Founding Father James Madison on the Chopping Block?

Tragically, slavery has been around from the beginning of time. It is still practiced even today in some places where Christianity is not dominant or has not been dominant. But while slavery was a fact of life in the 1700’s—not only in colonial America, but all over the world—it was the system put in place by America’s founding fathers that eventually led to its dissolution.

But that doesn’t matter to the woke mob, which insists that historical figures be held to today’s standards, and which seeks to tear down America’s history and rebuild it on a neo-Marxist foundation.

Thus, the woke crowd goes after any founding father in any way associated with slavery. Most recently comes the attack on James Madison, a key architect of the Constitution.

The New York Post reports on an overhaul of Montpelier, the house of Madison, noting that a $10 million grant from “left-leaning philanthropist” David M. Rubenstein has put slavery and racism center-stage, shoving Madison’s authorship of the United States Constitution off into the wings. “Instead, blindsided tourists are hammered by high-tech exhibits about Madison’s slaves and current racial conflicts.”

Tourists visiting Montpelier may be coming to learn about the Constitution, but they are sorely disappointed. One describes it as, “A one hour Critical Race Theory experience disguised as a tour.”

And so it is that, in James Madison’s own home, our fourth president and a key architect of the Constitution is relentlessly attacked for not living up to today’s standards.

Madison, though a slave-owner, helped create a framework for one day abolishing slavery. By the standards of their contemporary world, America’s founders were deeply progressive in their desire to eliminate slavery—and far out of step with most of the rest of the world.

Much of the freedom we enjoy today gets back to those men and women who settled America for religious liberty and then the founding fathers who implemented Biblical principles to create America. Madison played a key role.

He attended the Presbyterian College of Princeton, New Jersey (now Princeton University) rather than the Anglican College of William and Mary, where sons of Virginia were expected to attend. He learned directly under Rev. John Witherspoon, who also later turned out to be an important founding father.

Perhaps, the most important lesson that James Madison took home from his Princeton education was the firm belief in the Biblical doctrine of man’s sinfulness—and its implications for political science.

John Eidsmoe, author of the landmark book, Christianity and the Constitution, points out: “One thing is certain, the Christian religion, particularly Rev. Witherspoon’s Calvinism, influenced Madison’s view of law and government.”

Madison once wrote, “All men having power ought to be distrusted.”

After the Constitutional Convention, but before the document was ratified, Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote letters to the editor of newspapers in the state of New York, using the pseudonym Publius to argue for ratification. These letters were gathered together later and are known as the Federalist Papers and reflect the genius of American political science.

The Federalist Papers don’t quote the Bible directly, but they express a Biblical worldview on man’s nature and the potential corruption of power.

What is the essence of tyranny according to James Madison, author of Federalist #47?  The answer is having all three branches of government in the hands of one or a few.

In Federalist #51, he argues that “if men were angels,” government wouldn’t even be necessary. But since men aren’t angels, government is necessary. Furthermore, we also need protection from the government, since it is run by men, not angels.

In Federalist #42, Madison explains the Constitutional provision that would allow the federal government to abolish the slave trade 20 years after its ratification: “It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy.”

Americans need to learn the true history of our rich past. Yes, America has a checkered past with slavery and segregation. But so does the rest of the entire world—and the principles of founders like Madison were on the forefront of ending these evils. As America’s greatest civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., observed in his outstanding “I Have a Dream” speech, “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”

We will not move toward a positive future if we distort our past, as the woke mobs now do. As James Madison himself once said: “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.”

Trump Authorized National Guard for Jan. 6 but Congress, D.C. Didn’t Request Its Use, Former Aide Says

Lies exposed.

Trump authorized as many as 20,000 Guard troops for use on Jan. 6, 2021, during a meeting several days earlier. The offer of troops was rejected by Bowser and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), he said.

Trump Authorized National Guard for Jan. 6 but Congress, DC Didn’t Request Its Use, Former Aide Says

Under the law, a president can’t order domestic deployment of Guard; local officials must request it

By Joseph M. Hanneman, The Epoch Times, July 25, 2022:

A claim by the vice chair of the House Jan. 6 Select Committee that President Donald Trump didn’t order the use of National Guard troops in the District of Columbia on Jan. 6, 2021, is true because that would have been a violation of the law, former Pentagon chief of staff Kash Patel says.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) told Fox News’ Bret Baier that Trump “never issued any order to deploy the National Guard to protect the Capitol.”

Patel said that Trump authorized up to 20,000 National Guard troops for use in D.C. or elsewhere on Jan. 6, 2021, but the use of those troops was later rejected by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and the U.S. Capitol Police.

Under the law, the president can’t order the deployment of the military for use inside the United States, Patel said. At the time of the Jan. 6, 2021, unrest, Patel was chief of staff for Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller.

“She knows the truth—45 [Trump] authorized the National Guard days before Jan. 6, and Pelosi and Bowser rejected it,” Patel told The Epoch Times. “Cheney knows it’s unconstitutional for any president to ever order the military to deploy domestically. He may only authorize their use, then there must be a request.
“By her own quote, she has cleared Trump of the very thing she has accused him of from Day 1—an insurrection,” Patel said. “So, yes, Trump never made that illegal order. He followed the law.”

Authorized 20,000 Guard Troops

As Patel explains in the new EpochTV documentary, “The Real Story of Jan. 6,” Trump authorized as many as 20,000 Guard troops for use on Jan. 6, 2021, during a meeting several days earlier. The offer of troops was rejected by Bowser and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), he said.

Under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, the U.S. military can’t be used domestically for enforcing laws or keeping order. Part-time citizen-soldiers can only be used under certain conditions.

“The Supreme Court said two things must happen,” said Patel, the host of “Kash’s Corner” on EpochTV. “One: the President of the United States has to authorize, not order, the use of the National Guard.

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser rejected President Trump’s offer of National Guard troops on January 6 in this letter a day before.

‘Once that happens, step two has to happen as well before they can be deployed,” he said, “and that is a request from the head of state, the governor, or in this case, Mayor Bowser because it’s Washington, D.C. Or federal law enforcement needs to request the National Guard to be deployed.

“If those two things don’t happen, then any issuance of the National Guard would be literally unconstitutional.”

According to the U.S. Department of Defense Inspector General’s report regarding the events of Jan. 6, 2021, the use of National Guard troops was discussed during a White House meeting on Jan. 3, 2021.

In attendance were Miller, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley, presidential chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Patel.

“The President told Mr. Miller that there would be a large number of protestors on January 6, 2021, and Mr. Miller should ensure sufficient National Guard or soldiers would be there to make sure it was a safe event.”

Patel said at the end of the meeting that Trump brought up Jan. 6, 2021.

“President Trump pivoted and said, basically, ‘Hey, what are you guys doing for security’—I’m paraphrasing here—‘for anything that might happen on Jan. 6?’

“He said, ‘If you need up to 20,000 National Guardsmen and women, not just in Washington, D.C., but anywhere in the country, you have my authorization,’” Patel recalled.

The Defense Department then took the presidential authorization to the U.S. Capitol Police and Bowser.

“Mayor Bowser, in writing, pursuant to her own letter that we released from her, sent to the Department of Defense, declined to issue any more National Guardsmen and women,” Patel said.

The same authorization was taken to the Capitol Police, which declined additional National Guard personnel, Patel said.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary

Biden’s Cybersecurity Czar Says ‘Systemic Racism’ Is Major Threat to US Security

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Florida School Board Member ID’s 75 Books with Pornographic or Inappropriate Material in Library

Only 75? Looks like Democrats have been resting on their degenerate laurels.

Florida School Board Member ID’s 75 Books with Pornographic or Inappropriate Material in Library

By: Allen Moro | Jul 27, 2022

More than 70 books with pornographic and overly sexual content were discovered in a Florida school’s library, according to a concerned mother and school board member.

Ashley Gilhousen, a Clay County School District board member, is calling for “disciplinary action” for whoever is responsible for allowing children to be exposed to pornographic material.

“I don’t think there’s any justification for it,” Gilhousen told Fox News. “And I can tell you my own research in our school library so far I’ve identified 75 books that I’m working to challenge to get off of ourselves.”

In an interview with Fox, Gilhousen presented a series of examples of books that were available to children at the school.

One of the books, “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison describes a boy who remembers participating in oral sex as a 10 year old.

“I’m disgusted that anybody would think that that’s appropriate material to have in a school library,” Gilhousen, who is a mom of three boys, said. “There needs to be disciplinary action for anybody who offers this kind of material to a child.”

Gilhousen also described some of the literature in the library as “politically driven agenda-type books.”

“Julian is a Mermaid,” a book found by the school board member, is recommended for elementary school children and regarded as an introduction to gender fluidity.

The story features a boy who puts on lipstick and jewelry then goes to an NYC mermaid festival where he can finally express himself.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

WATCH: Teacher Turns His High School Classroom Into a Gay/Trans Nightclub

FBI Leadership Pressuring Agents to Artificially Pad Domestic Terrorism Data

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

The Splendor of the ‘Splendor of Truth’

Stephen P. White: Instead of following St. John Paul II to liberation and salvation, the new dispensation reduces the moral life to this: “What is the least I can do and be saved?”


August of next year marks the 30th anniversary of the promulgation of Pope St. John Paul II’s magisterial encyclical on moral theology, Veritatis Splendor. The approach of this anniversary presents an opportunity to rediscover an encyclical that provides a powerful antidote to much of the moral and doctrinal confusion in the Church today.

It’s precisely for this reason that not a few Catholics would like nothing better than to see Veritatis Splendor demolished, root and branch.

The 30th anniversary of Veritatis Splendor will arrive just a few months before the opening of the Synod on Synodality in Rome. It’s no secret that many Catholics see the synod as an opportunity to hold a referendum on certain, entirely predictable, aspects of the Church’s moral teaching. The Synod’s Relator General, Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, SJ, has recently indicated that the Church needs to rethink its opposition to homosexual acts in order to account for new “sociological-scientific” advancements.

Set aside, for the moment, the ridiculous claim that the Church’s understanding of the nature of human sexual acts is contingent upon “sociological-scientific” anything. One of the great refrains of Veritatis Splendor is St. Paul’s admonition to the Church of Rome: “Do not be conformed to this world.” This is not only a moral warning, though it is that. It’s also a warning against a worldly view of man, which forces a separation between freedom and truth, obedience and love.

A culture that combines radical notions of individual autonomy with a Gnostic rejection of the built-in meaning of material (and, therefore, bodily) reality is a culture in need of conversion, not indulgence. Such a culture, like the one that dominates the West today, is not simply corrosive of the moral life; it’s a culture inoculated against the reality of the Incarnation.

In an interview from earlier this year, Spanish theologian, Julio Martinez, S.J., candidly laid out the project he and other moral theologians are engaged in. “It is fundamental to untie the knots ‘Veritatis Splendor’ made in Catholic morals.” Those knots, he insisted, originated in the failure of Humanae Vitae to discern the circumstances of family life “in an accurate way.”

Only by moving beyond Veritatis Splendor and Humanae Vitae, can Amoris Laetitia be reinterpreted in ways that revolutionize Catholic moral theology. Such a revolution would free moral discernment from the constraints placed on human conscience by the moral law and the Church’s insistence on the objective moral character of certain acts.

Just this month, a kerfuffle arose at the Pontifical Academy of Life over the publication of a volume of essays on various bioethical issues which seemed to contradict (you guessed it) Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor. One member of the academy Dr. Mónica López Barahona, who also serves on its Board of Directors, insisted that the text did not reflect the consensus of the academy and the way it was published and presented caused “scandal and embarrassment.”

What does all of this add up to? That’s difficult to say. There are some rumors that Pope Francis might be working on a new encyclical on bioethics, one which might revisit certain themes of Humanae Vitae. Those are just rumors at this point, liable to exaggeration according to one’s hopes or fears for such an encyclical.

Perhaps the growing sense that this pontificate is drawing to a close has created a heightened sense of urgency among those who see Pope Francis – rightly or wrongly – as their last, best hope to eradicate the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council provided by his predecessors and, with it, the moral/theological project embodied most definitively in Veritatis Splendor.

Underlying many of the criticisms of Veritatis Splendor is the belief that it is not mercy about sin we require, but liberation from the yoke of the moral law itself. Such a mindset completely obscures the reality that the moral law is the surest path to true freedom. Instead of seeing the moral law as a means of our liberation and salvation, the new dispensation reduces the moral life to precisely the sort of small-minded legalism that concerns itself primarily with the question, “What is the least I can do and be saved?”

Such an approach relies on conscience and discernment – both essential to the moral life – but denies them the tools and formation necessary for their proper operation. Vice chains us to sin, dulling the conscience and clouding our discernment. In fact, it is precisely because our refusal to obey the moral law blinds our conscience and distorts our faculties of judgment that the Church insists our culpability for even heinous sins may be partly mitigated. Are we to boast that our moral decrepitude has been dipped in the healing waters of mitigated culpability?

Obedience to the moral law is the surest path to freedom – the freedom to become who we were made to be, to love God and neighbor as we ought. That’s why God engraves the law on our hearts, reveals it to us in Scripture, and then give us the Church to safeguard and pass on the same. And that’s why Veritatis Splendor can insist, “human freedom finds its authentic and complete fulfilment precisely in the acceptance of that law.”

Our Lord says to his disciples, “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” That’s not a test; it’s a promise.

Many Catholics today seem to think that freedom exists in the “spaces between” the moral teachings of the Church. They seem to think freedom exists in being allowed the most possible wiggle room. This is a childish, and indeed, legalistic, view of morality that makes us slaves to the law. When satisfying the requirements of the law becomes an end in itself, mercy becomes nothing more than lowering the threshold by which the minimum requirements of the law are satisfied.

Veritatis Splendor is a powerful corrective to such thinking, and an ever-timely reminder of the moral life to which we are called, for which we were made, and by which, through grace, we are saved.

You may also enjoy:

Robert Royal’s Social “Science” at the JPII Institute

Elizabeth A. Mitchell’s The Dubia Were Answered

AUTHOR

Stephen P. White

Stephen P. White is executive director of The Catholic Project at The Catholic University of America and a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing article is republished with permission. © 2022 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

VIDEO: ‘I Am Kamala Harris. My Pronouns Are She and Her. I Am a Woman Sitting At the Table Wearing a Blue Suit.’

Yes, it has come to this. History will record that the Vice President of the United States, a heartbeat away from leading what they used to call the free world, opened a meeting on July 26, 2022, by stating with the utmost seriousness: “I am Kamala Harris. My pronouns are ‘she’ and ‘her.’ I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit.” She even looked down at her lapel as she said “wearing a –” and paused briefly as if to verify that the suit was still blue and hadn’t started to identify as gray or black while she wasn’t looking.

When we were kids in the 1960s and 1970s, we thought that by the 2020s, we’d be driving around in star cruisers and flying to the moon for dinner. Instead, we have to announce to a waiting world whether we are male, female, or something else altogether, and the color of our clothing.

Harris, of course, wasn’t being gratuitously ridiculous, or at least any more than she usually is. She was addressing a “Roundtable with Disability Advocates,” and everyone else who spoke also began by stating their pronouns and what they were wearing. This was apparently intended to be an attempt to make blind people feel more included; when Greg Price responded to this spectacle with “wtf lol,” Kendall Brown, who describes himself/herself (who knows these days?) as a “healthcare advocate fighting to defeat Republican supermajorities,” shot back: “It’s an event commemorating the Americans with Disabilities Act, you mean-spirited ghoul. Attendees decided to help blind participants feel more included by using visual language when introducing themselves. Straight up, there is no difference between the childhood bully mocking disabled kids on the playground and sh**ty dudes like @greg_price11 mocking disabled adults who are just trying to make the world a tiny bit friendlier for one another. How dead inside do you have to be to mock disabled people trying to be more inclusive of disabled people at an event for disabled people?”

Brown might have a case if all Harris had done was announce what color suit she was wearing, although it’s silly to think that blind people will feel more “included” if everyone begins speaking by announcing his or her choice of attire. There have been blind people throughout history, including some people of immense achievement (Homer, Galileo, John Milton, Jorge Luis Borges, Helen Keller, Andrea Bocelli, Ray Charles, Rahsaan Roland Kirk, Stevie Wonder, and on and on), and I’m not aware of a single one in any time or place who ever said, “I sure would feel a lot more included if y’all would tell me what you were wearing.”

This was just silly pandering and virtue-signaling, and Harris’ adding in the pronouns made it even worse. Blind people can hear if someone is male or female, but not in the Left’s fantasy world, in which Rachel Levine and Caitlyn Jenner are women and they have to tell you so because it isn’t obvious just from hearing their voices. It was marginally reassuring that Harris acknowledged that she is a woman, but just by engaging in the act of doing so, she showed that she accepts the pervasive madness and thinks that it is altogether fitting and proper for a human being to preface his or her or xis remarks by announcing his or her or xis gender.

The video of Harris solemnly intoning that she was a woman wearing a blue suit was also reminiscent of some of her previous enunciations of the blazingly obvious, as when she said: “So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So basically, that’s wrong.” Basically. Harris, in fact, has a reputation for articulating things that others would never think were worth saying, as when she famously this, but about what is still unclear: “The significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time. So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time … there is such great significance to the passage of time.”

Yes, and to her (checks lapel) blue suit. Our age will be remembered as one of a peculiar society-wide flight from reality, and pronouncements such as Harris’ declaration of her gender and what she was wearing will stand as indications of how pervasive the fantasies really were. One day, we’ll wake up from all this, just as Salem woke up from the witch trial hysteria. Until then, Kamala Harris and other Leftists will continue their valiant war against facts that once were and will one day again be obvious.

AUTHOR

RELATED VIDEO: Kamala Harris: “My Pronouns Are ‘She/Her’ and I’m a Woman Sitting at the Table Wearing a Blue Suit”

RELATED ARTICLE: Kamala Harris Goes Full Groomer, Wants LGBT Teachers to ‘Love Openly’ in Their Classrooms

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Same FBI Moles Pushing Russiagate Are Protecting Hunter Biden

We often think of institutions as inherently corrupt. And some are. But within the FBI it’s very much a case of political agendas being played out by certain figures.

“Highly credible” whistleblowers have come forward to a senior Senate Republican alleging a widespread effort within the FBI to downplay or discredit negative information about President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, according to letters reviewed by CBS News.

“The information provided to my office involves concerns about the FBI’s receipt and use of derogatory information relating to Hunter Biden, and the FBI’s false portrayal of acquired evidence as disinformation,” GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley wrote FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland on July 25. “The volume and consistency of these allegations substantiate their credibility and necessitate this letter.”

Grassley, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the whistleblowers alleged that legitimate streams of information and intelligence about the president’s son were characterized as likely disinformation or prematurely shut down leading up to the 2020 presidential election.

Some of that involves known players.

FBI supervisory intelligence agent Brian Auten opened in August 2020 the assessment that was later used by the agency, according to the disclosures. One of the whistleblowers claimed the FBI assistant special agent in charge of the Washington field office, Timothy Thibault, shut down a line of inquiry into Hunter Biden in October 2020 despite some of the details being known to be true at the time.

A whistleblower also said Thibault “ordered closed” an “avenue of additional derogatory Hunter Biden reporting,” according to Grassley, even though “all of the reporting was either verified or verifiable via criminal search warrants.” The senator said Thibault “ordered the matter closed without providing a valid reason as required” and that FBI officials “subsequently attempted to improperly mark the matter in FBI systems so that it could not be opened in the future,” according to the disclosures.

Whistleblowers alleged investigators from an FBI headquarters team “were in communication with FBI agents responsible for the Hunter Biden information targeted by Mr. Auten’s assessment” and that their findings on whether the claims were true or disinformation were placed “in a restricted access sub-file” in September 2020, according to the senator.

The connections of course run in both directions.

The new information comes after Auten was involved in the Trump-Russia investigation, including interviewing Igor Danchenko, the alleged main source for British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s dossier in 2017. Congressional sources confirmed to the Washington Examiner that Auten is the “Supervisory Intel Agent” from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 2019 report on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse.

All of this is connected. From Russiagate to protecting Joe Biden, Democrat political allies within the DOJ colluded to cover up for Hillary and now for Biden.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

FBI analyst behind Russian Collusion hoax also worked to discredit accurate reports about Hunter Biden’s crimes

FBI Leadership Pressuring Agents to Artificially Pad Domestic Terrorism Data

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump To Sue CNN

Former President Donald Trump notified CNN of his intention to file a lawsuit against the network for “repeated defamatory statements” in a statement Wednesday.

Ifrah Law, a Washington-based law firm, filed a Notice of Intent ordering the network, under Florida Statute § 770.02, to “publish a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction” in published pieces or broadcasts that allegedly made “false statements” about the former president. The notice warned that failure to issue an apology will result in a lawsuit.

“Failure to publish such a correction, apology, or retraction will result in the filing of a lawsuit and damages being sought against you, CNN,” the document warned.

Trump warned he will be suing other media outlets that have “defamed and defrauded the public” about the 2020 presidential election results.

“I have notified CNN of my intent to file a lawsuit over their repeated defamatory statements against me,” Trump said. “I will also be commencing actions against other media outlets who have defamed me and defrauded the public regarding the overwhelming evidence of fraud throughout the 2020 Election. I will never stop fighting for the truth and for the future of our Country!”

The notice accused CNN of allowing claims that Trump was “illegitimately elected” in the 2016 presidential election to go unchallenged. It then raised accusations that CNN “fed a narrative” that repeatedly defamed Trump’s character before and after the 2020 presidential election.

The document stated that CNN inaccurately branded Trump as a “liar” and likened him to Adolf Hitler and communist leaders by labeling his election fraud claims as the “Big Lie.” The network has coined the term “Big Lie” in relation to Trump more than 7,700 times since January 2021, the document said.

“In this instance, President Trump’s comments are not lies: He subjectively believes that the results of the 2020 presidential election turned on fraudulent voting activity in several key states,” the document said.

The document alleged that the network treats Trump unfairly in comparison to other public figures, including Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, Jussie Smollett and Andrew McCabe. It then argued that the former president’s questions about election integrity are legitimate, given that True the Vote reportedly found evidence of illegal, fraudulent votes in states such as Georgia and Arizona.

The outlet published several headlines either defaming or negatively depicting the former president. Headlines negatively depicting the former president included, “Trump’s growing recklessness is a ticking time bomb,” “Trump’s Jan 6 plot appears darker and more dangerous by the day,” “Trump’s Big Lie is changing the face of American politics,” and “Trump’s Mental Health becomes an issue again.”

CNN declined to comment on the potential lawsuit.

AUTHOR

NICOLE SILVERIO

Media reporter. Follow Nicole Silverio on Twitter @NicoleMSilverio

RELATED VIDEO: Lawsuit challenges Democrats’ fitness for office

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Sues Hillary Clinton, Other Democrats Who Alleged Russian Collusion

Trump Threatens To Sue Pulitzer Committee If They Don’t Take Back Some Prizes

President Trump Threatens To Sue ‘Everyone’ Over Mueller Investigation And Roger Stone Trial

Steve Bannon Convicted Of Contempt, Faces Up To 2 Years In Jail

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Which Burns Faster, Wind Turbines or EVs?

It’s been a rough couple of weeks for climate true-believers.  If you’re one of them, buckle up, you’re about to get red-pilled:

A wind turbine in Texas caught fire and was destroyed after being hit by lightning.  The 800 pounds of oil in the gear box produced a column of thick black smoke.  Firefighters are not prepared to handle that kind of blaze.  Before you dismiss this as a one-off, you should also know Mother Nature can destroy wind turbines with 200 mile-per-hour wind gusts in hurricanes.  Wind turbines are only designed to handle 160 mile an hour winds.  The flexible blades can bend, curve backwards, hit the tower, and destroy the whole thing.  And you want to put more turbines in the Atlantic Ocean, smack dab in the middle of Hurricane Alley?

So much for romancing the turbines. But there’s always electric vehicles, right?  A new electric bus caught fire and was destroyed in a bus parking lot in Connecticut.  Those fires are hard to handle, too. Fire officials said, “Lithium-ion battery fires are difficult to extinguish due to the thermal chemical process that produces great heat and continually reignites….”  This happened one day after the Governor celebrated a new law phasing in electric vehicles for the state fleet.    Fires aren’t the only problem. If you buy a used EV and the battery quits, you will find a replacement battery will cost you more than the used EV did in the first place.  And you won’t be able to get a replacement without condoning forced labor in China.  You’re not in favor of slavery, are you?  But don’t let me spoil the party. I’ll leave that to the countries having second thoughts about EV mandates because of the cost, the hit to living standards, the lack of infrastructure, and the wishful thinking behind them.

Oh well, there’s always solar panels, right?   Never mind that their output can decrease 25 percent if it gets too hot outside.  Worn-out panels end up “in landfills, where in some cases, they could potentially contaminate groundwater with toxic heavy metals such as lead, selenium and cadmium.”  That’s according to the left-wing Los Angeles Times, by the way.

Oh well, at least we’re getting rid of coal, right?  Hate to break it to you, but China is building coal-fired power plants like there is no tomorrow, more than the rest of the world combined.  Germany is turning back to coal after its disastrous green energy policies which shut down 14 nuclear power plants produced the highest household electricity bills in the world, and resulted in over-dependence on Russian gas.  World coal-usage continues to go up, not down.  So you can super-glue yourself to the Mona Lisa all you want, but the fact of the matter is whatever we do here in the West isn’t going to make any difference to climate change, not one bit.

Gee, all these problems nobody ever talks about.  Oh well, at least our leaders have their hearts in the right place, right?   Actually, no.   Biden’s green energy transition is being led by green energy investors who are dictating government policy to enrich themselves.  For example, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was on the board of an electric car company and, in May, pocketed a cool $1.6 million from exercising stock options in the company.  John Kerry – Saint John Kerry – has green energy investments in China.   Hunter Biden owns a stake in a Chinese company that assisted in the purchase of a cobalt mine, cobalt being necessary for electric car batteries.  Did the ‘Big Guy’ Joe Biden get 10 percent of this deal, too?  Green-friendly ESG funds are moving into fossil fuel investments, profiting from the mayhem green energy policies have produced.

And you thought these people were environmentalists and true believers. Joke’s on you. You’ve been played.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Electric Cars: Inconvenient Facts, Part 2

RELATED TWEET:

The Israeli Journalist Who Visited Mecca Should Be Worried

Muslims are usually determined to avenge humiliation, and they know how to be patient.


Most non-Muslims have difficulty understanding why they are not allowed to enter Mecca. Israeli journalist Gil Tamari certainly appears to have lacked understanding when he secretly entered the city after covering U.S. President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, causing a scandal with potentially important ramifications for Israel-Saudi relations.

The legal prohibition on non-Muslims visiting Mecca is based on a Quranic injunction (Surah 9, verse 28). Since Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God, no human authority, whether religious or political, can change this ruling. Non-Muslims who enter Mecca are therefore defiling Islam’s most important holy place, as Tamari did.

To complicate matters, Islam has no Pope-like central figure. So, even if the Saudis decided to table the issue for the time being, others—such as a “lone wolf” terrorist—perhaps opposed to the Saudi regime, could take up the charge to defend the honor of Islam. Indeed, throughout the history of Islam, individual Muslims and sects have interpreted the Quran as they chose, resulting in insurrections and assassinations that have often threatened Muslim regimes. This means that extremists might try to take revenge against Tamari personally.

Further complicating this picture, most of the Muslim world has a strong sense of honor and shame. Tamari, as well as the Saudi Muslim taxi driver who brought him to Mecca, shamed the Saudi government, which is responsible for protecting the sanctity of Mecca and Medina from such desecrations. Any Muslim who besmirches the honor of another person or group of people can often provoke blood feuds between two people, their families, their clans, their tribes and their religious sects that can last for generations. Muslims often brood for centuries until these slights have been avenged.

How does this manifest itself? One example can be found in Osama bin Laden’s post-9/11 speech. In that speech, he alluded to an event that had happened 80 years earlier. Since Americans tend not to have a sense of history, senior American government officials scrambled to find out what bin Laden meant. To those familiar with Muslim history, however, it was obvious what he was talking about. It was a reference to early 20th century Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk’s then newly-established secular Republic of Turkey, which abolished the Caliphate—that is, the leadership of the entire Sunni Muslim world.

The title “Caliph” was one of the many titles held by the Ottoman Sultan, and from a Sunni point of view, his most important one. Thus, Muslim extremists still revile Ataturk and his comrades, whom they claim were installed as Turkey’s leaders by the infidel West in order to destroy Islam. The 9/11 attack on important Western symbols of power—the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as the unsuccessful targeting of the U.S. Capitol—were an act of revenge against the center of non-Muslim power, the U.S., thus avenging the abolition of the Caliphate.

Furthermore, bin Laden’s choice of September 11 to carry out the attack was of symbolic importance. On that date 318 years before, a Christian army at Vienna defeated the Ottoman Muslims, who were on a march to conquer all of Europe for Islam. From then on, Islam was in retreat. Over the ensuing centuries, non-Muslims recaptured almost all of southeastern Europe. The humiliation of this defeat had to be avenged, and the attacks on American symbols of power were that vengeance.

Again, this might sound absurd to us, but Muslim cultures understand the value of patience and know how to wait until they believe the appropriate opportunity has arrived to take revenge. We often dismiss and belittle this way of thinking as primitive, but it is how Muslim cultures understand the world. We ignore it at our peril.

Analyzing how Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) handled Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia shows that the opportunity for revenge can often come more quickly. Back in October 2018, journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Thereafter, then-candidate Biden blamed MBS for the murder, even though no “smoking gun” was found that proved MBS responsible. The Saudi government denied his involvement, but MBS remained silent. However, as a product of his culture, he must have hoped the opportunity to avenge this insult would present itself, and he knew how to wait for it. It was wrong to interpret his silence as acquiescence.

Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia provided MBS with the perfect opportunity. Accordingly, the Saudis humiliated Biden in every possible way. Right from the beginning, the way Biden was greeted at Jeddah airport was a snub. The Saudis sent the provincial governor to meet him, instead of Biden’s protocol counterpart—King Salman. But since the king is infirm, MBS should have been the one to greet the president. To the Muslim world, that he didn’t could not have sent a clearer signal that he was getting back at Biden for having blamed MBS personally for Khashoggi’s murder.

Moreover, Biden’s primary goal was to convince the Saudis to increase oil production. The answer was a polite but emphatic no.

Finally, Biden wanted to take credit for the Saudi decision to open its airspace to Israeli planes. But the Saudis announced their decision before Biden reached Saudi Arabia, denying the president the opportunity to do so.

In the case of Gil Tamari’s visit to Mecca, we can see this same phenomenon at work. The Saudis have found and arrested the taxi driver who took Tamari to the holy city, even though the journalist did his best to blur the driver’s image in a video he filmed. Only God knows what will be the driver’s fate. Not only will he pay for his transgression, but he has brought enormous shame on his family. Moreover, if Tamari’s visit was such an unimportant incident, the Saudis would not have invested so many resources in order to find the driver. Thus far, the Saudis and MBS have been almost totally silent on this matter. But again, we should not misinterpret this as acquiescence.

What about Gil Tamari himself? As mentioned above, Muslims often brood over humiliation and wait for a time when the object of their anger either is or looks weak. Then they strike.

As a result, Tamari and others who defame the honor of Islam should be worried. Those who offend Islam are vulnerable to revenge attacks that could occur at any time. Tamari now has a target on his back. Whenever a Muslim seeking to avenge the honor of Islam believes he has the opportunity to do so, violence could ensue.

Tamari is probably safe in Israel. But should he travel to Europe, he might not be so lucky. As it says in the Talmud, a moment of pleasure can ruin an entire life. Tamari clearly enjoyed himself in Mecca, but he might pay for that pleasure by having to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life.

©Harold Rhode. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: That Stupid Stunt In Mecca

Chloe’s Story: Puberty Blockers at 13, a Double Mastectomy at 15

Laying bare the iniquity of doctors and psychologists who exploit the confusion of children and adolescents.


The California State Assembly has been studying a bill, SB 107, to declare the state a sanctuary for minors who have been denied transgender -affirming medicine and surgery elsewhere.

SB 107 would permit insurance companies, physicians, and contractors to disregard subpoenas about child custody if the child is being medically treated for gender dysphoria. It would also ban health care providers from providing medical information requested from another state if that state has a policy allowing civil action to be taken against individuals who perform “gender-affirming health care” on children.

A young California woman, Chloe Cole, has testified before legislators in her own state, in Louisiana, and in Florida about her experience at the hands of gender-affirming doctors. She began to transition to a male at 13; she had a double mastectomy at 15; and she detransitioned at 17. Her brief speech lays bare the iniquity of doctors and psychologists who exploit the confusion of children and adolescents.

This is the text of her address in Louisiana. It is heart-breaking.

My name is Chloe Cole, and I am from the Central Valley of California and a former transgender child patient. I am currently 17 years old and was medically transitioning from ages 13-16.

After I came out to my parents as a transgender boy at 12, I consulted a pediatric therapist in July of 2017 and was diagnosed with dysphoria by a ‘gender specialist’ the following month. The healthcare workers are trained to strictly follow the affirmative care system, even for child patients, in part because of California’s ‘conversion therapy’ ban. There was very little gatekeeping or other treatments suggested for my dysphoria.

When my parents asked about the efficacy of hormonal, surgical, and otherwise ‘affirming’ treatments in dysphoric children, their concerns were very quickly brushed aside by medical professionals. I didn’t even know detransitioners existed until I was one.

The only person who didn’t affirm me was the first endocrinologist I met. He refused to put me on blockers and expressed concerns for my cognitive development. However, it was easy to see another endocrinologist to get a prescription for blockers and testosterone, just like getting a getting a second opinion for any other medical concern. After only two or three appointments with the second endocrinologist, I was given paperwork and consent forms for puberty blockers (Lupron) and androgens (Depo- Testosterone), respectively. I began blockers in February of 2018, and one month later, I received my first testosterone shot. I received Lupron shots for about a year.

After two years on testosterone, I expressed to my therapist that I was seeking top surgery, or the removal of my breasts. I was recommended to another gender specialist, who then sent me to a gender-affirming surgeon. After my first consultation with the surgeon, my parents and I were encouraged to attend a ‘top surgery’ class, which had about 12 Female-to-Male (FTM) kids. I was immediately struck by how early some of them seemed in their transition and how some were much younger than I was; I was 15 at the time and had been transitioning for 3 years.

In retrospect, the class inadvertently helped to affirm my decision because of the sense of community provided by seeing girls like me going through the same thing. Despite all these consultations and classes, I don’t feel like I understood all the ramifications that came with any of the medical decisions I was making. I didn’t realize how traumatic the recovery would be, and it wasn’t until I was almost a year post-op, that I realized I may want to breastfeed my future children; I will never be able to do that as a mother.

The worst part about my transition would be the long-term health effects that I didn’t knowingly consent to at the time. I developed urinary tract issues during my transition that seem to have gotten worse since stopping testosterone. I have been getting blood clots in my urine and have an inability to fully empty my bladder. Because my reproductive system was still developing while I was on testosterone, the overall function of it is completely unknown. I have irreversible changes, and I may face complications for the rest of my life.

I was failed by modern medicine.”

Did Chloe give informed consent to these life-changing procedures? Is her experience really different from the atrocities committed by German doctors at Auschwitz or American doctors in the Tuskegee syphilis studies?

AUTHOR

Michael Cook

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet. He lives in Sydney, Australia. More by Michael Cook.

RELATED ARTICLES:

FDA Officials Warn Of Brain Swelling, Vision Loss In Minors Using Puberty Blockers

4 Compelling Reasons for the U.S. Senate to Oppose Redefining Marriage

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

LinkedIn’s ‘Misinformation’ Policies are an Attack on Science

Citing a scientific study that undermines the government narrative can get your account “restricted!”


It is becoming a drearily familiar experience for me to receive emails from social media platforms informing me that my content has been removed for violating “community guidelines” prohibiting the dissemination of “dangerous or misleading information.” Usually, this is shorthand for any piece of evidence or analysis contradicting an official statement by a public health authority — to be precise, a specific public health authority or cluster of authorities that the platform in question has decided to treat as the Gospel of Science, very often the FDA, the CDC, or the WHO.

My latest run-in with the social media Information Tsars was an email I received on July 17 from Linkedin, notifying me that they had removed one of my posts for violating their policies on “misinformation,” and threatening to restrict my account if I continued to violate their policies. After posting a complaint about LinkedIn’s misinformation policies, I could no longer access my account, as it had been “temporarily restricted.” As I write this, I am still locked out of my LinkedIn account.

Here is the item that was deemed by Linkedin’s information Tsars to constitute “misinformation” of the sort that they cannot tolerate on their platform:

Click here for the Linkedin misinformation graphic.

So what did I say to deserve to have this post taken down by Linkedin, leading shortly thereafter to a “restriction” of my account and a threat to make the restriction permanent?

Actually, nothing more than (i) cite a scientific study being shared by a Harvard epidemiologist, corroborating many other studies that have shown, time and again, that children are at negligible risk of suffering severe disease from Covid-19, and (ii) question the wisdom and ethical propriety of an FDA decision to approve Emergency Use Authorisation for Covid vaccines for children as young as 6 months old.

Emergency Use Authorisation requires a special justification to show that ordinary protocols for approving a drug should be by-passed. The FDA has produced weak and speculative evidence about the potential benefits of the Covid vaccines for children, and no solid evidence to show children face such a serious risk from Covid as to give rise to a public health “emergency.”

This is not a quirky opinion, by the way: it is corroborated by the World Health Organisation, one of those hallowed pillars of wisdom that LinkedIn would have us revere, which affirms on its own webpage that “children and adolescents are generally at low risk of infection, and if they become infected it is likely to be mild.”

Why would someone get in trouble with a social media platform hosting debate and discussion about public affairs for raising doubts about the ethical and scientific propriety of a governmental decision affecting the lives of millions of children? How is it possible that citing a scientific study that cuts against an official government narrative can get your post taken down, or even get your account “restricted”?

The explanation is simple: Anything that puts in question an official statement by a public health authority is considered by LinkedIn to be incriminating material that can spark a corrective intervention by Linkedin’s Philosopher Kings.

In a society that prides itself on being “progressive,” “scientific,” and rational, Linkedin’s “professional community guidelines” give middle managers a license to take down your posts and eventually restrict your account for the sin of contradicting the decisions or judgments of public health authorities.

Here is the exact wording of Linkedin’s policy on “misinformation”:

Do not share content that directly contradicts guidance from leading global health organizations and public health authorities.

What does this actually mean, in practice? It means that some select persons, just because they got nominated to a “public health authority” or a “leading global health organization,” are protected by Linkedin from any robust criticism from the public or from other scientists.

Anyone who tries to post data or evidence suggesting that a recognised public health authority might actually have gotten something wrong, on a matter of public “guidance,” will find their post taken down forthwith by Linkedin, no matter how respectable the rival evidence or authority they bring to the table may be.

Let’s think about the implications of that: public health authorities are treated by LinkedIn as gurus, or “popes” of modern science, whose utterances should be received with unquestioning reverence. LinkedIn has thus formulated policies of content moderation that effectively quash serious debate and give automatic cover to any potential errors or poor judgment calls on the part of public health authorities.

A scientific or medical claim immune from public criticism may be true or false. But we cannot have full confidence in it, unless we know that it can be properly debated and put to the test in the public square.

When rational and scientific debate is artificially constricted, society languishes in ignorance, and public authorities become arrogant and complacent, in the knowledge that their statements are sheltered from public challenge.

Just look at how life-saving information about the early stages of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak was carefully kept under wraps by the Chinese Communist Party, or how Facebook arbitrarily suppressed evidence suggesting the virus escaped from a laboratory, only to later reverse its policy in embarrassment.

Human beings crave for certainty, especially during a crisis. However, we cannot be certain, from our limited historic vantagepoint, which of our scientific beliefs will eventually be vindicated and which disproven. Only candid and open scientific debate, free from intimidation and censorship, can expose the strengths and limitations of each position over time.

Linkedin is killing the possibility of open intellectual, political and scientific debate among its members, and fostering something that comes closer to a beehive than a true human community: astonishingly, one of the conditions for remaining a member in good standing is refraining from contradicting whatever ideas come out of the CDC, FDA, or WHO.

According to correspondence I have received from LinkedIn, “We have these policies in place to help keep LinkedIn a safe, trusted and professional network for everyone” (email from “LinkedIn Member Safety and Recovery Consultant,” received 19 July 2022, excerpted here).

Linkedin is indeed an incredibly safe place – if you are an official at the FDA, CDC, or WHO, or one of their devotees. If, on the other hand, you believe in serious and robust scientific inquiry, or have any genuine intellectual curiosity left in you, you are unlikely to survive the scrutiny of Linkedin’s Information Tsars for long.

This article has been republished from David Thunder’s Substack, The Freedom Blog.

AUTHOR

David Thunder

David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society. More by David Thunder.

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Biden, Schumer and Pelosi are America’s Demorrhoids!

Hemorrhoids: A disease that causes swollen and inflamed veins in the rectum and anus that result in discomfort and bleeding.


We have been carefully watching the public appearances, policies and actions of the three key leaders in America: Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Charles Ellis Schumer and Nancy Patricia Pelosi since January of 2021. What we have witnessed can only be described as a disease that is causing immense discomfort for the American people and the bleeding of our strength both nationally and globally.

We searched for a proper word to describe this discomfort and bleeding we are witnessing and came up with what we believe America is experiencing today—an acute case of Demorrhoids.

Biden, Schumer and Pelosi—Leaders of the Demorrhoid Party 

Here are some examples of why the party of Biden, Schumer and Pelosi and their collectivist actions, to date, are similar to hemorrhoids. We call them Demorrhoids.

  1. Bill Clinton famously said, “It’s the economy, stupid!” We are now officially saying, “It’s the Demorrhoids, stupid!” Inflation and an imminent recession are now officially here and it’s all because of the Demorrhoids‘ economic policies. Higher interest rates added to everything is the Demorrhoids new normal. Can you say pain and suffering?
  2. Save the planet by destroying America and with it mankind. The rectal bleeding of our fossil fuels.
  3. Groom minor children for gay sex via public school classrooms, media centers, Democrat policies, featured films (e.g. a gay Spiderman) and social and legacy media propaganda. If these don’t cause rectal discomfort, no pun intended, then what does?
  4. Sending American tax dollars overseas to help our enemies (e.g. PLO, Afghanistan, Iran) thereby bleeding our coffers until they are dry.
  5. Causing supply chain shortages, higher gasoline and diesel prices, increasing costs for groceries, clothing, appliances, homes, and services. If this isn’t a pain in every American’s butt we don’t know what is.
  6. The constant and repetitive two tier justice system that punishes the innocent (i.e. J6 peaceful protesters), protects the guilty (e.g. Hunter Biden and the Biden cartel) and idolizes convicted felons (e.g. George Floyd).
  7. The Demorrhoids’ culture of death (abortion), tyranny (Democrat Socialism), government mandates (Covid, lockdowns, firing the unvaxxed) over the U.S. Constitutional ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Talk about taking it in our collective behinds!
  8. Weakening our  military by turning them into social justice robots rather than war fighters dedicated to protecting the American people from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
  9. The Demorrhoids policy of abandoning our most important ally in the Middle East—Israel. Thanks to the Demorrhoids the Jewish state is under siege and is at a crossroads.
  10. The Demorrhoids have not only abandoned our borders but they have also weakened us globally. History tells us that when our enemies lose their respect for America’s power and our allies lose their trust in us war is sure to follow. Those who forget history will always repeat it. The Demorrhoids hate Americans and our nation. We’re bleeding away our power to defend ourselves.
  11. Their relentless attacks on the U.S. Constitution from the First Amendment to the Second Amendment to the separation of powers to just ignoring it all together. If this isn’t Demorrhoidism then we the people are blind and dumb to it.

Time to Band and Abandon the Demorrhoids

One method to cure hemorrhoids is to cut off their blood supply, called banding.

As we approach the 2022 midterm elections it is time to cut off the Demorrhoids from the power they hold in the U.S. Congress. It is time to band them, and cut off their ability to grow and bleed Americans dry.

It is time to hold Demorrhoids accountable at the ballot box. If we don’t then America and its Constitutional Republican form of government will die.

Time for Americans to decide—Demorrhoids or Constitutional Conservatives.

Choose wisely in November or you will most definitely bleed to death.

Remember what German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed by the Nazis, said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

It’s time to act! Silence is not an option!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

DeSantis: Kamala is the Best Impeachment Insurance Biden Could Have Asked For

Friday on FNC’s The Ingraham Angle, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) explained why he was initially wrong about President Joe Biden’s selection of then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) as his vice-presidential running mate in 2020. He now realizes her epic incompetence makes her “the best impeachment insurance and 25th amendment insurance anyone could have.”

“So here’s the thing – I thought Biden picking her at first was like the worst decision ever because she’s not great,” DeSantis said.

“She’s not great” is the whopping political understatement of 2022.

“But she’s like the best impeachment insurance and 25th amendment insurance anyone could have,” DeSantis continued. “Because as bad as Biden is, even though he can barely read the teleprompter, and as much as people disapprove of him, nobody wants Harris, and so they’d much rather stick with Biden floundering around than actually turn the wheels of power over to somebody that clearly is in over her head.”


Kamala Harris

111 Known Connections

Harris Gives Simplistic Explanation of Russia’s Recent Invasion of Ukraine

During a March 1, 2022 appearance on the syndicated “Morning Hustle” radio program, Harris was asked by co-host Headkrack to explain the conflict “in layman’s terms for people who don’t understand what’s going on and how can this directly affect the people of the United States.” Speaking slowly, Harris replied: “So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that’s wrong, and it goes against everything that we stand for.”

To learn more about Kamala Harris, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Fauci’s NIAID Spent Nearly $500,000 ‘to Turn Monkeys Transgender’

Unimaginable cruelty in pursuit of foul leftist propaganda. The left really thinks they are G-d. They will be punished.

Fauci’s NIAID Spent Nearly $500,000 ‘to Turn Monkeys Transgender’

The shocking experiments were covered in the organization’s annual Where’s The Pork report, but were originally uncovered in January by The National Pulse. According to the report, “Fauci’s agency awarded grants totaling $478,188 in Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022 to inject hormones into male monkeys to make them female.”

The experiments were said to be an effort to understand why transgender “women” experience higher rates of HIV.

“Scientists planned to evaluate how the injected hormones altered the males’ immune systems to determine if feminizing hormones had an adverse effect on the strength of immune systems. If so, researchers believed this weakening of the immune system could be responsible for their increased likelihood of becoming HIV positive,” the National Pulse reported.

According to a report from the Daily Telegraph, Fauci has been linked to research injecting monkeys with HIV dating back to the mid-1980s.

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Defund UCLA

“No one wants to openly admit [we all] hope Clarence Thomas dies.”


Earlier this month, Joseph H. Manson, a respected anthropologist and the former winner of a Leakey Foundation Research Grant, announced that he was walking away from his tenured position at the university after what he described as the “woke capture” of the institution.

After writing about the ruthless political persecution of P. Jeffrey Brantingham, a fellow anthropology department academic who was canceled for studying crime patterns, he also listed other purged UCLA faculty.

“Emeritus Professor Val Rust (Graduate School of Education) was banned from campus after incurring the wrath of graduate student adherents of Critical Race Theory. Researcher James Enstrom (Environmental Health Sciences) and lecturer Keith Fink (Communication Studies) were fired from dissenting from the woke orthodoxy. Gordon Klein, after being suspended by UCLA’s business school in Spring 2020 for refusing to use race-based grading criteria, mobilized mass support and legal assistance, was reinstated, and is now suing the university.”

Klein came under such sustained attack that he had to be placed under armed guard.

The academic documented campus antisemitism including a talk by bigoted antisemite Rabab Abdulhadi, who had falsely accused a Jewish student of “white supremacy” for supporting Israel resulting in a complaint filed with the Department of Education. UCLA has been the subject of complaints over antisemitism by StandWithUs, the Zachor Legal Institute and others.

UCLA anti-Israel activists, as documented by the civil rights group Canary Mission, have boasted that they’re members of terrorist groups, supported terrorism and called for the murder of Jews without any action being taken by the university.

Leftist hate and violence at UCLA has not only been directed at Jews and pro-Israel students.

Manson’s principled resignation comes after Johnathan Perkins, the director for Race and Equity at the University of California-Los Angeles, recently tweeted, “No one wants to openly admit [we all] hope Clarence Thomas dies.”

Unlike the academics targeted by leftist campus lynch mobs, Perkins faced no consequences.

Despite UCLA’s growing extremism, its core budget in past years was funded at as much as a third by California taxpayers. In 2015, UCLA received $440 million from the state. And the nation’s taxpayers, through the federal government, provide a majority of its research grants  amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars more in money flowing through the system.

As a public university, UCLA is a non-profit under 501(c)(3) even though it has long ceased to function as a non-partisan institution and has become an aggressive leftist political machine.

UCLA spends over $1 million on political lobbyists.

Its personnel rank as 47 out of 25,950 in political funding and have provided almost $1 million to the DNC, $400,947 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, $181,468 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $151,650 to the House Majority PAC in the 2022 cycle alone. Even though Senator Raphael Warnock, a racist Georgia politician, is on the other side of the country, UCLA’s leftists still poured $124,881 into his campaign.

In 2020, UCLA personnel funded Biden to the tune of almost $4 million and nearly another million to Bernie Sanders, along with millions more to various leftist election PACs.

UCLA is no longer a serious academic institution. Its “woke” faculty are purging credible academic figures like Joseph H. Manson and others, while cultivating an atmosphere of hatred on campus and using a taxpayer-funded institution for political and anti-American activity.

It’s time for the IRS to pull UCLA’s non-profit status.

With a $5.1 billion endowment, there’s no reason for taxpayers to fund UCLA either directly or indirectly. If UCLA wants to drive out serious academics while promoting radical discourse, it should do this with its own money and if it wants to function as an arm of the Democrats, it should not enjoy non-profit status while interfering in and subverting our political system.

While the IRS has targeted conservative non-profits, it has continued to allow leftist non-profits, including UCLA to operate without oversight or accountability. Department of Education investigations have failed to clean up UCLA, lifting its non-profit status is the nuclear option.

California and this country deserve great public universities. UCLA and its institutions can no longer claim to be serving any such function. By lifting UCLA’s non-profit status, donors may be redirected to contribute to emerging institutions like the University of Austin that are dedicated to serious academic inquiry and honor free speech: values that UCLA no longer believes in.

AUTHOR

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED VIDEO: Kellyanne Conway: Newsom’s political career has been marked by ‘hypocrisy’

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bill de Blasio Blames Jews, Bashes Israel Over Political Failures

Turkey: 12th grade public school textbook promotes armed jihad

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.