Biden Administration Praises Taliban’s ‘Openness’ to Women’s Rights

What happens when you learn nothing from history.

In 2001, the Taliban blew up the giant Buddha statues. Now they’re charging tourists five bucks each to go see the statues that aren’t there. Considering the Islamic knack for destroying statues, tombs, historic buildings, and anything that isn’t a mosque, tourism can be tough.

Fortunately the Taliban have the opium business to fall back on.

While officially the Taliban deplore drugs, their takeover was partly backed by the country’s drug lords who were eager for an end to America’s war on drugs. Planting season has arrived and everyone is expecting a lot of drug money to start flowing into the Taliban’s terrorist coffers.

The Taliban response to international complaints has been the familiar drug shakedown.

“If the international community recognizes our government and we receive aid and development assistance, then poppies will definitely disappear,” a Taliban governor told the media.

Former U.S. administrations had offered aid in exchange for suspending the drug business. And while Afghanistan’s only real cash crop didn’t go away, the Jihadist bosses of the opium OPEC were willing to occasionally reduce production in exchange for cash from Uncle Sam.

The Biden administration is directing over a hundred million in aid to Afghanistan, but what the Taliban really want is the $9 billion in money from the former government they had overthrown.

That includes the $1.3 billion in gold sitting in Manhattan vaults near Ground Zero.

The Taliban would like that gold, but so would the families of the victims killed by the Taliban’s Al Qaeda allies on September 11.

The 9/11 families had sued the Taliban and won $7 billion in damages. But back then the Taliban didn’t have money just sitting around in downtown Manhattan.

That’s no longer the case.

Biden’s problem is the familiar one facing the Obama administration over judgements won by terror victims against Iran and the PLO. How do you funnel money to the terrorists without letting their victims get hold of it? The answer is that you pay secret ransoms or send “humanitarian aid”. Withholding money from terror victims to pay terror bosses looks tacky, so just turn the money into ransom for American hostages or medicine for crying local children.

And so despite the fact that the Taliban negotiate with all faiths other than their own in bad faith, the Biden administration is still negotiating with the terrorists who broke every previous deal.

A week after Thanksgiving, some of Biden’s boys from the State Department, USAID, the Treasury Department, and assorted spooks, flew off to talk turkey with the Taliban in Qatar.

The assortment of departments and agencies in the delegation to the terrorists was an interesting one. The State Department’s diplomats love to appease terrorists, USAID is there to dole out “humanitarian aid”, the spooks are there to ask the terrorists for info on the other terrorists, and the Treasury Department is there to discuss economic sanctions.

And how to bypass them.

All it takes is certifying that the Taliban are nice folks now and it’s time to work with them on feeding and clothing the Afghan people, not to mention educating the girls of Afghanistan.

A week after the Taliban banned women from television, Biden’s State Department spokesman Ned Price released a statement praising the Taliban’s “openness to engaging with the international community on full access to education”.

Price further claimed that the Islamic terrorist group which closed most schools to girls had actually “welcomed efforts to verify and monitor progress to enroll women and girls in school at all levels.”

The Taliban, apparently, also “asked for support in the education sector.”

Preferably in the form of cash, heroin, or Black Hawk helicopter parts.

According to the Taliban, 75% of girls are back in school. And if you believe that, you probably work for the State Department.

The Taliban’s newfound feminism is as suspect as that of Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Biden, but they want money and Joe Biden wants to give it to them.

The levers for extracting that cash are a combination of blackmail and victimhood.

The Taliban will cash in on opium while the people starve. And then ask for money in exchange for shutting down the drug trade and then getting the people something to eat. The remaining Americans and Afghan visa recipients are also hostages who can be traded for more dollars.

That’s another reason why so very few of the visa recipients ever made it to the airport. And why the majority of those who did had no visas and no vetting, but probably did pay off the Taliban.

The Taliban can only make so much money from charging tourists to see the missing Buddhas.

The last year should have been a comprehensive education in why the Taliban can’t be trusted. After agreeing not to conquer Afghanistan, they went ahead and did it anyway. While they were doing that, the Biden administration, which is almost as trustworthy as the Taliban, assured the media, which is almost as trustworthy as the Biden administration, that everything was fine.

Now everything is fine again.

When the Taliban aren’t beheading members of female sports teams, they’re showing a great deal of “openness” to “engaging with the international community” on their feminism.

They’ll even field a fully progressive approved all-female sports team of men in burkas.

The Biden administration promised to leave Afghanistan, but the United States never leaves anywhere. Aside from taking in tens of thousands of Afghans into our country, we’re still on the hook for feeding, clothing, and educating the Afghans in Talibanland, not to mention Pakistan.

Even once the Taliban get their billions and their UN seat, we’ll still be sending them aid.

In December 2000, the State Department boasted that it had sent $113 million in “humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people”. It further bragged that the “United States is the largest single donor of assistance to Afghans, and has a long record of providing such assistance.”

All the while it acknowledged that the Taliban were mischievously harboring Osama bin Laden.

That money stolen from American taxpayers covered “food, housing, health and education programs” for the Afghans. And the State Department shamefully bragged that “of every ten dollars” in aid, “nine dollars is a United States contribution.”

Next year the Taliban contributed four airplanes directed at killing thousands of Americans.

Having learned nothing in twenty years, the Biden administration and its career diplomats expect Americans to continue funding a Taliban welfare state.

This time the Taliban really believe in feminism, they insist. This time they’re really committed to fighting terrorism. And this time they surely won’t host another terrorist attack on America.

As long as we pay them enough.

COLUMN BY

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center specializing in investigative reporting on the Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Invites Pro-Taliban Pakistan to ‘Democracy Summit’

France: Muslim who murdered two people with knife complained about living in land of infidels

France: Teacher says Muslims students are ‘problem’ in Catholic schools, is suspended, fears for his life

Germany: Afghan Muslim asylum seeker rapes two girls, ages 11 and 13

RELATED VIDEO: David Wood and Robert Spencer on This Week in Jihad.

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

Listen up, people! The world’s richest, smartest, zaniest CEO says we are heading for a population bust

Brash. Brilliant. Iconoclastic. Downright loopy.

Those are some words that come to mind describing the founder of SpaceEx, The Boring Company, Open AI and Neuralink, and head honcho at Tesla, the electric vehicle (EV) behemoth.

He’s said to be the richest man in the world, supposedly worth US $270 billion. I wouldn’t hesitate to swap financial statements with the guy, and if that ever came about, I’d probably just cash out and take the tax hit. There’d still be enough left to buy a house or two.

If you haven’t already guessed, we’re talking about Elon Musk. Now a reasonable person, as lawyers say, might ask what does Elon Musk have to do with demography? Answer, not much. But…

Well, sometimes those self-made types have a habit of thinking for themselves. (Yes, Musk grew up wealthy, but not at all in the league he now leads.) Guys like that didn’t get to where they are by simply following the rule book, which is more than I can say for some of our know-it-all public officials.

When a rich and famous guy speaks, it makes the news, because, well, he’s rich and famous. And that is exactly what happened at the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council Summit on December 6-7. The confab was a gathering of heavy hitters if there ever was one, including tech titans, Fortune 50 CEOs, and even a few high-flying politicians. Of course, Elon made an appearance like many others, via Zoom.

The takeaway about Elon for some at the confab was his disagreement with uber-PC Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg over federal funding for EV charging stations. But here is what he said that is of interest to MercatorNet readers:

I can’t emphasize this enough: There are not enough people… One of the biggest risks to civilization is the low birth rate and the rapidly declining birth rate. 

And yet, so many people, including smart people, think that there are too many people in the world and think that the population is growing out of control. It’s completely the opposite. Please look at the numbers — if people don’t have more children, civilization is going to crumble, mark my words.

You can watch him here:

Yes, Elon, many people, including smart people, think that world population growth is out of control. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. But since when has that ever deterred the smart set? Guess Elon needs to get woke.

Musk himself has had seven children, six of whom survive. After his jolting statement, the interviewer had the nerve (that’s chutzpah for New Yorkers) to ask if his thinking that the lack of children is a problem is why he has so many children himself. He replied that as a father of six he needs to set a good example, and that he must practice what he preaches.

Good for Elon! Thrice divorced and loopy as he may come across on occasion, the chattering class cannot dismiss this guy as just another religious fanatic or right-wing-conspiracy-mongering-racist-bigot-neonazi-nativist-nutcase (did I leave out anyone?). No, he’s Elon Musk, and as an uber-rich opinion leader, the megaphone is his. Good to see the fertility crisis getting traction in the corridors of power.

This is not the first time Musk has publicly addressed this topic. Back in 2017, in response to a piece in New Scientist regarding an impending “population bomb” 60 years out, he tweeted, “The world’s population is accelerating towards collapse, but few seem to notice or care…”

And in 2019 he tweeted: “Real issue will [be] an aging & declining world population by 2050, *not* overpopulation… Demographics, stratified by age, will look like an upside down pyramid with many old people & fewer young.”

Last summer he voiced similar sentiments to the Wall Street Journal.

Does Elon follow MercatorNet? If not, well, he should. And a healthy donation would be most welcome!

As CNBC observed regarding his remarks at the CEO Summit, “His comments come as a growing number of people are deciding not to have children, citing concerns such as climate change and inequality.”

Yes, many “smart people” are convinced that population is out of control and that in order to save the planet we must refrain from having children. Well, if we continue to do so, the planet should be OK until it is ultimately absorbed by the sun in a few billion years — but what about human civilization?

But back to Musk. He knows whereof he speaks. From 2019 to 2020, US fertility fell a stunning 4% (Covid helped). That year also marked the lowest number of American births since 1979, when the US population was 32% less than it is today.

Maybe some of these mega-corporations represented at the Summit can step up their game and increase flexibility of working hours and locations, and (God forbid) divert some of their resources to bumping up employee compensation. How about more on-site day care and even schooling? The money is there. Not only will that convince more talented young folks to come work for them, but it would also be for the public good, i.e., the family. In the long run it might even boost share prices.

If any of y’all out there bump into Elon, tell him hello from MercatorNet, that we’re on the same page, and to think about submitting a guest column and maybe even making that donation!

COLUMN BY

Louis T. March

Louis T. March has a background in government, business and philanthropy. A former talk show host, author and public speaker, he is a dedicated student of history and genealogy. Louis lives with his family… More by Louis T. March

RELATED ARTICLE: Elon Musk Warns of Demographic Winter

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

Is America founded on freedom or on slavery?

Anti-Black racism is not part of America’s DNA. If it were, it couldn’t change — and it has.


One of the most contentious issues in American history is the existence of slavery in a country “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” as Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address. Inspired by critical race theory and the Black Lives Matter movement, the New York Times has even campaigned with its 1619 Project to popularise the idea that the country was founded on the bondage of slavery, not the liberty extolled by its Founding Fathers.

MercatorNet interviewed Robert R. Reilly about this debate. Reilly is the author of America on Trial: A Defense of the Founding. He recently added a special chapter on slavery

MercatorNet: Did the United States fight the Revolution primarily to protect the institution of slavery?

Robert R. Reilly: It had absolutely nothing to do with protecting slavery. To suggest otherwise is a singular act of ignorance – one that the 1619 Project commits. Gordon Wood is perhaps the foremost historian of the American Revolution. He makes clear that, “this claim is false. In 1776 Great Britain was not threatening to abolish slavery in its empire… It was the American colonists who were interested in abolitionism in 1776.”

Princeton historian Sean Wilentz explained, “Had the Americans not won their independence in 1783, it is almost inconceivable that the British government would have ended slavery in any of its colonies thereafter.” Indeed, the British Empire was the leading slave trader in the world, and many of its colonies in the Western Hemisphere relied on slavery for their economic output and well-being.

Legal scholar Paul Finkelman relates that “the British government gave special protection to the Royal African Company, which brought more slaves to the American colonies than any other single entity. Investors in the Royal African Company reached the highest echelons of British society, and included members of the Royal family.”

In 1769, Virginia raised taxes on the importation of slaves, but the Crown overruled it. In 1772, Virginia passed another law with a prohibitively high tax on the slave trade. The legislators appealed to the king that “[t]he importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of Africa, hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity” and asked him to “remove all those restraints on your majesty’s governors of this colony, which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce.” Once again, the British government overrode the law.

Thomas Jefferson complained in 1774 of the Crown’s interference in the colonies’ efforts to end the transatlantic slave trade. Great Britain eventually passed legislation to end it in 1807, several weeks after the United States did.

“Anti-Black racism runs in the very DNA of this country” is the catchcry of critical race theory and the 1619 Project. How do you respond to this allegation?

If it were in the DNA of America, then it couldn’t be changed, but it has been. People who have not seen the change in race relations in this country over the past half-century since the civil rights movement must be blind. I don’t know a sector of American society in which racism is not considered morally repugnant. Of course, to our shame, that was not always so.

Was the slavery practiced in the American slave states the worst in the world at the time?

There is no gainsaying the fact that it was very bad, indeed. It was certainly just as bad if not worse in the Caribbean and in South America. Slavery in Africa was also vicious.

How did the Founders reconcile in their own mind the statement that “all men are created equal” and the existence of slavery? To us, after all, the double standard seems so obvious.

It was the Founders who publicly raised the moral standard by which slavery, which had existed since time immemorial, would be seen as a great wrong. Why was that hypocritical?

Gordon Wood said, “Far from protecting slavery, the American Revolution inflicted a massive blow to the entire slave system of the New World.” Benjamin Franklin held that slavery was such “an atrocious debasement of human nature” that he formed a Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and raised funds for the “relief of free negroes unlawfully held in bondage”. Pennsylvania became the first government in history to abolish slavery. John Adams considered slavery a “foul contagion in the human character.” He said, “Negro slavery is an evil of colossal magnitude.” At the Constitutional Convention, Gouverneur Morris excoriated slavery as being “in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity,” which “damns them to the most cruel bondages.”

In the decade between the Declaration and the Constitution, every state north of the Mason-Dixon Line, and north of the Ohio River, abolished slavery or passed measures leading to its abolition by 1804. The Northwest Ordinance, passed by Congress in 1787, forbade slavery in the huge territory that would later comprise five Midwestern states (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin). None of these things would have happened had not the American founding principle been that “all men are created equal.”

Could we focus on two key figures in your analysis? First, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, the third President – and a slaveowner. Doesn’t his record support the 1619 Project’s accusation of hypocrisy?

In 1779 Jefferson proposed a law for gradual emancipation in Virginia. It failed passage. In addition, in Congress in 1784, he proposed the law, which came within one vote of adoption, that would have banned slavery from the entire Western territory of the United States.

In Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration, he had written that George III “has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him”, which was a condemnation of Great Britain’s participation in and perpetuation of the slave trade. According to Jefferson, this sentence was removed at the insistence of South Carolina and Georgia. Ironically, in earlier colonial times, Georgia had been overruled in London when it tried to ban slavery.

In regard to American slavery, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever… The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest… The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other.”

In 1807, President Jefferson applauded the approaching congressional measure to forbid the foreign slave trade “to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country have long been eager to proscribe”.

Like many others, Jefferson presumed that slavery would peacefully die out over the course of time. He freed only two slaves during his lifetime, allowed three others to leave Monticello with his tacit consent, and manumitted five more in his will.

Why not more? Robert F. Turner explains that “the reason Jefferson did not free but five of his own slaves in his will is simple: Under Virginia law at the time, slaves were considered ‘property,’ and they were expressly subject to the claims of creditors. Jefferson died deeply in debt.” In fact, Jefferson took on a sizable debt that came with his inherited estates and accrued more debt when he co-signed a large loan for a friend who subsequently defaulted.

This is not to gainsay the fact that Jefferson practiced slavery and benefitted from it. Nonetheless, in 1823, he wrote that slavery was “a hideous blot” and that he was “happy in believing that the conviction of the necessity of removing this evil gains ground with time”. Unfortunately, this was not to be so.

The other figure is Frederick Douglass, the brilliant freed slave and abolitionist leader who was loud in his praise of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. How does the 1619 Project account for his attitude?

It can’t, because what Douglas said gives the lie to its central thesis. He was emphatic that the Constitution was not a pro-slavery document precisely because it did not mention slavery and thought it was “a slander upon their memory” to think otherwise of the Founders’ intentions.

In a Fourth of July oration in 1852, he said, “In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but interpreted, as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? Or is it in the temple? It is neither.”

There are at least three provisions in the Constitution which appear to support slavery – the importation clause, the three-fifths clause, and the fugitive slave clause. They clearly seem to support slavery… How do you account for those?

In order to reach ratification, the framers did include three compromises regarding slavery’s existence in the Constitution. The “Importation Clause” of article I, section 9, prevented Congress from banning the importation of slaves for a period of 20 years. As mentioned above, the ban was passed in 1809.

The “Three-Fifths Clause” of the Constitution (article I, section 2) for apportioning representation in the House of Representatives is often misunderstood as a denial that slaves were fully human because they each counted as only three-fifths a person. The purpose of the clause, however, was to lessen the power of the slave states and was not in any way premised on the belief that slaves were not fully human beings. Had the slave states been able to include the slaves in “the whole Number of free Persons” it would have enhanced their power by increasing their number of representatives, which was determined by population. It was an anti-slavery clause.

The so-called “Fugitive Slave Clause” (article IV, section 2) appears to be the most troubling of the compromises because it provided for the return of runaway slaves. It at least avoided the word “slave,” tellingly using “person” instead, in order to undercut condescension toward them as property. This revision emphasized that slaves were held according to the laws of individual states and, as the historian Don Fehrenbacher has noted, “made it impossible to infer from the passage that the Constitution itself legally sanctioned slavery.”

So, these were prudential compromises necessary for there to be a United States in the first place – without which slavery would not have been ultimately abolished.

How do historians view the 1619 Project? After all, the project creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, received a Pulitzer Prize for her work.

That speaks volumes about the Pulitzer Prize, unless it was given in the category of fiction. Hannah-Jones is not an historian; she is a journalist. Some of the most prestigious professional historians of the American Founding wrote a joint letter protesting her misrepresentations.

Is the story of the founding basically just an academic quarrel or does it have political consequences in 2021?

The whole point of the calumny is to support attacks on the United States. If the Founders can be tagged as supporters of the odious practice of slavery, ipso facto, they stand condemned. More than any other issue today, slavery is used to limn the American Founding as corrupt in its origins. The most often repeated charge, especially from the Left, is that the United States was rooted in racism from the beginning, actually even before the beginning. Therefore, this country is irredeemable. If it is irredeemable, it must be taken down.

This accounts for its current political relevance, and it is why it must be countered if we wish to preserve the first nation in the history of the world to be founded on the principle that all people are created equal.

COLUMN BY

Robert R. Reilly is Director of the Westminster Institute. In his 25 years of government service, he has taught at National Defense University (2007), and served in the Office of The Secretary of Defense,… More by Robert R. Reilly

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

Medical research rapidly adopts ‘systemic racism’ as truth, risking its scientific credibility

Rejection used to be common for medical sociologist Thomas LaVeist when he tried to get his research published on the effects of racism on the health of black people. “Now,” said the 60-year-old dean of Tulane University’s School of Public Health & Tropical Medicine, “I have those same journals asking me to write articles for them.”

LaVeist’s experience illustrates the dramatic transformation in medical research, accelerating in the past few years. While few would dispute that black Americans are more prone to chronic health problems and have shorter life expectancies than whites, the medical community generally sought answers in biology, genetics and lifestyle. Research, like LaVeist’s, that focused on racism was frowned upon as lacking rigor or relevance, an amateurish detour from serious intellectual inquiry.

Today medical journal editors are clamoring for a racial lens and apologizing for what they call their past moral blindness. In recent years, and especially since Black Lives Matter protests erupted last year, systemic racism has been transformed from a fringe theory to a canonical truth.

Medical researchers are now able to offer a sweeping socio-political explanation for racial health disparities by citing the hundreds of peer-reviewed articles authored by LaVeist and a host of others, thus conferring upon the study of systemic racism the imprimatur of scholarly authority and even settled science.

Systemic racism used to be a hypothesis. Now it’s a dogma

This year, top officials at the National Institutes of Health issued an apology to all who have suffered from structural racism in biomedical research. The NIH, the nation’s largest funder of biomedical research, announced that it is dedicating US$90 million to the study of health disparities and structural racism, engaging in more than 60 diversity and inclusion initiatives, and committing “every tool at our disposal to remediate the chronic problem of structural racism.”

In an August special issue dedicated to racial health disparities, the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association stated that systemic racism is a scientific fact beyond dispute, and disagreeing on this point is “wrong,” “misguided” and “uninformed.” Systemic racism is a reality to be assumed in medical research rather than a sociological hypothesis to be tested by skeptical researchers.

Deemed incontestable, systemic racism provides the political rationale for “dismantling” — in the words of no less an authority than the National Institutes of Health — the social institutions and cultural standards that, according to the framework’s advocates, were constructed and are maintained to uphold white supremacy.

The consequences of ignoring this new prime directive for racially focused research were made abundantly clear this year when the top two editors of JAMA were pressured to resign after the organization ran a podcast that questioned whether systemic racism explains health disparities between blacks and other Americans.

“When JAMA sends a call for paper on structural racism, when the NIH director sends out an apology letter for racism in the NIH and when the CDC for the first time uses the term ‘racism,’ these are highest-level determinants of what research will be done in coming years in this country,” said Shervin Assari, an associate professor of family medicine and urban public health at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles, one of four historically black medical schools in the nation.

“This is the first time the NIH has issued a call for research on structural racism. This is the first time JAMA fires an editor who said something wrong about racism,” said Assari, who has published more than 350 papers on race, social determinants and health equity. “Now NIH is paying good money to the best researchers in this country who are competing to understand how structural racism works, rather than if it exists.”

Systemic racism, generally unseen but known by its perceived effects, doesn’t directly cause diabetes, hypertension or depression, but it purportedly creates the living conditions in which chronic conditions opportunistically thrive, advocates say. Such living conditions include unsafe neighborhoods, aggressive policing, substandard schools, discriminatory workplaces, inferior medical care and the resulting stress, despair and self-destructive behavior, the theory states.

Advancing health care equity

To institutionalize its new policy, JAMA is revising its peer review standards and diversifying its ranks to advance health care equity, a term that refers to narrowing or even eliminating racial health disparities in chronic conditions and life expectancies. Similar steps are being adopted throughout the medical profession — by the cluster-hiring of minority applicants, hiring of diversity and equity officers, and training staff on “white privilege,” implicit bias, microaggressions, and allyship.

lead editorial in the August special issue, co-signed by 15 people, including JAMA’s newly installed executive editor and executive managing editor, along with other JAMA leaders, said all medical journals are morally obligated to assume systemic racism as a fact and document this fact in their research.

“At this point in the arc of medicine and scientific publication,” JAMA stated, “it is crucial for all journals to fulfill renewed editorial and journal missions that include a heightened and appropriate emphasis on equity and publication of information that addresses structural racism with the goal of overcoming its effects in medicine and health care.”

A moral panic sweeps through medicine

This rapid turn of events has blindsided traditional doctors, who are put off by the intense focus on race and the strong rhetoric.

“The spectacle of the gatekeepers of medical publications announcing a political blueprint that medical authors must follow — or else — is pretty breathtaking,” Thomas Huddle, who retired this year as professor at the medical school at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said by email.

“The medical gatekeepers are in the grip of a moral panic,” said Huddle, who has published on medical ethics and edited several medical journals. “The JAMA convulsion over the podcast was positively Maoist in its fervor for achieving moral correctness and purging the impure.”

It’s an open secret that some find the systemic explanation to be nothing more than leftist polemic, while others are skeptical it convincingly explains everything it claims to explain. These skeptics worry about the career implications of publicly dissenting from the new orthodoxy, but it’s not inconceivable that blaming an entire national culture for racial disparities will prompt independent scholars and conservative think tanks to produce opposing research that explores black-on-black murder, racial disparities in IQ testing and other taboo subjects.

The dramatic transformation sweeping through the health care profession is not happening in a vacuum. It mirrors social justice movements committed to exposing structural racism that allegedly pervades education, criminal justice, the arts, hard sciences and other domains of U.S. society. Activists in those fields, as well as medicine, talk of dismantling white supremacy and other “structures” that operate by means of race-neutral laws and colorblind norms that cause racial and gender power imbalances and harm non-white groups.

Displacing the scientific method

Skeptical physicians say that medical journal editors are essentially replacing the scientific method with a political ideology, namely critical race theory, and leaving little room for alternative explanations — such as personal agency or cultural differences.

“There’s a tremendous amount of groupthink,” said Stanley Goldfarb, a former dean for curriculum who taught about kidney disease at the University of Pennsylvania medical school before retiring this summer. “If you don’t agree with all that, you’re a bad person.”

“This is an argument that you’re not allowed to have — that’s the problem here,” said Goldfarb, who has served on the editorial boards of three medical journals and was editor-in-chief of a nephrology journal.

Racial health disparities underlie the four-year gap in black-white life expectancy in the United States. The factors that contribute to this disparity include chronic conditions, unintentional injuries, suicide and homicide, which is the leading cause of death for black males aged 44 and younger. Scholars committed to the systemic racism explanation blame the disproportionately high crime rates in poor black neighborhoods on discrimination, substandard schools and other manifestations of systemic racism.

Is there overwhelming evidence?

The body of research into racial health disparities has broken into the mainstream after establishing credibility through the time-honored system of academic citations and referrals. Since LaVeist began his work in the 1990s, a small stream of articles has swelled into a critical mass that now allows medical researchers to assume systemic racism as a proven fact and cite the evidence in footnotes, as established knowledge, instead of arguing the case each time.

“When the weight of the evidence becomes so overwhelming that we reach consensus, we no longer continue to question whether or not [it is true],” LaVeist said. “We don’t question gravity anymore because the consensus is that gravity is a thing.”

One of the JAMA articles in the August special issue found that the major health care spending disparity is that whites spend more on dental, pharmaceutical, and outpatient care, while blacks spend more on emergency room and inpatient hospital care, suggesting that black people are more likely to be uninsured and otherwise lack access to routine medical care.

Instead of detailing the precise reasons that may explain this gap, the authors invoke previous articles: “There are many mechanisms that have already been identified that explain how structural racism shapes health and healthcare.”

In a phone interview, the lead author, Joseph Dieleman, associate professor of health metric sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, said: “These are taken as a given by us. These are not to be debated, or being tested, in our analysis.”

Health Affairs, dubbed by a Washington Post columnist as “the bible of health policy,” is redoubling its focus on systemic racism, anti-racism, and equity, not only in its published content but also in attending to the racial makeup of its published authors and reviewers.

“We acknowledge that the dominant voices in our work are those with power and privilege,” Editor-in-Chief Alan Weil wrote in January. “Even as we have dramatically increased the volume of our content focused on equity, the narrative has primarily been written by those in power. We vow to change this.”

Weil, who was trained in critical legal theory, a precursor to critical race theory, as a Harvard law student in the 1980s, said in a phone interview that the concepts of merit and quality are often used to maintain power and privilege, and these structures must be examined for bias.

“We’re just talking about — forgive the language that is used by the believers — interrogating ourselves,” Weil said.

Systemic racism, a core tenet of critical race theory, doesn’t have a settled definition but it has broad applicability. One of the peculiar features of systemic racism is that the mechanism is not evident to those who are not initiated into the theory, but ubiquitous to its acolytes.

Are disparities always a result of racism?

For best-selling and award-winning author Ibram X. Kendi, whose writings are considered essential reading at some medical schoolsany disparity can signify racism. The concept can refer to all manner of disparate outcomes —  in murder rates, arrest rates, life expectancies, education levels, school discipline, household income, standardized tests scores and grades — even in the fact that black people are nowhere to be seen in the corridor portraits of medical school dignitaries and are under represented in symphony orchestras.

“There is no ‘official’ definition of structural racism,” states a recent article in The New England Journal of Medicine.  “All definitions make clear that racism is not simply the result of private prejudices held by individuals, but is also produced and reproduced by laws, rules, and practices, sanctioned and even implemented by various levels of government, and embedded in the economic system as well as in cultural and societal norms.”

One line of attack against the status quo is the movement to eliminate long-accepted practices to promote merit and excellence that, according to activists, operate as colorblind mechanisms to produce unequal outcomes: gifted and talented programsgifted schools, and admissions tests for elite high schools, as well as standardized test scores for university admission. In medicine, the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination test is changing from a graded score to pass/fail to help minority students, while Northwestern University and its Feinberg School of Medicine are promoting diversity by eliminating a six-decade-old Honors Program in Medical Education.

Still, the concept provides special challenges for medicine. Unlike bacteria, for instance, systemic racism is an invisible force that can only be measured indirectly, by its perceived effects. Nevertheless, LaVeist is convinced that systemic racism is the best explanation for racial health disparities because the correlation of race and health is consistent across numerous studies for multiple chronic conditions.

“We cannot make direct causal inferences. The best we can do is look at plausible causality,” LaVeist said. “What we have is a case where once you’ve ruled out all of the plausible explanations, the only thing left is systemic racism.”

LaVeist and Weil agree that health and other disparities can have other causes than systemic racism, and good scholarship should be cognizant of other potential variables. LaVeist said that without allowing for other factors, people of color would have no free will, but it is important to note that African American culture is also shaped by white racism.

One of LaVeist’s early co-authored papers that was rejected by several journals before finding a publisher concluded that black people who experience rudeness at the hands of white people have longer life expectancies if they blame systemic racism, or some other external factor, for being treated disrespectfully.

An implication of the study: Even if the rude behavior by the white person isn’t caused by racism or an external factor, it’s strategically beneficial for black people to attribute the rudeness to someone else’s racism, boorishness or insensitivity, rather than blaming themselves.

“Yes — racism, or some other external attribution,” LaVeist said. “If you make an external attribution, that is going to be healthier than you thinking, ‘Oh they’re right, I am a bad person, I deserve to be mistreated.’”

Assari specializes in the study of “diminished returns” in quality of life and health that black people and other marginalized groups experience as they gain education and income in U.S. society. His research contends that black people reap fewer benefits — such as income and health — as they rise in education, compared to white people, which he attributes to structural racism. He has written half of the 300-some academic papers on that subject cited by the National Library of Medicine.

He makes connections that would not be self-evident to someone who lacks training in his specialty. One of his recent papers, published in the Journal of Health Economics, says that Americans are less likely to smoke as their income level rises. But that rule doesn’t hold for high-income Chinese Americans, who are more likely to smoke as they generate more income.  So Assari postulates that upwardly mobile Chinese Americans resort to nicotine as a means of coping with the anti-Asian bias they encounter in this country’s elite institutions.

Yet, he also said that even though the anti-racist movement seems invincible now, overweening claims about systemic racism will eventually invite scholarly criticism, especially if equity policies and interventions now being implemented fail to deliver results.

“I think there will be a very strong backlash against critical race theory very soon,” Assari said. “I don’t think it is sustainable. And it is falsifiable. So there would be an anti-CRT movement among other group of social scientists.”

Nevertheless, Assari said systemic racism is a reliable theoretical framework because it parsimoniously explains the marginalization of many racial groups.

“This is one model which explains many of our observations,” Assari said.

“A theory is [reliable] when an observation or assumption holds regardless of the context, setting, place, population, design, sample. It is replicated many times across a diverse group of settings, age groups, resources, and outcomes.”

LaVeist said segregation, much of it rooted in historical practices such as redlining and Jim Crow, is the primary driver of disparities. Poor neighborhoods are generally more polluted, closer to highways and industrial zones, and have less access to quality restaurants, grocery stores, public schools, and green spaces. Such environments tend to breed despair, which leads to crime and an overly aggressive police response.

The constant stress of dealing with these hassles and micro-aggressions wears on the body, research into health disparities says, echoing arguments made by critical race theorists in the 1980s. One medical paper, published in The Lancet in 2017 and cited more than 1,500 times as of November, says that residential segregation is the foundation of structural racism, and notes that “growing research is linking interpersonal racism to various biomarkers of disease and well-being, including allostatic load, inflammatory markers, and hormonal dysregulation.”

There are those who say the medical establishment is not going far enough in this research direction.

“Opportunistic scientific carpetbaggers”

The STAT News health information website reported in September that anti-racism and equity have become so trendy that “white scholars are colonizing research on health disparities.” According to the STAT investigation, white researchers are caught up in “a gold rush mentality” and “rushing to scoop up grants and publish papers.” The white scholars are replicating work done by black researchers without giving sufficient credit, a new form of exploitation practiced by “health equity tourists” and “opportunistic scientific carpetbaggers.”

One of the worst offenders: JAMA’s August special issue on health disparities. “Not one of the five research papers published in the issue included a Black lead or corresponding author, and just one lead author was Hispanic,” STAT reported.

Weil sympathizes with these concerns and said Health Affairs is creating a mentorship program to help scholars of color get their papers published in the journal. Weil, who said about 5% of submitted papers are accepted for publication at Health Affairs, is confident that dismantling power and privilege won’t necessitate compromising standards of excellence, and he considers such criticisms to be “generally false and intentionally inflammatory.”

“Equitable representation should be the outcome of an equitable process, not the jerry-rigged result of a change of standards for one group — that is not where we want to be,” Weil said. “So if the fix here is an equitable outcome by lowering standards for a certain group, our readers will notice, and that’s not the end point I’m looking for.”

Weil’s biggest concern is not that the anti-racist movement in medical research will go too far, but that the momentum and resolve will fizzle out.

“I think it’s very hard to tell where you are on a swinging pendulum when you’re in the middle of it,” he said. “I am much more concerned that this will become a rote exercise where everyone genuflects to anti-racism but does nothing about it, than I am that this is an overcorrection.”

This has been republished from RealClearInvestigations with permission.

COLUMN BY

John Murawski

Award-winning journalist and versatile writer who has covered complex, highly-regulated industries, including health care, energy and artificial intelligence. My articles have appeared in such national… More by John Murawski

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

‘Counter Wokecraft’: Why I wrote it and why you should read it

An American academic at a progressive university outlines his strategies for overturning the woke juggernaut.


I’m a professor of engineering at a large progressive university. I’ve written and just released a short book with James Lindsay called Counter Wokecraft: A Field Manual for Combatting the Woke in the University and Beyond. I’ve written it to help academics who believe in traditional liberal values to counter and overturn the Woke juggernaut at whatever level of academic machinery they can.

For over a decade I watched as my department, faculty, university, and funding agencies were overtaken by the Critical Social Justice, or Woke, perspective. I began consciously working against the perspective six years ago.

Since that time, I have observed the strategies and techniques used by the Woke to advance their agenda. I have also tested strategies and techniques to thwart their advances, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, sometimes alone and sometimes with like-minded allies.

By 2019 I came to appreciate the degree to which the Woke juggernaut had consolidated its power over the academy, and this forced me into a different level of action.

I devoted enormous resources to researching the CSJ perspective and its historical and philosophical antecedents. I was especially interested in documentation on how the perspective could be challenged. Unfortunately, I came up empty-handed with respect to the latter and felt compelled to share what I had learned.

As a result, I began blogging every week for six months with the intention of compiling the blog posts into a book—the book that became Counter Wokecraft.

The book is designed for readers who recognize that there is a problem in their university but who don’t understand what that problem is, or what to do about it. As such, the first part of the book serves as primer on the Woke perspective. It simply and clearly explains the Woke worldview with a focus on the Woke ethos (overturn and replace the traditional liberal view of the university) and political project (the retributive redistribution of resources from “oppressor” to “oppressed” identities—or equity).

An important implication of the Woke ethos is a fervent belief in activism as a central role for academics, as well as the belief that the ends justify the means when seeking to advance Woke goals. This section also describes the different types of participants encountered in university environments, from the Woke to Woke Dissidents.

The second part of the book analyzes the collection of principles, strategies, and tactics used by the Woke to entrench their perspective—in other words, wokecraft.

The success of the Woke relies primarily on three things. First is the weaponization of positive-sounding, commonly understood words that have double meanings, or Woke Crossover Words. These words (e.g., critical, diversity, inclusion) are brandished like Improvised Explosive Devices. They are slipped into documents and decisions, justified by their commonly held meanings, but are later used to justify Woke interventions based on their radical Woke meaning.

Second, there is a general insistence on informality, which is then exploited to manipulate decision-making by preventing, for example, secret ballot voting.

Third, there are a number of woke bullying tactics that are used to prevent people from resisting Woke advances. These range from coercion through consensus to cancel-culture attacks. Together, these tactics are used to exaggerate support for, and quell dissent against, Woke advances. They are used to further entrench the Woke perspective in academic departments, faculties, universities, funding agencies, and governments through the Grand Tactic: Woke Viral Infection.

The crux of the last chapter is how to counter wokecraft. This involves disarming Woke tactics that quell dissent and manipulate decision-making, and thereby preventing the Woke perspective from becoming entrenched.

Essential to this whole process is recognizing who is Woke in any given situation, which is explained in the first part of the chapter. This makes it possible to identify allies and to work with them to have the largest impact. Working together involves a double-column offensive. The first column seeks to sow doubt in participants about the Woke perspective, particularly its prescriptions. The second involves amplifying and enabling dissenting opinions, while at the same time instituting the formalization of decision-making processes that allow all participants to voice their opinions.

Counter Wokecraft can surely be enriched and expanded—and perhaps someday it will be. For now, I think it is an important starting point for academics who want to take back their universities from the jaws of a caustic, anti-liberal, and anti-scientific worldview that is destroying them. I hope you will agree.

This article has been republished with permission from Minding the Campus, where it appeared on November 26.

COLUMN BY

Charles Pincourt

Charles Pincourt is pseudonym for a professor of engineering at a large university. He writes about the Critical Social Justice (CSJ) perspective in universities, how it has become so successful there,… More by Charles Pincourt

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

Millions of Children Targeted by the FDA

When the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) okayed the current Pfizer “vaccine,” it is not a vaccine, rather a bioweapon, according to overwhelming and mounting evidence backed up by testimony from many physicians, scientists, and virologists. It signed a potential death warrant for millions of children across the globe.

Dr. Richard L. Fleming, PhD, M.D., J.D., contacted the Federal Drug Administration concerning the safety and efficacy of the Covid “vaccine” and was assured by them, in words to the effect, “that it was everything a vaccine should be – very pristine.” However, it appears that Dr. Fleming was somewhat dubious of the FDA claims. So, he and his team went into action with tests to either confirm or reject its claim.

The results: Surprise! Surprise!

I’ll let him tell you about that. If he is correct in the findings, which I have no doubt of, it bodes very ill for the children of the world. One report stated that it could amount to as many as 28 million affected. Click here.

Let me just give you a few highlights of what Dr. Fleming stated.

According to Dr. Fleming, he and his team tested the vaccine that the FDA said was, in words to the effect, “everything a vaccine should be – very pristine” What they found was totally different.

Beginning with dropping a saline solution on a blood sample – the blood didn’t change, but after adding the Pfizer vaccine the blood became pale which meant that the oxygen and or the hemoglobin had been removed/extracted from the red blood cell. This would indicate (which he explains) that this “vaccine” would destroy the red blood cells, therefore preventing the blood from delivering enough oxygen throughout the body.

I have listened to this video several times and each time I learn more about the importance of the blood. But it shouldn’t be any surprise for God’s Word tells us that “Life is in the blood.”

Additionally, Dr. D.C. Jarvis, in one of his books on arthritis tells us that there are three ways that acid enters the blood.  After naming the ways, he names what monitors this and if and when excess acid enters which would change the PH balance from 7.2 to the lower or acid side.  Then the excess is kicked out and distributed throughout the body to form a bed of immunity that no virus or other various organisms can live in.

The ill which this jab bodes for the millions of children is only a miniscule tip of the iceberg compared to the heartbreak of the millions of families throughout the world. We cannot imagine more than a smidgen of their total suffering in the years to come, especially when it dawns them, that it was all a big lie. And as a result of being uninformed or misinformed, or maybe in some cases, just being completely ignorant of what was happening, they failed in their greatest responsibility to protect their children.

Children of our Past

This is absolutely heartbreaking for me. There are many children across this land which we haven’t seen for many years that my wife, Polly, and I have a connection with. For about 20 years, after I retired from International Paper Company, we were employed as house parents in Children’s Homes.

This resulted in our entering into a new life, for we looked not only as a new life but as an extra life given to us by God. We were entering into something that prior to this we had no idea or cognizance of the fact that there were many children, through circumstances not of their making, who were now having to adjust to a mode of living in which they were removed from family.  Other than occasional visits, their daily lives had dramatically changed.

We went into this new venture having successfully reared three grown children of our own who were now creating their own lives. As such, we believed that we had the experience and qualifications to become house parents to ten to twelve children in a children’s home.  The reality was…we weren’t…we only thought we were. We now know that it is very doubtful that anyone is really qualified for the position of house parents in a children’s home.

We were into this for over three years before becoming comfortable and in, what we considered, complete command of what we were responsible for. We now know that “what we considered’ was not correct. We were never in complete command; there were so many things we didn’t teach them.

Nevertheless, we were blessed with what agape love is all about, love that continues even when it is not returned. I had never considered that at some time I would love children who were not my own as much as if they were mine. These children, especially a group of girls we spent six years with, tunneled their way into our hearts so that it was almost unbearable when we decided to leave.

I believe this was the saddest day of my life. When I walked out the back of Phillips Cottage, AT Palmer Home for Children, after the gathering of Polly and I in the living room for prayer and the bidding of goodbye to the girls. I looked back over my shoulder and saw that they had followed me, I suppose to maybe say goodbye once more before I drove off.

As I watched them, I realized that they were all weeping. So, I had to return to them to try and give them some comfort, but I needed comfort myself. I spent a few minutes hugging and talking to them while, at the same time, I was weeping along with them. Finally, I said, “Well, girls, I need to leave, momma Polly has already left, and I don’t need to let her get too far ahead of me.”

Thinking back on this time, I remember Dr. Waldron, the CEO of Palmer Home for Children, was waiting for me by my truck.  I was heartbroken and continued weeping when he said to me, “When you get about 15 or 20 miles down the road, you’ll began to feel a lot better.”

Our love for those children never diminished, and we still think about them today.

In the following weeks and years, I continued to be very concerned for our girls. I wrote a little booklet about the time we spent with them entitled, “Precious Journey.” At the end I voiced my concern and dread for their future. I think I stated it something like this, “We are very concerned about the future of our girls. I think of Krystal, she was the oldest, she will soon cross the threshold into adulthood what will she do, where will she go? I envision her vaulting upon the back of a wild steed and grasping a handful of the horse’s mane and charging into God’s thunderstorm of life.”

This was about 22 years ago, and the concern we had for them at that time can’t be compared to the concern we have now, with all the murdering of people under the pretense of fighting a virus that according to mounting, overwhelming evidence doesn’t even exist.

Boosters

But what chills me to the bone is what they are doing and planning for today’s children. I pray for them, but I know by the testimony of many doctors and scientists that these bioweapons called ‘vaccines” are engineered and designed to either kill or seriously injure. My prayer is that they know that faith in God is their only refuge.

Now the White House is urging Americans to undergo booster shots to help prevent the spread of new strains when they originally told us the vaccine would protect us from all strains. This reveals how urgent and determined the forces behind the Plandemic have become. They are aware that time is of an essence – they need to proceed with their depopulation goal and most people are unaware of their plans.

Implicit in this “urging of Americans by the White House to undergo COVID booster doses to help prevent the spread of new strains,” actually means “the booster will bring forth new strains of the virus.” This third jab is one of the biggest lies coming from the very depths of Hell by the stakeholders. Foolish Americans and most of our medical personnel will agree to once again be government guinea pigs.

For us to understand the true meaning of it we must perceive it 180 degrees from how they intend for us to see it.  For us to see the truth of it, we must read it like this, “The White House is urging Americans to undergo COVID booster doses to aid in the spreading of death throughout the world.”

By interpreting this esoterically, we can see that the injection of the current jab, the bioweapon called a “vaccine,” isn’t killing people fast enough.  In order to speed up the operation, i.e., the global objective, for decreasing the earth’s population by 91.7%, a bioweapon booster shot is designed to accomplish what the former two-jab bioweapon, failed to bring to fruition.  These are the expectations of the stakeholders behind the Great Reset, represented by Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab and others too numerous to list.

Listen to Mike Adams as he excoriates the FDA for their endorsement of murderous vaccine atrocities against children.

According to Brian Shilhavy, Editor of Health Impact news, the flames of “COVID fear” are being stoked again, as the Big Pharma Globalists unleash their new plan to increase profits, and exert more tyrannical control over populations by using corporate media and puppet politicians in an attempt to extend the false “COVID pandemic.”

Within just a couple of days after announcing that a “new variant” had been discovered in Africa, Big Pharma has now promised the world that they are rushing to rescue everyone with new drugs and new vaccines to fight this “deadly new variant.”

But Big Pharma is not rushing to rescue anyone.  Reality is that it is rushing to implement provisions which will kill millions of people across the globe.

Listen to Mike Adams as he explains how the cover story of the “Nu” (Omicron) variant plays into accelerating a wave of “vaccine” deaths. Link  According to Adams, the omicron “variant” media hysteria is pure fiction. It’s nothing but a 1984-style Orwellian psychological terrorism operation that has been engineered to keep the populations of the world enslaved and obedient while terrorist governments carry out their global depopulation/genocide programs.

I agree with him on most everything he presents. There is one part of his presentation, however, that I disagree with, and that is where he speaks of the danger from the variant and what we can do in defense against it, when it only exists in the minds of the people that are targeted.

To my mind, based on the evidence thus far, the only way there is any danger from it is when one takes the vaccine in defense of it. That is the purpose and strategy behind the omicron “variant” media hysteria – to develop a climate of fear.  And fear does not come from God, it is a weapon of the devil.

Conclusion

Please share this article in as many ways as possible. There are millions of people who continue to believe that the COVID-19 jabs, as well as the boosters, are a defense against the “COVID” virus and variants. According to all evidence submitted by multiple physicians and scientists, the virus has a 99.8% recovery rate which is lower than the seasonal flu.  If we fall for their lies and consider them to be the truth, the result will be the same as if their lies are the truth – and the “pandemic” will exist, but it will be foisted upon us via their spike protein clot shots.

©J.W. Bryan. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Want to get teacher unions mad? This should do it.

There’s been a lot of serious discussion about putting cameras in public school classrooms.

Several months ago, the chairman of our organization, David Carroll, suggested that Christian Action Network join and promote this ambitious campaign. Quite frankly, I was a bit hesitant at first.

I liked the idea, don’t get me wrong. Putting power back into the hands of parents, rather than liberal school officials and teachers, sounded great to me. But the more I thought about it, the less enthused I became.

Who would pay for it? Who really wants to go head-to-head with powerful, wealthy and vindictive teacher unions? What would the cost be – in both time and money – to promote such a demanding campaign?

My mind quickly descended into other rabbit trail obstacles, such as the need to get a whole sleuth of conservative groups, legislators, and academia to jump on board.

Still, I did some grunt work.

I found that putting cameras in public school classrooms was easier than I had imagined. In fact, it could almost be done with a flip of a switch.

But is it a good idea? In our latest episode of “Shout Out Patriots,” we put that question to the task.

Outraged parents are demanding public schools have classroom cameras to monitor what’s being taught to their children.  Opponents claim it’s a violation of privacy rights, for both teachers and students. Our team examines those arguments, and others, one by one.

Martin Mawyer, president of Christian Action Network, joins Pastor Jason Binder and several other guests to debate, argue and scrutinize classroom cameras. Are they nothing but nuisance, evil-spying nanny cams? Or are they the eyes and ears of mama bears wanting to protect their precious cubs from teachers gone woke?

 

Jussie Smollett Found Guilty In Hate Crime Hoax Case

Disgraced actor Jussie Smollett was found guilty of five charges related to a false police report he filed alleging that he was the victim of a racist and homophobic hate crime.

Smollett, who starred for five seasons on Fox’s “Empire,” was convicted of five charges of disorderly conduct, and faces up to two-and-a-half years in prison. A first time offender, he is likely to be sentenced to probation or community service. The jury returned the verdict after two days of deliberation.

Smollett claimed that while out at 2 a.m. in Chicago in 2019, two men shouted racist and homophobic slurs at him, before punching him, pouring bleach on him and hanging a noose around his neck. The alleged assault received widespread condemnation, with media figures and politicians asserting that he was the victim of a “modern-day lynching.” Smollett later claimed that he was assaulted due to his criticisms of then-President Donald Trump.

However, police later determined that Smollett and two staffers on “Empire” staged the attack. One of the staffers, Olabinjo Osundairo, testified that Smollett orchestrated the hoax in order to gain positive media attention. Another staffer, Abimbola Osundairo, testified that Smollett asked him to “pull the punch so I don’t hurt him.”

Smollett also testified that he and Abimbola Osundairo engaged in a sexual relationship and consumed drugs together. He also testified that he paid the Osundairo brothers $3,500 for a meal plan and personal training, although the brothers testified that the payment was to stage the assault.

Smollett was initially charged with 16 counts of disorderly conduct. However, the state attorney’s office dropped the charges, in a move that some observers alleged was politically-motivated. A special prosecutor was later appointed by a Cook County judge to oversee the case.

COLUMN BY

MICHAEL GINSBERG

Congressional reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: FLASHBACK: Top Democrats Called Jussie Smollett Hate Crime Hoax A ‘Lynching’

RELATED VIDEO: T.W. Shannon: Hats Off to Smollett Prosecution.

RELATED TWEET:

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

Covid Lies: Mainstream Media Are The Enemy

If the media were doing their jobs as so-called journalists, then the government attack on Liberty in the name of COVID would never have happened. Thus, a high school student in California is treated like a pariah by the media as she fights for her religious rights while retaining her ability to simply go to class.

In this edition of The Ledger Report, Graham Ledger speaks with constitutional attorney Paul Jonna about his young client and her struggle to say “no” to the vax and still go to school.

Please subscribe free to The Ledger Report by clicking here: www.GrahamLedger.com

EDITORS NOTE: This The Ledger Report video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

BLM Leader Abdullah: Jussie Smollett Race Hoax Trial a ‘White Supremacist Charade’

In a statement released on WednesdayMelina Abdullah, leader of the Los Angeles chapter of the domestic terrorist movement Black Lives Matter (BLM), denounced the trial of accused race hoaxer Jussie Smollett as a “white supremacist charade.”

“In an abolitionist society, this trial would not be taking place, and our communities would not have to fight and suffer to prove our worth,” Abdullah declared. “Instead, we find ourselves once again being forced to put our lives and our value in the hands of judges and juries operating in a system that is designed to oppress us, while continuing to face a corrupt and violent police department who has proven time and again to have no respect for our lives.”

By “abolitionist,” Abdullah means the abolition of police departments in American cities, an absolutely insane idea which BLM supports, but which the vast majority of black Americans do not because they would be the most victimized by the absence of law enforcement.

“In our commitment to abolition, we can never believe police, especially the Chicago Police Department (CPD) over Jussie Smollett, a Black man who has been courageously present, visible, and vocal in the struggle for Black freedom,” the race huckster ranted.

The truth, which everybody including Abdullah and Smollett himself knows, is that the 39-year-old, narcissistic actor is guilty of manufacturing a race hoax to boost his celebrity profile and to garner sympathy as the “courageous” victim of racist Trump supporters. Abdullah defends him because the truth is irrelevant to BLM’s war on American institutions, like the police, that stand in the way of the organization’s neo-Marxist agenda.


Melina Abdullah

Abdullah’s driving force is a view of the United States as a racist country that systematically oppresses non-whites, particularly blacks. “The system of white supremacist, heteronormative, patriarchal capitalism,” she contends, “constantly betrays us” and “is set up to keep us oppressed.” Most notable is Abdullah’s contempt for the American criminal-justice system, which she views as a thoroughly racist institution. Arguing that police departments nationwide should be abolished and replaced with community-based public safety teams, Abdullah has likened police officers to “former slave catchers” who still seek “to return enslaved people to their alleged owners.”

To learn more about Melina Abdullah, click here.

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

Judicial Watch: New Fauci Agency COVID Records Reveal Information about NIH Research into the Coronavirus

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it received 221 pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which include a grant application for research involving the coronavirus that was submitted in 2018. The grant application appears to describe “gain of function” research involving RNA extractions from bats, experiments on viruses, attempts to develop a chimeric virus and efforts to genetically manipulate the full-length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone. 

The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for records of communications, contracts and agreements with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The lawsuit specifically requests records about National Institute of Health (NIH) grants that benefitted the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

On January 27, 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) official David Morens emailed Chief of Staff Greg Folkers in a heavily redacted thread, writing:

[S]ome background on our support of the Ecohealth group (Peter Daszak et al), which has for years been among the biggest players in coronavirus work, also in collaboration with Ralph Baric, Ian Lipkin and others. [Redacted].

NIAID has been funding Peter’s group for coronavirus work in China for the past 5 years through [grant] R011R01A|110964: “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.” That’s now been renewed, with a specific focus to identify cohorts of people highly exposed to bats in China, and work out if they’re getting sick from CoVs.… Collaborators include Wuhan Institute of Virology (currently working on the nCoV) and Ralph Baric. The results of the work to date

include:

  • [Redacted]
  • Discovered Swine Acute Diarrheal Syndrome Virus (SADS-CoV) killing >25,000 pigs in Guangdong Province (Published in Nature)
  • Found SARS-related CoVs that can bind to human cells (Published in Nature), and that cause SARS-like disease in humanized mouse models.
  • [Redacted]

Also, prior to the above R01, Peter’s folks worked under an R01 with Eun-Park as Program Officer on viral discovery in bats, and originally identified SARS-CoV as having a likely origin in bats (published in Science).

Folkers forwards the message to Anthony Fauci and others.

In a “Notice of Award” dated July 13, 2020, the NIH increased the amount of NIH money going to Peter Daszak’s firm, EcoHealth Alliance, by $369,819 with a project period that runs from June 1, 2014, through June 30, 2025, for Daszak’s project “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”

EcoHealth was to receive $637,980 in each of the years 2019 through 2024 under the grant.

The award’s writers specifically direct funds “for activity with Wuhan Institute of Virology in the amount of $76,301” and “for activity with Institute of Pathogen Biology [located in China] in the amount of $75,301.” Funds also went to the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. The award’s writers also indicate that research associated with the award was also being conducted at East China Normal University in China and to Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore. The specialists overseeing the award note that, “This award may include collaborations with and/or between foreign organizations.” The specialists also note that award grantees using “Highly Pathogenic Agents” “may warrant a biocontainment safety facility of BSL3 or higher.” The grantee is also required to report “Any changes in the use of the Agent(s) or Toxin(s) including its restricted experiments that have resulted in a change in the required biocontainment level, and any resultant change in location.” The NIH Grants Management Specialist overseeing the award was Shaun W. Gratton and the NIH Program Official was Erik J. Stemmy. Of the 17 “Senior/Key Personnel” assigned as researchers on the project, seven worked at Chinese institutions.

The site locations in an EcoHealth grant application submitted November 5, 2018, for coronavirus research included EcoHealth Alliance in New York City, the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the Institute of Pathogen Biology in Beijing, China. Among the “aims” listed, the applicants write, “We will sequence receptor binding domains (spike proteins) to identify viruses with the highest potential for spillover which we will include in our experimental investigations.” In the third “aim”, they continue “We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.”

In a description of the Wuhan lab, the writers of the application note that, “The Wuhan Institute of Virology is a World Health Organization collaborating center” and had a “long-time (>15 years) partnership with EcoHealth Alliance.”

In his “personal statement” in the grant application, Dr. Peter Daszak writes about his “20+ years of NIH-funded research.” Among his awards, Daszak notes he was a 1999 recipient of the CDC’s “Meritoriouos service award,” had a species of centipedes named after him (“Crytops daszaki”), as well as having a “new parasite species” named after himself (“Isospora daszaki”), and is an elected member of the Kosmos Club in Washington, DC. He also says he’s a member of the U.S. “National Institute of Medicine” which he abbreviates as “NAM.” In his “Contributions to Science,” Daszak notes, “Collaborating with virologists in China, we have isolated and characterized SARS-like CoVs from bats that use the same host cell receptor (AACE-2) as SARS-CoV.”

In a personal biography section of the above grant application, Dr. Shi Zhengli, head of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, notes that one of her ongoing research projects, with a duration of January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, and sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, involves, “Evolution mechanism of the adation [sic] of bat SARS-related coronaviruses to host receptor molecules and the risk of interspecies infection.”

Prof. Ralph Baric of UNC-Chapel Hill also has his biographical information listed in the grant application, and this includes his participation in a 2015 workshop relating to “Trends in Synthetic Biology and Gain of Function and Regulatory Implications”, a 2015 China-US workshop involving “Challenges of Emerging Infections, Laboratory Safety, and Global Health Security,” and participation in a 2014 working group on “Risks and Benefits of Gain of Function Research.” Among Baric’s “major accomplishments” cited was a study involving “reconstruction of civet and bat CoV from in silico sequence, the first reported recovery of recombinant bat viruses, and characterization of host range phenotypes in vitro and in vivo.” Baric writes that “Several CoV infectious cDNA clones are available in the lab, including SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, conventional human and model CoVs, and several bat CoVs with pandemic potential.”

In the “Application for Federal Assistance,” for the project “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” the costs for the first year (2019-2020) of the EcoHealth Alliance project application totaled $736,996.

The second year (2020-2021) costs total $712,441.

The third year (2021-2022) costs total $712,441.

The fourth year (2022-2023) costs total $712,441.

The fifth year (2023-2024) costs total $712,441.

However, in July 2020, HHS wrote a letter to EcoHealth Allince regarding funding:

[T]he NIH has received reports that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), a subrecipient of EcoHealth Alliance under R01AI110964, has been conducting research at its facilities in China that pose serious bio-safety concerns and, as a result, create health and welfare threats to the public in China and other countries, including the United States.

We have concerns that WIV has not satisfied safety requirements under the award, and that EcoHealth Alliance has not satisfied its obligations to monitor the activities of its subrecipient to ensure compliance.

Therefore, effective the date of this letter, July 8, 2020, NIH is suspending all activities … until such time as these concerns have been addressed to NIH’s satisfaction.

[ … ]

Among the budget items in the EcoHealth grant application, was one for supplies for “bats trapping” and “viral transport media.” The total salary, wages and fringe benefits to be paid to the “Senior/Key Person” over the 5-year project totaled $1,118,565.00.

[ … ]

The NIAID funds to be allocated to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for this project for each of the years 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024 was $76,301, or a total over five years of $381,505.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology’s role in the project, overseen by Dr. Shi Zhengli would include “running RNA extractions for 1,000 bats per year (two samples per bat: rectal and blood) in each year of the project,” costing $6,214 per year. The Wuhan Institute of Virology also requested “support for in vitro experiments using pseudoviruses carrying the spike proteins … or live viruses in cell lines of different origins, binding affinity assays between the spike proteins … and different cellular receptor molecules, and humanized mice experiments.”

In a discussion of their research to date, the grant applicants wrote, “In collaboration with Ralph Baric (UNC), we used the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system … to generate a chimeric virus with a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone expressing SHC014 S protein with 10% sequence divergence from SARS-DoV S. This chimera replicated in human airway epithelium, using the human ACE2 receptor to enter cells … Thus, SARS-CoVs with diverse variants of SL-CoV S protein without deletions in the RBD can use human ACE2 as receptor for cell entry.” [Emphasis in original]

In a discussion of the rationale of one of the aims of the project, the applicants write, “we aim to expand the known diversity of SARSr-CoVs by over 125 strains, targeting 10-25% S protein divergence that we predict infers high spillover risk and evasion of immune therapeutic and vaccine efficacy.” They continue, “We will … construct chimeric SARSr-CoVs using the WIV1 backbone and these S genes as done previously.” They go on, “Construction of chimeric SARSr-CoV viruses: infectious clones with the S gene of novel SARSr-CoVs and the SARSr-Cov WIV1 genome backbone using the reverse genetic system developed in our previous R01.”

In a section titled “P3CO Research”, the applicants write: “Recognizing the implementation of new gain of function research guidelines under P3CO [Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight], SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are subject to these guidelines, and as such, reverse genetic studies are subject to review … Importantly, we are not proposing to genetically manipulate SARS-CoV over the course of this proposal. However, we are proposing to genetically manipulate the full length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone during the course of the proposal, which is not a select agent, has not been shown to cause human infections, and has not been shown to be transmissible between humans.” [Emphasis in original]

In an October 31, 2018, letter from the director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Dr. Yangyi Wang, to Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, requesting permission to take part in the NIAID funded project, he tells Daszak:

Understanding and preventing exposure and transmission of zoonotic diseases from wildlife to humans remains a high priority for prevention of pandemics. In our discussion with EcoHealth Alliance, we have agreed to participate in activities that will strengthen the ability of China and other countries in the region to respond to epidemic disease outbreaks – particularly those of animal origin. To assist in this study, we will provide participating laboratories in China with human samples both new and archived and support research in bat coronaviruses.

We at Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, look forward to our continued collaborations with the EcoHealth Alliance team and working further on this worthwhile study.

“These records are proof positive that US tax dollars were dishonestly used by Fauci’s agency to fund ‘gain of function’ coronavirus research,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

In August, Judicial Watch obtained records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which include an “urgent for Dr. Fauci” email chain which cites ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer-funded EcoHealth Alliance. The government emails also report that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help “raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from China on important international counsels as high level commitment from China.”

In July, Judicial Watch obtained records from NIAID officials in connection with the Wuhan Institute of Virology revealing significant collaborations and funding that began in 2014. The records revealed that NIAID gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself.

In June, Judicial Watch announced that it filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the State Department for information on the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Also in June, Judicial Watch obtained records from HHS revealing that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID. 

In March, Judicial Watch publicly released emails and other records of Fauci and Dr. H. Clifford Lane from HHS showing that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the WHO conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020. Additionally, the emails reveal an independent journalist in China pointing out the inconsistent COVID numbers in China to NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Deputy Director for Clinical Research and Special Projects Lane.

In October 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered emails showing a WHO entity pushing for a press release, approved by Fauci, “especially” supporting China’s COVID-19 response.

RELATED ARTICLE: Los Angeles Unified School District Fires 400+ Employees Who Haven’t Been Vaccinated

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

ZOA Accuses Yad Vashem of ‘appalling’ censorship of Jerusalem Mufti’s ties to Hitler

Less than two weeks ago, the world’s largest Holocaust Museum, Jerusalem-based Yad Vashem, was reported to have removed a photo of Haj Amin al Husseini — the grand Mufti of Jerusalem — with Hitler.

Israel National News gave the background:

I would like to introduce a notorious Nazi SS general, a leading Muslim cleric and the father of a nation – all in one.

This person is Haj Amin al Husseini.

Husseini was the powerful patriarch of the leading Arab clan in Palestine in the first half of the twentieth century. He used his political power and religious influence for his life’s motif – the murder of Jews.

The article describes the influential role of this high-ranking Muslim cleric in working with Hitler and his henchmen to murder Jews, including Jewish children, during the Holocaust:

Husseini intervened in a deal that would have saved a train load of Jewish children for a bribe. Husseini would not allow one Jewish child to escape the gas chambers.

If anyone feels a need to conceal or undermine any part of history to avoid offending Muslims, he or she needs to ask the question: what kind of Muslim would not find the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem’s role in murdering Jews loathsome to begin with?

The decision by Yad Vashem to remove the photo of the Mufti tying him to Hitler did not go over well with Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton Klein, who “slammed the museum and its head Dani Dayan for an ‘appalling’ censorship of history.” Klein didn’t mince words, nor should he have done so, since the decision by Yad Vashem has worrying implications, particularly given the contemporary rise in Islamic antisemitism throughout Europe and North America.

It is no secret that the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas grossly undermines the Holocaust: in his PhD dissertation, which he later turned into a book, Abbas claimed that the number of victims in the Holocaust was less than a million. He also once claimed that “the Nazi mass murder of European Jews was the result of their financial activities, not anti-Semitism.” Abbas has also vowed that not one Israeli will live in a future Palestinian state.

The Palestinian jihad (expressed to the world as a “resistance”) against Israel is foundational in the Palestinian National Charter, the PLO Charter, Fatah Charter, and the Charter of Hamas. It is broad-based, as is reflected in the fact that five neighboring Arab states attacked Israel in 1948. The same jihadist impulse is very much alive today, and gaining in influence. A founding father of this movement of hatred is the Mufti, Haj Amin al Husseini.

Yet the Chairman of the Yad Vashem Directorate, Dani Dayan, argued that “the notorious Mufti’s role in the Holocaust was ‘marginal,’ his meeting with Hitler having ‘a negligible practical effect on Nazi policy,’ and thus the famous image depicting him with Hitler ‘was never displayed’ in the museum.

The Breitbart news article states that the photo was “allegedly removed and never returned during renovations in 2005.” Mort Klein says that he can “vouch and state as a matter of fact that I, Morton Klein, personally saw that picture on Yad Vashem’s wall when I was there.” 

Dayan also argued that “the museum would not fall prey ‘to any political agenda,’ while warning that demands to expand focus on the Mufti are tantamount to forcing the museum to ‘partake in a debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,’ and may even ‘legitimize Holocaust distortion’ by others.”

Is Dayan insinuating that the facts presented in the Israel National News article, The missing photo of Hitler and the Mufti of Jerusalem, about the Grand Mufti are exaggerated or distorted? Is he claiming that Klein did not see the photo he insists he saw? Or could it be possible that the head of Yad Vashem never knew that the photo was once displayed?

These are pertinent questions that need followup, given Dayan’s explanations. Yad Vashem is a fine museum that teaches expertly about the Holocaust. To remove or undermine an important part of history such as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem’s alliance with Hitler in the Holocaust is a cause for concern.

According to the official German record of the meeting between Adolf Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on November 28, 1941 at the Reich Chancellory in Berlin, Husseini told Hitler that “the Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists.” He also thanked Hitler for supporting “the elimination of the Jewish national home.”

Husseini was an Arab nationalist leader who presented himself “as a preeminent defender of Islam and of Muslim rights in Palestine.” He vehemently opposed Jewish immigration to their historic homeland. To this day, the Nazi swastika is often seen flying in Gaza. Husseini is specifically named in the archived records of Heinrich Himmler, Reich Leader of the SS and Chief of the German Police.

Yasser Arafat’s birth name was Rahman Abdel-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini. He was a blood relative of the Grand Mufti, and learned a great deal from him. His Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was created for the purpose of “liquidating” Israel. To this day, that is what the Palestinian “resistance” and “liberation” are about: annihilating Israel “from the River to the Sea.” The Palestinian quest to delegitimize Israel with the objective of obliterating the Jewish state has become a globally “acceptable” form of antisemitism.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance includes this in its definition of antisemitism:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

No country’s existence is questioned more than that of Israel. No one even questions the violent jihad conquests in the Middle East, which turned it into Islamic territory. Yet they question the irrefutable archeological evidence and historic claims of Jews in their tiny homeland.

The history of antisemitism very much includes the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. A picture speaks a thousand words, as is proven by the photo of Hitler and Grand Mufti. Appeasement, meanwhile, never works. It does the opposite: it encourages more antagonism. Dani Dayan knows this. He declared in 2017 that the “real war” is the “intimidation, disruption and attempted silencing of pro-Israel voices on U.S. college campuses.” He was addressing the phenomenon of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting the Jewish state. A month before his statement, he faced the hatred of the Palestinian movement against Israel when was “repeatedly heckled and disrupted during a speech at the City College of New York. There, students from the CCNY chapter of the Students for Justice in Palestine and other anti-Israel groups protested and temporarily disrupted the event.”

Supporters of Israel look to Yad Vashem to tell the truth. Mort Klein makes a powerful case for Yad Vashem to return the picture to its museum, certainly not for political purposes, but to do justice to the history of the Holocaust, in which Husseini played such an important role.

EXCLUSIVE: ZOA Accuses Holocaust Museum of ‘Appalling’ Censorship of Palestinian Mufti Ties to Hitler

by Joshua Klein, Breitbart, December 5, 2021 (thanks to Tom):

[CLICK HERE FOR A PHOTO OF HITLER WITH MUFTI HAJ AMIN AL-HUSSEINI]

Following a published letter by the head of “Yad Vashem” — Israel’s premiere Holocaust museum and research center — defending its refusal to display an infamous photograph of leading Palestinian “Mufti” [Islamic legal authority] Haj Amin al-Husseini meeting with Nazi leader Adolf Hitler during the Holocaust, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) head Morton Klein slammed the museum and its head Dani Dayan for the “appalling” censorship of history.

Klein blasted Dayan on Friday, calling his defense of the infamous image’s absence “abominable” and criticizing his denials of its removal, while urging him to “reinstate” the picture.

After years of pressure and a recent op-ed by a longtime tour guide at the site attacking the museum’s stance, Dayan addressed the issue on Thursday, claiming the notorious Mufti’s role in the Holocaust was “marginal,” his meeting with Hitler having “a negligible practical effect on Nazi policy,” and thus the famous image depicting him with Hitler “was never displayed” in the museum…..

Klein, who has headed the nation’s oldest pro-Israel organization for nearly two decades, called out the museum for attempting to “appease” Palestinians.

“As a child of Holocaust survivors born in the displaced persons camp in Germany who lost most of my family to Hitler, I find it really appalling for Dani Dayan to actually be censoring out a part of Holocaust history at the major Holocaust museum in an attempt to appease the Palestinian Arabs,” Klein said.

He also accused the museum of seeking to placate “a Palestinian Authority that pays Arabs to murder Jews, names school streets and sports teams after Jew killers, promotes hatred and violence in every aspect of their culture, and has refused offers of statehood, clearly showing the issue is not land, but Israel’s destruction.”…

Klein noted the Mufti’s “significant” role during the Holocaust, particularly his plans to construct a concentration camp while claiming that painting his “historic” role in the Holocaust as “marginal” is “turning a blind eye to the truth of history.”

“The Mufti helped train the SS Waffen [Nazi military] battalion to kill Jews, and he and Himmler were planning a concentration camp in Samaria [the West Bank],” he said. “It didn’t happen because Germany lost the war, but he was planning with him.”

“It’s all history,” he added. “It’s not a secret.”

Calling the Mufti “one of the monsters in Jewish history,” Klein reiterated that having “one of the leading figures in the Arab world praising Hitler and urging him to kill Jews” is “not a minimal, trivial part of Holocaust history.”

“One of the leaders of the Arab world was working with and promoting Hitler,” he said. “He was so close to Hitler and his plans to murder Jews that [SS officer Heinrich] Himmler made the Mufti an honorary SS general.”

“That’s not trivial,” he added. “That’s part of history.”

He also noted the Mufti’s involvement in “training Bosnian forces to kill Jews.”…

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: Robert Spencer on Manushi India on the state of the global jihad today

Pope Francis on Lesbos: Europe ‘torn by nationalist egoism,’ neglect of migrants is ‘shipwreck of civilization’

France: Muslims barrage black Zemmour activist with racist messages, ‘Wallah, we’re going to behead you’

Germany: Muslims pray in courtyard entrance, beat man who asked them to let his car through

France: Muslim known to police calls police station, rants about Allah, says he is going to blow everything up

Belgium: One of the repatriated Islamic State brides is at large – prosecution claims ‘misunderstanding’

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

Abortion on Trial

Last week the Supreme Court heard an abortion case out of Mississippi, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It would appear to be the most serious challenge to Roe v. Wade in three decades.

An interesting aspect of this story is this: How do the American people feel about this case?

Conflicting reports have provided conflicting opinions.

Yahoo News (12/1/21) claims that only 24% of Americans want to see Roe overturned. They write:

“As the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority seems poised to uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, more than twice as many Americans (55 percent) say they want the court to reaffirm its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision as say they want it overturned (24 percent), according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.”

However, they add the caveat, “when asked about the specifics of the Mississippi case, respondents are far more divided—a sign that America’s views on abortion are not quite as clear-cut and polarized as many assume.”

Meanwhile, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, has a different take on where Americans stand on abortion and this challenge to Roe.

Perkins says of the notion that the public does not want to see Roe overturned that the corporate media confuses “the public’s support for legal abortion with the Left’s agenda: unlimited, taxpayer-funded destruction of an unborn child for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy. Roe may have condoned that. The American people—almost every poll agrees—will not.”

He adds: “Ask the AP. Ask Gallup. Ask YouGov. Ask Harvard. Ask Marist. There isn’t a majority anywhere in the country in favor of the kind of barbarism that Democrats want to make permanent law. Only eight percent of Americans can bring themselves to support abortion through nine months of pregnancy.”

When it comes to polling on abortion, I think the wisdom of the late George Gallup, Jr. applies here. I had the privilege of interviewing him in his Princeton, NJ office in the late 1990s.

Gallup told me that we should never forget these basic facts: 20% of Americans are strongly pro-choice. 20% of Americans are strongly pro-life. 60% are in what he called “the mushy middle,” and polls could get them to sound pro-abortion or anti-abortion depending on what you ask.

How important is public opinion anyway? In his End of Day (12/3/21) Gary Bauer writes: “Liberal justices have never cared about public opinion. They have never hesitated to use the Supreme Court to force radical change on the American people, whether it was expelling God from our public schools, finding a right to abortion that was mysteriously hidden for 200 years or redefining the meaning of marriage—another right that never existed until five liberals invented it.”

And that points sums up one of the conservative cases against Roe in the first place. It has nothing to do, really, with the U.S. Constitution. The left imposed their will on the American people through judicial fiat.

Last week in the oral arguments before the high court, Justice Clarence Thomas said as much.

He noted, “If we were talking about the 2nd Amendment, I know exactly what we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the 4th Amendment, I know what we’re talking about, because it’s written. It’s there. What, specifically, is the right here that we’re talking about?”

In short, where exactly in the Constitution do we find the right to abortion? Or even the right to privacy?

Pro-abortion Justice Sonia Sotomayor likened a fetus to a brain dead person, arguing:

“Virtually every state defines a brain death as death….So I don’t think that a response to [stimulus] by a fetus necessarily proves that there‘s a sensation of pain or that there’s consciousness.”

Of course, many medical doctors don’t agree with her view on that. The fetus (which is derived from the Latin word meaning unborn child) is far more alive than someone who is brain dead.

Meanwhile, pro-life Justice Samuel Alito posed a question to Biden’s pro-abortion Solicitor General, who is relying heavily on maintaining decades of Supreme Court precedent rather than the Constitution itself. He asked her: “Is it your argument that a case can never be overruled simply because it was egregiously wrong?”

Just because we’ve lived with Roe all these years doesn’t make it right. 63 million dead babies in the wake of Roe v. Wade would agree, if somehow they could be polled.

As Ronald Reagan once put it, “[T]he Court’s decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.”

We pray that the Supreme Court will reconsider the grievous error their predecessors made in 1973, and turn abortion regulation back into the hands of the states, which is much closer to “we the people.”

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Abby Johnson: Intellectual Dishonesty Hurting Abortion Debate.

Where Are the Government COVID Vaccine Safety Studies?

Yesterday I reported to you the number of adverse reaction reports filed about COVID vaccines in the U.S. has topped 900,000 and the number of deaths shortly following COVID vaccinations now exceeds 19,000, according to official government numbers.  Today, we look at what happened in the first 90 days after the government approved the Pfizer vaccine and at additional evidence that’s come in regarding the withholding of information by Pfizer before its vaccine was approved.  Both of these add urgency to the question: Has the government conducted follow-up COVID vaccine safety studies and, if not, why not?

We start with the fact the FDA wanted to hide its records about adverse reactions which occurred in the early days after the COVID vaccines were approved.  A court disagreed, and the first batch of records has been released, with more to come.  One record already released is a smoking gun.  It’s entitled “Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports”.  [available here]  This document shows Pfizer received 42,000 adverse reaction reports, including 1,223 deaths in the first 90 days of vaccine use, originating from several countries.  The most frequently reported adverse reaction was nervous system disorders.  Adverse reaction “(r)eports are submitted voluntarily, and the magnitude of underreporting is unknown,” the document notes (p. 5).  This puts the nail in the coffin of the argument made by my critics that adverse reactions are being over-reported.  The document goes on to discuss additional findings that three times as many women as men were injured, the Pfizer vaccine can make COVID symptoms worse, and there were a number of miscarriages and premature births which occurred in the period under consideration.

Despite all this, the Pfizer vaccine remains in use today and the government keeps pushing the phony narrative the vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ without ever discussing the undeniable risks.  The government, as far as I can tell, has not performed follow-up safety studies as it is supposed to do when a problem with a vaccine becomes apparent.

Let’s turn, now, to the period before the vaccines were approved.   Pfizer originally said publicly 15 people died during its COVID vaccine trials out of 22,000 who were vaccinated.  But it submitted a report to the FDA showing the number was actually 21, not 15.  Even though most died from other causes, the discrepancy means deaths linked to Pfizer’s vaccine were 24 percent higher among those vaccinated during the trial than Pfizer was publicly letting on.

That’s significant given the fact more than 19,000 deaths associated with COVID vaccines have occurred since in the U.S. alone.

As you may recall, a whistleblower made even more serious allegations about Pfizer’s trial data last month.  The British medical journal BMJ published a whistleblower account claiming, “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial.”

Others have accused government officials of engaging in conspiracy and criminal cover-up.  My point is that the astoundingly high number of adverse reaction reports and deaths – completely unprecedented in 30 years of vaccine injury reporting – should have prompted government officials to conduct follow-up safety studies on these vaccines, as indicated in the second half of the VAERS disclaimer.  To the best of my knowledge, no such studies have been conducted.  I have filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out for sure.  I also want to know if the government has ever reached a decision whether to conduct such studies and I want to know the reasons for the decision, if any was made.  The government has essentially asked for the rest of December to respond to my request and I will start pressing for answers after the first of the year.

The government rushed into COVID vaccines at “warp speed”. Normal approval processes and safety protocols were not followed. It should come as no surprise there are big problems with these vaccines. We the People should know just how big these problems are before we’re tempted to support politicians who want to rush into vaccines in future pandemics.

Visit The Daily Skirmish

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

People Who Get Johnson & Johnson Vaccine at Elevated Risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome: Study

Report: Thousands of Canadians Died Due to Delayed Care during COVID-19

RELATED VIDEO: NEW NYC Vaccine Mandate: 2 Insane Facts (EXPOSED)

Biden Will Eventually Cancel College Debt, And So Enrich The Squad

Tax-sucking Congressional socialists continue to pressure kinda sorta President Biden to cancel at least $50,000 in student debt via executive order. Despite the enormous strain other Democrat policies have had on hard-working American families, this bailout to college grads will almost assuredly happen because this presidential anomaly’s handlers cannot or do not want to stand up to the radical left for long.

There are endless problems with this, which were well hashed out when Sen. Bernie Sanders made this college grad bailout a hallmark of his campaign.

First, the fairness issue. Millions of Americans over many generations, myself and wife included, paid off student debt from college over the years. And now this crop of entitled college kids want a bailout, even as a college degree has diminishing value — and no real value in several degree areas.

Second, the $1.6 trillion price tag is just another completely irresponsible load of national debt on a system that may not be far from buckling from already existing astronomical debt.

But there is also a little known element: Many of the most outspoken proponents of canceling student debt themselves have substantial college debt. They would directly benefit financially from their vote. If there was such a thing as a conflict of interest in Congress, this would be at the top of the list. But such unabashed corruption is simply accepted in D.C.

Make no mistake, every dollar of this debt will fall to the federal government, which is eventually paid by American taxpayers.

As members of Congress, these folks pull down $174,000 in taxpayer money, plus gold-plated benefits that literally no other Americans get. And now they also want taxpayers such as coal miners, convenience store clerks, maids, lawn service guys, roofers, road workers, pavers, pool installers, along with bankers, lawyers, doctors and business owners, to pay off their college debt. In fact, they want to force them to.

It’s all pretty unconscionable on a moral level, but also the sheer chutzpah of socialists who supposedly want to help the little guys by spreading the wealth, demanding the little guys help pay off debts they can clearly afford to pay off themselves. A $174,000 annual salary makes them 5 percenters, making more than 95 percent of Americans — who they want to pay off their debt. This puts the lie to the whole schtick. Like every socialist ever in power, they simply want more for themselves.

And it’s right out there in plain sight. For instance, Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib owes $70,000 in college debt for her law degree and is one of the biggest proponents for Biden to sign away $50,000 with an executive order, as many, such as Senate President Chuck Schumer and Sen. Elizabeth Warren along with a bundle of others, say he has the authority to do so. (Obviously Constitutional authority is not what they are referring to.)

To blunt the obvious corruption in her position, Tlaib struggles up onto her self-righteous high horse and claims she didn’t become a lawyer to make money or buy “bougie cars,” but she went into the nonprofit world and worked as a lawyer for the good of the community. For that oh-so noble reason, her debts should be forgiven. (Probably should point out that many non-profits make more than most business owners or average lawyers, so, ah, no.)

But it is classic socialist philosophy: Individuals are not responsible for the consequences of their actions, which parenthetically is why they favor releasing criminals based on skin color and not actions. They want the communal whole, via government, to pay for their consequences.

It’s not just Tlaib. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Ilhan Omar both have substantial college debt and are vocal proponents of wiping out all college debt. There may be others. Since that is not going to happen in Congress, they favor Biden’s pen.

Two-face socialist authoritarians just being true to themselves.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Like us on Instagram and Like Rod’s new Youtube channel.