined military force “responsibly manages competition to prevent conflict in the region. One of the best methods to do just that is centered on looking at the complex and overlapping geopolitical, operational and strategic environment,” the official added.

The command “will continue to refine methods, including decision aids, to responsibly manage competition with our No. 1 pacing challenge while supporting national defense priorities.”

A Chinese Embassy spokesman did not respond to an email request for comment.

A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment. “This is an Indo-Pacom program,” he said. [read more]

So, the Chinese are angry. So, what. It does sound like an appeasement app. Is the US military going to monitor N. Korean anger and Iranian anger too? If you are going to monitor the Chinese, monitor them for a good reason.

Youth suicide spike linked to increased access to puberty blockers, sex-change hormones, study shows

From Washington Times.com (June 14):

Making gender-transition drugs available to transgender youth is supposed to reduce suicide, but newly released research indicates that rates are on the rise in states where minors may access hormones and puberty blockers without parental consent.

A study by the conservative Heritage Foundation published June 13 found that from 2010-20, the suicide rate spiked by 1.6 per 100,000 residents ages 12-23 in states where minors don’t need their parents’ permission to undergo routine medical care.

“Starting in 2010, when puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones became widely available, elevated suicide rates in states where minors can more easily access those medical interventions became observable,” said Jay P. Greene, senior research fellow at Heritage’s Center for Education Policy, the study’s author.

That represents a 14% increase in the suicide rate in states with more lenient policies. Before 2010, the two groups of states “did not differ in their youth suicide rates,” said the paper.

“Rather than being protective against suicide, this pattern indicates that easier access by minors to cross-sex medical interventions without parental consent is associated with higher risk of suicide,” said Mr. Greene in the report.

The results come as a direct challenge to the LGBTQ movement’s chief arguments against state bills to ban minors from undergoing medical gender transitions: That preventing them from doing so increases their risk of suicide.

Such treatments are often described as “gender-affirming health care,” “medically necessary care,” and “life-saving care,” given that transgender youth are “more than four times as likely to attempt suicide than their peers,” according to studies cited by the Trevor Project.

A 2022 survey by the Trevor Project, a suicide prevention and mental health organization for LGBTQ youth, found that more than half of transgender and nonbinary young people considered suicide in the previous year.

Three states — Alabama, Arkansas and Tennessee — have passed laws banning gender-transition drugs and procedures for those under 18. A federal judge last month blocked parts of the Alabama law, which makes it a felony to provide such drugs to minors.

“The escalation of state policies that are harmful to LGBTQ people will only heighten and intensify experiences of rejection and discrimination and could lead to an increase in suicidal ideation,” said the Trevor Project and American Foundation for Suicide Prevention in a March 23 statement. “Whether it’s limiting conversations around the broad topics of gender identity and sexual orientation or making gender-affirming care for a trans teen a felony, our organizations recognize the challenges the LGBTQ community is facing at this time.”

But according to the Heritage research, increased access to gender-transition therapies may be doing more harm than good.

“At a minimum, the results presented in this Backgrounder demonstrate that efforts to lower legal barriers for minors to receive cross-sex medical interventions do not reduce suicide rates and likely lead to higher rates among young people in states that adopt those changes,” said Mr. Greene.

He recommended that the 33 states and District of Columbia that allow minors to obtain routine medical care without parental consent consider revising their laws.

“States should also adopt parental bills of rights that affirm that parents have primary responsibility for their children’s education and health, and that require schools to receive permission from parents before administering health services to students, including medication and gender-related counseling to students under age 18,” Mr. Greene said.

Those criticizing the paper included Stanford School of Medicine child psychiatry fellow Jack Turban, whose 2020 paper found that transgender adolescents undergoing pubertal suppression “had lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation.”

“This is making the rounds. It’s a paper from the conservative @Heritage Foundation claiming to show gender-affirming care increases suicidality,” tweeted Dr. Turban. “The methodology and conclusions are absurd, which is likely why they didn’t submit it for peer review.”

On the other side was Ryan T. Anderson, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, who called the study “one of the best papers that has been produced so far on this issue.”

“There are no good studies that evaluate these. They rely on convenience samples, not representative samples. There are no controls for causality,” Mr. Anderson said at a Heritage-sponsored panel. “Now we have one of the first papers that actually tries to use robust methodology, a rigorous model, to evaluate the impact of laws that allow children to transition without parental involvement.”

The number of U.S. pediatric gender clinics has grown to more than 50 since the first one was founded in 2007 in Boston, according to the Human Rights Campaign interactive map.

“Unfortunately, many parents are being told they have a choice between a living son or a dead daughter. They’re then being told that puberty-blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones and possibly even sterilizing surgeries are the only thing that will save their child’s life,” Mr. Anderson said. “These are entirely experimental, microscopically new, when you look at the timeline of human history.” [source]

Sad (the suicides) and stupid (puberty blockers). You don’t mess around with a young persons biology unless you really know what you’re doing which the Left doesn’t.

Google Worker Fired For Blowing The Whistle on ‘Spiritual Organization’ Within Company That’s Been Accused of Sex Trafficking

From The Gateway Pundit.com (June 19):

Google fired one of its employees for blowing the whistle on a “doomsday” cult-like “spiritual organization” within the company.

The employee, Kevin Lloyd, a video producer who worked in the Google Developer Studio, is now suing the tech giant, claiming he was unfairly fired in retaliation after he raised alarm about the religious group.

Lloyd warns the group called the Fellowship of Friends has increasingly gained power at the company by hiring members of its cult-like organization to fill key positions.

Members of the Fellowship of Friends believe they are called to create a new civilization following a doomsday event and implores its followers to attain enlightenment to transcend a state of “waking sleep” state.  The group, which has approximately 1,500 members internationally,  also believes enlightenment is attained by embracing arts including ballet, painting, opera and wine.

The alleged cult-like organization, which collects 10 percent of its’ members’ income, was founded in the 1970s by Robert Earl Burton, who has been sued for sexually assaulting male members of the group.

“Once you become aware of this, you become responsible,” Kevin Lloyd told the New York Times while recounting his decision to sound the alarm on the group’s infiltration of Google. “You can’t look away.”

In his lawsuit, which was filed in a Californian Superior Court in Silicon Valley, Lloyd claims Peter Lubbersthe, director of the Google Developer Studio and a member of Fellowship of Friends, is funneling money from Google to enrich the religious organization and that he was wrongfully terminated for informing his supervisors about the issue.

“Mr. Lubbers gained status and praise relative to the increase of money flowing to the fellowship through his efforts at Google that put (and kept) other fellowship members – directly or indirectly – on Google’s payroll,” the complaint states.

The complaint also alleges Lubbers and the 12  members of the non-denominational religious group work at Google are using their positions to line up work for its members within the company. [read more]

So, the Left doesn’t like whistleblowers who blow the whistle on them. Who would have thought.

Other Google news:

• Google fires engineer who contended its AI technology was sentient
• Google-Backed Artificial Intelligence Taught to Control Nuclear Fusion Reactor
• What’s wrong with Google’s new robot project

Is Stealing Wrong? Not on the Left

From Dennis Prager on Town Hall.com (Nov. 2, 2021):

To most readers of this column, the question is absurd. The reason is not because the question is, in fact, absurd; it is because most readers of this column are conservative, and many are religious.

Am I implying that most leftists do not believe stealing is wrong?

Yes, I am.

As incredible as this assertion is to just about all religious people and virtually all conservatives, most leftists do not believe stealing is wrong. Since I always draw a distinction between those on the Left and liberals, let me add that I suspect most liberals think stealing is wrong. But it almost doesn't matter because they vote for people who do not think it is.

One proof is the passage of Proposition 47, a California ballot initiative passed in 2014, under which theft of less than $950 in goods is treated as a nonviolent misdemeanor and rarely prosecuted. As a result, in Democrat-run California cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, retail theft has soared.

Walgreens stores in San Francisco are racking up four times the average amount of theft in Walgreens stores across the country; spending on security guards in San Francisco is 35 times more than the chain's average in other cities. Walgreens has been forced to close 22 stores in the city since 2016.

As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle: "The Safeway located in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood ... was a longstanding, 24-hour fixture in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood. But as of last week, the store's hours have been cut back to 6 a.m. to 9 p.m ... A Safeway spokesperson (said) that the cutbacks are 'due to an increasing amount of theft at the store.'"

Further proof that the Left doesn't consider theft wrong -- at least when committed by a person of color -- was an interview broadcast on NPR last year with the author of a book titled "In Defense of Looting." The NPR interviewer threw only softball questions to the author.

In the last election, Los Angeles voters elected San Francisco's previous district attorney, George Gascon, as Los Angeles's district attorney. It was Los Angeles's way of declaring that stealing is not wrong. And it is worth noting that it is not only racial minorities and the poor who make these elections possible; it is also prosperous whites. The Los Angeles DA is a wealthy white, and he was supported by a white billionaire, George Soros.

It is hard to believe that millions of Americans do not deem stealing from stores morally wrong, so let's try to explain how this has come about.

Reason No. 1 is moral relativism. For as long as there has been a Left, it has rejected moral absolutes. As the great British historian, Paul Johnson, pointed out a half-century ago in his magnum opus, "Modern Times," the secular world applied the relativism of the natural sciences to morality.

Reason No. 2 is the reason for reason number one: the collapse of the Judeo-Christian value system and the accompanying abandonment of, and often disdain for, biblical ethics. Biblical morality posits moral absolutes -- meaning that stealing is wrong for everyone, certainly people of every color. Yes, one can offer a biblical defense of a starving man stealing food for his starving family. But that is hardly what is happening in San Francisco and other American cities.

Reason No. 3 is Marxist morality. From Marx to the present, Marxism has divided the world not between right and wrong, but between economic classes. Therefore, it is morally acceptable for members of the poorer classes to steal from members of the more affluent classes. This notion has made its way into young people's minds for decades. About 30 years ago, I spoke to students from four Cleveland high schools. I asked them to raise their hand if they would steal something they really wanted from a department store if they were certain they would not get caught. Nearly all the students raised their hands. When I asked some of them to justify their reasoning, they all said the same thing: they wouldn't steal from a mom-and-pop store, but they would steal from a department store. It is OK to steal from "the rich."

Reason No. 4 is leftists' view of nonwhites, especially blacks, a view that conservatives have never shared. Leftists truly believe that blacks are intellectually and morally inferior to whites. The evidence? They do not believe blacks should be held to the same intellectual and moral standards to which leftists hold whites. Leftists do not defend whites who steal, and they hold whites to higher intellectual standards. Leftists do not argue for lowering math standards for whites, only for blacks.

The bottom line is the Left is immoral. That is why it defends stealing. [source]

The East Slams the West’s Climate ‘Colonialism’

From CO2 Coalition.org (Dec. 17, 2021):

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s explosive comments are not surprising to anyone who has been closely observing the opposition of India and China to western pressure for adopting climate polices contrary to the two countries’ economic objectives.

“The colonial mindset hasn’t gone,” said Modi at a Constitution Day event. “We are seeing from developed nations that the path that made them developed is being closed for developing nations… If we talk about absolute cumulative (carbon) emissions, rich nations have emitted 15 times more from 1850 till now… The per capita emission is also 11 times more in the U.S. and the EU.”

Senior ministers in the past have called out the colonial nature of climate politics. However, this is the first that Modi has publicly recalled in this context, the colonialism of the 18th and 19th centuries when Western countries denied basic rights and autonomy to India and other colonies.

Carbon imperialism is no myth. The economic success of modern western society is a fruit of the industrial era driven by fossil fuels. Even in the 21^st century, all the major developed economies rely on these fuels for primary energy needs. To deny the same growth for developing countries is hypocrisy tinged with the colonialism under which fates of billions were decided by leaders of the industrialized West.

“Attempts are made to shut the path and resources for developing nations through which developed nations reached where they are today,” said Modi. “In past decades, a web of different terminologies was spun for this. But the aim has always been one to stop the progress of developing nations. The issue of environment is also being attempted to be hijacked for this purpose. We saw an example of this in the recent COP26 Summit…. Today no nation exists as a colony to any other nation. (That) doesn’t mean that (the) colonial mindset ended… Still, India is lectured on environmental conservation.”

Modi also called out Indian activists, policy makers and organizations espousing an anti-fossil stance. Blaming them for hindering progress, he said, “Sadly, we also have such people in our country who stall the development of the nation in the name of freedom of expression without understanding the aspirations of the nation. Such people don’t bear the brunt, but those mothers who get no electricity for their children bear it.”

Modi is right. Hundreds of millions in India have no access to uninterrupted electricity. What people in the developed nations take for granted is still a luxury for millions here. Mothers do manual work for hours, children lack electricity to study for their exams, and industries lose millions of dollars in damaged equipment from unreliable power. Electricity disruption even impedes medical procedures in rural hospitals. Without reliable electricity, India cannot achieve fast-paced economic growth necessary for raising 300 million people out of poverty.

Meanwhile, Indians have some of the lowest levels of per capita carbon emissions. India’s per capita emission was measured at just 1.91 tons a year (2016) while that of the U.S. was 15.52 and Canada’s, 18.58.

Besides, there is no evidence that global CO2 emissions can cause catastrophic warming. Apocalyptic predictions are projections from computer models that have proven to be faulty. These models (used by U.N. climate alarmists and others) exaggerate warming by many times as they are designed to be ultra-sensitive to human CO2 emissions. So, there is no good reason for India to give in to climate pressure from the West.

It took a long time for the leader of 1.3 billion people to call out the reeking hypocrisy of Western elites and their never-ending attempts to dictate energy policy to countries in which they are not elected. Nevertheless, Modi’s bold step to tag western leaders with a “colonialist mindset” marks an important turn in global climate politics. [source]

Then enviro-extremists don’t care what India, China or for that matter what any poor country wants or thinks. Global warming/climate change is their religion. They are trying to save the planet for Gaia’s sake!

America Is Much More than Its Government

From JB Shurk on American Thinker.com (Dec. 20, 2021):

If there were three quick lessons I wish people would understand about government, they are these:

(1) Governments do whatever is necessary to secure and expand their own power and wealth.

(2) Governments have no capacity for morality and will lie about anything large or small.

(3) Governments always put their own interests ahead of those they purport to govern.

That's the dirty truth of it.  Politicians and State-run media corporations can slobber about the selfless and noble souls who sacrifice their lives as "public servants" so that they may lift the people up, but that's all dribble, no bucket.  An honest politician, as if any existed, would tell you politicians are in the business of creating problems where none exist so that they can solve them, declare victory, and parade around as heroes.  While they are fast to proclaim poverty, their vocation is entirely about pecuniary gain.  They engage in the kind of insider trading and quid pro quo that would send anybody else in America straight to prison.  Many of them enter office with lint in their pockets, and many retire as millionaires.  Taxpayers, in effect, pay criminals to represent their interests, and to nobody's surprise, the criminals fleece the taxpayers silly and drop new problems at their doorsteps along the way.  It's all grift and gripe for personal glory. 

That being the case, the populace governed by these charlatans and felons responds to this outrageous behavior and routine dereliction of official duties by coming to one of two possible conclusions.  Either (1) citizens properly deduce that people in government should never be trusted, or (2) they look around at all the fires started by government actors, stick their heads up their own derrières, and decide that only more government could possibly fix the crises already created by too much government in the first place.  I know, I know — how is it possible that so many people choose the foul odor of number two?  I wish it were as simple as pointing out the obvious truth that half the population is running on overheated mental hardware limited by sub-hundred I.Q.s.

I wish I could say, "And that's how we came to have two political parties, one represented by elephants, known as exceptionally smart mammals, and the other by Equus asinus, known universally as the common ass."  However, as Old Guard Republicans have put the "stupid" in the "stupid party" for decades, it is abundantly clear that politicians, regardless of party, will do anything and everything to corroborate the three dirty truths up above, even if they do so while paying lip service to the virtues of limited government and the people's inalienable rights.  Stabbing Americans in their backs is a bipartisan undertaking. 

So here's where the scorecard stands:

Runaway inflation; a collapsing currency set in motion by an unconstitutional central bank that manipulates the dollar and destroys personal savings; a "health emergency" that has been systematically abused to blow up the Bill of Rights; a voting system that nobody trusts because of its inherent and intentional conduciveness for enabling fraud; schoolchildren who have never been dumber yet more indoctrinated by communist claptrap; an unprotected border that has helped destroy communities around the country with crime, division, and drugs; global war against amorphous threats of "terrorism" (which has morphed into a dangerous domestic war against Americans for their political beliefs); and endless attacks on traditional American culture by nasty, self-glamorizing moral poseurs intent on despoiling Western civilization, wrecking Judeo-Christian sanctities, squashing families out of existence, and plundering anything left over to help pay off some Treasury IOUs owed to China. 

Let's be clear: The American people built none of these catastrophes; their worthless government did.  (I think some overrated former president once said some version of that to great applause.)

Now, on the positive side — oh, whom am I kidding?  Right now we have death, debt, and dystopia brought to us by a man with dementia yammering incessantly about "our precious democracy."  Isn't it revealing that the handful who occupy the seat of government are always so insistent on pretending that they represent "democracy"?  That's called propaganda, friends, so that the real majority is linguistically bullied into submission by fewer Americans than have been killed by the China Virus.  How does one king bring ninety-nine lords to heel?  By whispering into each noble's ear that the other ninety-eight are already on his side.  As it was with feudalism, it is today with the American government: how dare you stand up to Congress and the White House? That's an attack on Democracy itself!

One of Allan Moore's delightfully brutal yet sagacious observations is this: "People shouldn't be afraid of their government.  Governments should be afraid of their people."   I find this notion to be so elemental to any functioning "free system" that I think we would all fare well if it were chiseled onto the marble of every D.C. institution as an obligatory reminder to its inhabitants, not at all different from Ancient Rome's tradition of having a slave continuously whisper into the ears of victorious generals parading triumphantly on chariots through the streets, "Remember that you are but a man!" 

However, if anybody dared to stand before the U.S. Capitol today with a bullhorn reminding lawmakers that "governments should be afraid of their people," I do not think it would be long before the speaker joined the January 6 political prisoners who have been thrown into the dungeon and treated heinously for nearly a year.  To attack "democracy"?  To threaten America?  Heavens to Betsy!  When words are treated as violence, and the U.S. government is allowed to pretend it is America, then everything is an insurrection! 

I know for a fact that D.C.'s propagandists invented an "insurrection" out of thin air earlier this year because (1) the Capitol protesters were armed with nothing more than American flags; (2) only unarmed Capitol protesters were killed by Capitol Police; and (3) you can't overthrow the American government by merely prancing around half-naked and taking selfies in Nancy Pelosi's desk chair.  If the American government is, in fact, considered "overthrown" after the equivalent of a college streak through the quad, why should the Russians ever need tanks or fighter jets to conquer America?  Apparently, sending in the crew from Animal House and letting them rain crazy hijinks down on Congress is sufficient for the U.S. government's full surrender.  Who knew?  No wonder Lindsey Graham urged officers to fire on unarmed American citizens, however boisterous, at will.  "To save 'democracy,' we must kill all the voters," perhaps?  I don't know, just spitballing, but it sounds like a good slogan for the Democrat party.

All of this is to say one thing: America is much more than its government.  The American people and what they want are more important than what the collection of grifter criminals who occupy government offices tell us to believe.  There are no statesmen in the molds of Pericles or Churchill or Washington left.  Politicians know only one word now: "Obey."  Americans should have only one answer: "You first." [source]

No wonder the Left likes big gov’t. They are compatible. And to the Left, the bigger the gov’t the better.

Other articles on gov’t:

• Governments Never Give Up Power Voluntarily
• Why Governments Hate Decentralization and "Local Control"
• House Conservatives Outline Playbook for Government Reform

Man Tries to Give Blood Amid a Shortage, Is Rejected Because He Won't Say Whether He's Pregnant

From Red State.com (June 18):

For any men wanting to donate blood, make sure you’re medically self-aware.

For example, you should be adequately informed as to whether you’ve been impregnated.

Such was a lesson reportedly learned by Leslie Sinclair this month. The central Scotland resident had hoped to give life-sustaining fluid to others in need. Sadly, the effort encountered coagulation.

According to the Daily Mail, the 66-year-old was handed a form asking if he was currently pregnant. Furthermore, the facility needed to know if he’d been knocked up within the last half-year.

The inquiry left him less than impressed:

When he complained that as a man in his 60s this question did not apply and he should not have to answer it, Mr Sinclair said staff at the clinic told him they could not accept his blood.

It’s a real shame, as the UK’s blood supply is disconcertingly low:

The stand-off took place as NHS England launched a campaign earlier this week to recruit a million more blood donors over the next five years after numbers fell during the pandemic. The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (SNBTS) began a drive earlier this month to find 16,000 new donors in the coming year.

But ours is an era of updated priorities. Evidently, inclusion > life.

It emerged [Thursday] night that all potential donors are asked if they are pregnant to “promote inclusiveness” and because pregnancy is “not always visually clear.”

Of course, Leslie could’ve simply provided his womb’s particulars; but in the end, he decided the state of his uterus was no one’s right to know.

Angry at the refusal to take his blood, Mr. Sinclair walked away and last night told of his frustration at the “nonsensical” decision.

Leslie is neither the first nor the last man to be scrutinized over his ovaries. Medicine is moving toward a sex-blind approach:

Breastfeeding Academy Bails on ‘Breasts’

To Be Inclusive of Non-Binary Parents, Hospitals Nix the Terms ‘Breast Milk’ and ‘Father’

University Renames Its Women’s Clinic Because ‘Women’ Was Medically Inaccurate

Columbia Medical School’s ‘Anti-Bias’ Guidelines Tout ‘People With Uteruses’ and Insist ‘Race Is a Social Construct’

Hospitals Are Starting to Ask Men if They’re Pregnant

Speaking to the Mail, Leslie explained that blood donation wasn’t just some recently-gestated idea:

“I am angry because I have been giving blood since I was 18 and have regularly gone along. I’m very happy to do so without any problem.”

Over fifty years, the man has contributed 125 pints.

But this was the first time he’d seen the question concerning pregnancy.

“I pointed out to the staff that it was impossible for me to be in that position, but I was told that I would need to answer. Otherwise, I couldn’t give blood.

“I told them that was stupid and that if I had to leave, I wouldn’t be back. And that was it. I got on my bike and cycled away.

“It is nonsensical, and it makes me angry because there are vulnerable people waiting for blood, including children, and in desperate need of help. But they’ve been denied my blood because of the obligation to answer a question that can’t possibly be answered.”

To complicate matters, Leslie isn’t a biologist:

Mr. Sinclair said his wife Margaret, 59, was also appalled, adding: “She just can’t understand it, either.” Pregnant women must wait six months after giving birth to donate blood. Mr Sinclair, a retired driver for an engineering company, went to the Albert Halls in Stirling to give blood on Wednesday.

Professor Marc Turner, director of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, responded to Leslie’s complaint:

“We appreciate the support of each and every one of our donor community and thank Mr. Sinclair for his commitment over a long number of years. Whilst pregnancy is only a relevant question to those whose biological sex or sex assigned at birth is female, sex assigned at birth is not always visually clear to staff.

“As a public body, we take cognizance of changes in society around how such questions may be asked without discrimination and have a duty to promote inclusiveness — therefore, all donors are now asked the same questions.”

It’s a new world, and old-schoolers like Leslie Sinclair must adjust. But on the other side of conversion, news is good: The medical apparatus is well-trained and at the ready:

Report: University Schools Midwifery Students on the Handling of the Birthing Penis [source]

More insanity of the Left. Take the guy’s blood for goodness sake. So, political correctness is more important than saving someone’s life in the future? Makes no sense.

REPORT: FBI Confidential Human Source Told FBI What Documents Trump Stored at Mar-a-Lago and Where to Search…. Related to Spygate?

From The Gateway Pundit.com (Aug. 10):

Joe Biden’s jackbooted thugs raided Mar-a-Lago on Monday.

More than 3 dozen FBI agents descended on Trump’s Florida residence and searched the compound for several hours.

The FBI would not allow Trump’s lawyers to be anywhere near the areas that were rummaged through.

“Everyone was asked to leave the premises, they wanted to be left alone, without any witnesses to see what they were doing, taking or, hopefully not, “planting.” Why did they STRONGLY insist on having nobody watching them, everybody out?” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Wednesday.

According to Newsweek, a Confidential Human Source (CHS) told the FBI what documents were stored at Mar-a-Lago and where they were stored.

Newsweek reported:

The raid on Mar-a-Lago was based largely on information from an FBI confidential human source, one who was able to identify what classified documents former President Trump was still hiding and even the location of those documents, two senior government officials told Newsweek.

The officials, who have direct knowledge of the FBI’s deliberations and were granted anonymity in order to discuss sensitive matters, said the raid of Donald Trump’s Florida residence was deliberately timed to occur when the former president was away.

The act, and concerns about the illegal possession of classified “national defense information” are the bases for the search warrant, according to the two sources. The raid had nothing to do with the January 6 investigation or any other alleged wrongdoing by the former president.

In the past week, the prosecutor in the case and local Assistant U.S. Attorney went to Florida magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart in West Palm Beach to seek approval for the search of Donald Trump’s private residence. The affidavit to obtain the search warrant, the intelligence source says, contained abundant and persuasive detail that Trump continued to possess the relevant records in violation of federal law, and that investigators had sufficient information to prove that those records were located at Mar-a-Lago—including the detail that they were contained in a specific safe in a specific room.

The National Archives already raided Mar-a-Lago back in February and found nothing of note that was stored at Trump’s residence.

What exactly was the FBI looking for?

Was the FBI trying to cover their tracks?

Investigative journalist Paul Sperry says the FBI may have had a personal stake and searched for classified documents related to Spygate.

“DEVELOPING: Investigators reportedly met back in June with Trump & his lawyers in Mar-a-Lago storage rm to survey docs & things seemed copasetic but then FBI raids weeks later. Speculation on Hill FBI had PERSONAL stake & searching for classified docs related to its #Spygate scandal.” – investigative journalist Paul Sperry said in a tweet Tuesday before getting suspended from Twitter. [source]

What the FBI did is an outrage. Biden had to know. And the agents didn’t let Trump’s lawyers watch as they raided his home? That’s not right. And suspicious. The whole deal doesn’t feel right. The swamp doesn’t want Trump to run again.

Other articles on the raid:

• Glenn reacts to FBI raid of Trump home: A ‘MASSIVE MOVE' [video]
• Why THIS legal expert says FBI's Trump raid is ‘OUTRAGEOUS’ [video]
• Trump raid details hint it’s ‘NOT LOOKING GOOD’ for the FBI [video]
• Trump ally Rep. Scott Perry says FBI seized his cellphone
• Documents at Mar-a-Lago Marked ‘Classified’ Were Already Declassified, Kash Patel Says
• Bernard B. Kerik tweet about the raid
• New Details About Judge Who Approved Mar-A-Lago Raid Raises All Sorts of Red Flags
• The FBI Raids Mar-a-Lago, and I Have Questions
• The Lockdowns and Mandates Emboldened the Ruling Class and Led to the Raid on Mar-a-Lago
• Details of What FBI Seized at Mar-a-Lago Make FBI Raid Look Downright Scandalous
• Kimberly Guilfoyle to Newsmax: FBI May Have Planted 'Listening Devices'
• Did Donald Trump Bait the FBI?
• Indiana Republican Who Was Born In The USSR Blasts FBI Trump Raid As ‘KGB-Style Tactics’
• Mick Mulvaney: FBI Informant 'Very Close' to Trump
• Justice Department moves to unseal Trump search warrant; AG Garland personally approved search
• The Attempt to Prosecute Donald Trump Is Unleashing More Than Our Political System Can Handle
• Questions grow about Trump raid after revelation of grand jury subpoena, extensive cooperation
• Exclusive: An Informer Told the FBI What Docs Trump Was Hiding, and Where
• Sean Hannity Confirms Mar-a-Lago Security Cameras WERE NOT Turned Off During FBI Raid (VIDEO)
• FBI Dir. Christopher Wray Finally Responds to Raid of Trump Residence
• Report: FBI sought nuclear documents in Trump raid
• Trump says he won’t oppose releasing search warrant documents
• The Big Problem With the Trump Warrant
• REPORT: Trump Received Subpoena in Spring For Documents Before FBI Raid, Cooperated with Federal Agents
• FBI seized 11 sets of classified documents in Trump search: Reports
• Kash Patel: Documents Obtained During Corrupt FBI Raid of President Trump’s Home Were Already Declassified
• Eric Trump tells DailyMail.com what REALLY happened in FBI raid: President's son says 30 agents REFUSED to hand over warrant, kicked lawyer off property, rifled through clothes - and how Mar-a-Lago staff refused to turn off security cameras
• Angel Outside Trump’s Empty Safe Tells FBI Agents, 'Behold! The Document You Seek Is Not Here!'
• EPIC! OAN Network Runs Spoof on FBI’s Outrageous Mar-a-Lago Fishing Expedition — With Exclusive List of Items Sought by FBI (VIDEO)
• FBI To Begin Raiding Homes Of Those Who Criticize FBI Raid

Why Marx Gets a Pass

From John Stonestreet on Breakpoint.org (Nov. 16, 2021):

November marks a pair of important anniversaries, bookends of a dark period in human history. In the first week of November (often dated as October by the older Julian calendar) 1917, Russian revolutionaries under Vladimir Lenin overthrew the moderate socialist government of Alexander Kerensky and established the first Marxist regime. Almost precisely 72 years later, on November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall was torn down, and with it (at least symbolically) the diabolical worldview that had trapped and enslaved a third of humanity.

You would think, considering its extensive and deadly track record, the demise of communism would be celebrated by everyone. Conservatives can rejoice in the casting down of a belief system intent on desecrating the wisdom from the past, and liberals could cherish the freedom from tyranny that the fall of the Wall represented. However, far too many people, particularly in academia, continue to see the legacy of Communism through rose-colored glasses.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned the high school AP Government teacher in Sacramento who was suspended for encouraging his students to take up far Left activities. Hanging in his classroom was a poster of Mao Zedong who, if you recall, was responsible for over 50 million deaths in the 20th century. That’s more than anyone else, including Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

While this may be an extreme case, it’s unsettling how history’s greatest killers are so often remembered. We’ve all seen the Che Guevara posters and t-shirts, ironic given his views on race and sexuality, and, pun intended, the capitalization of his image.

The selective memory goes beyond pop culture. According to the Acton Institute, about 30 percent of the rising generation has a favorable view of Marxism. How can an ideology that animated oppressive control over billions, inspired Soviet Gulags and East European secret police, and instigated mass starvations in Europe and Asia seem positive to anyone?

Some blame can be placed on our lack of historical memory. It’s been 32 years since the massacre in Tiananmen Square and the fall of the Berlin Wall. An entire generation of adults lacks any personal connection to Communism’s horrifying history. Often, what little history we hear about the Cold War is filtered through pop culture, or delivered in a volatile mix of paranoia, nationalism, and ignorance. We’d do better to listen to voices such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, or Ukrainian protestors, or Chinese dissidents like Bob Fu, who actually experienced the terrors of a worker’s paradise.

Another reason Marx and his ideals get a pass is that it’s easy to romanticize a reality we can’t see. When Nazism, Communism’s evil twin, collapsed in the wake of war, its beliefs were repudiated before the entire world. Hitler’s name and movement became shorthand for evil. His dreams died in the rubble of Anglo-American bombs and Russian tanks, and his crimes were exposed in court.

Not so with Marx nor his disciples. Historians may comment on their crimes and their statues may be toppled after the fact, but Lenin, Stalin, and Mao died in their beds, secure in their power, without ever having to face defeat or the wrath of their victims. Without this, it’s all too easy for those in the comfortable, capitalist West to imagine that they weren’t as bad as they truly were.

Finally, Marx slides in a culture that judges ideas on whether they sound nice. The Nazis literally had skulls on their caps. The Marxists, on the other hand, sold utopian dreams of bread and land and unity and equality and progress. They might have been sending millions to die in the Gulag for the crime of having a wealthy ancestor, but that’s not what the Che Guevara fans of today think about. They’re thinking about slogans that look great on a bumper stick or a tweet, but which mean death and tyranny when put into practice.

Perhaps the most important lesson we can take from this cultural folly is that when it comes to the ideas that populate our worldviews, it’s not enough that they sound nice and feel right. Ideas wouldn’t matter if they stayed in slogans and manifestos. But they don’t. They grow feet and hands, drive armies and policy, and have consequences for real people in the real world.

Too much is at stake to root our worldview in the latest recurring ideological fad. Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have victims. We must not ignore the horror or the victims of bad ideas just because we found them on the road of good intentions. Intentions and worldviews are good only insofar as they are true. [source]

Marxism like progressivism is deceitful and cunning.

Other articles about Marx: 

• Karl Marx, Liar and Corruptor
• Marx and Cancel Culture

“A Global Coup Has Been Carried Out Across the World – Has Destroyed the Very Foundations of the Rule of Law” – Archbishop Vigano’s Message to America (Transcript and Audio)

From The Gateway Pundit.com (Dec. 19, 2021):

Italian Archbishop Vigano shared with The Gateway Pundit his transcript and audio message to the American people this week. 

Italian Archbishop Vigano sent a message to the American people.  He continues to speak out against the globalist threat this Christmas season.

He shared his message below:

DEAR AMERICAN PEOPLE, DEAR FRIENDS, for two years now, a global coup has been carried out all over the world, planned for some time by an elite group of conspirators enslaved to the interests of international high finance. This coup was made possible by an emergency pandemic that is based on the premise of a virus that has a mortality rate almost analogous to that of any other seasonal flu virus, on the delegitimization and prohibition of effective treatments, and on the distribution of an experimental gene serum which is obviously ineffective, and which also clearly carries with it the danger of serious and even lethal side effects. We all know how much the mainstream media has contributed to supporting the insane pandemic narrative, the interests that are at stake, and the goals of these groups of power: reducing the world population, making those who survive chronically ill, and imposing forms of control that violate the fundamental rights and natural liberties of citizens. And yet, two years after this grotesque farce started, which has claimed more victims than a war and destroyed the social fabric, national economies, and the very foundations of the rule of law, nothing has changed in the policies of Nations and their response to the so-called pandemic.

Last year, when many still had not yet understood the gravity of the looming threat, I was among the first to denounce this coup, and I was promptly singled out as a conspiracy theorist. Today more and more people are opening their eyes and beginning to understand that the emergency pandemic and the“ecological emergency” are part of a criminal plan hatched by the World Economic Forum, the UN, the WHO, and a galaxy of organizations and foundations that are ideologically characterized as clearly anti-human and – this needs to be said clearly – anti-Christian. One of the elements that unequivocally confirms the criminal nature of the Great Reset is the perfect synchrony with which all the different Nations are acting, demonstrating the existence of a single script under a single direction.And it is disconcerting to see how the lack of treatment, the deliberately wrong treatments that have been given in order to cause more deaths, the decision to impose lockdowns and masks, the conspiratorial silence about the adverse effects of the so-called “vaccines” that are in fact gene serums, and the continuous repetition of culpable errors have all been possible thanks to the complicity of those who govern and the institutions. Political and religious leaders, representatives of the people, scientists and doctors, journalists and those who work in the media have literally betrayed their people, their laws,their Constitutions, and the most basic ethical principles.

[read more]

Biden's bill contains a hidden 'Toddler Tax'

From Washington Examiner.com (Dec. 13, 2021):

Parents are facing unprecedented challenges to their right to make decisions in their children’s lives — and it could get much worse.

The Democrats’ tax and spend agenda includes a “Toddler Tax” that would further usurp power from parents and hand over more control to the federal government through its $400 billion “Birth to Five” and pre-K plans.

The Democrats’ House-passed spending bill promises that taxpayer dollars will provide access to “top tier” child care. In reality, this reckless spending comes with many strings attached. New regulations for child care providers will result in higher costs, fewer providers, and less access to affordable care for working families. The plan also attacks basic freedoms by prohibiting parents from choosing faith-based providers over government-approved options.

In the halls of Congress and around the country, people of all political persuasions can agree that affordable child care is vital to the nation’s economic recovery and future success. However, the current vision of unlimited government spending and provider discrimination won’t yield the child care utopia that Democrats are promising.

As the Senate takes up consideration of the so-called Build Back Better plan, it’s imperative to understand the potentially devastating ramifications of putting Washington bureaucrats — not parents — in control of child care.

Behind closed doors, Democrats designed a program that methodically ratchets up federal requirements for child care providers, going beyond already-burdensome state regulations. Under the guise of “quality,” they created new mandates for wages and qualification requirements that will undermine existing providers that families count on every day.

We know this approach won’t work in cities and towns around the country because it’s already failed in Washington, D.C., the epicenter of big government. A similar proposal to create forced parity in wages in the District of Columbia was recently rejected after a report issued last month by the Office of the State Superintendent of Education pointed out that it would drive up prices. The District’s model, the report found, “could create unintended negative consequences to the child care market… [this] approach could reduce the number of providers participating in the subsidy program, increase child care costs for families not in the subsidy program, and destabilize the labor market for early child care workers across the entire sector.”

How much is the "Toddler Tax?" The left-leaning People's Policy Project estimates that wage requirements associated with the new child care entitlement could raise child care costs by $13,000 a year for unsubsidized middle-class families. Wages are just one component of a litany of new federal child care regulations that would increase costs and could push smaller, home-based providers out of the market altogether.

Inexplicably, the Democrats’ bill would also force every parent who needs help paying for child care to pull children out of faith-based and community church child care. This proposal changes long-standing federal policy allowing parents to choose the child care provider that best meets their needs through vouchers, including faith-based providers. Faith-based organizations play an important role in society. According to a survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center, 53% of working families who use center-based care choose centers and preschools affiliated with religious organizations. It’s easy to understand that these trusted providers have strong connections to the needs of families in their communities.

Every week, parents tell me they’re concerned about what’s being taught in public schools these days. Now, Democrats want to take over our children’s education at an even earlier age and end faith-based options where love and compassion are on the agenda.

If you think parents are paying attention now, just wait to see what happens when they find out their only option for day care is a Washington-approved provider.

In the midst of their Build Back Better pep rallies, I wonder how many Democrats have even looked at the rules in these new child care programs or considered whether this is the “solution” parents want.

If Democrats succeed in jamming through their radical agenda, these programs could expire in 2027 — but the shock waves of skyrocketing costs, fewer child care choices, and lost opportunities for our children will remain far longer. [source]

Rep. Lauren Boebert denies ‘vile’ escort, abortion claims, vows legal action against PAC

From Washing Times.com (June 15):

Rep. Lauren Boebert, Colorado Republican, threatened Wednesday to file a defamation lawsuit against an anti-Republican super PAC that accused her of working previously as a paid escort and having two abortions.

Mrs. Boebert released a letter from her attorney to the American Muckrakers PAC and issued a statement denying the “blatantly false and disgusting accusations” posted Tuesday on the group’s “Fire Boebert” website.

“Partisan organizations putting out blatantly false and disgusting accusations won’t stop me from advancing freedom and conservative values,” she said in a statement to The Washington Times. “This group’s vile conduct demonstrates why people are fed up with politics. I am not going to stand by and pretend this is normal behavior.”

In a letter to Muckrakers president David B. Wheeler, Denver attorney Jonathan Anderson said the first-term congresswoman plans to bring a civil defamation claim.

He also warned that the group could also face criminal liability for making false statements about her in letters to Colorado and Utah authorities requesting investigations.

Mr. Anderson said that “we also have evidence, including internal Muckrakers’ text and email communications, that demonstrates Muckrakers did in fact publish statements knowing those statements to be false.”

Mr. Wheeler said Wednesday that the organization stands by its accusations.

“We have received the letter and our legal counsel will respond directly to her counsel,” he said in an email. “We stand by our information.”

He added that it “was Lauren Boebert who created these problems and she never takes any responsibility. It’s also interesting to us that the press had the lawyer’s letter before we did. Coincidence or collaboration?”

Muckrakers was founded last year to defeat Rep. Madison Cawthorn, North Carolina Republican, by Mr. Wheeler and Moe Davis, the Democratic candidate who lost to Mr. Cawthorn in 2020.

After Mr. Cawthorn lost his Republican primary bid last month, the North Carolina-based group announced on its “Fire Madison” website that “Now it’s Lauren Boebert’s turn.”

Mrs. Boebert said the independent-expenditure committee, “funded by far-left Democrat donors and run by two left wing political operatives, published pages of false statements knowing they were completely fabricated.”

“The law on this type of defamation is clear and this conduct will be subject to civil and criminal penalties,” she said.

The group’s Tuesday press release claimed that she worked as an “unlicensed, paid escort” and underwent two abortions, citing its “exhaustive investigation and a tip from a verified source close to the matter.”

“All the facts came from a source we trust and others on our team know,” said the group in a Wednesday update. “We verified the abortion claims with another source. We stand by our story. We’ve not seen nor heard anything that would refute our allegations. If we do, we’ll let you know.

Muckrakers also said it had removed a photo of a woman originally identified as Mrs. Boebert that “we have been told is someone else.”

“We have contacted the Daily Mail to confirm the identity of the photo as our source still claims it is Boebert,” said Muckrakers in its post.

In his letter, Mrs. Boebert’s attorney refuted a dozen accusations made by Muckrakers about Mrs. Boebert, including claims that she worked as an escort; that she met Sen. Ted Cruz through a client who belonged to the Koch family; and that she had abortions in 2009 and “2004 or 2005.”

Mr. Anderson said Mrs. Boebert, who has four sons, was pregnant during those times.

“To be clear, Rep. Boebert was pregnant with her first son in 2004 and 2005 and he was born in 2005, she was pregnant with her third son in 2008 and 2009 and he was born in 2009, and she has never had an abortion,” Mr. Anderson said in the letter.

Mr. Anderson said his client has “irrefutable evidence that each one of these statements is patently false.”

“Muckrakers’ sloppy, reckless, and wildly irresponsible actions have created substantial legal liability for Muckrakers, David Wheeler in his personal capacity, and each donor to the organization who chose to fund the effort knowing it would result in defamation,” the letter to Mr. Wheeler said.

Muckrakers had raised nearly $191,000 as of the April 27 reporting deadline, according to the Federal Election Commission.

The congresswoman faces a June 28 primary challenge from Republican state Sen. Don Coram in her bid for a second term. [source]

Hope she sues. That’s slander.

More Boebert news:

Boebert’s New Proposal Would Expose What Dems Hide in Bills – And They Hate It

WHO to rename monkeypox because 'racism'

From The Post Millennium.com (June 15):

The World Health Organization (WHO) will be changing the name of monkeypox, over concerns of racism and stigma that surround the virus that has infected over 1,600 people across over 20 countries.

WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Tuesday that it is “working with partners and experts from around the world on changing the name of monkeypox virus, its clades and the disease it causes.” A new name, they say, will be released as soon as possible.

Over 30 scientists said last week that there was an "urgent need for a non-discriminatory and non-stigmatizing nomenclature for the monkeypox virus."

They argue that "The prevailing perception in the international media and scientific literature is that MPXV is endemic in people in some African countries. However, it is well established that nearly all MPXV outbreaks in Africa prior to the 2022 outbreak, have been the result of spillover from animals to humans and only rarely have there been reports of sustained human-to-human transmissions. In the context of the current global outbreak, continued reference to, and nomenclature of this virus being African is not only inaccurate but is also discriminatory and stigmatizing.

"The most obvious manifestation of this," they continue, "is the use of photos of African patients to depict the pox lesions in mainstream media in the global north. Recently, Foreign Press Association, Africa issued a statement urging the global media to stop using images of African people to highlight the outbreak in Europe."

WHO is now consulting experts in orthopoxviruses on finding a more appropriate name.

TIME reports that "Other disease names that run counter to the guidelines include swine flu, according to joint recommendations from the WHO, the World Organization for Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations." Chicken pox and bird flu are among those as well.

A priority in naming diseases "should be done with the aim to minimize the negative impact," the spokesperson said in an email, "and avoid causing offense to any cultural, social, national, regional, professional or ethnic groups."

It is still not known how monkeypox entered humans in the current outbreak, though it is known that the virus has been spreading through close, intimate contact. [source]

Dumb idea. Who is the name offending? Monkees? Geez.

How Much Would You Like to Be a Serf?

From American Thinker.com (Nov. 5, 2021):

In her remarkable trilogy entitled The Bourgeois Era, Deirdre McCloskey studies the history, evolution, and importance of the middle class from its rise in Western Europe some 400 years ago to the magnificent heights of affluence and power it enjoys today.  It is the middle class that made Western Europe and America the great powers they have been for centuries and that has created a standard of living beyond anything imaginable before.

From the beginning, the intelligentsia, the modern-day descendants of medieval scholars and scribes, sought to undermine the middle class and to preserve the hierarchical class structure with which they identified.  That is the same autocratic class structure that Hillary had in mind when she labeled ordinary Americans "deplorables" or that explains the creepy hypocrisy of Biden's working-class persona.

While the idea of "lords and ladies" may seem like ancient history, the fact is that the reactionary thinking of the court intelligentsia is still very much with us.  The leaders of today's Democrat party view themselves as more intelligent and entitled than the mass of deplorables whom they were born to govern.

Not just that: The intelligentsia are determined to eliminate the middle class, whose values and political interests are so much opposed to their own insistence on centralized control.  To this end, today's progressives are doing all they can to block the path to the middle class — a path that expanded dramatically under President Trump.  It is not in the left's interest to have a broad, inquisitive, educated, assertive middle class demanding the right to govern themselves.

In place of a large, educated middle class, progressives want to return to the ancient feudal system in which the lives of the peasants were controlled and directed by the aristocracy.  In the feudal system, it was not just the economy that was dominated by the elite; almost every aspect of peasant life was directed by their "betters," including their freedom of movement and association, choice of work, and decisions regarding marriage and raising of children.  Life-and-death decisions such as access to food and shelter were also in the hands of the elite.

It is just such an outdated political system that progressives wish to restore.  Biden's feudal plan to transform America naturally aligns with Marx, another reactionary who was obsessed with destroying liberal democracy and the middle class.  For Marx, "bourgeois" is the ultimate expression of contempt because it denotes a class that has escaped the control of the aristocracy.  Marx was writing at the time of the great transformation of European society from the era of absolute monarchy to democratic capitalism, and he detested the democratization that he saw around him.  His theory of communism is little more than a smokescreen to re-impose absolutism on the rising middle class.

Like all members of the intelligentsia, Marx saw himself as the brains behind an autocratic government of the future that would re-impose control over the masses and suppress democratic freedoms.  While Marx spoke in terms of liberating the masses, what he actually meant was for them to remain masses and not to rise into the middle class.  While the middle class was being eliminated, a process that would last for a very long time if not forever, the masses would be ruled by a vanguard that very much resembles the feudal system of the past — and today's progressivism based on Marxism.

Biden and those around him are hardcore Marxists and, as such, they are just the latest act in a long history of anti-democratic politics.  Biden's primary motivation in handing out crumbs like "free" pre-school and daycare (paid for with price increases on everyday necessities) is to ensure permanent control by a reactionary Democrat party rooted in the misguided Marxist thinking of the past.  The intelligentsia believe that the masses require a strong hand to rule over them and that they, the intelligentsia and the autocrats with whom they conspire, are that strong hand.

A core value of the intelligentsia is the belief that they are smarter than ordinary people and that they have the right to rule, even if this involves stealing elections.  Democrats threaten to imprison parents who speak out at school board meetings — can it get any worse than that?

The language that the intelligentsia applied to Obama, and that they briefly applied to Biden, is reminiscent of the language of European courts such as that of Louis XIV.  Obama was the "Sun King" whose influence would illuminate the land, turn back the oceans, block the storms, and drop a plump goose (or a Chevy Suburban) into the hands of every loyal peasant.  Obama and Biden are, in effect, counter-revolutionaries intent on blocking change and imposing a no-growth, socially static rule on America.  That no-growth agenda is reflected in the latest weak GDP inflation-adjusted number of 0.2% — an abyssal number compared to Trump's record-setting performance.

To say that the modern intelligentsia are descended from scholars and scribes does not mean that its members in academe and the media are actually intelligent.  If they were, they would realize how self-defeating their Big Government plans are in a nation where two hundred million voters lean conservative.  Fortunately for us, the intelligentsia are not really thinking about long-term success; they want to pass a flashy "transformative" bill that would confirm their sense of themselves as "smart" leaders.  And again, they are resorting to antidemocratic tactics — shoving the bill through Congress and distorting it in the media before the public has a chance to consider what's in it and what it will cost.  Queen Nancy has none of the charm and grace of Marie Antoinette, but she shares her predecessor's disdain for the cake-eating masses.

The conflict between the reactionary intelligentsia headed by Biden, Pelosi, Obama, and the Clintons and a hardworking middle class supported by Donald Trump and, before him, Ronald Reagan, is the most important political clash of our time.  Reactionaries like Biden want to limit economic opportunity and curtail free speech and meaningful elections.  Their goal is to institute permanent autocratic control by destroying democratic capitalism, and the intelligentsia are facilitating this forced march to serfdom.  It can be stopped only by a tidal wave of resistance at the polls. [source]

The author got the Left’s number. He nailed it. They are arrogant snobs.

This newly spotted massive alien planet is confusing astronomers

From Popsci.com (Dec. 9, 2021):

Astronomers have discovered a massive exoplanet orbiting around the binary star system b Centauri. The two stars are so hot and huge that researchers previously thought that no planet could exist around them.

B Centauri sits in the Centaurus constellation, some 325 light-years outside of our solar system. Its main star is more than three times hotter than our sun, and its two stars have a combined weight of roughly 6 to 10 suns. Until now, no planet has been found orbiting stars more than three  times our sun’s mass. The new exoplanet, b Centauri b, is also a whopper—it probably has a similar gaseous composition to Jupiter, but it’s at least 10 times more massive. It’s one of the biggest exoplanets ever discovered. And with a distance of 52 billion miles separating b Centauri b from its stars, it has one of the widest orbits ever detected. Astronomers captured images of the planet using the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope in Chile, and the findings were published in Nature on Wednesday.

“Finding a planet around b Centauri was very exciting since it completely changes the picture about massive stars as planet hosts,” lead study author Markus Janson, an astronomer at Stockholm University, Sweden, said in a statement.

The stars of b Centauri are relatively very young—just 15 million years old, compared to our sun’s 4.6 billion years. “The planet in b Centauri is an alien world in an environment that is completely different from what we experience here on Earth and in our solar system,” co-author Gayathri Viswanath, a PhD student at Stockholm University, said in a statement. “It’s a harsh environment, dominated by extreme radiation, where everything is on a gigantic scale: the stars are bigger, the planet is bigger, the distances are bigger.”

B Centauri now has planetary scientists rethinking the parameters around planet formation—the binary stars’ combined size and heat, and the tremendous amount of radiation they must emit, should create an environment inhospitable to planets. “It poses quite a challenge to our models,” Michael Meyer, a University of Michigan astronomer and co-author of the new study, said in another statement. “But this is what makes it exciting—when you are proven wrong, you learn something.”

Astronomers have yet to figure out how b Centauri b came to be, and will now be working to untangle this unlikely system’s origin story, a “mystery at the moment” that will be “an intriguing task to try to figure out,” Janson said in a statement.

Since 1992, scientists have confirmed the existence of thousands of exoplanets, revealing the often surprising diversity of conditions where planets can form. “It seems that no matter where we look—around small or big stars, single stars or binary stars, alive stars or dead stellar remnants—we always find planets in some form,” Janson told Gizmodo, “even in places we didn’t think possible.” [source]

Extinction Rebellion's last London demo left 120 TONS of rubbish on the streets that cost £50,000 to clean up, claims MP as activists bring capital to a standstill again

From Daily Mail.co.uk (Aug. 26, 2021):

Extinction Rebellion, the environmental campaigning group, left 120 tonnes of rubbish on London's streets when they last took over the capital, an MP has warned.

The mess cost taxpayers £50,000 to clean up after they shut down major roads and streets in London in October 2019 in a bid to encourage the Government to tackle climate change.

Nickie Aiken, Conservative MP for Cities of London and Westminster, revealed the cost of the demonstration to her constituency as the activists target London's streets again.

The former leader of City of Westminster Council told the Telegraph: 'The disruption to local people and businesses is immeasurable.

'I was told by the council that last time Extinction Rebellion were here for two weeks, they cleared 120 tons of rubbish left behind.

'That added £50,000 to their costs. This is local people's council tax.

'Westminster and the City of London are considered very wealthy areas, but I want to remind people that actually it's not all about wealth.

'There are major areas of deprivation in central London and 25 per cent of homes are social rented.

'The wealthy who live here have gone for the summer, so it's those who live here permanently and can't escape who are living with this so-called 'beautiful chaos'.'

Extinction Rebellion started a fortnight of action earlier this week and brought parts of London, including Oxford Circus and the West End, to a standstill.

The action began on Monday when protestors set up a giant pink table by Leicester Square in a bid to encourage 'crisis talks' and asking the Government to 'come to the table'.

The group said the demonstration was to urge the UK Government to immediately stop all new fossil fuel investments.

On Tuesday, four members of Extinction Rebellion Fashion Action glued themselves to the front door of Selfridges on Oxford Street. [read more]

Not surprising. The Left thinks it is the government’s responsibility to pick up after them. No personal responsibility.

January 6 for Non-Dummies

From AM Greatness.com (June 13):

For nearly 18 months, American Greatness has covered this issue like no other outlet. So, as the committee continues its dog-and-pony show on Capitol Hill this month with an eye toward producing a long list of legislative “fixes,” the Justice Department inexorably moves to criminally charge Donald Trump for his alleged involvement, and the media takes another extended nap on its purported fact-checking duties, American Greatness here provides the definitive list of what people need to know about January 6, 2021, and related hype.

Congress and D.C. city officials, not Donald Trump, were responsible for protecting the Capitol: It is the primary duty of the Capitol Police board—made up of the sergeants-at-arms for the Senate and the House and the architect of the Capitol—to secure the sprawling complex. The federal police force, with a budget of more than half a billion dollars, employs at least 2,000 officers and houses numerous bureaus, including an intelligence unit; the Capitol building should have been well-protected on January 6 during a controversial joint session of Congress with Vice President Michael Pence presiding.

But Paul Irving, Nancy Pelosi’s sergeant-at-arms at the time, and Michael Stenger, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s sergeant-at-arms, repeatedly denied requests by the Capitol police chief for extra help days before the Capitol protest. As the chaos unfolded that afternoon, Irving and Stenger continued to delay numerous pleas to deploy the National Guard. Although more than 1,000 guardsmen were stationed at the D.C. armory on the morning of January 6, they were not summoned to the Capitol complex until well after 5:00 p.m.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser also refused to activate a significant number of guardsmen on January 6. Instead, Bowser authorized a few hundred guardsmen for traffic and pedestrian control. D.C. Metro police officers arrived at the Capitol shortly after the joint session convened at 1:00 p.m.

It does not appear that the January 6 select committee has interviewed Irving, Stenger, or Bowser. (Irving and Stenger conveniently resigned on January 7; Irving refused to testify before the Senate committee investigating the “attack.”) In addition, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) has announced Pelosi’s records related to January 6 were “off-limits.”

Committee members and the media insist Trump bears some culpability for lax security on January 6; according to Kash Patel, chief of staff for the acting secretary of defense during the final weeks of the Trump Administration, the president on January 4 authorized the use of 20,000 guardsmen. But the activation of those troops would have required a formal request by either Capitol Police or Bowser’s office

And contrary to another widely-accepted narrative, Capitol police at several vantage points allowed protesters into the building and, without warning, the building was closed.

No police officers died on January 6 or as a result of the protest: Four supporters of Donald Trump—Ashli Babbitt, Rosanne Boyland, Kevin Greeson, and Benjamin Phillips—died on January 6. Babbitt, an unarmed veteran who posed no lethal threat, was shot and killed by Capitol police officer Michael Byrd around 2:45 p.m. near the Speaker’s Lobby. Boyland died around 4:30 p.m. outside the lower west terrace tunnel where D.C. and Capitol police were engaged in violent confrontations with protesters. Witnesses say Greeson and Phillips suffered fatal heart attacks after being hit with stun grenades, an explosive device used by police outside the building that afternoon.

Eyewitness accounts and extensive video footage show police attacking people peacefully assembled on Capitol grounds shortly after 1 p.m. A Capitol official testified during a recent trial that the department used non-lethal munitions for the first time in history on January 6.

Despite claims by everyone from Joe Biden to local news reporters, no police officer died on January 6. For months, Capitol police and the media lied about the death of Officer Brian Sicknick; the New York Times reported on January 8, 2021, that Sicknick had been bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher, an allegation that was included in the House Democrats’ official impeachment memo. But the report was false; the Times retracted the account a month later. After a lengthy delay, the D.C. coroner finally issued his finding that Sicknick died of natural causes—a stroke caused by two blood clots near his brain.

Four police officers reportedly took their lives after January 6; two Capitol police officers committed suicide in the days following the protest and two D.C. officers killed themselves months later but there’s no proof any of those suicides is tied to the events of that day.

No one carried firearms into the building: On January 7, 2021, Pelosi described the previous day as an “armed insurrection,” a narrative that persisted for months. The public was led to believe gun-toting Trump supporters “stormed” the building with intent to harm or even kill lawmakers in an attempt to overthrow the government.

Now, nearly 18 months later, no one has been charged with carrying a firearm into the building on January 6. Four men were charged with possessing or carrying a firearm on Capitol grounds, including one man who was arrested that evening after the protest ended.

The only person who used a gun on January 6 was Lt. Michael Byrd, the cop who executed Ashli Babbitt at near-point blank range. Byrd was exonerated by the Justice Department and Capitol Police officials; he remains on the job.

The FBI refuses to disclose information pertaining to the use of undercover agents and informants: Numerous court motions filed by January 6 defense attorneys refer to unknown federal agents present at the Capitol throughout the day. The New York Times reported last September that the FBI embedded at least two informants in the Proud Boys months before the Capitol protest; Newsweek recently revealed that Jeffrey Rosen, the acting attorney general at the time, summoned hundreds of elite FBI agents, including the Hostage Rescue Team, to Quantico the weekend before January 6. Contrary to Rosen’s public testimony, according to Newsweek, those agents were deployed to downtown D.C. the morning of January 6 and some had “shoot-to-kill” authority if necessary.

During her Senate testimony on the one-year anniversary of the protest, FBI counterterrorism chief Jill Sanborn rebuffed questions about whether FBI agents or informants engaged in or provoked violent behavior on January 6. She also refused to explain why Ray Epps, a man seen multiple times on video exhorting people to go inside the Capitol, was removed from the agency’s most-wanted list and has so far evaded arrest. The FBI continues to ignore congressional inquiries into her testimony.

As the Whitmer “kidnapping” hoax demonstrated, the FBI is deeply involved in the surveillance and set up of Americans the agency considers “anti-government” extremists. (A Michigan jury in April acquitted two men charged in the hoax after defense attorneys successfully argued they were entrapped by the FBI; the jury could not reach a verdict on two other defendants who now face a second trial.) Further, Steven D’Antuono, head of the Michigan FBI field office primarily responsible for the hoax, was promoted to head of the D.C. FBI field office in mid-October 2020, right after his agents arrested the fake kidnappers and several weeks before the Capitol protest. His office is the lead investigatory agency in the Justice Department’s prosecution of more than 800 Americans now charged for their involvement in January 6.

It does not appear that D’Antuono or FBI Director Christopher Wray have been interviewed by the committee.

The FBI also appears to have lost interest in the so-called “pipe bomber” who allegedly planted explosives outside the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee on the evening of January 5. News of the bombs prompted the first evacuation of adjacent House buildings and set off panic in the city and news media. The FBI claimed it would conduct an investigation and offered a reward for the bomber’s capture. Nearly 18 months later, not only has the suspect not been caught, the FBI refuses to release any information pertaining to an investigation. Further, the pipe bombs have not been mentioned by committee members or the focus of any public hearings.

The January 6 committee is pure political theater intended to crush the MAGA movement once and for all. And like so many attempts before—the Russian collusion hoax, the first impeachment trial, the stolen 2020 election, the second impeachment trial—Democrats and the media are successfully brainwashing millions of their cult-like disciples who allow themselves to be duped time and again by the likes of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

Facts, as they say, do matter—and the aforementioned list is just a handful of indisputable truths related to January 6, 2021, that the other side doesn’t want the American people to see. So share it widely. [read more]

Other Jan. 6 articles:

• Trump gave order to 'make sure' Jan. 6 rally was 'safe event,' Pentagon memo shows
• Former Federal ‘Informant’ Warned of Antifa, BLM Infiltrators at Capitol on Jan. 6
• Revolver News Report: FBI Is Hiding Security Camera Video of Jan. 6 Pipe Bomber Planting Bomb at DNC Headquarters