On Friday, The Daily Wire reported the following:
The mother of Ashli Babbitt got arrested at a demonstration near the Capitol exactly two years after her daughter was fatally shot during the Capitol riot.
…Capitol Police released a statement that said Witthoeft, 58, was arrested on a charge of blocking and obstructing roadways, as well as for allegedly violating a regulation to obey an order.
On Tuesday, The Daily Wire reported that the Supreme Court had reached a decision to all Title 42 to remain in place indefinitely.
The article reports:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday to keep the pandemic-era limit on immigration, referred to as Title 42, in place indefinitely, which allows officials to turn away migrants at the border to prevent the spread of COVID.
Customs and Border Protection officials warned lawmakers that approximately 50,000 foreigners were waiting to cross into the United States once Title 42 ended. However, according to The Associated Press, an order from Chief Justice John Roberts stayed a lower court’s ruling, which justices extended to give the court time to consider both sides’ arguments.
The article concludes:
Federal officials said ending the restrictions would likely lead to “disruption and a temporary increase in unlawful border crossings.” However, they still asked the nation’s highest court to reject the request from 19 Republican state attorneys general to maintain the policy.
Leaders in border cities had been bracing for an influx of immigrants. Oscar Leeser, the Democratic mayor of El Paso, Texas, declared a state of emergency on Saturday in anticipation of the end of Title 42. “Our asylum seekers are not safe,” the official said at a press conference. “We have hundreds and hundreds on the street and that’s not the way we treat our people.”
More than 80,000 migrants have entered El Paso in the last four months; approximately 678,000 people currently reside in the city, where temperatures can drop below freezing during winter nights. Leeser did not rule out the option of using a nearby military base to temporarily house migrants, adding that officials were discussing options with state and federal authorities.
Arguing over Title 42 is missing the point. The point is that in order to maintain our sovereignty as a country, we need secure borders. We currently do not have them. It is unsettling that a large percentage of the people crossing the border illegally are adult males between the ages of eighteen and thirty. They do not represent family life, and when things don’t work out for them economically, they will be a force to be reckoned with. The Biden administration is setting the state for the destruction of America. I don’t know whether or not it is intentional, but it is what is happening.
On Saturday, The Daily Wire posted the following headline:
So wait a minute; I’m just curious. When the FBI puts up a wanted poster, are they putting the person on that poster in harm’s way? So doing something illegal is not the problem, pointing it out is?
The article notes:
Twitter’s former head of trust and safety claimed Friday night that Twitter CEO Elon Musk was putting people’s lives in danger by revealing internal company documents showing how employees censored conservatives and a negative news story about then-presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son.
Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former Sr. Director, Head of Trust & Safety, complained about Musk’s decision to release internal company communications through journalist Matt Taibbi about the company’s censorship of the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2020 presidential election.
…“Publicly posting the names and identities of front-line employees involved in content moderation puts them in harm’s way and is a fundamentally unacceptable thing to do,” Roth posted on Mastodon.
Publicly posting the names and identities of those who broke the law might actually prevent others from breaking the law, but I guess Mr. Roth doesn’t see it that way.
James Woods was one of the people impacted by the censorship. He appeared on Tucker Carlson last week.
The article reports his comments:
Woods joined Fox News host Tucker Carlson as Taibbi was releasing the internal information from Twitter.
“I’ve been a target of these people for six years. They have destroyed my career,” Woods said. “They have destroyed my livelihood. They’ve destroyed my faith in this country that my family has defended in the military since the Revolutionary War.”
“I can guarantee you one thing, more than anything else you’ll ever hear in your life, I will be getting a lawyer. I will be suing the Democratic National Committee. No matter what, whether I win or lose, I am going to stand up for the rights of every American,” he said. “I’m not a celebrity, I’m hardly recognizable anymore because my career has been destroyed by these very people.”
This is not acceptable behavior in a supposedly-free nation.
On Wednesday, The Daily Wire reported that the Department of Energy’s Inspector General is investigating why the Biden administration gave promising green energy technology to China instead of creating manufacturing jobs in America.
The article reports:
The Department of Energy’s Inspector General is reviewing why the Joe Biden administration gave promising battery technology, developed by taxpayer dollars, to a Chinese company instead of making the batteries in the U.S.
China is now reportedly building one of the largest battery grids in the world using the technology, which could store huge amounts of solar energy without degrading over time or requiring lithium, mitigating a major environmental impact of current green technology that ends up in landfills.
The article continues:
In 2021, there was an “illicit Department of Energy (DOE) transfer of a fifteen million dollar, taxpayer-funded advanced battery technology to China,” Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Joni Ernst (R-IA) wrote in a letter to the DOE’s internal watchdog.
The company that received the license “plainly stated on their official website that they planned to manufacture the batteries in China,” even though the license included “a requirement that the batteries be ‘substantially manufactured’ in the U.S. As these stipulations were continuously violated, DOE never raised any concern,” they wrote.
“We are concerned that this is an overt dereliction of duty by DOE, and that this case may be emblematic of a department that routinely and flippantly permits government-funded technology to be transferred to China,” the senators concluded.
The article explains exactly what happened:
In 2017, Yang (Gary Yang, one of the scientists who helped develop the technology, so that he could commercialize it) — an American citizen who was born in China — obtained a sublicense from the DOE to allow a Chinese firm to make the batteries. In 2021, he transferred the license outright to a Dutch company called Vanadis Power, which said it would make the batteries in China but eventually move production to Europe to comply with European rules.
America had those rules too, but seemed less strict about enforcing them. On July 7, 2021, UniEnergy emailed a government manager at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to request approval to transfer the license to Vanadis, and within 90 minutes, the government granted approval, even though Vanadis’ website said it would make the batteries in China.
Unnamed DOE officials told NPR they often rely on “good faith disclosures” — in other words, the honor system.
I would love to see a list of Americans who are in some way involved in the finances of the Chinese company involved.
If the mid-term elections are a referendum on President Biden, the Democrats have a problem. They are well aware of that. They are also not above walking a fine line in terms of honesty to get what they want.
On Saturday, The Daily Wire posted the following headline:
I though conservative news outlets were the only one who engaged in fake news. The article reports:
Democratic operatives are flooding battleground states with more than 50 supposedly local media outlets that are really designed to promote liberal candidates, according to a bombshell investigation by Axios.
One man linked to the scheme is David Brock, the one-time conservative journalist who did a 180-degree turn and founded Media Matters For America, the controversial nonprofit that attacks conservative news sites. Axios’ investigative reporters Lachlan Markay and Thomas Wheatley say the operation uses a “patina of independent local news content designed to put a sheen of original reporting on partisan messaging.”
The 51 pop-up sites have names such as the Milwaukee Metro Times, Macomb Digest, Mecklenburg Herald, and the Tri-City Record, and are aimed at key swing states Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, according to the report.
…The sites’ “About Us” pages reveal they are owned by Local Report Inc., an Orando-based for-profit company formed last year.
Local Report has a relationship with The American Independent (TAI), whose current president is Matt Fuehrmeyer. Fuehrmeyer was a former senior aide at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and aide to the late former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
…Sites in the dubious media chain have run glowing stories about Democratic candidates including Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and Michigan Secretary of State candidate Jocelyn Benson, as well as stories critical of their opponents and others, such as North Carolina GOP Senate candidate Ted Budd.
As previously stated, create your own list of reliable news sources and look carefully at any new news media that arrives in your city or town.
On Saturday, The Conservative Review reported on an FBI raid on the home of Mark Houck, a Catholic author, lecturer, radio host, and co-founder of The King’s Men – a club for men “to unite and build up other men in the mold of leader, protector, and provider through education, formation, healing, and action.”
The article reports:
Houck’s wife, Ryan-Marie Houck, told LifeSiteNews, “For ‘weeks and weeks,’ a ‘pro-abortion protester’ would speak to the boy saying ‘crude … inappropriate and disgusting things,’ such as ‘you’re dad’s a fag,’ and other statements that were too vulgar for her to convey.”
Houck’s wife claimed that Love got into “the son’s personal space” and refused to stop saying “crude… inappropriate and disgusting” comments at the father and son.
Mark Houck “shoved him away from his child, and the guy fell back” and he hit the ground. Houck allegedly pushed the pro-abortion man to the ground outside of the Planned Parenthood clinic a second time. Love – a 72-year-old volunteer escort at the abortion clinic – reportedly suffered injuries that required medical attention.
Police were called, but Houck was reportedly not charged because there was a “lack of evidence” of an assault.
Ryan-Marie Houck claimed that Love “tried to sue Mark,” but the case was thrown out of court this summer.
Around 7:05 a.m. on Friday, the Houck’s home was reportedly raided by 25 to 30 FBI agents and 15 government vehicles surrounded their house.
Ryan-Marie Houck said the FBI agents had their guns drawn and “they started pounding on the door and yelling for us to open it.”
Mark Houck allegedly told the FBI agents, “Please, I’m going to open the door, but, please, my children are in the home. I have seven babies in the house.”
When the front door was opened, Ryan-Marie said, “They had big, huge rifles pointed at Mark and pointed at me and kind of pointed throughout the house.”
“The kids were all just screaming,” she said. “It was all just very scary and traumatic.”
Houck was arrested and taken away.
The fact that Houck was not charged or arrested and the case was thrown out of court this past summer is suspicious. It sounds as if the person who was shoved knew who to contact to escalate the incident.
The Daily Wire posted an article today on the events, but added some interesting details and denials:
A spokesperson with the Philadelphia office of the FBI said SWAT was not involved with the arrest of Houck.
“There are inaccurate claims being made regarding the arrest of Mark Houck. No SWAT Team or SWAT operators were involved,” a spokesperson told Fox News. “FBI agents knocked on Mr. Houck’s front door, identified themselves as FBI agents and asked him to exit the residence. He did so and was taken into custody without incident pursuant to an indictment.”
Notably, a senior FBI source told Fox News there might have been 15-20 agents at the scene who came to the family’s door with guns out and at the ready. The source claimed that the guns were never pointed at Houck or his family.
If there are 15-20 people coming toward my house with guns, I really don’t care whether or not they are a SWAT Team–they are pretty intimidating. This is another example of the Justice Department harassing people whose politics disagree with those of the President.
On September 1, The Daily Wire reported that Pamela Ricard, a math teacher at Fort Riley Middle School in Kansas, has won her lawsuit against the school district.
The article reports:
A Kansas teacher suspended for refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns and who said she was forced to hide the student’s social transition from their parents has been awarded $95,000 in a settlement, according to her legal representatives.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) shared the news regarding the agreement, declaring it a victory for free speech.
“No school district should ever force teachers to willfully deceive parents or engage in any speech that violates their deeply held religious beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom.
“We’re pleased to settle this case favorably on behalf of Pam, and we hope that it will encourage school districts across the country to support the constitutionally protected freedom of teachers to teach and communicate honestly with both children and parents,” he added.
Former math teacher Pamela Ricard challenged a school district policy that required her to use a student’s preferred name while addressing the student but use the student’s legal name when speaking to parents. She argued that the actions violated her conscience.
The article notes:
“The Geary County School District unsuccessfully tried to convince a federal court that a teacher should completely avoid using a child’s name during a parent teacher conference in order to hide new names and genders being used by the school for a child in a classroom. Absurdity and deception has its limits, especially in federal court. I’m glad the case clarifies the financial stakes for school boards if they attempt to force teachers to lie to parents about their students,” Ney (Joshua Ney, partner at Kriegshauser Ney Law Group and an attorney in the ADF Attorney Network) added.
The fact that the teacher was instructed to deceive the parents of students is disturbing.
The article concludes:
In addition to the financial settlement, school officials agreed to issue a statement that Ricard was in good standing without any disciplinary actions against her when she retired in May.
The lawsuit was dismissed on Wednesday following the announcement of the settlement. NBC News reported that a Geary County Schools official said Thursday that the district had no comment on the settlement.
The best way to conquer ‘woke’ in our classrooms is with lawsuits like this.
On Thursday, The Daily Wire posted an article about Joe Rogan’s recent interview of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Mark Zuckerberg stated that he was approached by the FBI and told to be aware of Russian propaganda before the New York Post published the Hunter Biden laptop story.
The article reports:
“I mean, basically, the background here is the FBI, I think, basically came to us, some folks on our team, and was like, ‘Hey, just so you know, like, you should be on high alert. There was, we thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that basically, there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that. So just be vigilant,’” Zuckerberg said.
“So our protocol is different from Twitter’s. What Twitter did is they said, ‘You can’t share this at all.’ We didn’t do that,” Zuckerberg continued. “What we do is we have, if something was reported to us as potentially misinformation, important misinformation, we also use third-party fact-checking program, because we don’t want to be deciding what’s true and false. And for the — I think it was five or seven days when it was basically being determined whether it was false, the distribution on Facebook was decreased, but people were still allowed to share it. So you could still share it; you could still consume it.”
Zuckerberg said that the reduced distribution on the platform meant that the story was ranked lower in people’s newsfeeds “so fewer people saw it than would have otherwise.”
On Thursday The Western Journal reported:
His (Zuckerberg) admission of FBI involvement in Big Tech censorship follows whistleblower claims of an organized operation to prevent a meaningful investigation of Hunter Biden before the 2020 presidential election.
NewsBusters polling suggests that as many as 9.4 percent of Biden voters in swing states would’ve reconsidered their vote if they had had full knowledge of the Hunter Biden controversy.
We have ceded a tremendous amount of power to social media. Maybe it is time to take some of that power back and make sure social media is an open, unbiased place to express opinions.
Recently The Daily Wire posted an article about Monkeypox and what we need to know about it.
This is, I believe, the most important sentence in the article:
Unlike SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, it is not a respiratory pathogen, which means monkeypox is not thought to spread via inhalation of the same air or respiratory droplets that are released during a sneeze or cough.
The article explains who is most likely to get Monkeypox:
We have also amassed a great deal of information regarding who is at risk. As of August 2, California’s Department of Public Health has reported that among its approximately 1,135 statewide cases of monkeypox, 14 have been hospitalized for the infection, with the vast majority of patients being aged between 25 and 44 years. From among the monkeypox cases with available data, 98.8% have been reported in male or transgender male individuals, with 97.2% of infected individuals identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Given this information, California’s public health website states: “While it’s good to stay alert about emerging public health outbreaks, the current risk of getting monkeypox in the general public is very low.”
The article concludes:
At this point in the monkeypox epidemic, when case numbers are relatively few and infections are concentrated among well-defined communities, we have a unique and narrow window of opportunity to adopt lessons we have learned from the COVID pandemic and enact focused protection of those who are at risk to both protect those individuals and halt the broader spread of the virus. Focused vaccination programs, educational campaigns regarding safe practices, and temporary limitations on specific events that are likely to lead to further spread of the monkeypox virus should all be considered. We learned from our initial response to the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s that we can do so while being respectful to impacted communities by focusing our language on medical risk reduction, rather than shaming individuals for their identities or personal practices. Any efforts to avoid focused protection of at-risk communities out of fear of stigmatization will cause public health agencies to squander this opportunity to contain the spread of monkeypox, effectively worsening its impact and potentially making it far more difficult to control in the future.
Given how skeptical the public has become after watching public health and political leaders make one harmful mistake after another in their attempt to manage the COVID pandemic, leaders must now set aside politics and political correctness and very transparently employ the clinical evidence about monkeypox to address this epidemic swiftly, before it spreads beyond its existing pockets. Time is running out.
We need to remember that this disease does not have to spread through the general public. Common sense measures will prevent this becoming another Covid-19. However, it might be politically advantageous for some politicians to create a panic that requires mail in ballots and drop boxes in the mid-term elections.
On Friday, The Daily Wire posted an article about an 80-year-old woman who is no longer allowed at her local YMCA.
The article reports:
Julie Jaman, 80, had been swimming at the Mountain View pool, a Port Townsend facility, for 35 years, but on July 26, the Y’s aquatics manager, Rowen DeLuna, allegedly informed her that some children needed the lane she was swimming in.
Jaman said she headed to the women’s showers, where she soaped up before hearing a man’s voice, then turned to see a biological male named Clementine Adams, allegedly an employee at the pool, “looking at the little girls as they were taking off their suits,” the Port Townsend Free Press reported.
The Daily Wire reached out to the Mountain View pool for comment.
“There were gaps in the curtain and there I was, naked, with soap and water on me, and this guy, right there very close to me,” Jaman said. “I asked, ‘Do you have a penis?’ He said, ‘That’s none of your business.’ That’s when I told him, ‘Get out of here, right now.’”
Jaman said she turned to DeLuna, who was outside the shower stall, and said, “Get him out of here,” but DeLuna responded, “You’re discriminating and you can’t use the pool anymore and I’m calling the police.”
Jaman claimed that when she got dressed and tried to leave the building, a YMCA staff member told her she could not leave, echoed by DeLuna, prompting Jaman to respond, “Bull****! I’m going to the police right now. I want help and I need it immediately.”
Jaman said Wendy Bart, the CEO of the Olympic Peninsula YMCA, spoke to her later that day, and told her that she was banned from the pool, and said a staff member told her that Jaman said to Adams, “You’re going to stick your f***ing penis in those little girls.” Jaman, the mother of two adult daughters, said she reacted, “I am an 80 year-old woman and I do not talk like that.”
The article concludes:
She (Julie Jaman) concluded, “The YMCA, the city, the police and sheriffs, the parents, the professionals who assist victims of voyeurism, peeping Toms, pedophilia and assault need to come together figure too out how to make the new policies work for all pool patrons, not just one group. How to keep children, who are less able to discriminate, safe. It is ironic that women who discriminate when a situation threatens their safety or their children — a message from our ancestors — are now accused of discrimination as if they have made someone else a victim.”
I know that there is some expense involved, but separate facilities need to be made available for the transgender population. Most YMCA’s do have family dressing rooms or individual dressing rooms that could be made available. Recently a transgender woman prisoner impregnated two female prisoners in a New Jersey prison (article here). I realize that the majority of transgender people do not pose a threat, but some do. Are you willing to put little girls in danger just to be woke?
On Sunday, The Daily Wire reported that an attempted mass shooting at a mall in Greenwood, Indiana, was stopped by a citizen with a concealed carry license.
The article reports:
A mass shooter at a mall in Greenwood, Indiana was shot dead on Sunday by an armed civilian after firing into a crowded food court, killing three and wounding two.
According to Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison, the man entered the mall with a rifle and several magazines and began firing into the crowd at the mall’s food court. Police first responded to shooting at about 6 p.m. The shooter was killed by an as of yet unidentified good guy with a gun.
Had the mall been a gun-free zone or the state not allowed the armed civilian to have a gun, the shooting would have ended very differently. I seriously doubt that the mass shooter believed that there would be someone at the mall to thwart his plans.
The article concludes:
Despite the often repeated claim that ‘the good guy with a gun’ is a myth, studies suggest that guns are used defensively in the United States between 500,000- 3 million times per year.
I am sure that there are a number of people who were at the mall that day who are grateful that the mall is not a gun-free zone.
On Saturday, The Daily Wire reported that the attorneys who argued the concealed carry case before the Supreme Court were forced to retire from their law firm.
The article reports:
The lawyers who won a major Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court this week got even less than a pat on the back from the white-shoe law firm they work for – they were forced to quit.
Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, the lawyers who successfully argued against New York’s law restricting conceal-carry gun permits, were told by Kirkland & Ellis they had to stop representing Second Amendment plaintiffs or find another firm. In a Wall Street Journal article, the duo explained how their celebration was cut short.
“Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm,” they wrote. “There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.”
The article concludes:
The decision has implications for at least eight other so-called “may issue” states, where bureaucrats have the final say in whether a citizen merits a permit. In New York, the law was used to render concealed carry handgun permits nearly impossible to obtain.
Clement, who served as the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, and Murphy, also an experienced appellate attorney, were partners in the firm. But they wrote that they were resigned to leaving after being told they can’t take on Second Amendment cases.
“This isn’t the first time we have left a firm to stick by a client,” they wrote. “What makes this circumstance different is that the firm approved our representation of these clients years ago, and dropping them would cost the clients years of institutional memory. More remarkable still, in one of the cases we were asked to drop, we prevailed in the Supreme Court on Thursday.”
We are in danger of losing our Republic.
On Wednesday, The Daily Wire posted an article about the gun bill that was rammed through the Senate on late Tuesday.
This is the list of the Republicans who voted to end the filibuster (from The Hill):
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)
It should be noted that most of these Republicans are not running for re-election. I suspect the polling on restricting gun rights shows that voting to move forward with this bill does not reflect popular opinion. All of these people should be voted out of office for not protecting the U.S. Constitution.
The Daily Wire posted a list of problems with the current bill as detailed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC):
Red Flag Laws
- Incentivizes local disarmament proceedings, of which many states currently employ secret ex-parte hearings.
- Calls only for standards equivalent only to civil court.
- For all the bluster in the measure about protecting due process and the constitutional rights of the subjects of the hearings during the “appropriate phase,” it implies that states will still be able to hold secret ex-parte hearings to deprive the People of their rights.
- Entitles the subject to an attorney “at the appropriate phase,” but it must be at the subject’s expense.
Private Sales
- Expands the definition of “engaged in the business” by striking “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” in the current definition and replacing it with “to predominantly earn a profit.”
- This confusion could lead to new and successful prosecutions of private sellers who may fall under the broad and vague definition of “engaged in business” and therefore the need to be licensed.
New Misdemeanor Firearms Prohibitions
- By expanding the definition of a prohibiting misdemeanor domestic violence in such a vague, broad, and subjective way it invites confusion, and potential firearms prohibitions.
Transfers and Straw Purchases
- Prohibits the government from arming drug cartels, unless the government exercises more oversight on said drug cartels, thus allowing the free flow of arms to these cartels to continue in perpetuity.
Employer Background Checks
- Allows all employers to ask for a firearms background check prior to employment or during current employment, regardless of its connection to job duties.
Americans need to wake up and realize that this bill is an infringement on our rights as Americans.
On Sunday, The Daily Wire posted an article about a recent decision by FINA ().
The article reports:
FINA, the world’s top international swimming association, announced a new policy on gender inclusion on Sunday that further restricts biological males identifying as females from elite swimming competitions.
The move comes following a vote of the FINA governing body regarding the controversial issue of biological males participating in women’s swimming.
“We have to protect the rights of our athletes to compete, but we also have to protect competitive fairness at our events, especially the women’s category at FINA competitions,” FINA President Husain Al-Musallam said in a statement.
The new policy also seeks to consider an “open” category for transgender athletic competition.
“FINA will always welcome every athlete. The creation of an open category will mean that everybody has the opportunity to compete at an elite level. This has not been done before, so FINA will need to lead the way. I want all athletes to feel included in being able to develop ideas during this process,” he added.
The only biological males who could compete in women’s swimming under the new policy would include swimmers who have had “male puberty suppressed beginning at Tanner Stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later, and they have since continuously maintained their testosterone levels in serum (or plasma) below 2.5 nmol/L.”
The new policy would prohibit athletes like Lia Thomas from competing in elite swim meets. Thomas made history earlier this year as the first transgender swimmer to win an event at the NCAA Division I women’s swimming championships.
The article notes:
Former U.K. swimmer Sharron Davies told BBC Sport she agreed with the decision.
“‘Four years ago, along with 60 other Olympic medallists, I wrote to the IOC and said ‘Please just do the science first’ and no governing body has done the science until now,’” she said.
There are some differing opinions on the decision:
“‘That is what [FINA] has done. They’ve done the science, they’ve got the right people on board, they’ve spoken to the athletes, and coaches. Swimming is a very inclusive sport, we love everyone to come and swim and be involved. But the cornerstone of sport is that it has to be fair and it has to be fair for both sexes,’” she added.
Athlete Ally, a pro-LGBT group that supported Thomas in women’s swimming, spoke out against the new policy.
“FINA’s new eligibility criteria for transgender athletes and athletes with intersex variations is discriminatory, harmful, unscientific and not in line with the 2021 IOC principles. If we truly want to protect women’s sports, we must include all women,” Athlete Ally tweeted on Sunday. International Swimming Federation
The science, however, is obvious. There is a difference between men and women physically. Allowing men to compete in women’s sports does not acknowledge that difference. Hormone shots or hormone blockers do not erase the differences. If they did, wouldn’t transgender women be trying to compete in men’s sports?
On Sunday, The Daily Wire posted an article about a new treatment for cancer that is showing amazing success.
The article reports:
A paper published on Sunday at The New England Journal of Medicine outlined a study of 18 rectal cancer patients who were given dostarlimab every three weeks for six months and ended up cancer-free, including the first patient who is now two years out from the trial.
…“We initiated a prospective phase 2 study in which single-agent dostarlimab, an anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was administered every 3 weeks for 6 months in patients with mismatch repair–deficient stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma,” the study said. “This treatment was to be followed by standard chemoradiotherapy and surgery.”
Those who took the drug, which “unmasks cancer cells, allowing the immune system to identify and destroy them,” according to the Times, did not have to move on to further cancer treatments.
All the patients “had a clinical complete response, with no evidence of tumor on magnetic resonance imaging,” the paper explained. “At the time of this report, no patients had received chemoradiotherapy or undergone surgery, and no cases of progression or recurrence had been reported during follow-up (range, 6 to 25 months). No adverse events of grade 3 or higher have been reported.”
The article concludes:
UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center’s Hanna K. Sanoff, MD, MPH, advised caution but said the findings were “very encouraging,” according to Science Daily.
“These initial findings of the remarkable benefit with the use of dostarlimab are very encouraging but also need to be viewed with caution until the results can be replicated in a larger and more diverse population,” Sanoff said.
“The responses in these first 12 of a planned-for 30 patients in the trial were remarkable and exceed what we would expect with the standard chemotherapy plus radiation,” she continued. “Although quality of life measures have not been reported yet, it’s encouraging that some of the most difficult symptoms, such as pain and bleeding, all resolved with the use of dostarlimab.”
This is wonderful news.
The Daily Wire recently posted an article about organ donations in China.
The article reports:
Dr. Enver Tohti, a former physician in China, remembers the day with horror. The whistleblower said his chief surgeon approached him and asked, “Do you want to do something wild?” The surgeon then took Dr. Tohti and other medical professionals to the site of a public execution, pointed to one of the criminals, and told him, “As quick as possible, remove the liver and two kidneys.”
“Then, I saw he was alive,” Dr. Tohti, who is now an Uber driver in London, recently told Vice TV.
Stories of China harvesting organs from live “donors” have proliferated for decades, but a new and credible scholarly article has exposed concrete evidence that China has engaged in the gruesome practice. Researchers Matthew P. Robertson of Australia and Jacob Lavee of Israel combed through 2,838 papers on Chinese organ transplantation published in medical journals, covering prisoner organ donations between 1980 and 2015. They published their findings on April 4 in an article titled “Execution by organ procurement: Breaching the dead donor rule in China,” in the American Journal of Transplantation, a peer-reviewed journal.
The article continues:
Robertson told me it is important that the media not misreport their data about live organ transplants. “It’s not that there were only 71 of this sort,” he said. “It’s 71 that we found.”
He and his co-author are almost certainly undercounting the incidences when CCP officials killed prisoners by removing their beating hearts, because they counted only those officially documented in medical journals. “We don’t know how many transplants actually end up in a medical paper,” said Robertson. “It could be one in 100; it could be one in 1,000; it could be 1 in 10.”
Hard numbers are difficult to come by, but estimates abound — and none of the numbers add up. In 2019, the China Tribunal found that Chinese physicians likely performed 60,000 to 90,000 organ transplants a year from 2000 to 2014, but the number of eligible organ donors registered in 2017 numbered only 5,146. Another estimate places the number of organs taken from Falun Gong practitioners at 41,500 over a five-year period. For his part, Robertson said once Chinese Communist Party officials perfected the process, they employed this form of organ removal “probably with all heart transplants” in the nation.
The article concludes:
These allegations also illustrate the legacy media’s perpetually favorable coverage of the People’s Republic of China. “China used to harvest organs from prisoners. Under pressure, that practice is finally ending,” The Washington Post told its readers in 2017. “China vows to battle corruption in organ harvesting,” reported the Associated Press a year earlier. But human rights attorney Hamid Sabi told the UN Human Rights Council in 2019 that forced organ harvesting in China “continues today.”
Such silence makes it all the more important for Western media outlets to cover these atrocities. “China and their advocates will do everything they can to belittle or discredit” such findings, said Andrew Bremberg, a former ambassador and now CEO of Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. “And all too often, people in the U.S. and the West will do their best to ignore” them.
But in order for such human rights abuses to end, the West must act. Thanks to Robertson and Lavee’s research, some of the doctors who took part in China’s forced organ harvesting are now known, Bremberg said. “But we don’t know all of their relationships with U.S. or other Western-based hospitals or universities, or whether they collaborate or publish with other Western academics.”
A bipartisan collection of legislators — Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Chris Coons (D-DE) and Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), and Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) — introduced the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act last March. The bill would allow U.S. officials to identify and sanction those involved in organ harvesting, including revoking their passports.
“It’s past time to hold Beijing accountable for these heinous acts,” said Sen. Cotton.
This is not an acceptable practice and needs to be addressed. No country engaged in the practice of live organ harvesting should be allowed to trade on any world markets. The only way to end this ghoulish practice is to hit China in the pocketbook.
On Friday, The Daily Wire posted an article with one of the best quotes so far this year. The quote, by Rand Paul, is, “We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy.”
The article reports:
Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul blocked the fast-tracking of a massive $40 billion Ukraine aid package through the Senate on Thursday.
Paul objected to the move by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), with the consent of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), to pass the bill via unanimous consent. After Paul’s objection, the bill now needs to go through a number of procedural moves, but is still expected to pass sometime next week.
“Reserving the right to object, my oath of office is to the U.S. Constitution, not to any foreign nation,” Paul said when the Senate chair asked if there were any objectors. “And no matter how sympathetic the cause, my oath of office is to the national security of the United States of America.”
“We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy,” the Republican senator added, referencing the steep increases in gas, food, and used vehicles faced by Americans. “Inflation doesn’t just come out of nowhere, it comes from deficit spending.”
The article concludes:
The bill is likely to pass the Senate next week as it has both Schumer and McConnell’s backing, though several Republicans have said they would vote against the bill. According to Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Sen. Bill Haggerty (R-TN), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN), and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) said they would not vote for the bill.
Any Senator who votes for this bill needs to be voted out of office as soon as possible. Ukraine and its people are a sympathetic cause, but bankrupting America accomplishes nothing. We simply do not have the money to support the Ukraine bureaucracy.
As The Conservative Treehouse put it on May 14th:
Comrade taxpayers, as the glorious and esteemed senate move through the procedural hurdles to pass a massive $40 billion spending bill for the U.S. altruistic Ukraine money laundering operation, a fabulous diplomatic envoy consisting of Mitch McConnell, John Barrasso, John Cornyn and Susan Collins travel to Kyiv to meet the magnanimous defender of the international treasury and wealth transfer operation, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The magnificent republican leaders went to visit the nicest war zone their bipartisan efforts have created in the past four decades. As the angels of abundance parted the clouds, many congratulations were shared from the delegation toward their generous host and the expressions of appreciation and respect for the generosity were reciprocated.
There are no good guys in this war, and the victims are the innocent civilians of Ukraine.
On Wednesday, The Daily Wire reported that the U.S. government has opened an investigation into Elon Musk’s business dealings.
The article reports:
“The Securities and Exchange Commission is probing Mr. Musk’s tardy submission of a public form that investors must file when they buy more than 5% of a company’s shares,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “The disclosure functions as an early sign to shareholders and companies that a significant investor could seek to control or influence a company.”
The report said that Musk’s April 4 disclosure filing was at least 10 days late, a move that is believed to have saved him more than $140 million because share prices could have been higher if the public knew about his ownership of 5% of the company.
“The case is easy. It’s straightforward,” Daniel Taylor, a University of Pennsylvania accounting professor, said. “But whether they’re going to pick that battle with Elon is another question.”
The report noted that a lawsuit against Musk from the SEC would likely not stop him from taking over Twitter since the company’s board of director’s unanimously approved to be acquired by Musk and the SEC may lack the power to do so. Musk’s purchase of Twitter is also reportedly being reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Elon Musk has also stated that he would reinstate the account of President Trump.
The article notes his comments on the banning of President Trump:
“I think that was a mistake because it alienated a large part of the county, and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice,” Musk said, adding that the decision was “morally bad.”
“That doesn’t mean that someone gets to say whatever they want to say,” Musk said. “If they say something that is illegal or destructive to the world, then there should be perhaps a timeout, temporary suspension or that particular tweet should be made invisible or have very little traction.”
“I would reverse the permanent ban,” Musk added.
Musk indicated that action could be taken against an account if there were tweets that violated platform policy, which he said “should be either deleted or made invisible, and a suspension—a temporary suspension—is appropriate, but not a permanent ban.”
Musk said that permanent bans “should be extremely rare and really reserved for accounts that are bots, or scam, spam accounts.”
President Trump has stated that he would not return to Twitter but focus on his own social media site, Truth Social.
Stay tuned.
On Thursday, The Daily Wire reported the following:
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday that there was no “official U.S. Government position” on where protesters chose to gather, even if that meant they were publishing the home addresses of sitting Supreme Court justices.
After congratulating Psaki’s incoming replacement Karine Jean-Pierre on being named President Joe Biden’s next press secretary, Fox News’ Peter Doocy turned to the topic of planned protests over the recently leaked early opinion draft indicating that the Supreme Court could be poised to overturn landmark abortion cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The article reports the following dialog:
“Not about yesterday, just about moving forward — these activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices,” Doocy said. “Is that the kind of thing this president wants to help your side make their point?”
“Look, I think the president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document,” Psaki replied, saying again that the White House supported peaceful protest.
“He doesn’t care if they’re protesting outside the Supreme Court or outside someone’s private residence?” Doocy asked.
“I don’t have an official U.S. Government position on where people protest,” Psaki replied. “I want it — we want it of course to be peaceful … I think we shouldn’t lose the point here, the reason people are protesting is because women across the country are worried about their fundamental rights that have been law for 50 years. Their rights to make choices about their own bodies and their own health care are at risk. That’s why people are protesting — they’re unhappy, they’re scared.”
When does protesting become harassment? How much violence is the political left willing to tolerate to move their agenda forward (think riots of the summer of 2020)? When the political left disrupted the Senate during the Kavanaugh hearings, how is that different from January 6th? Is anyone protecting the rights of American citizens simply trying to do their jobs?
A website called abort73.com reports:
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the research arm of Planned Parenthood, estimates that there were 1.21 million abortions performed in the U.S. in the year 2005. Of the 1.21 million annual abortions, approximately 88% (1.06 million) are performed during the first trimester. The other 12% (150,000) are performed during the second and third trimester. In 2005, the average cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks of gestation was $413. The Women’s Medical Center estimates that a 2nd trimester abortion costs up to $3000 (with the price increasing the further along the pregnancy goes). If we take the $413 average for 1st trimester abortions and use a $3000 average for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, here’s what we get: $438 million is spent each year on first trimester abortions and $393 million is spent on late term abortions. That means that each year in the U.S., the abortion industry brings in approximately $831 million through their abortion services alone. If you add in the $337 million (or more) that Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider) receives annually in government grants and contracts for, the annual dollar amount moves well past 1 billion.
On Monday, The Daily Wire reported how some of this money will be spent by Planned Parenthood:
Planned Parenthood Action Fund and other major pro-abortion groups are investing $150 million toward the 2022 midterm elections nationwide.
Planned Parenthood Action Fund, along with NARAL Pro-Choice America and EMILY’s List, are targeting the political funding into paid ads and other initiatives across nine states, including Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, California, Kansas, and Wisconsin.
Six of the nine states include competitive Senate races, according to Politico.
Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, claimed the plan serves as “a warning” to pro-life candidates.
“Let this be a warning to the out-of-touch politicians standing in the way of our reproductive freedom: People are watching. People are furious. And this November, the people will vote you out,” Johnson said in a statement shared with Politico.
The article concludes:
In contrast, Connecticut passed a bill last week to protect abortion providers from bans in other states. California is considering legislation to become an “abortion sanctuary” to offer abortion services to women from others states where abortion is more restricted.
The new announcement follows Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s 2020 election efforts that committed $45 million to pro-abortion allies during the last presidential election.
“We decide who our leaders are. We decide our future,” the website for “We Decide 2020” said at the time. “At the ballot box this year, we — not out-of-touch politicians — decide what we do with our own bodies.”
Do those same out-of-touch politicians create vaccine and mask mandates?
There is a lot of money tied up in the abortion industry. You can bet that any means will be used to protect that money. It is not a coincidence that the Supreme Court opinion draft was leaked in the time period before the mid-term elections.
On Wednesday, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about how the political left and the fourth branch of government are attempting to put guardrails on Twitter now that Twitter is threatening them with free speech.
The article reports:
I think we are now seeing the outlines of how the Fourth Branch of Government are planning to keep control over information, specifically public discussion on Big Tech platforms, even as Elon Musk moves to open the valves of information from the social media platform Twitter.
Previously the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced a new Dept of Homeland Security priority to combat disinformation {LINK} on technology platforms including social media.
Many eyebrows were raised as the announcement appeared to be an open admission that the U.S. government was going to control information by applying labels, that would align with allies in social media, who need a legal justification for censorship and content removal.
This CISA announcement was quickly followed by various government officials and agencies saying it was critical to combat Russian disinformation, as the events in Ukraine unfolded. In essence, Ukraine was the justification for search engines like Google, DuckDuckGo, and social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube to begin targeting information and content that did not align with the official U.S. government narrative.
Previously those same methods were deployed by the U.S. government, specifically the CDC and FDA, toward COVID-19 and the vaccination program. All of this background aligns with the previous visibility of a public-private partnership between the bureaucracy of government, the U.S. intelligence agencies and U.S. social media. That partnership now forms the very cornerstone of the DHS/CISA effort to control what information exists in the public space. It is highly important that people understand what is happening.
In July of 2021 the first admission of the official agenda behind the public-private partnership was made public {Reuters Article}.
What we are seeing now is an extension of the government control mechanisms, combined with a severe reaction by all stakeholders to the latest development in the Twitter takeover.
For two years the control mechanisms around information have been cemented by govt and Big Tech. Even the deployment of the linguistics around disinformation, misinformation and malinformation is all part of that collective effort. The collaboration between the government and Big Tech is not a matter for debate, it is all easily referenced by their own admissions. The current issue is how they are deploying the information controls.
The Daily Wire reported on Tuesday:
The European Union issued a warning to Elon Musk on Tuesday, telling him that he must comply with EU regulations on policing online content, or face severe penalties.
In an interview with the Financial Times Tuesday, EU Commissioner for the Internal Market Thierry Breton said that he was giving Musk a “reality check,” adding that Twitter must cooperate with the EU’s rules on content moderation, including the pending Digital Services Act. The prospective legislation would force large tech platforms to take more action to disclose and remove illegal content, including “hate speech,” as noted by The Guardian.
There are people in America and around the world that are afraid of free speech. We are going to have to be alert to make sure that those people are not successful in determining what Americans and people around the world are allowed to hear.
The Daily Wire recently posted an article titled, “‘Shell Companies And Shady Lawyers’: Why Did Disney Get To Govern Itself In Florida?”
The article reports:
Why does a giant entertainment conglomerate get to self-govern on its very own slice of land in the Sunshine State — and who is left better off as that privilege appears to be coming to a close?
…If you have ever visited Disney World Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, you have been to the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Sitting in central Florida to the southwest of Orlando, the area was feverishly pursued by Walt Disney himself as the home of his company’s second theme park.
Frustrated by the businesses that crowded Disneyland in California, Walt Disney set up multiple shell companies — with names like Latin-American Development and Management Corp., Tomahawk Properties, and M.T. Lott Co. — to grab tens of thousands of acres in Florida. According to journalist and author David Koenig, who has spent years covering the rise of Disney, the strategy was meant to mask Disney’s intentions in the region and thereby keep real estate as inexpensive as possible.
“There were dozens of landholders, and as soon as someone heard that Disney bought lot one, they knew the price on lots two through 50 would go through the roof,” Koenig explained to the Los Angeles Times. “It had to appear as if it were just a coincidence that there were 10 different companies buying land in the same area.”
Disney took other measures to hide the fact that it was the “mystery” land buyer acquiring uninhabited swampland at a breakneck pace. A blog post from Disney acknowledges that legal counsel Bob Foster — working under the pseudonym “Bob Price” — took steps to obfuscate Disney’s intentions from citizens of Florida.
The article explains the Reedy Creek Improvement Act:
For several decades, Disney has been a powerful political influence in Florida. According to data from Open Secrets, the company gave $350,000 to $610,000 to seven firms lobbying in Florida during the 2020 election year, followed by $460,000 to $719,974 to eight firms in 2021.
Still, Disney’s greatest lobbying victory came in the years after it acquired the large tracts of land in central Florida.
Gov. Claude Kirk (R-FL) signed the Reedy Creek Improvement Act in 1967 — the year after Walt Disney passed away — in response to the company’s lobby. The legislation allowed the state legislature to establish the Reedy Creek Improvement District, allowing Disney to act with the same authority as a county government for its 39-square-mile property. The district encompasses the cities of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, as well as 175 lane miles of roadway, 67 miles of waterway, various power and water plants, hundreds of restaurants and retail properties, and more than 40,000 hotel rooms.
Most importantly, Reedy Creek has permission to levy taxes, issue bonds, and write its own construction and wastewater management laws — avoiding the regulatory headaches with which other companies throughout the state must wrestle.
The article concludes:
No matter how the magic stars align, University of Central Florida historian James Clark concluded that there is only one “clear winner” from the situation.
“If taxpayers get stuck with the bonds, then the counties will be the big losers from this bill, and Disney loses a lot by losing the control they get from having Reedy Creek,” Clark said. “The only clear winner if this bill passes is Ron DeSantis.”
“Whatever you do,” Walt Disney once said, “do it well.” It seems that DeSantis has taken that advice to heart.
When lobbyists get their way, the result does not always favor the voters and taxpayers. The Reedy Creek Improvement Act was not a good thing–no business should be able to set up their own fiefdom making their own laws in the middle of a state.
The Daily Wire recently posted an article sharing some of their observations regarding the possible takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk.
The article reports:
When Elon Musk offered to buy Twitter and make it a private company, Twitter’s board of directors responded with a poison pill — and the legacy media responded with a poison pen.
Journalists have contended that Musk’s bid to loosen the social media platform’s speech restrictions represent a threat to the First Amendment, threaten to give billionaires too much control over the media, or even presage the fall of our republic into a totalitarian oligarchy. These unduly emotional responses reveal that the legacy media’s fear is not so much Musk as it is free speech — and losing their ability to create the national narrative.
It really is all about control.
The article notes:
CNN’s Brian Stelter seemed to criticize the capitalist system of private media ownership. “There is also a lot of folks out there saying it’s troubling enough that private companies control these key communication platforms around the world, maybe it’s even worse to have the world’s richest person trying to buy one and take it private,” he said on April 14. In the same vein, and on the same day, Business Insider ran a story titled “Elon Musk’s attempt to buy Twitter represents a chilling new threat: billionaire trolls taking over social media.”
But billionaire ownership of the media is hardly new. And judging by their position on the payroll, it seems not to leave journalists ill at ease. To take but a few examples:
Even CNN founder Ted Turner still has a net worth of $2.3 billion, after being “squeezed out” of his own company many years ago.
If billionaire status does not actually offend the journalistic Left, what does? Perhaps Musk’s political donations to some Republicans, including George W. Bush, Kevin McCarthy, Joni Ernst, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio? Possibly, but many businessmen (including our former president) have donated to politicians of both parties — and self-described centrist Musk is no exception.
It’s okay to be a millionaire who owns a news outlet if you are a liberal. It’s required that if you are a corporation that you pay more in taxes unless you are a liberal (see Disney). The double standard lives among us.
On Wednesday, The Daily Wire posted an article the changes the Biden administration has planned for America’s government. According to the article, the changes involve a “total transformation of government” — as described by the Department of Energy — arguably based on principles of Critical Race Theory.
The article reports:
Toward that end, more than 90 federal agencies announced “equity action plans” to supposedly address inequality in American society — but critics say that the plans will create a coercive bureaucracy intent on punishing certain Americans based on racial marxism and other progressive ideas that champion victimhood.
The White House recently noted that on his first day in office, President Joe Biden “signed Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government” which “directed the whole of the federal government to advance an ambitious equity and racial justice agenda” focused on creating “prosperity, dignity, and equality” for underserved communities.
Ryan Girdusky, founder of 1776 Project PAC, a non-profit focused on electing school board members opposed to Critical Race Theory-inspired curriculum, told The Daily Wire that Biden administration’s “plan towards equity is race-based Marxism with a different word.”
“The entire program is set to lower standards, dilute meritocracy, and have the first large-scale government-supported laws that discriminate against people based on their race since before Eisenhower was President,” Girdusky added.
This is the Executive Summary:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13985 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EQUITY ACTION PLAN
Page 1
I. Executive Summary
The Department of Justice’s mission is to “enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.” As the Attorney General has explained: “Advancing equal justice under law is a core principle of the Department of Justice. Established during Reconstruction, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the Department’s first mission was to secure the civil rights promised by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.” Since then, the Department has continued its foundational work of ensuring that no individuals are denied the freedoms and protections guaranteed by the Constitution.
Since January 20, 2021, the Department has taken many steps to advance equity for marginalized and underserved communities.1 The Department has prioritized five action items to further advance that work:
A. leveraging federal funds provided by the Department to (a) encourage grantees to include equity considerations in the provision of federally funded services, (b) enhance data collection to identify and take action to address disparities in access to the Department’s programs or services based on demographic factors, and (c) better ensure that grantees are complying with non-discrimination mandates;
B. improving access to funding opportunities for organizations that are led by, or primarily serve, historically marginalized and underserved populations;
C. reducing language barriers that make it difficult for individuals with limited
English proficiency to access Department programs or activities, communicate public safety concerns, or vindicate their rights;
D. improving the Department’s engagement with stakeholders in underserved communities and disadvantaged groups in order to establish enduring relationships with them and enhancing the public’s awareness of the Department’s expansive mission and resources; and
E. increasing opportunities for small businesses located in Historically Underutilized Business Zones to secure Department contracts.
The Department believes each of these action items will substantially advance equity and civil rights and, further, will promote public safety by increasing trust and communication between the Department and the communities it serves.
Notice that I have underlined ‘enhance data collection.’ That is never a good thing. Also note that funding is going to improve for certain organizations. You can bet that organizations similar to ACORN and Black Lives Matter will be in line for that funding and pro-life groups or conservative groups will not.
This is an executive order–it is not a law. It is a shame that executive orders can be used to create major changes in our government. That fact needs to be discussed and possibly changed.
The gruesome story about five premie-sized babies found in a box being sent from a Washington, D.C., abortion clinic to a waste facility has been all over the conservative news media this week. The Daily Wire is one news outlet that has reported on the matter.
The article at The Daily Wire reports:
On Thursday, April 7, I drove downtown in the rain to an abortion clinic run by Dr. Cesare Santangelo, an abortionist accused of using gruesome techniques to end the lives of unborn babies.
I can’t stop thinking about what I saw.
I have been asking officials for answers and explanations all week — the D.C. Medical Examiner, Mayor Muriel Bowser, the Metropolitan Police Department, Washington Surgi-Clinic, Curtis Bay Medical Waste Facility, Planned Parenthood Baltimore City Center, the Department of Health and Human Services.
But no one will address why a box, allegedly containing 110 pulverized 1st-trimester babies and five premie-sized babies, was about to be sent from Washington Surgi-Clinic to Curtis Bay Medical Waste Facility (a facility that continues to insist to me, ignoring photographs of its labeling on the box of aborted babies, that it does not burn fetal remains).
Officials have said that autopsies will not be performed. Authorities will not address whether the five babies were alive when they were extracted.
The only interest that D.C. officials have seemingly shown in this matter is whether members of a pro-life group, the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU), committed a crime when they took a box of aborted fetal remains from a dolly outside Washington Surgi-Clinic.
PAAU told me that they asked the driver of a Curtis Bay Medical Waste truck if they could take the box to give the babies a proper funeral, and that he agreed, noting that he had already scanned the box into the system and its disappearance would likely go unnoticed.
Live Action photographed these five babies. Pro-life medical professionals and experts who examined the photographs estimated that they were in the end of the 2nd trimester or in the 3rd trimester when they were aborted.
There are two laws that the Clinic seems to be violating–the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which prohibits physicians from performing partial-birth abortions except when the mother’s life is in danger, and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. If that is the charge, the authorities should be willing to examine the evidence and make a ruling. However, it seems as if that is exactly what the authorities are avoiding.
Abortion is a million-dollar industry. It shouldn’t be, but it is. It is also an industry that makes large political campaign donations.
Open Secrets has the following chart posted on their website:
Please follow the link above to read the article at The Daily Wire. It is troubling that we are allowing this to happen in our country.