Renowned Epidemiologist Aids St. Michael Academy’s Challenge of Michigan’s Lockdown

St. Michael Academy, a small private independent Catholic high school located in Petoskey, Michigan has a total of 30 high school students.  St. Michael is challenging Michigan’s current MDHHS order which has shut down in-person instruction at high schools across the state on the bogus claim that it is “following the science.”  Citing to the recent Roman Catholic Diocese opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court that observes, “even in a pandemic the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a lawsuit on behalf of St. Michael late Friday in the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan.

In an astonishing turn of events, St. Michael was able to enlist the support of a world-renowned epidemiologist and expert on the spread of COVID-19, Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Dr. Bhattacharya is an author of 136 articles in peer-reviewed journals and has provided testimony relating to COVID-19 to both federal and state governmental bodies. He is assisting St. Michael Academy without charge, as is the Law Center.

Dr. Bhattacharya has already filed an affidavit in the case. He points out that MDHHS’s orders shutting down schools to in-person instruction are inconsistent with the best scientific evidence regarding the safety of students and the guidelines provided by the World Health Organization. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, supports the WHO guidelines.

Moreover, Dr. Bhattacharya, citing to July guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control, warns that prohibiting in-person instruction potentially causes tremendous damage to students, including: severe learning loss, widening disparities in educational outcomes, hampered development of social and emotional skills, potential harm to mental health, exposure to heightened risk of maltreatment and abuse at home, nutritional deprivation of poor children, and a sharp reduction in regular physical activity.

Dr. Richard A. Brake, the Headmaster of St. Michael Academy, is not only in charge of the academic and spiritual development of St. Michael students but also of the development and implementation of the Academy’s plans to keep its students safe from the COVID-19 virus. He and his staff kept up in-person instruction this school year, until the November 15, 2020 shutdown order was issued by the state. Thus far, St. Michael has not experienced any cases of COVID-19 among its students, faculty, or staff.

Dr. Brake believes that banning in-person instruction precludes the Academy from exercising its religious freedom to inculcate in its students the sense of awe and wonder about all of God’s creation, encouraging them to look beyond the temporal and mundane towards the eternal and transcendent. Education and formation at St. Michael Academy involve prayer, worship, devotional practices and the Socratic method. These are not effective when done remotely, with students looking at computer screens.

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President, observed, “No one denies that slowing the COVID‑19 pandemic is a compelling state interest. But the U.S. Supreme Court’s November 25, 2020 decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v Cuomo held that, even so, where a state’s COVID-19 mitigation law burdens religious exercise and is not neutral, as in our case, states must narrowly tailor their edicts to meet the state interest in the least restrictive manner. The State of Michigan cannot suspend a fundamental right of the people to the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment.”

Thompson added, “And based on the scientific evidence that very few children under the age of 19 suffer or die as a result of COVID-19 infection, and rarely transmit the virus to other children or adults, weighed against all the negative ramifications of keeping children home, the state cannot meet the ‘strict scrutiny’ test which demands that it address its interests by the least restrictive means. Experts like the CDC Director are now saying that one of the safest places for students during this pandemic is in school.”

Click here to read St. Michael’s filed Complaint

Click here to read Dr. Bhattacharya’s 20-page Affidavit

Please support the Thomas More Law Center’s mission by clicking here.

©Thomas More Law Center. All rights reserved.

The U.S. Army Adopted the Sig Sauer P320. Can This Gun Protect Your Home?

The Sig Sauer P320 Compact is a modular-framed, striker-fired pistol designed for versatility and customization. It’s got a lot of interesting features and supports the Sig Sauer reputation for reliable and quality firearms. But is it worth buying? Keep reading to find out.

Accuracy

This gun is very accurate. Right out of the box, the P320 averages 1.5-inch groupings at anywhere from 7 to 25 yards, slow-fire. There is very little recoil, which is surprising considering it can feel a little top-heavy until you get used to it. You may have to allow yourself some time to adjust to the 6’oclock hold as well, especially if you are used to shooting with a more angled grip, like with a Glock. The photoluminescent sights provide an accurate sight picture and allow for precise shooting in low-light situations. The RX model also comes with a great red dot optic, Sig’s Romeo 1. Speaking of romeo, you can upgrade your Ruger 10/22 with this optic.

Reliability

The Sig P320 is amazingly reliable. After over 500 rounds and a wide variety of ammo — including Hornady TAP, Winchester White Box, and Blazer Brass FMJ — there were no misfires or jams. Testing out all the frames with hollow and plink ammo has proven you can count on this gun to fire consistently and without issue.

Handling

I really like how the P320 handles. It’s lightweight, if a little top-heavy, and is easy to maneuver between targets. The RX Carry model is great for concealed carry, and the potential for customization on this pistol means it can be customized for almost every shooter’s needs. The P320 is a technically a chassis gun with a series of interchangeable grip frames or a Sig X-change kit. You can change out the caliber, barrel, grip, and slide for the entire series — excluding the .45 ACP — to fit your needs and specifications. So, if you don’t like the grip, or decide you want a to try out another caliber, the P320 provides an alternative to buying a completely different gun.

Even with all the customizations available, the P320 remains fairly simple in its design. The magazine release is reversible, the slide lock and disassembly lever are easy to use and there isn’t an external safety.

Trigger

The trigger seems to be the only point of contention for the Sig P320. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just going to come down to preference. The trigger on the P320 is a wide, single-action trigger that breaks cleanly at around 5.5 pounds with a smooth reset. There’s no stacking and some overtravel that could affect accuracy, so you may have to make some adjustments if the trigger isn’t a fit for you.

Magazine & Reloading

Sig Sauer packages these guns with two 15-round for the compact model and 17-round mags for the carry. These steel mags are easy to load and smoothly drop free when released. Another great thing about the P320 is that its magazines are exchangeable with the P250.

Length & Weight

The P320 is only 7.2-inches in overall length, 5.3 inches tall, and 28 oz when loaded. It’s small, compact, and has a sleek design. No matter your application, this gun won’t weigh you down.

Recoil Management

The high, vertical grip, high bore axis, and undercut trigger guard all contribute to excellent recoil management in the P320. With the custom grip models available, there’s no reason you should have trouble keeping an accurate sight picture between shots or have the gun jerk out of your grip.

Price

The P320 runs for about $500 retail, depending on the model. The X-Change kits sell from Sig Sauer for around $450 and the grip frames for about $45.

My Verdict?

The Sig Sauer P320 Compact is a great gun for anything from concealed carry to competition shooting. It’s accurate, reliable, and primed for customization. If you are looking for a unique and dependable handgun, you can’t go wrong with the P320.

RELATED VIDEO: The Army’s New Handgun | SIG SAUER P320 | Tactical Rifleman

©Richard Douglas. All rights reserved.

Gallup Poll: Americans’ Mental Health Hits 20-Year Low Ahead of Renewed Lockdowns

Any retrospective analysis of lockdown policies—the effectiveness which is seriously disputed—must be weighed against the loss of life and human suffering they caused.


In California and other parts of the country, Americans are headed back to lockdown or otherwise facing renewed restrictions on their day-to-day lives amid another spike of COVID-19. Yet a new Gallup poll shows these lockdowns come as people are already struggling with their mental health.

“Americans’ latest assessment of their mental health is worse than it has been at any point in the last two decades,” Gallup reports.

The new polling found that 34 percent of respondents said their mental health was “excellent,” which is 9 points down from 2019. Similarly, 85 percent of Americans had rated their mental health as “good or excellent” in 2019. Just 76 percent did this year. [VIEW CHART HERE]

This poll only further documents an ongoing trend.

As Jon Miltimore previously explained for FEE.org, the Centers for Disease Control found that 1 in 4 young Americans considered suicide this past summer amid life under lockdown and unprecedented levels of social isolation. In one anecdote that painfully demonstrates this broader trend, a California hospital doctor told local news in May that during lockdown he witnessed “a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.”

Much of the decline in mental health over the last 9 months can reasonably be attributed to pandemic lockdowns rather than COVID-19 itself.

Why? Well, consider that for the aforementioned suicidal young adults, the actual mortality risk of COVID-19 is close to zero. It’s the shuttering of their schools, closures of their offices, and isolation from family, friends, and community that has affected them so drastically.

And the negative health effects, both physical and mental, of social isolation are well-documented. Consider this report from the New York Times:

A wave of new research suggests social separation is bad for us. Individuals with less social connection have disrupted sleep patterns, altered immune systems, more inflammation and higher levels of stress hormones. One recent study found that isolation increases the risk of heart disease by 29 percent and stroke by 32 percent.

Another analysis that pooled data from 70 studies and 3.4 million people found that socially isolated individuals had a 30 percent higher risk of dying in the next seven years, and that this effect was largest in middle age.

Loneliness can accelerate cognitive decline in older adults, and isolated individuals are twice as likely to die prematurely as those with more robust social interactions. These effects start early: Socially isolated children have significantly poorer health 20 years later, even after controlling for other factors. All told, loneliness is as important a risk factor for early death as obesity and smoking.

It’s certainly true that we can’t solely attribute the burgeoning mental health crisis to the lockdowns. But there’s no denying the intuitive and demonstrable fact that confining people to their homes and stripping away their livelihoods has driven the spikes in suicide and depression.

How could it not?

Ample research shows how stripping people of their agency and leaving them feeling powerless contributes to mental health decline.

“Having a high sense of control is related to proactive behavior and positive psychological outcomes,” health researchers point out. “Control is linked to an ability to take preventative action and to feel healthy. An impairment of control is associated with depression, stress, and anxiety-related disorders.”

So, such drastic government lockdowns seizing control of the minutiae of American life were always going to have severe mental health consequences. Unintended consequences plague all top-down government efforts to control or manage society.

“Every human action has both intended and unintended consequences,” Antony Davies and James Harrigan explain for FEE. “Human beings react to every rule, regulation, and order governments impose, and their reactions result in outcomes that can be quite different than the outcomes lawmakers intended.”

Replacing individual decision-making of hundreds of millions’ of peoples’ everyday lives with centralized government mandates intended to slow the spread of COVID-19 inevitably causes enormous ripple effects. Our retrospective analysis of lockdown policies—the effectiveness which is seriously disputed—must be weighed against the loss of life and human suffering they caused in their own right.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Opinion Editor at the Foundation for Economic Education.

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

VIDEO: COVID-19 Bounty? Is Pandemic Death Count Skewed by Medicare Reimbursement Bonus?

Government-mandated pandemic shutdowns may force cash-starved hospitals to attribute patient deaths to COVID-19, even if another comorbidity or accident, caused the death. What role might a Medicare COVID-19 ‘bounty’ play in the growing trends, as cases and deaths from the novel coronavirus spike to new records? And what to make of the stat that 89% of those who die from the pandemic had an advanced directive ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ order (DNR)?

Listen to the Audio Version

NOTE: Bill Whittle, Stephen Green, and Scott Ott, create 20 new episodes of Right Angle monthly thanks to our Members. Become a Member today., or make a one-time donation.

©Bill Whittle. All rights reserved.

Israel has tape of Iranian nuclear scientist saying mullahs ‘want five warheads’

Yet His Fraudulency Joe Biden plans to enable Iran’s nuclear program anew by returning to the Iranian nuclear deal. Find out why that would be a catastrophic move in The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran.

“‘Israel has tape of slain Iran nuke chief talking about building five warheads,’” Times of Israel, December 4, 2020:

Israel intelligence managed to recruit an Iranian official close to the recently assassinated Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and recorded the nuclear scientist speaking about his efforts to produce “five warheads” on behalf of the Islamic Republic, according to a Friday report in the Yedioth Ahronoth daily.

This top-secret recording was played in 2008 by former prime minister Ehud Olmert for then-president George W. Bush during a visit by Bush to Israel and was a key element in convincing the Americans to step up efforts to combat Iran’s nuclear program, the report said….

“I’m going to play you something, but I ask that you not talk about it with anyone, not even with the director of the CIA,” the report quoted Olmert as telling Bush from within the closed-door meeting. Bush reportedly agreed to the request.

Olmert pulled out a recording device, hit play and a man could be heard speaking in Persian.

“The man speaking here is Mohsen Fakhrizadeh,” Olmert reportedly explained. “Fakhrizadeh is the head of the “AMAD” program, Iran’s secret military nuclear project. The one it denies exists at all,” Olmert told Bush according to the report.

The prime minister then revealed that Israeli intelligence services had managed to recruit an Iranian agent close to Fakhrizadeh who had been feeding Jerusalem information on the nuclear scientist for years.

Olmert provided Bush with an English-language transcript of what Fakhrizadeh had said in Persian.

According to the report, Fakhrizadeh could be heard giving details about the development of Iranian nuclear weapons. However, the Yedioth report only quotes selected phrases, without the word nuclear. The scientist complains that the government is not providing him with sufficient funds to carry out his work. On the one hand, Fakhrizadeh says, in an apparent reference to his superiors, “they want five warheads,” but on the other, “they aren’t letting me work.”

Fakhrizadeh then goes on to criticize colleagues in the defense ministry and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to the report.

Bush read the recording’s translation and reacted with silence. Yedioth claimed the recording served as a “smoking atomic gun” for Olmert….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State plotting Christmas jihad massacres in UK and Europe to avenge Muhammad cartoons

France: 76 mosques will be investigated, those found to be ‘breeding grounds of terrorism’ will be closed

Indonesia: Muslim cleric issues video in which he calls for jihad as those behind him raise machetes

Malta: Archbishop says Maltese must welcome migrants, ‘We have to open our hearts to the whole world’

France: Muslim migrant stabs man in the heart for refusing him a cigarette, gets five years prison

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

New Study Reveals that Muslim Religiosity Strongly Linked to Hatred Towards the West

I am a Social and Political Psychologist that has been researching in the area of Psychology of Religion. What fascinates me about this discipline is that it goes beyond collecting people’s responses to understanding and examining their attitudes. Our aim is not limited to knowing what people think about a particular issue, but it expands to answer questions about why do they think and behave in a certain way and what we can do to change or sustain their behaviour.

The Christian faith dominates the field of Psychology of Religion. This is understandable since the West was the first to study religion using empirical scientific methods. As a Middle Eastern, I was keen to enrich the literature by expanding it to cover Islam and Muslims. In a recent study that I published in one of the top journals of the scientific study of religion, I examined the relationship between Muslim religiosity and prejudice towards the West. I wanted to investigate whether there was an association between being a religious Muslim and having negative attitudes toward the West. The sample of this study was collected from 17 Arab countries and from a variety of ages ranging from 18 to over 70.

The results were distressing and revealed that Muslim religiosity was strongly linked to hatred towards the West. It was expected to see a link between Islamic fundamentalism and negative attitudes towards the West; however, even intrinsic Muslim religiosity (moderate Islam) strongly predicted prejudice towards the West. In fact, the only groups that had favourable attitudes toward the West were the secular and nonreligious Arabs. What makes this finding intriguing is that it is different than what is found in a Western context. For instance, Christian fundamentalism is still linked to prejudice toward Muslims, but moderate Christian religiosity is not. Also, when we add ideological variables like Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Dogmatism to mediate this relationship, the Christian fundamentalism – prejudice link disappears. This means that in a Western context, Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Dogmatism have a substantial impact on prejudiced attitudes that the religiosity factor becomes insignificant. In comparison, Muslim religiosity remains even after including ideological factors like Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Dogmatism to try to mediate the link between Islam and negative biases towards the West. In other words, Muslim religiosity remains the dominant predictor for disliking the West regardless of it being moderate or reaching a fundamentalism level.

The crucial thing about these findings is that it shows that Islam is not like other religions and that this ideology needs to be understood and examined from a different scope. I have prepared a project entitled: “Conceptualizing and measuring Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, and consequences for anti-Western prejudice.” This project will examine Islamic fundamentalism in more detail in the Middle East and test its relationship to anti-Western prejudice, its link to political Islam, and other related psychological traits. Long story short, I was quite surprised by the response of many Western universities that were hesitant to invest in this research. I was asking myself why is it ok to study and examine other religions but one of a sudden it might not be a good idea to study Islam? After all, this is science, and science should remain objective.

As a psychologist, I believe that if we are serious about finding a cure for a patient, then we must begin by a proper diagnosis. But if we insist that the patient is ok and does not need treatment than things will only get worse. That is why science is crucial to help us understand and work on finding solutions to deal with extreme ideologies rather than leaving things the way they are which will only bring more violence and risk stability and security in both the East and the West. And if the recent horrifying act of beheading a schoolteacher in France because of showing some pictures was not enough to bring a wake-up call then I’m not anticipating a bright future! If you would like to read the details of my study you can reach it through this link: Islam and the West

COLUMN BY

Bashar Albaghli is a Kuwaiti academic that specialises in the scientific study of religion. He was sponsored by Kuwait University and was supposed to go back to Kuwait and be a lecturer after he completed his PhD studies. However, he was prosecuted and sentenced to prison because of his political opinions against the Islamists and funding terrorism in the Gulf.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic

Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’

New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West

Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship

Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat

India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law

EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

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

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

Dr. Fauci (Basically) Admits Rand Paul Was Right 6 Months Ago on Schools and COVID-19

Top White House COVID-19 Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci recently changed his prior position and recommended that we keep schools open (while also advising the nation to close bars back down).

“Obviously, you don’t have one size fits all, but as I said in the past and as you accurately quoted me, the default position should be to try as best as possible within reason to keep the children in school or to keep them back at school,” Fauci said. “The best way to ensure the safety of our children in school is to get the community level of spread low.”

In the same interview, Fauci noted that the spread of the disease among school children has remained incredibly low throughout the pandemic.

“If you look at the data, the spread among children and from children is not very big at all,” Fauci added. “Not like one would have suspected.”

Fauci is correct. Schools have certainly not proven to be the hotbeds for the virus that many warned of this summer.

Two international studies have found no relationship between in-person K-12 learning and the spread of COVID-19. And another study, this one from the United States, found that childcare workers have experienced no greater risk of infection either.

These data, coupled with anecdotal evidence gathered from more than 2,000 schools across the nation, have led many health experts and pediatricians to warn of the risks of keeping schools closed, expressing concerns that the unintended consequences may be outweighing the threat of the virus.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said in a statement that:

“All policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school…. Lengthy time away from school and associated interruption of supportive services often results in social isolation, making it difficult for schools to identify and address important learning deficits as well as child and adolescent physical or sexual abuse, substance use, depression, and suicidal ideation.”

When families are able to homeschool their children or choose the private or public school that’s right for them, they thrive. However, when you take those options away and force all families into remote distance learning, the many kids for whom this isn’t the right fit suffer. Since the vast majority of districts have not passed school choice programs, most families have been left in a bind this year—paying for public schools they often cannot use or whose new models do not work for their children. The consequences include the risks of mental health problems, hunger, missing routine exercise, lack of medical care, child abuse in the home, and the loss of education.

Other research shows that kids are indeed beginning to fall significantly behind in math scores and modestly behind in some other proficiencies such as reading. This is especially troubling news as American children already lag in international proficiency scoring.

Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released a report suggesting that the social isolation caused by COVID-19 and ongoing government lockdowns is taking a toll on children’s mental health.

All of that to say, Fauci’s new recommendations will come as welcomed news to millions of people who have been negatively impacted by private and public school closures, while being left with few or no alternatives.

Parents have been unable to work a regular schedule. Women have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic as a whole, but especially by school shutdowns as the brunt of childcare falls to them. In September alone, 865,000 women dropped out of the workforce, a number four times higher than that of men.

Businesses have struggled to provide flexible work schedules for impacted parents. And childcare providers have been met with uncertainty and a constantly changing landscape of regulations as they work to tailor curriculum to virtual environments, keep children physically distanced, and implement other new policies, like mask-wearing, for their pupils.

But while Fauci is currently correct in his findings and recommendations, he is incorrect when he asserts that this has been his consistent position. In reality, his newfound mentality is at least six months behind the curve, and there were many others who told him as much as far back as this summer. Notably, Senator Rand Paul, a doctor himself, took the correct position many months ago.

Fauci and Paul sparred over the question of whether schools should reopen back in May of this year, leading to countless online attacks against Senator Paul by many prominent progressives.

What did Paul do to deserve such visceral attacks? He merely pointed out the same science Fauci is now hanging his hat on.

“There’s a great deal of evidence that’s actually good—good evidence—that kids aren’t transmitting this—it’s rare—and that kids are staying healthy, and that yes we can open our schools,” Paul stated during a committee hearing.

While Fauci has maintained all along that the goal should be for children to return to schools, he previously issued much more cautious recommendations. He suggested some schools remain closed and pushed for a heavier handed approach from the federal government when it came to deciding protocols for reopening schools. At that time, he also indicated that children could spread the disease as easily as adults.

Fauci’s change in position has led many, including right-wing Twitter commentator Jack Posobiec, to call for apologies to Rand Paul, which wouldn’t be the first time the senator has been owed one by the establishment.

As per usual, Paul is right. Dr. Fauci does owe an apology to the American people. But his mistake is one of arrogance, not malice—and it’s one we see repeated over and over again by the adherents of central planning.

F.A. Hayek once famously said, “The more the state ‘plans’ the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.”

Central planning fails and wreaks havoc on the individuals in a country because of the knowledge problem. The knowledge problem refers to a concept developed by Hayek in his work “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” It’s actually a pretty simple economic concept that holds that central planners cannot possibly possess all of the information they need to successfully direct the lives of others—especially given the need for rapid adaptation in response to changing circumstances.

Such has been the case with Fauci and many others in our government as they seek to combat the coronavirus. They overestimate their abilities, presume they know more than they do, and seek to tell others from afar how to best respond to their rapidly changing environment. It hasn’t worked, and it never will, and the reasons for this trace their way back to the knowledge problem.

Dr. Fauci, and many of our other political leaders, have issued incorrect information, overstepped their constitutional boundaries, and often amplified the negative impacts of the coronavirus. Instead of recognizing their own limitations in the face of a virus, they’ve instead doubled down on their authority and continued to try and control the minute details of people’s lives. This has caused chaos, often needlessly, and it has placed undue hardships on individual Americans who are attempting to do the right things and rebuild their lives.

Fauci’s new recommendations ought to come with a dose of humility and a recognition that the government, and even very smart scientists working within it, cannot centrally plan their way out of an unprecedented pandemic and crisis. Instead, Americans should be given the best, most up-to-date information available and allowed to decide for themselves what the best path forward is for their family and their community.

COLUMN BY

Hannah Cox

Hannah Cox is a libertarian-conservative writer, commentator, and activist. She’s a Newsmax Insider and a Contributor to The Washington Examiner.

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

NASDAQ Trades in Extremism

According to NASDAQ, what happens in the bedroom now matters in the board room! In a bombshell announcement, the stock exchange is threatening to drop companies who don’t meet certain LGBT, race, and gender quotas on their boards of directors. It’s the latest shoe to drop in the march to trample the free market and replace it with woke activism. And if Joe Biden is president, they’ll have their best shot at success yet.

Among their demands, the exchange wants to require companies to have “at least one woman on their boards, in addition to a director who is a racial minority — or one who self-identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer.” Corporations that don’t meet the standard would have to justify their decision persuasively enough to stay on the registry. Regardless, everyone would have to hire at least one “diversity director” within the first two years.

NASDAQ’s spokesperson says the idea came from a recent survey, where it discovered that three-quarters of its companies weren’t “diverse” enough. Most boards are “white and male.” “Around 80 or 90 percent of companies had at least one female director, but only about a quarter had a second one who would meet the diversity requirements, a person familiar with the review said, adding that it was difficult to measure because of inconsistencies in the way companies report such data.”

Conservatives, who’ve seen radical political correctness creep into corporate America for years, warned that this would only be the beginning. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, sued California this year over a state law mandating greater boardroom diversity. “This is NASDAQ getting into woke ideology, and it’s outside the law.” No one should be able to dictate to American CEOs how to run their companies. That’s not how capitalism works. Nor can anyone — including NASDAQ — force people to disclose their sexual preferences.

Apart from the obvious constitutional problems, ordering employers to appoint LGBT-identifying board members is no easy task for 3,000 companies. Although it seems like there’s a gay, lesbian, or transgender-identifying character on every channel or commercial these days, the actual reality is far different. This population, which seems to dominate political and cultural conversations, is actually quite small. In 2018, Gallup’s surveys found that LGBT-identifying adults made up less than five percent of the country. Finding thousands of board members with the right qualifications and sex lives would be a tall task for a lot of CEOs. Of course, those pushing this agenda at NASDAQ are not really concerned about legitimate qualifications.

Not that a Joe Biden administration wouldn’t make them try. Under a liberal SEC chairman — who would have to approve this requirement before it went into effect — a diversity mandate would almost certainly be met with enthusiasm. “[Current chair] Jay Clayton is not going to touch this on his way out the door,” one corporate lawyer told the New York Post. “Why would he? There will be questions of constitutionality from the folks who don’t want this.”

On the other hand, experts say, if Biden presses the issue (and his outspoken support for this kind of extremism suggests he would), the controversial policy could go into effect within months. And the pressure, as NASDAQ made quite clear, would ramp up for others to do the same. “We would welcome the opportunity for our peers to follow suit and see this as a good step forward for all of us,” an exchange spokesperson told the Post. “This is a step forward, but we would welcome the opportunity for our peers to take an active role here as well.”

That’s a chilling thought in corporate America, where so much autonomy has already been crushed in the name of political correctness. Markets operate in losses and gains. If NASDAQ’s capitulation to woke ideology succeeds, look for the financial profits of shareholders to be exchanged for the cultural profits of the Left.

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

New ’Woke’ Denomination is a Warning Sign to Christians

Over the weekend, the formation of a new Methodist denomination was announced during an online worship service hosted by former and current Methodist church leaders. According to organizers, the Liberation Methodist Connexion (LMX), as the group will be called, is a socially progressive denomination that will reimage what it means to follow Jesus. But even a cursory review of the new denomination reveals nothing close to orthodox Christianity and something more akin to a Marxist, LGBT-pride.

According to LMX leaders, theology and fidelity to Scripture or Christian theology is not a priority for the new denomination. In fact, as one leader explained, “There are no doctrinal litmus tests” for joining the movement. “We seek not answers that lead to correct doctrines as to why we suffer. We seek correct actions, correct praxis, where God sustains us during the unanswerable questions,” argued Rev. Althea Spencer-Miller, another LMX leader.

The creation of the new Methodist denomination is not surprising. At the beginning of the year, representatives of the United Methodist Church tentatively agreed to a proposal to split the nation’s second largest Protestant denomination over “fundamental differences” regarding doctrinal differences. In recent years, the denomination had reached an impasse on questions related to the morality of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and the ordination of clergy who identify as gay.

The anticipated vote to split the denomination was set to take place at the 2020 General Conference in May. However, due to the coronavirus pandemic, the vote has been delayed until fall of 2021. In terms of the details of the proposal, progressives within the United Methodist Church will give a newly formed traditionalist Methodist denomination $25 million. Local churches that choose to affiliate with the traditionalist denomination may retain their assets including church buildings and properties. Moreover, conservative clergy may retain their pensions. These concessions were possible because conservatives maintain a governing majority within United Methodism despite the fact that American Methodist leadership is liberal.

However, as evidenced by this weekend’s developments, the extended wait time proved too long for some theologically liberal Methodists who see the new denomination as a better fit for their progressive beliefs. “The timeline of the Holy Spirit is driving our decision to launch the LMX at this moment, and we are following her call,” explained Spencer-Mill, while using female pronouns to refer to God.

A cursory overview of the LMX website reveals that the denomination will resemble nothing like the movement started by John and Charles Wesley in the 18th century where the importance of the new birth, works of piety, and missions were emphasized. Instead, leaders of the new group promise to journey toward a “new way of being followers of Christ” which include refuting the “powers, principalities, and privileges” they believe have defined Methodism. These include a litany of isms including colonialism, sexism, clericalism, ableism, ageism, transphobia, and “heteronormativity.”

While liberals within Methodism have been pushing for the inclusion of more LGBT affirming stances in recent years, the LMX represents a dramatic break from historic Methodist doctrine. But, and to their credit, the leaders of the LMX — who proudly list their preferred pronouns on their website — admit, “LMX theology is not written in stone.” But while their theology isn’t written in stone (or anywhere that I can find), the purpose behind the group is clear: providing ecclesiastical cover for unorthodox views on marriage and sexuality.

Even though the LMX is clearly out of the mainstream of Methodism, its emergence before the expected denominational split is noteworthy. But it is also cautionary. As Mark Tooley, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy and Methodist leader, recently explained, United Methodism “was from the start an experiment in theological pluralism.” This meant that over the years an increasingly wide range of theological views was tolerated within the denomination. Eventually, this meant that heterodox views could coexist with orthodoxy without causing too much of a stir. However, as the broader culture drifted further left on issues such as marriage and human sexuality, the strain between conservatives and liberals over these issues became too much. Thus, in retrospect, the splintering of Methodism over biblical interpretation was predictable. Without clear theological guardrails in place, there was nothing to stop those with unbiblical views from entering the denomination’s ranks and no meaningful way to expel them.

Thus, while the LMX will likely remain a small group of former United Methodists and others, it stands as a cautionary tale for churches and denominations around the country. In an age when doctrine is not taken seriously, Christians, for the sake of faithfulness, must insist on sound doctrine and fidelity to God’s Word.

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Left’s Gender Theories Are Anti-Scientific Nonsense, but They’re Gaining Ground

On Nov. 22, 2020, New York Times columnist Charles Blow unleashed one of the most bizarre tweets in recent memory.

“Stop doing gender reveals,” he stated. “They’re not cute; they’re violent. All we know before a child is born is their anatomy. They will reveal their gender. It may match your expectations of that anatomy, and it may not. If you love the child you will be patience, attentive and open.”

 

This is patently insane for a variety of reasons.


The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>


First, the characterization of gender reveal parties—parties during which parents celebrate finding out whether their unborn children are boys or girls—as “violent” is, in and of itself, radically nuts. Parents are excited to learn whether their children will be boys or girls. That is absolutely unobjectionable.

But for an ardent fan of abortion-on-demand such as Blow to characterize a gender reveal party celebrating the sex of an unborn baby as “violent” while characterizing the in utero dismemberment of that same unborn baby as “choice” is so morally benighted as to boggle the mind.

Blow’s tweet goes further. The implication that parents are doing violence against their own children if they connect sex and gender is utterly anti-evidentiary. Sex and gender are interconnected. For nearly every human being born, biological sex will correspond with genital development in the womb.

And gender, contrary to the idiotic, pseudoscientific paganism of the gender theory set, is not some free-floating set of biases we bring to the table. Males and females have different qualities in a variety of functions, attitudes, desires, and capabilities.

In every human culture—indeed, in every mammalian species—meaningful distinctions between male and female remain. To reduce children to genderless unicorns simply awaiting hormonal guidance from within piles absurdity upon absurdity.

And, of course, Blow’s take on “patience” is not limitless. Presumably, should your daughter announce that she is a boy at the tender age of 5, all measures will immediately be taken to ensure that she is treated as a boy by those such as Blow. There will be no call for watchful waiting; to do so would be yet another act of “violence.”

Why does any of this matter? Because Blow’s perspective has become mainstream on the left. In October, Healthline, a supposed medical resource, ran an article reviewed by a licensed marriage and family therapist titled “‘Do Vulva Owners Like Sex?’ Is the Wrong Question—Here’s What You Should Ask Instead.”

Whether “vulva owners” like sex is indeed the wrong question. The right question, to begin, might be what makes “vulva owners” distinct from women; as a follow-up, we might ask how one would go about leasing or renting a vulva if ownership seems like too much of a burden.

But the madness gains ground. CNN reported in July that the American Cancer Society had changed its recommendations on the proper age for cervical cancer screenings for women, only CNN termed women “individuals with a cervix.” Which seems rather degrading to women, come to think of it.

Lest we believe that this is merely some lunatic fringe, it is worth noting that Blow, Healthline, and CNN are merely saying out loud what those who place gender pronouns in their Twitter bios, such as Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, imply: that gender and sex are completely severable, and that biology has nothing to do with the former.

President-elect Joe Biden has openly stated that an 8-year-old can decide on his transgenderism; Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., infamously stated that she would have a 9-year-old transgender child screen her secretary of education nominee. Male and female are arbitrary categories to which anyone can claim membership.

Unless, of course, the left wishes to treat sex as an important characteristic. Then the logic changes. Thus, it is historic that Biden has nominated an all-female communications team, and it is deeply moving that Harris is a woman.

It’s almost as though the definitions of words have no meaning, according to the left. All that matters is fealty to whatever narrative the chosen moral caste dictates on a daily basis. And if you cross it, you’re doing violence.

COMMENTARY BY

Ben Shapiro is host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is The New York Times best-selling author of “Bullies.” He is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, and lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles. Twitter:

RELATED ARTICLE: UK High Court Rules Children Under 16 ‘Unlikely to Be Able to Give Informed Consent’ to Puberty Blockers


Note for our Readers:

Election fraud is already a problem. Soon it could be a crisis. But election fraud is not the only threat to the integrity of our election system.

Progressives are pushing for nine “reforms” that could increase the opportunity for fraud and dissolve the integrity of constitutional elections. To counter these dangerous measures, our friends at The Heritage Foundation are proposing seven measures to protect your right to vote and ensure fair, constitutional elections.

They are offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free today.

Get the details now when you download your free copy of, “Mandate for Leadership: Ensuring the Integrity of Our Election System.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


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

Beverly Hills and Louisville Revolt Against Dining Bans as Lockdown Defiance Continues to Spread Across America

In Beverly Hills, California, city leaders are demanding L.A. County repeal its ban on outdoor dining, while restaurants in Louisville, Kentucky pledge to reopen regardless of what the governor orders.


When Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear announced a week before Thanksgiving he was closing all indoor service for restaurants and bars because of rising COVID-19 case numbers, Richard Hayhoe had a simple message for his customers.

“Come hungry, come inside,” said Hayhoe, the owner of Beans Cafe and Bakery in Dry Ridge, a rural community about 50 miles north of Lexington.

Instead of complying with Beshear’s order, Hayhoe opted to keep his restaurant open, saying the governor’s order was not about public health.

“This is no longer just about health, it is about control,” Hayhoe wrote in a social media post.

Hayhoe’s act of civil disobedience appears to have started something.

USA Today reports that dozens of Louisville restaurants recently announced they will reopen their dining rooms (at 50 percent capacity) on December 14—regardless of what Beshear does. (Kentucky’s shutdown order is slated to expire at 5:00 PM on December 13.)

The group, called the Kentucky Restaurant Rescue Coalition, started an online petition that has garnered more than 5,000 signatures as of Wednesday morning.

“If Governor Beshear does not rescind restaurant closures, restaurants will reopen on December 14 at 50%,” reads the petition.

The news from Kentucky comes amid a surge of backlash against economic lockdowns, which have wreaked damage on America’s small businesses, the broader economy, and the mental health of Americans.

The opposition has taken many forms—from criticism from Waffle House to enforcement defiance from Weld County Colorado to civil disobedience in Brooklyn and Buffalo—and continues to spread.

In Beverly Hills, California, city leaders are demanding Los Angeles County repeal its ban on outdoor dining.

“The resolution demands a motion be placed on the December 8, 2020 agenda of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to repeal the current Health Order,” Beverly Hills City Council said in a press release.

Reports say Beverly Hills is also exploring creating its own city public health department, similar to Pasadena, which currently allows outdoor dining. (If nothing else, the coronavirus is helping Americans rediscover the virtue of federalism and decentralization.)

The fact that politicians in California—and Beverly Hills of all places!—are growing disenchanted with the punishing and ineffective lockdowns is a sign that Americans are tired of being ordered around by politicians who blithely choose which parts of the economy stay open and what gets shut down, while ignoring their own rules.

Churches? Closed. Strip clubs? Sure. Restaurants? Sorry. Liquor stores? Okay. Private gatherings? Nope. Lottery ticket sales? You bet! The sheer banality of these orders has given lie to the notion that public health is driving the lockdowns.

“Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?” Justice Neil Gorsuch recently quipped in a Supreme Court case overturning Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s coronavirus restrictions on houses of worship in New York.

The case for forced lockdowns was always dubious, especially in the absence of clear data on the mortality risk of COVID-19. But the fact that lockdowns are continuing today in light of the evidence we now have—which shows lockdowns are incredibly harmful and terribly ineffective at slowing the spread of a virus, which appears to have been in the US since 2019, according to new CDC research—is maddening.

As Jason Riley recently pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, many Americans are simply done with all of it.

“What’s going on is not simply hypocrisy but an infantilization of the American public,” Riley wrote. “There’s a widespread assumption among liberal elites that the rest of us are incapable of calculating risks and taking necessary precautions to ride out the pandemic, and it’s insulting.”

Across the United States—from Beverly Hills to Louisville to New York City and beyond—Americans are finally resisting. In doing so, Americans are channeling the tradition of civil disobedience that is part of our DNA and was used by figures ranging from Sam Adams to Henry David Thoreau to Susan B. Anthony and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“This is a form of mass civil disobedience like nothing the country has seen since the 1960s,” Riley notes. “Some of it is born of Covid fatigue, to be sure. But the endless parade of politicians flouting their own rules surely has also played a role. It began shortly after the spring lockdowns and if anything has become more commonplace, even farcical.”

The paradox of civil disobedience, which Thoreau called the “true foundation of liberty,” is that it empowers those who lack power through peaceful non-compliance. Throughout history, it has proven an effective tool against injustice and the use of capricious and arbitrary power.

And it was arbitrary power that compelled Richard Hayhoe, the owner of Beans Cafe and Bakery to take a stand against state lockdown orders.

“Small businesses,” Hayhoe told Neal Cavuto, “are being made to submit to these orders that just seem arbitrary.”

Indeed. Nevertheless, Hayhoe’s non-compliance may come with consequences, which is why he has started a legal defense fund.

Americans like Hayhoe may soon have to determine how far they’re willing to go to peacefully oppose the injustice of lockdowns in the face of politicians who have the power and show no signs of wishing to relent.

“You’re not going back to normal,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently told reporters.

As governments heap threats and penalties on those who defy orders by peacefully conducting business to stay afloat, Americans seeking to steel themselves can find inspiration and courage in these words from Thoreau.

“[The state] is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength,” Thoreau wrote in Civil Disobedience. “I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.”

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

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

Do American Conservatives Have A Fertility Advantage?

Holding conservative beliefs and attitudes probably makes people more determined to marry and have children earlier.


In an election post-mortem interview, progressive election analyst David Shor claimed that increasingly delayed marriage and childbearing have given Democrats an electoral advantage and that these changes in family formation are “reason for hope” for Democrats.

Indeed, the recent presidential election revealed sharp divides in American society: between urban and rural, men and women, Black and white, conservative and liberal.

Less recognized is the way in which different approaches to family life also shaped the 2020 presidential election. Whereas Americans on both sides of the aisle once shared a basic model of family, today our political divisions show up quite literally at birth, with conservatives having (and desiring to have) considerably more children than liberals. We are not only divided by our political visions, but also by our values and behaviors around childbearing and childrearing; that is, by our visions of family life.

One way this shows up is fertility. In this election, the association between fertility rates and voting patterns was crystal clear. The figure below shows the share of a county’s vote won by President Trump vs. the total fertility rate for that county from 2016 to 2019, the latest available data.

FIGURE 1

Data about fertility rates is only available for around 600 of the largest counties, thus many small, rural counties are excluded. But the relationship shown here is clear: President Trump did better in counties with higher birth rates, and the difference is fairly large, with the most pro-Biden counties having total fertility rates almost 25% lower than the most pro-Trump counties.

If anything, this effect is understated, since the most pro-Trump counties were small, rural counties that usually have even higher birth rates and are excluded from this analysis. Indeed, Yi Fuxian at the University of Wisconsin showed that the relationship between voting and fertility is even more pronounced when we look at fertility rates and state voting trends.

Nor is the relationship between fertility and presidential voting a spurious result related to urbanization, race, or state practices in drawing county lines. The figure below extends the analysis to more presidential elections, and includes controls for the state a county is in, the county’s non-Hispanic white population share, and the county’s population density.

FIGURE 2

As can be seen, the Republican fertility advantage is relatively stable across elections. It even shows up in a panel model, suggesting that as counties become more Republican, their fertility rates tend to rise relative to the national average. The use of state controls (and some robustness tests I ran in large states with many counties) suggests this effect isn’t driven by unique features of states: within Red states or Blue states, and controlling for county racial and ethnic characteristics and population densities, Republican counties have higher birth rates.

This is particularly astonishing given that Democrats perform very well in counties with many Hispanic and black voters, who have higher birth rates than non-Hispanic white Americans (and indeed, the more non-Hispanic whites in a county, the lower its birth rate in my models). The relationship is also unchanged if the sample is restricted to only very-high-density counties, such as those representing the center of major cities. In other words, the Republican “fertility advantage” does not arise from more rural counties with higher birth rates, and it exists despite the fact that much of the Democratic Party’s electoral base is among racial and ethnic groups with higher birth rates in general. The split I identify isn’t about race or urbanization or region of the country: it’s about family. Within racial- or ethnic-groups, within states or urbanized areas, the more conservative areas tend to have more babies.

Election data can only tell us so much. But data from the General Social Survey can be used to provide a more granular understanding of the ideological fertility difference. The figure below shows the number of children ever born to women sampled in the GSS who were over age 44, and women ages 30-44, by political ideology.

FIGURE 3

In the 1970s, there was little or no difference in fertility rates between liberal and conservative women. But by the 2000s, completed fertility for liberal women had declined markedly below that of conservative women. In recent years, the gap in childbearing between young conservative and liberal women has really opened, which may portend a bigger gap in the coming years.

This graph has no controls for other factors. But the figure below introduces control variables for women’s age, the year of the survey, women’s race or ethnicity, educational level, and marital status. It shows the difference between conservative and liberal women after all these variables are controlled for, with the period 1972-1994 lumped together as one group, and 1995-2018 lumped together as another group.

FIGURE 4

Before the 1990s, fertility differences by ideology were small. Women over age 45 had no difference in completed fertility, and women of all ages (but with controls for year of age) had only a small difference. There was, however, already a difference in ideology: conservative women reported a childbearing ideal about 0.12 kids higher than liberal women, which is a small, but significant, difference.

For the period after 1995, however, gaps grow. Conservative women over age 45 had about 0.25 more children on average than their liberal peers, an effect which in fact shows up throughout the age distribution once the “over 45” restriction is relaxed. The gap in fertility ideals grew larger as well.

In other words, the “family gap” between conservatives and liberals is a new phenomenon. It’s only in the last two decades that conservatives began to reap a fertility advantage. But it’s not just a fertility difference: if controls for marital status are removed, the conservative fertility advantage gets even bigger. That is, conservatives are simply more likely to be married than liberals. Thus, there is a conservative-liberal gap on marriage and separately on odds of childbearing conditional upon marital status.

But what’s really going on here? Is it that conservatives get married more and have more children? Or is it that getting married and having children makes people conservative? It’s likely that causality flows in both directions. Holding conservative beliefs and attitudes probably makes people more determined to marry and have children earlier, given the significant emphasis conservatives place on the family, children, and marriage. Moreover, some liberals (though certainly not most) have begun to adopt explicitly anti-natal ideologies related to worries about population growth and climate change. Indeed, as shown above, more conservative people report desiring more children in the future, a good indication that conservative attitudes may indeed lead to higher fertility: conservatives who have no kids yet desire more kids than liberals with no kids yet.

However, having children probably also makes people more conservativePrior academic research has found that after women have children, they tend to subsequently adopt more conservative social attitudes around gender roles, a result present in both British and American datasets.

The key takeaways of this are three-fold: first, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, increasingly inhabit different worlds in terms of family life. Republicans tend to live in communities with low rates of childlessness and larger families; Democrats are more likely to live in places where childbearing is rarer and families are smaller. This informs how family policy is approached: Democrats see smaller and fewer families, and so see a cost barrier with which families need help, perhaps because in communities with a lot of Democrats, childbearing is less universal and frequent. On the other hand, Republicans tend to live in places with much higher birth rates and more uniform childbearing, and so tend to think that kids are just a part of life, and people adjust to afford them. Democrats tend to live in places with pricier housing, while Republicans tend to live in places where it’s easier to afford more bedrooms.

Second, the Republican political coalition is heavily weighted towards counties that have a lot of children. In other words, any policy increasing across-the-board transfers to children will tend to provide more financial support to Republicans and more conservative parts of the country, where there are more children. A child allowance, for example, would disproportionately transfer funds from the predominantly Democratic counties that make up 70% of the country’s economic output towards more Republican counties and individuals.

Moreover, the decline in birth rates around the country in recent years may present a challenge for conservative politicians: delayed and reduced transition into marriage and parenthood will result in young adults spending more years with more liberal ideologies. It will be increasingly difficult to build constituencies around conservative social priorities in a world where fewer young adults are at the point in life (married with kids) where those priorities make sense with their life situation.

Finally, this conservative fertility advantage probably will not give conservatives some inevitable long-term political edge.

Fertility rates are falling for conservatives just as much as liberals. Given the size of the fertility differential between conservatives and liberals, it doesn’t actually take a large amount of ideology switching to offset this higher birth rate. Thus, while conservatives may wish that their fertility advantage could afford a durable political majority, that hope is probably just as fleeting as the now-silly-sounding claims of progressives a decade ago that immigration would create a durable Democratic majority.

That’s because, at least right now, conservative parents have not been sufficiently successful in keeping their kids in the fold.

This article has been republished with permission from the Institute for Family Studies.

COLUMN BY

Lyman Stone

Lyman Stone is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, an Adjunct Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the Chief Information Officer of the consulting firm Demographic Intelligence,… 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Technology, demography, and destiny

To survive turbulent times, we need to arm ourselves with truth

Belgium’s complacent euthanasia regime under threat

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

Affidavit: DVS, Scytl/SOE Software/eClarity and Smartmatic are vulnerable to data manipulation by unauthorized means

In a sworn affidavit Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia stated:

I conclude that a combination of lost cryptographic key contained on stolen USB memory cards, serious exploitable system and software vulnerabilities and operating system backdoor in DVS, Scytl, SOE Software/eClarity and Smartmatic created the perfect environment to commit widespread fraud in all states where these systems are installed. My analysis of the 2020 Election from NY Times data shows statistical anomalies across the battleground state votes. These failures are widespread and systemic – and sufficient to invalidate the vote counts.

Dr. Keshavarz-Nia concluded:

I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states resulting in a hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred to Vice President Biden. These alterations were the result of systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities in DVS, Scytl/SOE Software and Smartmatic systems that enabled operators to achieve the desired results. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.S. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

READ THE FULL AFFIDAVIT HERE

RELATED ARTICLES:

NYT Endorsed Leading Cyber-Crimes Expert Concludes Election 2020 Data Were Altered in Battleground States

Pennsylvania Bombshell: Biden 99.4% vs. Trump 0.6%

RELATED VIDEOS:

Filipino Lawmaker Says Smartmatic Machine was Pre-Loaded with Ballot Counts Before Election Started.

29th November Election Update 2020

About Navid Keshavarz-Nia, CISO, Black Key Solutions, LLC

Dr. Keshavarz-Nia is a vice president and senior director in INFOSEC with 30 years of experience in national security spanning leadership and program execution supporting the civilian, Defense, US Intelligence Agency (USIA), and commercial banking organizations. His background extends in cyber security engineering, technical counterintelligence and incident response management. He is an innovator and has implemented next generation security solutions across the IC, defense, and civilian clients. He has engineered technical solutions and managed large development teams involving security risk assessment, insider threat, incident response, and threat hunting exercises to identify advanced persistent threats. He is an experienced ethical hacker, big data architect and cloud security expert in cloud computing, Blockchain technology, and big data analytic solutions. He has led or supported the CIA, NSA, DHS US-CERT, USCYBERCOM and the FBI.

©All rights reserved.

Me, Über Alles: The Maddening Reason Politicians Break Their Own Lockdown Rules

There’s hypocrisy, damned hypocrisy, and the actions of statist politicians.

Most of us have seen the pictures or heard the stories. Governor Gavin Newsom, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Diane Feinstein and other leftists have been caught blithely breaking the very COVID-1984 restrictions they self-righteously visit on the citizenry. In the case of Denver mayor Michael Hancock, he recently flew to Mississippi not an hour after warning city residents to “avoid travel, if you can.” I guess he couldn’t.

This has left a lot Americans wondering if these posturing pols actually believe their own coronavirus rhetoric. Many no doubt don’t, at least not completely. Also, whatever they believe, they quite surely lack the discipline (not a big word among leftists) to adhere to any program. What would we expect, after all, from people whose only consistent credo is “If it feels good, do it” other than convenience-driven behavior? Yet there’s another, mostly unknown reason for these statists’ hypocrisy.

Studies have shown that leaders, no matter the time or place, tend to be worse than the people they lead. A major reason for this is that politics attracts power-mongers (along with the narcissists and sociopaths).

Power lust is alien to most people. Oh, they can understand lusting after sex or food or money, as virtually all of us have related urges (just hopefully not to a disordered degree). Though it’s a rarer defect, however, people can lust after power in just the way a robber baron may crave money; a nymphomaniac, sex; and a glutton, food. But most people can’t relate to this problem — and generally don’t even consider its existence — because they’re not saddled with it; instinctively projecting one’s own mindset and priorities onto others is a common error.

(If only this weren’t so, people might be more on guard against the power-driven, known as “megalomaniacs.”)

Now, megalomaniacs are overrepresented in politics because, of course, that’s the realm in which you can most directly exercise control and power. These people love it, “need” it and live for it. At risk of seeming frivolous, I think the following nine-second Star Wars clip well epitomizes their mindset.

[Please insert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg14jNbBb-8]

(If Gavin Newsom actually had the above ability, he could at least make himself useful and remedy his state’s rolling blackouts.)

So how does this relate to COVID hypocrisy? Well, one way to enhance your sense of power is by flouting rules everyone else must follow.

It’s even more of a rush if you imposed those rules on them in the first place.

It can make you feel special, above it all, like an elite, master of all you survey. Rules are “for the little people,” as the supercilious suppose, so you can feel like a big person if you’re beyond rules, beyond limits, beyond constraints.

These politicians are beyond reason and rectitude, though, tragically. A truly great leader knows he should share the sacrifices he asks of his people, but our power-mongers will have none of that. The point, however, is that they’re not necessarily just weak and willing to violate their own rules. Often, they revel in doing so.

Leaders’ increasing exhibition of blatant hypocrisy is also a sign of a declining republic. In a healthy one, this is less possible because politicians are held accountable. But to whatever degree a pseudo-elite establishment places itself beyond voter discipline (e.g., via rigged elections), it can in the same proportion place itself beyond the voters’ government-imposed burdens.

Megalomaniacs will never stop exercising irrational control over you because control is the goal, an end unto itself. They inflict their torments not just with the approval of their own consciences, but at the urging of their most animalistic desires.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab or Parler (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

Follow-up Video Regarding Election Fraud — Dr. Shiva Answers his Critics

A more detailed follow-up to Dr. SHIVA Ayyadurai’s previous video on the indicators of election/voter fraud.

This video spends a lot of time regarding the aspects of “pattern recognition” before he gets into directly answering the criticisms he has received as regards his previous video AND he shows what normal vs abnormal looks like AND he does comparisons with what Biden looks like AND he confirms he’s already been in contact with Trump’s people.

You’re probably going to have to watch the whole thing but, hang in there, He answers his critics quite effectively!

©Tad MacKie. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Meeting With Michigan Lawmakers In Bid To Overturn State’s Election Results

‘Deeply Concerning’: Federal Election Commission Chair Trey Trainor On Voter Chaos, Foreign Influence Accusations

Kayleigh McEnany Says Trump Wont Concede Until Legal Challenges Are Over

Biden’s Transition Team Is Stacked With Former Facebook And Zuckerberg Insiders

Lara Trump Reportedly Thinking About 2022 Senate Run

Copyright © 2020 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.