‘One or Two’ Lab Leaks Most Likely Origins for COVID: Senate Report thumbnail

‘One or Two’ Lab Leaks Most Likely Origins for COVID: Senate Report

By Family Research Council

Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kans.) on Monday released a 301-page report concluding that COVID-19 “most likely” leaked from a lab weeks before China’s official narrative as the result of “one or possibly two” lab accidents. “We won’t be able to prove this in a criminal trial. But I do think there’s enough evidence, if this was a civil case, that we would convince a jury,” said Marshall of the report fittingly titled, “Muddy Waters.”

Conducted over 18 months by former Trump official Dr. Bob Kadlec, Dr. Bob Foster, and GOP staff on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, the report concluded after studying the lab-leak theory as well as the natural origin theory, “The preponderance of circumstantial evidence supports an unintentional research-related incident.” The full senate report represents the fullest picture the American public has yet received of the evidence pointing in any direction; in earlier assessments from the U.S. intelligence community, only a summary was declassified.

The conditional nature of the lengthy study’s conclusions highlights the remaining uncertainty about the origins of COVID-19. “Every time I pick on China, we should look in the mirror because our own federal government has kept data from us, they wouldn’t show us information. They wouldn’t let us talk to the right people,” said Marshall.

The report didn’t discount the possibility of a natural origin without a fair hearing. It affirmed several data points that made the Hunan Seafood Market at least a plausible origin point. However, “the absence of key epidemiological and genetic data” led them to conclude this was unlikely. “Recent natural zoonotic spillovers of respiratory viruses with pandemic potential have left behind evidence of where and how they occurred,” they noted. Instead, they summarized, “the preponderance of information supports the plausibility of an unintentional research-related incident that likely resulted from failures of biosafety containment during SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-related research.”

The report described the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) as a lab-leak waiting to happen. By 2019, the lab had collected “approximately 20,000 … animal virus samples from across China,” which “underwent initial evaluation in BSL-2 settings … usually by graduate students.” The report added, “Widely accepted biosafety guidelines hold that initial evaluation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses should be conducted in at least BSL-3 laboratories because of the risk of creating infectious aerosols.” BSL-2 laboratories operate with lower safety standards than BSL-3 laboratories.

But WIV’s labs suffered from “neglected maintenance, insufficient operational funds, and a lack of specialized managers and engineers to operate BSL-3 labs,” complained Yuan Zhiming, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CCP) Committee of the Wuhan Branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), in May 2019.

Aware of WIV’s safety and maintenance shortcomings, researchers attempted to retroactively address them, all while its biolabs remained fully operational. In 2019 they filed patents for correcting “existing door seals that developed slow leaks over time,” “a manually operated exhaust fan,” HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filter disinfection, and mending the pressure cooker-like autoclave sterilizers, used for sterilizing equipment, which were “unable to achieve required sterilization temperatures,” had “potential leaks around the autoclave doors,” and accumulated “excessive condensation of autoclaved infectious materials.”

“It is very, very apparent that their biological safety training is minimal,” said Robert Hawley, “who for years oversaw safety programs at the U.S. Army’s maximum-containment lab at Fort Detrick, Md.”

Eventually, the problems at WIV came to the attention of the nation’s leaders. On November 19, 2019, a senior CCP official from Beijing relayed “important oral and written instructions” to WIV senior leadership in a special biosafety and security training session, which was “was followed by a two and a half day remedial biosafety training course for WIV researchers.”

By then, the disease may have already been spreading. The report noted “an increase in adult Influenza-Like-Illness (ILI) accompanied by negative laboratory influenza tests” in the week November 11-17, 2019 from a Wuhan hospital, “approximately 13 weeks before the peak incidence of COVID-19 cases in late January-early February 2020.” According to international data collected in 28 other countries, 13 weeks is “the average time from the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 [the COVID virus] to the maximum incidence of recognized cases.”

Officially, the report acknowledged, China holds that the first COVID-19 outbreak was “no earlier than December 8, 2019.”

However, “eyewitness accounts, media reports, epidemiological modeling and additional academic studies further support October 28 to November 10 as the window of emergence.” Some of the anecdotes come from government sources (emphasis added):

  • “The Deputy Consular Chief [at the U.S. Consulate General in Wuhan] recalled, ‘By mid-October 2019, the dedicated team at the U.S. Consulate General in Wuhan knew that the city had been struck by what was thought to be an unusually vicious flu season. The disease worsened in November.’”
  • “A January 2021 S. Department of State factsheet stated … ‘several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.’”
  • Unpublished People’s Republic of China (PRC) Government data identified the first COVID-19 case in mid-November. A veteran South China Morning Post reporter reviewed an official China CDC document that showed a 55-year-old from Hubei province contracted the virus on November 17, 2019.”

Some anecdotes were collected media reports about the situation in Wuhan (emphasis added):

  • “An Australian journalist interviewed a frontline Wuhan doctor who conveyed that he and his colleagues saw a growing number of patients exhibiting fever and respiratory difficulties in early November, 2019. The physicians realized that a coronavirus, likely SARS, was the causative agent by early December.”
  • “Two other media outlets published information from leaked hospital data from pneumonia patients in Wuhan with suspected COVID-19. These reports identified two separate suspected case-clusters in early October and November 2019.”
  • “A Wuhan University biostatistics professor gave an interview in which he discussed his work to compile a nationwide database of COVID-19 cases. According to the epidemiologist, several suspected cases predated the earliest official cases in December, 2019. ‘There were two patient cases in November, with onset on November 14 and November 21, 2019, and five or six cases before December 8, 2019.’”
  • “In August 2021, a veteran Washington Post policy columnist reported that at least one of the WIV researchers became ill in early November, 2019 and exhibited symptoms highly specific to COVID-19, including the loss of smell and ground-glass opacities in his lungs.”

Still other anecdotes measured the crisis with proxy variables (emphasis added):

  • “A June 2020 published Harvard University study found an unusual increase in Wuhan hospital traffic during [autumn 2019].”
  • Satellite imagery showed a significant increase in vehicles parked at major Wuhan hospitals – an indicator previously established as a proxy for hospital occupancy rates – in this period compared to October and November of 2018.”
  • Search queries made on the Chinese search engine Baidu for terms like ‘cough’ also increased substantially in October and November, 2019.”

The report contained one more reason to believe that COVID may have been circulating earlier than Chinese authorities admit. “People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Professor Zhou Yusen, Director of the 5th Institute at the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS), … submitted one of the first COVID-19 vaccine patents on February 24, 2020,” said the report. “Several experts assessed that Zhou likely would have had to start this vaccine development research no later than November 2019 to achieve the February patent submission date.” National Review’s Jim Geraghty called this revelation “the closest thing to a smoking gun” in the report.

The researchers considered other evidence supporting the lab leak hypothesis as well, such as a unique genetic marker in the COVID virus, SARS-Cov-2. “One of the notable genetic findings of SARS-CoV-2 is the presence of an FCS [furin cleavage site]. It is the first SARS-related beta coronavirus found with one,” but WIV had been attempting “to artificially insert genetic sequences for human furin cleavage [HFC] sites to evaluate their pandemic causing potential in SARS-related coronaviruses” since 2018.

In the end, the report settles on “two plausible scenarios” for a lab leak. First, they hypothesized that a “research-related incident occurred sometime before September 2019,” the virus was first isolated in the low-level lab. “This infection, while unlikely to have caused the COVID-19 pandemic, may have spurred the WIV and PRC government to undertake precautionary actions identified by this investigation and others,” they wrote.

Second, they hypothesized a “mid- to late October” spillover from the lab due to malfunctioning equipment, which provoked another round of security responses. A detail from a November 12 internal report suggested “the possibility of more than one research-related incident” when it indicated that “incidents involving ‘high pathogens’ requiring a response from the BSL-4 team had occurred.”

In any event, the report suggested that the poor quality of the WIV labs contributed to make any lab leak worse. “The identified underlying biosafety issues increased the likelihood that such containment failures were not immediately recognized,” they said. “The possibility of unrecognized biocontainment breaches combined with SARS-CoV-2’s clinical characteristics of asymptomatic and mild clinical illness in the majority of infections, likely confounded early recognition and containment of the initial outbreak.”

If these hypothetical scenarios strike close to the truth, then China has not only covered up the origins of COVID, but indirectly contributed to them through inadequate lab safety. The report repeatedly stated that none of the evidence it collected can definitively prove that the COVID virus came from a Chinese lab. However, they noted, “according to published research, the cause of over 80% of laboratory-acquired infections (LAI) are never conclusively determined.” To date, the 301 pages of research and 1,570 footnotes they published represent the fullest explanation Americans have been able to access.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

How to Create the Largest Voter Fraud Operation in History thumbnail

How to Create the Largest Voter Fraud Operation in History

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

Dominion Voting Systems may have won a big settlement in its suit against Fox News, but new concerns about election technology have popped up.

But before we leave the subject of vote-counting machines, I must point out that the simultaneous stopping of vote counting in six swing states in the 2020 presidential election with Donald Trump ahead, then with Joe Biden ahead when counting resumed has never been explained.  Until it is, don’t ask me to believe U.S. elections can’t be stolen.  Don’t forget: the guy sitting in the Oval Office is the guy who said he created the largest voter fraud operation in history.  Slip of the tongue, as his defenders say?  You bet.

But on with the show.  There are machines that count votes and there are other election-related technologies that perform other functions and can make our elections less secure.  It’s amazing how the Left has wrapped its tentacles around all of it, but more is being challenged after being brought out into the light.

Concerns are mounting about “Albert Sensors”, installed in most states’ election systems by the Center for Internet Security (CIS) supposedly to detect network intrusions.  But CIS is a left-wing private nonprofit, partnered with DHS, that is a major player in the federal government’s censorship scheme to suppress supposed ‘misinformation’ about the 2020 presidential election, a scheme now fully documented both through the Twitter Files and the Missouri-Louisiana censorship case in federal court.  Unfortunately for CIS, there is no evidence the Albert Sensors have ever detected a single election network intrusion, but they have failed to detect some that did occur, leading some counties to cancel their contracts with CIS.  So what are Albert Sensors really doing?  Critics say the answer is: giving the federal government real-time data about the status of election results so results can be manipulated to get favored candidates installed in office fraudulently.  It is said most elections officials aren’t even aware Albert Sensors are in use, much less what they can be used for.

There is also fresh news about Konnech, the Chinese-tied election administration software vendor suspected of shipping data about U.S. election workers to China.  A recent whistleblower lawsuit makes detailed allegations about such data ending up in China.  Another whistleblower stepped forward this month saying he personally witnessed U.S. election worker data being made available to people in China.  Konnech is apparently making a show of dismissing its Chinese employees, but quietly rehiring them as independent contractors to perform the exact same duties.  The whistleblower says the company told him to tell customers data was not being stored in China, where the Chinese Communist Party has access to it.  Konnech’s CEO Eugene Yu was arrested in October for storing election worker data on Chinese servers in violation of its contract with Los Angeles County, but the charges were dropped for supposed ‘bias’ in the investigation.  The County said it would assemble a more expert team to assess whether charges should be re-brought, but not a peep since.

Election integrity advocates are also concerned about software installed in 36 states that handles election management, election night reporting, and voter registration.  It goes by various names, but it all ultimately traces back to one owner, a company called KowINK.  Critics say the software is not certified and connects to the Internet where it can be hacked.  An audit in New Mexico where the software is used found manipulation in voter rolls and election night reporting.  Backdated entries were found in Hawaii’s voter registration database, suggesting the entries were fabricated.  That apparently happened in North Carolina where there were unexplained entries appearing in current voter rolls that should have been in the publicly available historical copies, but weren’t.

Meanwhile, concerns continue to swirl around tabulators, the electronic voting machines that count votes.  It was recently discovered the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) investigated ES&S machines right before the 2020 election for leaving touch-screen voting systems in as many as 19 states vulnerable to the installation of malicious or unapproved software.   The Connecticut Secretary of State wants to replace ten-year-old tabulators that have become unreliable and can no longer be serviced because the company that made them went out of business.

If I wanted to create the largest voter fraud operation in history, I would certainly hand over large chunks of the electoral process to left-wing nonprofits whose actions leave no doubt whose side they’re on, and to the Chinese who are so contemptuous of elections they don’t even have them.

©2023 Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

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

Winning political boycotts requires strategic organizing, not just a loud megaphone thumbnail

Winning political boycotts requires strategic organizing, not just a loud megaphone

By Center For Security Policy

Conservatives have finally started to realize that in the ongoing culture wars, politics must mean much more than simply canvassing for votes. Through fits and starts, right-wing activists are seeking to exert their will over corporations and other powerful “non-political” actors to force them away from routinely and reflexively supporting left-wing causes.

One of the most promising efforts to date has been the conservative boycott of Anheuser-Busch over the company marketing its flagship product, Bud Light, in association with noted transgender-identifying “influencer” Dylan Mulvaney.

The boycott was promoted by conservative activist and Daily Wire host Matt Walsh, who launched a social media discussion proposing a boycott, and soliciting suggestions for which company to target, among several corporations recently involving themselves in the policy fight over transgenderism, before finally settling on Anheuser-Busch.

The popular response from the base to the boycott suggests the target was well chosen. Conservatives began rapidly amplifying the message, spreading memes mocking Bud Light and posting videos of themselves abandoning Bud Light products. As infamous left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky notes, any tactic your side enjoys is a tactic worth repeating.

News reports carried clear evidence that the boycott was creating a noticeable effect on the company’s sales. The company’s CEO issued a non-apology letter, which was correctly rejected by the boycott supporters as utterly meaningless.

But soon the campaign hit a snag. President Donald Trump’s son Don Jr. made a public statement urging the boycott to come to an end, and the National Republican Congressional Committee walked back a proposed anti-Bud Light fundraising campaign. Both the Trump campaign and the NRCC are recipients of major donations from Anheuser-Busch. Now there is dissension in the ranks, and the boycott has not actually achieved a significant political outcome.

To save the boycott, the right needs to take a page from left-wing organizers, who have turned political action such as boycotts into a science.

Step One: Identify Influences on Your Target

Successful political action is about organizing, not merely about grassroots willpower. Before leftist organizers carry out any political action, they will conduct what is called a “power mapping exercise.” Power mapping is essentially developing a large flow chart of all the influences at work on your target.

Who influences Anheuser-Busch? Customers certainly, but also shareholders. Board members, but also financiers, outside companies who provide necessary inputs or handle distribution, employee unions, and local, state, and federal regulators. A host of other entities, along with private concerns like the families and friends of corporate decision-makers. A similarly large cast of characters represents those upon whom the company exerts influence (like the Trumps and NRCC.) All these influences will affect how an organization will respond to political pressure, and the skilled activist has mapped them all out before he undertakes an action. Then as the campaign develops, you know where you can go to escalate pressure upon the target, and where the target is likely to try to exhibit pressure on you.

It is not at all the case that targeting Anheuser-Busch was a mistake because it donates to the GOP, quite the opposite. Influence is always a two-way street, and donating to Republicans signals that the company realizes it needs something from the GOP. Targeting a company that donated 100 percent to left-wing causes would be a waste of time, but you do have to have a plan ready for when it inevitably attempts to use that influence to split your ranks and escape the pressure you’ve put on it.

Step Two: Establish Your Goals

Secondly, leftist organizers always know exactly what their goals are before they undertake an action. Goals should exact a physical, economic, or political cost upon the target, and not be satisfied simply by a statement. But they should also be achievable in the short to medium term. It is important that the target knows immediately what it can do to make the pain stop. Typically, boycotts lose power over time as the base loses interest in the action and as targets adjust themselves to eliminate their pain points. So it is vital that your demands are known upfront so the target can submit at the moment of maximum pressure.

What do boycott organizers want Anheuser-Busch to do? Walsh has said victory is “when they publicly apologize for promoting transgenderism.” In a way, that objective is both too ambitious and not ambitious enough. It’s too ambitious in that it would require a total rhetorical surrender, which would likely subject the company to even more pressure from the left, which is more skilled than the right in establishing pain compliance.

The left will often chart their target’s position on a spectrum from friend, to neutral, to enemy. The goal is never to convert enemies into friends right away. Rather you seek to nudge the target one step. Pushing Bud Light into the neutral column alone would be a huge win. (You can launch a campaign to push it into the leans-friendly column later.)

Yet the Bud Light boycott is not ambitious enough in that it has not sought to extract a real-world cost, especially a cost that builds the right’s own political power. Statements can be easily recanted or simply ignored, so extract real concessions, not just promises.

Step Three: Name a Plausible Demand

A plausible demand might be the firing of the marketing officials responsible for the campaign, a public apology for offending a large segment of its customer base with its unnecessary involvement in contentious politics, and a commitment to donate a significant financial gift to a conservative nonprofit that promotes the importance of women-only sports. This would achieve a political victory (the apology) and harm opponents (woke corporate employees), but it would also build political power by funding an organization to continue to fight against the left’s transgender policies.

These are basic principles, and left-wing organizers, from the most massive international NGO to the tiniest affinity group, know them by heart. The left has developed and refined activism and organizing techniques going all the way back to the earliest labor organizing in the 1800s, through the campaigns of the 1960s and ’70s, all the way to the present day. The left studies the science of political organizing the same way you might study the science of chemistry or physics. There is no shame in taking advantage of techniques just because your opponent developed them first.

In contrast, much of the right continues to believe all that’s needed for successful political action is a loud enough megaphone and sufficient grassroots support. Certainly, these are good to have, but they are the bare minimum. The right needs to take the nuts and bolts of organizing seriously. They need to develop professional organizers and have these organizers train tactics to grassroots activists.

AUTHOR

Kyle Shideler

Director and Senior Analyst for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

What Is Fractional Reserve Banking and Is It Good or Bad? thumbnail

What Is Fractional Reserve Banking and Is It Good or Bad?

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

After the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), I received several questions related to the collapse. One by Dr. Michael Overfield caught my eye. He says:

“The question I have is about fractional reserve banking. This is more in the news following the failure of the Silicon Valley Bank. [Some] feel we should outlaw fractional reserve banking. This policy would assure that our banks would have our funds secure whenever any of the depositors want them. But the depositors would have to pay a fee, or negative interest rate to get this service. Additionally funds would not be available for loans for business, homes, education and other needs. I have not seen the issue of fractional reserve banking addressed in the FEE newsletter which I read daily. Thank you in advance for your consideration.”

Before I highlight what I think about fractional reserve banking (FRB) we should spend some time dissecting what it is.

Ever wondered what happens to your money when it gets deposited at the bank? Or maybe you’ve just always assumed that the bank keeps it all on hand?

Think again. When you go to the bank and put your money in, economists call this money bank deposits. Today in the United States, banks do not typically keep 100% of deposits on hand. Instead, when you deposit your money, some of it is kept in the bank, but the bank lends the rest out to borrowers looking for funds.

Economists call this system fractional reserve banking because only a fraction of total deposits are kept in the bank’s reserves. This is in contrast to full reserve banking, in which 100 percent of deposits are kept in the bank’s reserves.

To give an example of fractional reserve banking, imagine I deposit $100 in FEEBank. FEEBank can decide they want to keep 20% of my money on hand ($20) and lend out 80% ($80) for a year to earn 5% interest from a borrower.

At the end of the year when the loan expires, FEEBank earns $4 from the loan they gave and pays me 1% interest ($1) for my money.

This is a win-win-win. I earn money while my money is idle. The bank earns money on the loan. The borrower is able to borrow money at an acceptable rate.

Despite the upsides, you may have noticed a potential issue with the above example. Let’s scale the bank up a bit to see this issue manifest in a more realistic example.

Imagine FRB on a larger scale. Ten people put in $100 each for a total of $1,000 in FEEBank’s reserves. If the bank wants to keep 20% in reserves, they keep $200 on hand, and they can lend out $800.

Now imagine one customer goes in and wants to take their $100 out. FEEBank has lent out $800 of the $1000 and they have $200 on hand. They give the first customer $100 of the $200 and are left with $100.

But now say a second customer comes in and wants their $100 back too. You probably see where this is going. If the second customer withdraws all funds, the bank is left with $0 on hand.

If any other depositors come in and ask for money, the bank is in trouble. FEEBank has no way of giving depositors the money they request! They can’t simply call back the $800 loan. If this happens, FEEBank goes under. In our modern economy, regulators would come and take over bank operations and FEEBank owners would lose their investments (unless they get bailed out or can borrow the money).

So FEEBank has a decision to make when engaging in FRB. The larger the percent of deposits kept on hand, the smaller the chance that depositors will clean them out. On the other hand, having a larger percentage of deposits means banks can’t make as much money from lending.

Customers experience a trade off too. Banks are able to hold money and offer the customers interest because the bank lends out their deposits. So customers are more at risk when their banks lend out their funds, but they receive a better return.

So, given the risk to customers, should FRB be prohibited? I don’t think so. But I also think that’s the wrong question.

The bank hypothetically not being able to pay back depositors is no big issue. A lot of our financial system is built on risk. When you loan money, you may not get your money back. When you loan money through an intermediary (like a bank), it’s possible they don’t get paid back. And, so long as customers are made aware of the risk that FRBs may run out of money, I don’t see any problem with letting customers take that risk.

If we think people should be able to turn their money into poker chips at casinos, I think it’d be odd to say they shouldn’t be able to turn it into fractional bank deposits.

But, as I said, I think this is at least partly the wrong question. I do think FRBs would exist in a modern competitive system, but I can’t be sure because our banking system is not competitive.

Government facilitated deposit insurance, depositor bailouts, ballooning regulatory codes, and bailouts for banks deemed “too big to fail” make it difficult to know what the banking system would look like in the modern US absent the visible hand of government.

All of this ignores the even bigger government intervention in the world of finance—a monopoly on the production of currency. Economist Lawrence White has written extensively on both the theory and history of banking in a world with competing monies.

In a freer system, I think it would likely be easier to find banks who keep all money on hand and charge a yearly fee, similar to what Dr. Overfield mentions in his question above.

Similarly, economist Robert Murphy has proposed a full reserve system which doesn’t require yearly fees and allows for lending by having depositors agree to lock in their funds for a specific amount of time which matches with the loan maturity.

12/n The idea is that for genuine demand deposits (checking accounts), banks should keep 100% in immediately available funds.

— Robert P. Murphy (@BobMurphyEcon) March 11, 2023

Of course, this system still runs the risk of companies not being able to pay back their loans therefore making banks unable to pay back depositors. But it is, at least, an alternative option to the somewhat bland world of banking choices available today.

In summary, I don’t find FRB to be illegitimate, ethically or economically. Businesses constantly manage and weigh risks every day that, under certain circumstances, could blow up in the faces of owners or customers.

So long as customers are not defrauded by promises of it being completely risk free, my assumption is some successful entrepreneur will be able to effectively manage the risk of fractional reserves to provide depositors with a relatively high return.

But I am bothered by how standardized the banking industry is today and how few options there are for customers. It seems unlikely to me that in a world free of layers of subsidization, regulation, and monetary monopoly that our banking system would look like it does today.

AUTHOR

Peter Jacobsen

Peter Jacobsen teaches economics and holds the position of Gwartney Professor of Economics. He received his graduate education at George Mason University.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Billionaire Progressive Has Transformed America—by Destroying It

RELATED VIDEO: How to Survive a Bank Collapse

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

DeSantis Admin Approves Rule Curbing Lessons On Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation For All K-12 Students thumbnail

DeSantis Admin Approves Rule Curbing Lessons On Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation For All K-12 Students

By The Daily Caller

The Florida Department of Education (DOE) approved a proposal on Wednesday to extend the state’s Parental Rights in Education law, which prohibits certain lessons on gender identity and sexual orientation, to cover grades 4-12.

In March, the Florida DOE proposed a rule that would build upon the state’s Parental Rights in Education law, which prohibited instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation through the third grade and was dubbed “Don’t Say Gay” by critics, extending it through all grades. The approved rule does not need legislative approval and goes into effect in 34 days.

“For grades 4 through 12, instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity is prohibited unless such instruction is either expressly required by state academic standards … or is part of a reproductive health course or health lesson for which a student’s parent has the option to have his or her student not attend,” the rule stated.

If teachers are found in violation of the rule, they could have their certification suspended or revoked. The state Legislature is also considering two bills which would expand the Parental Rights in Education law through eighth grade.

WATCH: “Queer” man at Board of Education meeting denounces proposed rule expanding restrictions on gender identity/sexual orientation teachings in grades K-12

“This is who I am, and I should never have to fear being fired for being myself. I am here, I am queer…” pic.twitter.com/Zzc1srZGGM

— Florida’s Voice (@FLVoiceNews) April 19, 2023

Following the Florida DOE’s proposal in March, the White House denounced the rule saying it hurts not just the LGBTQ community, but all students and faculty.

“It’s wrong. It’s completely, utterly wrong and we’ve been very crystal clear about that, when it comes to the Don’t Say Gay bill and other actions that this governor has taken in the state of Florida,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a press briefing. “But make no mistake, this is part of a disturbing and dangerous trend that we’re seeing across the country of legislations that are anti-LGBTQI+, anti-trans and anti-the community in a way that we have not seen in some time. And it’s not just the LGBTQI+ community, we’re talking about students, we’re talking about educators, we’re talking about just individuals.”

States across the country are following Florida’s lead and seeking to implement legislation that would prohibit age-inappropriate lessons on gender identity and sexual orientation in the classroom; in North Carolina, the Legislature is considering the Parents’ Bill of Rights which would bar lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity from K-4 classrooms. The Iowa Legislature is considering a bill that would prohibit teachers from giving lessons “relating to gender identity” for students in kindergarten through eighth grade in public and charter school classrooms.

“We believe that the focus in education should always be teaching the basics of math, science, history, etc. in the classroom, especially when it comes to issues such as sexual orientation and gender identity,” Ryan Kennedy, a member of Florida Citizens’ Alliance, a nonprofit focused on improving K-12 education, said at the Wednesday board meeting.

AUTHOR

REAGAN REESE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: DeSantis Admin Mandates Training For School Librarians To Vet Pornographic Books

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


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Sen. Rick Scott Grills Mayorkas On All The Times The Biden Admin Spread ‘Disinformation’ thumbnail

Sen. Rick Scott Grills Mayorkas On All The Times The Biden Admin Spread ‘Disinformation’

By The Daily Caller

Republican Florida Sen. Rick Scott held Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ feet to the fire about “disinformation” spread by President Joe Biden’s administration during a Tuesday Senate hearing.

Scott paired his questioning of Mayorkas with a large poster board that listed several topics he alleges the Biden administration has lied about including border security, Hunter Biden’s laptop, the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Chinese spy balloon that traversed across the country in February, according to video from the hearing.

“There’s a whole bunch of people in the Biden administration who put out false narratives. They’ve said the border’s secure, they’ve said Hunter Biden’s laptop is not real. They’ve said the Afghanistan withdrawal was successful. They’ve said the Chinese spy balloon over the United States is not a threat,” Scott listed. “All that, as we all have found out, is untrue. Now we’ve learned from the Twitter Files is that government is working with and funds NGOs to censor millions of Americans via Big Tech in direct violation of our First Amendment rights.”

Scott also pressed Mayorkas about the DHS’ involvement with digital censorship, pointing several times to the Twitter Files saga that revealed how the U.S. government worked with social media companies to censor and monitor accounts

Mayorkas pushed back that the DHS does not “censor speech” and that he wanted “to nip that misimpression in the bud,” according to the video.

“We don’t do that and, I should say, that the personnel of the Department of Homeland Security … not only have unflinching dedication to missions, but also have unflinching dedication to the law that they enforce,” he said.

“Let’s just go to the facts,” Scott said. “The Biden administration has said all those things, and now Elon Musk has been clear that the Biden administration has had access to private messages … Twitter messages.”

Scott then grilled Mayorkas about whether or not he believed the Biden administration’s claims about the several national security examples, according to the video. Mayorkas did not immediately answer the question, but denied that DHS has access to monitor private Twitter messages unless it is vital to a criminal investigation.

“I can assure you that it is not our job, nor do we do it, to censor speech. What we do is we assess the threat landscape that this country confronts so that we can secure the homeland and protect the American people,” he said. “That’s what we do, and our Office of Intelligence and Analysis has a responsibility which it fulfills to understand that threat landscape, to understand what the threats are that we face.”

Mayorkas “would be concerned” with DHS employees reading private Twitter messages outside of a criminal investigation, he told Scott while clarifying that his opinion “is not informed by the law.” Any employee who violates the law is held accountable and “do not represent the workforce of the Department of Homeland Security,” he said.

Tuesday’s hearing was held by the Committee on Homeland Security & National Affairs about the DHS’ Fiscal Year 2024 budget, according to the committee website.

AUTHOR

ALEXA SCHWERHA

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

China’s Massive ‘Terracotta Army’ Invasion of the U.S.A.

Joy Reid Calls ‘Twitter Files’ Journos ‘Shills’ For Elon Musk’s ‘Narrative’ About Censorship

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


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

China’s Massive ‘Terracotta Army’ Invasion of the U.S.A. thumbnail

China’s Massive ‘Terracotta Army’ Invasion of the U.S.A.

By Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.

FOR YOUR ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION:

Why is China secretly sending a modern-day “Terracotta Army” across America’s Southern Border?

As many as 400,000 male military-aged Chinese nationals have illegally entered the U.S. since President Biden took office.

As many as 400,000 male military-aged Chinese nationals have illegally entered the US since President Biden took office. Why are they here? Where do their loyalties lie?https://t.co/bwF4ZbzlnA

— @amuse (@amuse) March 21, 2023

The CCP is ‘allowing’ more and more Chinese nationals to enter the U.S. illegally. This is video of Biden’s border patrol releasing them to a CCP- funded NGO. h/t @GriffJenkins @FoxNews
pic.twitter.com/jD3zPxcx6l

— @amuse (@amuse) March 21, 2023

Why are they here?

Where do their loyalties lie?

Why is President Biden Ignoring the Chinese Invasion at our Southern Border?

As many as 400,000 male military-aged Chinese nationals have illegally entered the US since President Biden took office. Why are they here? Where do their loyalties lie?

By @AMUSE

While the Biden administration is fixated on its proxy war in Ukraine, emptying both our ammunition stockpiles and our strategic petroleum reserve, China is quietly sending thousands of military-age males across our southern border. Just as the first Emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, built his secret terracotta army to accompany him in the afterlife President Xi is building a secret modern-day terracotta army right here in our backyard. The question our policymakers should be asking is WHY?

It is virtually impossible for Chinese nationals to leave China without permission much less buy an airline ticket to Ecuador and pay the $10,000-$30,000 cartels charge to cross the border. To purchase an airline ticket to Ecuador Chinese nationals must have a passport and an exit visa. Fewer than 10% of Chinese nationals have a passport and it is practically impossible to get an exit visa without an act of God. Somehow thousands of military-age men from China are booking tickets to Ecuador with nothing more than a backpack and a passport. Once they reach Ecuador they are met by CCP-backed NGOs who arrange their travel to the US border. Given these facts, it is almost certain that China’s Ministry of State Security is organizing and funding the invasion. U.S. Customs and Border Protection estimate that for every four illegal migrants they apprehend as many as six make it across the border unmolested. 2  In fact, it is common practice for cartels to notify CBP where they are dropping illegal migrants off so they’ll know where the CBP won’t be active. The cartels are then free to move their most valuable cargo—Chinese nationals and fentanyl safely across the border. 3  It is estimated that fewer than 1 in 10 Chinese nationals crossing the border are apprehended. That means with as many as 90 Chinese nationals caught per day as many as 900 are making it into the US. 4  Unfortunately, the 90 that are caught are promptly released as they claim they are pro-democracy activists who would be killed if they returned to China. According to the CBP, there could be as many as 400,000 military-age men from China here in America with more arriving each day. 5 Once these Chinese nationals are in the US they are monitored and supervised by a network of Chinese aid organizations. Six years ago China’s Communist Party began a concerted program to fill both domestic and international NGOs with loyal party members in an effort to spread its influence and control. 6  Additionally, China has opened more than 100 police stations in countries around the world including the US. 7 In the US they’re typically called ‘aid stations’ and provide a connection between the hundreds of thousands of illegal Chinese nationals and the Communist Party—kidnapping and returning those that turn their back on the party. 8 The situation at our southern border is a humanitarian and economic crisis of epic proportions—but it is ALSO a huge security risk. The 400,000 military-aged males who have already arrived are just the tip of the iceberg as China has 34 million more men than women—men who desperately want a better life in America. But where are their true loyalties? What would happen if China decided to invade Taiwan? Could the 400,000 Chinese nationals living outside of the law here in the United States be activated? What are they capable of accomplishing? We’ve seen how easy it is to sabotage our power grids, water supply, and even railroads. 9  It is past time to secure our border and determine what risk the massive modern-day terracotta army Xi has built here in America poses to our national security.

The CCP is paying as much as $30K to the cartels for each Chinese national they traffic across the US border. Why?
pic.twitter.com/ZvkmURkfaU

— @amuse (@amuse) March 21, 2023

Chinese suppliers, with unofficial approval from the Ministry of State Security, send various fentanyl precursors (ANPP and NPP) and synthetic opioids (U-47700) via cargo ships to Ecuador where the cartels process the precursors into saleable drugs bound for the US. 1  The cartels then charge as much as $30,000 to smuggle a single Chinese national along with fentanyl and/or fentanyl precursors through Columbia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico. U.S. Customs and Border Protection estimate that for every four illegal migrants they apprehend as many as six make it across the border unmolested. 2  In fact, it is common practice for cartels to notify CBP where they are dropping illegal migrants off so they’ll know where the CBP won’t be active. The cartels are then free to move their most valuable cargo—Chinese nationals and fentanyl safely across the border. 3  It is estimated that fewer than 1 in 10 Chinese nationals crossing the border are apprehended. That means with as many as 90 Chinese nationals caught per day as many as 900 are making it into the US. 4  Unfortunately, the 90 that are caught are promptly released as they claim they are pro-democracy activists who would be killed if they returned to China. According to the CBP, there could be as many as 400,000 military-age men from China here in America with more arriving each day.5 Once these Chinese nationals are in the US they are monitored and supervised by a network of Chinese aid organizations. Six years ago China’s Communist Party began a concerted program to fill both domestic and international NGOs with loyal party members in an effort to spread its influence and control. 6  Additionally, China has opened more than 100 police stations in countries around the world including the US. 7  In the US they’re typically called ‘aid stations’ and provide a connection between the hundreds of thousands of illegal Chinese nationals and the Communist Party—kidnapping and returning those that turn their back on the party. 8 The situation at our southern border is a humanitarian and economic crisis of epic proportions—but it is ALSO a huge security risk. The 400,000 military-aged males who have already arrived are just the tip of the iceberg as China has 34 million more men than women—men who desperately want a better life in America. But where are their true loyalties? What would happen if China decided to invade Taiwan? Could the 400,000 Chinese nationals living outside of the law here in the United States be activated? What are they capable of accomplishing? We’ve seen how easy it is to sabotage our power grids, water supply, and even railroads. 9  It is past time to secure our border and determine what risk the massive modern-day terracotta army Xi has built here in America poses to our national security.

©Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Family That Lost Loved Ones Thanks To Illegal Migrant Smuggler Slams Mayorkas: ‘We Live In Fear’

The Biden 10-Step Plan for Global Chaos thumbnail

The Biden 10-Step Plan for Global Chaos

By Victor Davis Hanson

Why is French President Emmanuel Macron cozying up to China while trashing his oldest ally, the United States?

Why is there suddenly talk of discarding the dollar as the global currency?

Why are Japan and India shrugging that they cannot follow the United States’ lead in boycotting Russian oil?

Why is the president of Brazil traveling to China to pursue what he calls a “beautiful relationship”?

Why is Israel suddenly facing attacks from its enemies in all directions?

What happened to Turkey? Why is it threatening fellow NATO member Greece? Is it still a NATO ally, a mere neutral, or a de facto enemy?

Why are there suddenly nonstop Chinese threats toward Taiwan?

Why did Saudi Arabia conclude a new pact with Iran, its former archenemy?

Why is Egypt sending rockets to Russia to be used in Ukraine?

Since when did the Russians talk nonstop about the potential use of a tactical nuclear weapon?

Why is Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador bragging that millions of Mexicans have entered the United States, most of them illegally? And why is he interfering in U.S. elections by urging his expatriates to vote for Democrats?

Why and how, in just two years, have a confused and often incoherent Joe Biden and his team created such global chaos?

Let us answer by listing 10 ways by which America lost all deterrence.

1) Joe Biden abruptly pulled all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. He left behind to the Taliban hundreds of Americans and thousands of pro-American Afghans. Biden abandoned billions of dollars in U.S. equipment, the largest air base in central Asia—recently retrofitted at a cost of $300 million—and a $1 billion embassy. Our government called such a debacle a success. The world disagreed and saw only humiliation.

2) The Biden Administration allowed a Chinese high-altitude spy balloon to traverse the continental United States, spying on key American military installations. The Chinese were defiant when caught and offered no apologies. In response, the Pentagon and the administration simply lied about the extent that China had surveilled top-secret sites.

3) In March 2021, at an Anchorage, Alaska mini-summit, Chinese diplomats unleashed a relentless barrage at their stunned and mostly silent American counterparts. They lectured the timid Biden Administration diplomats about American toxicity and hypocrisy. And they have defiantly refused to explain why and how their virology lab birthed the COVID virus that has killed tens of millions worldwide.

4) In June 2021, in response to Russian cyber-attacks against the United States, Biden meekly asked Putin to at least make off-limits certain critical American infrastructure.

5) When asked what he would do if Russia invaded Ukraine, Biden replied that the reaction would depend on whether the Russians conducted a “minor incursion.”

6) Between 2021 and 2022, Joe Biden serially insulted and bragged that he would not meet Muhammad bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, and one of our oldest and most valuable allies in the Middle East.

7) For much of 2021, the Biden Administration made it known that it was eager and ready to offer concessions to re-enter the dangerous Iran nuclear deal—at a time when Iran has joined China and Russia in a new geostrategic partnership.

8) Almost immediately upon inauguration, the administration moved the United States away from Israel, restored financial aid to radical Palestinians, and both publicly and privately alienated the current Netanyahu government.

9) In serial fashion, Biden stopped all construction on the border wall and opened the border. He made it known that illegal aliens were welcome to enter the United States unlawfully. Some 6-7 million did. He reinstated “catch and release.” And he did nothing about the Mexican cartel importation of fentanyl that has recently killed over 100,000 Americans per year.

10) In the last two years, the Pentagon has embarked on a woke agenda. The army is short by 15,000 in its annual recruitment quota. The defense budget has not kept up with inflation. One of the greatest intelligence leaks in U.S. history just occurred from the Pentagon.

The Pentagon refused to admit culpability and misled the country about Afghanistan and the Chinese spy balloon flight. The current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called his Chinese communist counterpart and head of the People’s Liberation Army to advise him that the U.S. military would warn the Chinese if it determined an order from its commander-in-chief Trump was inappropriate.

This list of these self-inflicted disasters could be easily expanded.

But the examples explain well enough why our emboldened enemies do not fear us, our triangulating allies judge us unreliable, and calculating neutrals assume America is in descent and too dangerous to join.

Yet without America, the result is a new Chinese order in which, to quote the historian Thucydides, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

*****
This article was published by American Greatness and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

FLORIDA: Polk County REC Demands the ‘Resign to Run’ Law be Enforced & Electronic Voting Machines be Eliminated thumbnail

FLORIDA: Polk County REC Demands the ‘Resign to Run’ Law be Enforced & Electronic Voting Machines be Eliminated

By Royal A. Brown III

Two excellent Resolutions Passed by the Polk County Republican Executive Committee (REC) on April 18th, 2023 and are being submitted to the FL Legislature.

1. Resolution to Enforce the “Resign to Run” Law, FL Statutes, Chapter 99.012

Summarizing in my words this would prohibit Governor DeSantis from both running for GOP POTUS primary and remaining our Governor at same time. We elected our great Gov DeSantis to serve as our Governor for 4 years and this is what he should do. If he’s allowed to continue serving while simultaneously running for GOP POTUS Primary he will not be as effective as our Governor.

2. Resolution for Election Vote Accuracy under Florida Statues Chapter 99.102 (4)(a).

Summarizing in my words this prohibits use of voting machines and replace with paper ballots only. IT/Computer/Cyber Security Experts all agree that no voting machine of any type can be adequately secured against internet hacking and contributed to election fraud in the 2020 elections.

We 625 conservative, grassroots activists of the Winter Haven 912 including some who are members of the Polk REC completely agree with these Resolutions and encourage other county RECs to adopt and send similar resolutions to the Florida Legislature by the required time frame.


Polk County
Republican Executive Committee
Resolution 2023-01

Enforce “Resign to Run” Law
Florida Statutes, Chapter 99.012

Whereas, Florida Statues Chapter 99.102 (4)(a), reads, “Any officer who qualifies for federal public office must resign from the office he or she presently holds if the terms, or any part thereof, run concurrently with each other.”

Whereas, Governor Ron DeSantis is an officer of the State of Florida.

Whereas, Governor Ron DeSantis is obligated to the electors of the State of Florida to served the entire four years of his second term as he was elected to serve.

Whereas, changing laws to accommodate any individual’s political aspirations and career is a bad practice and a bad precedent to set for the State of Florida and the Unites States of America.

Therefore, be it resolved that the Polk County Republican Executive Committee hereby opposes any effort to change or alter Florida Statutes Chapter 99.012.

Therefore, be it resolved that the Polk County Republican Executive Committee hereby calls on all members of the Florida House of Representatives and all members of the Florida Senate to oppose any legislation that may be brought before the Florida Legislature altering any part of Florida Statutes Chapter 99.102.


Polk County
Republican Executive Committee
Resolution 2023-02

Resolution for Election Vote Accuracy

Whereas, Voters in Florida cannot prove their vote is being counted properly using the current electronic voting machine system and under state law each registered vote in this state has the right to vote and to have his or her vote accurately counted as provided in Florida State Statue 101.031 (2) Voter’s Bill of Rights;

Whereas, Voters in Florida cannot trust the vote results from the mandatory use of unsecure Electronic Voting Machines designed and run by private companies that perform a critical government function. They refuse to disclose their software and system components and subject them to public evaluation by claiming “proprietary and confidential information”,

Whereas, The largest supplier of electronic voting systems, ES&S, in patent* claims unlimited control of all date before, during, and after the election by virtural unlimited control access without government oversight.

Whereas, Certification standards put forth by the Federal Government under HAVA law by the Election Assistance Commission states** all Electronic Voting Machines connected to the internet have been shown to be susceptible to manipulation through internal or external intrusion to alter votes and vote tallies and therefore the voter cannot trust the accuracy of their vote.

Whereas, Many countries have stopped the use of Electronic Voting Machines including The Netherlands in 2007, Germany in 2009, Ireland in 2010, Japan in 2018 and Canada, France, United Kingdom and Switzerland use hand-counted paper ballots;

Whereas, A system of manually counting paper ballots which has been used for centuries enables observers to easily ensure votes are accurately counted;

Resolved, That the Polk County Republican Executive committee calls upon the Florida Legislature, the Secretary of State, and the Governor of Florida to abide by Florida Law and the Will of the Public to use their authority to prohibit the use of Electronic Voting Machines in the State of Florida. We urge instead for the use of paper ballots and manual counting systems to comply with the Voter’s Bill of Rights as provided for in Florida Statue 101.031 (2) to ensure his or her vote is accurately counted.

Furthermore, we request a special session of the legislature be called if necessary to adequately address this concern.

Submitted by:

Steve Larsen, Polk County Republican Precinct Committeeman, Precinct 407; Chair, PCREC Election Integrity Committee rcogepc@gmail.com

Jim Powers, Polk County Republican Executive Precinct Committeeman, Precinct 248; Vice-Chair, PCREC Election Integrity Committee, illinijmmvci@yahoo.com

Gaines Goes Toe-to-Toe with Dems on Biden’s Push to Erase Girls thumbnail

Gaines Goes Toe-to-Toe with Dems on Biden’s Push to Erase Girls

By Family Research Council

“Why is it always women fighting against sex-based protections?” Riley Gaines wondered. “That will forever be beyond me.” The former All-American swimmer could only shake her head at the latest attack on girls’ sports by Congresswoman Katie Hobbs (D-Calif.), the latest high-profile Democrat to throw her sex overboard in the raging battle for transgenderism.

“It’s an extraordinary state of affairs,” “Fox Nation” host Piers Morgan said afterward, “when two middle-aged men, me and Bill Maher, were standing up vociferously for women’s rights to fairness and equality, and a congresswoman who wants to be a senator was incapable of doing that. And that, to me, exposed the fragility at the heart of this woke position on this whole transgender debate.”

Hobbs was a guest on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” when the conversation turned to Gaines’s push to save girls’ sports. The California Democrat announced that she disagreed with the former University of Kentucky athlete “strongly.” When Morgan pressed her about what Gaines had done or said that she disapproved of, Hobbs claimed Riley was “using things to kind of get likes and get clicks.” “That’s not what she’s doing,” Morgan fired back. “It’s not?” Hobbs asked incredulously.

The Brit insisted, “All I’ve seen her do is stand up for women’s rights to fairness and equality. She competed against [biological male] Lia Thomas, and it was obviously unfair.” Then “our sporting bodies should be dealing with it,” Hobbs argued, before claiming she respects Riley’s “free speech.”

Later, Morgan seemed appalled by the whole exchange, arguing on his home network, “It’s time that female politicians, in particular in America, Democrat politicians, stop this nonsense and stood up for women’s rights.”

As for Hobbs’s allegation that Riley was “speaking up for herself,” Gaines clarified, “I’m not speaking up for myself… I’m done playing sports. I’m not fighting for me. I’m actually supposed to be in dental school this year. But I’ve changed my life plans because I see what’s at stake if someone doesn’t fight for the present and next generation.”

Someone who’s obviously not fighting for present and future generations is President Joe Biden, who announced Monday that if Rep. Greg Steube’s (R-Fla.) girls’ sports bill makes it to his desk, he’d veto it. In the White House’s Statement of Administration Policy, the president’s team called the proposal “discriminatory.” Siding with the woke ideology that’s erasing women from fields, courts, and diamonds across America, the White House claimed, “Politicians should not dictate a one-size-fits-all requirement that forces coaches to remove kids from their teams.”

According to Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon, “one size fits all” is “a Biden administration specialty when it comes to the transgender agenda. They will sacrifice safety and fairness for women and girls to advance the cause of men/boys who think they are women/girls. This is a movement driven from the top down,” she told The Washington Stand, “and the Biden administration is doing its part to suppress opposition by threatening and bullying even Members of Congress.”

With a whopping 93 Republican co-sponsors, Steube is making it clear that Americans don’t share the Democrats’ extreme views. “This is an 80% issue,” the Florida congressman told “The Faulkner Focus.” And frankly, he said, “I think every American should know where their member of Congress sits on this issue.” Let’s not forget, Steube explained, “Title IX was created by Congress 50 years ago for women’s sports — to allow women to be able to compete with each other at collegiate levels and activities and sports. And this [would] completely [do] away with [that] … by allowing biological males to compete with women in women’s sports.”

And, as Steube reminded everyone, “The other piece of this, too, is having biological men that are identifying as women in girls’ bathrooms and girls’ locker rooms changing with them [and] all the things that come with that. The American people don’t support that.”

Neither, presumably, do a majority of the House, who will have an opportunity to vote on the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act later this week.

As for Gaines, she’ll continue to put her own safety at risk to stop an agenda that she calls “manipulative” and “violent.” “This whole movement,” she insisted, “it’s vengeful, it’s hateful. I’ve never seen a movement quite like this movement.” She should know after her April visit to San Francisco State University, a school she’s now suing after being attacked on campus and barricaded in a room after an angry mob chased her out of a discussion on Title IX and threatened her.

“I thought I knew what I was getting myself into when agreeing to speak at this university,” she wrote in a new op-ed, “but I was wrong. There was no way to prepare myself for what happened.”

“People always wonder why more women aren’t speaking up,” Gaines went on, “(especially the female athletes who have firsthand experience competing against a male). This is why,” she insists about her own horrifying experience.

Even so, Riley believes, “The protestors’ plan backfired on them. They intended to silence me, but they only gave me a larger platform. My social media following quadrupled, and the public support around the world to protect women’s sports and sex-based rights skyrocketed. The general public is now more eager to get involved in the fight than ever before.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Pledges to Veto GOP Bill to Ban Trans Biological Males From Competing in Women’s Sports

EVIL: UN Report Calls for Legalizing Sex Between Adults and Children

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Disney’s Obsession with ‘Woke Sexuality’ has Cost it Quarter of a Billion Dollars at the Box Office thumbnail

Disney’s Obsession with ‘Woke Sexuality’ has Cost it Quarter of a Billion Dollars at the Box Office

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Does Disney really believe that families enjoy LGBTQ+-affirmative lecturing in films?


Growing up, there was nothing more magical to me than the opening credits of a Disney movie — even if I’d seen the film a dozen times.

These days, however, Disney’s feature-length content is feeling less like a childhood dream and more like a noisy soap-box preacher.

It is not just cultural commentators pointing this out but Disney’s audiences, who have been voting against the company’s woke sermonising with their feet.

Between the Toy Story spinoff Lightyear and Disney’s latest offering Strange World, both released in 2022, and both promoting an LGBT agenda, the animation behemoth has lost almost a quarter of a billion dollars, according to entertainment news outlet Deadline Hollywood.

In fact, Strange World earned itself the title of the biggest box office flop of 2022, with production and marketing costs of US$320 million and total earnings of only $120 million, for a loss of around $200 million. Lightyear lost over $100 million and took out second place in the flop stakes.

Strange World tells the story of a family of explorers venturing through an uncharted land searching for a certain plant needed to save their society. Apparently necessary to this plot is one of the lead roles, 16-year-old Ethan, discussing his gay crush on a boy at school.

Lightyear depicts a real-life portrayal of the astronaut named Buzz who inspired the toy of Toy Story fame. Likewise, it was a story Disney was unable to tell without a lesbian kiss between two lead characters, in a scene that almost hit the cutting room floor until the state of Florida passed the Parental Rights in Education Bill and needed a woke lecture.

Sydney Morning Herald writer Garry Maddox found Strange World’s box office performance something of a head-scratcher. “For a certified bomb, the initial reviews for Strange World were not too bad,” he mused, seemingly unaware that movie reviewers inhabit the same woke echo chamber as the film producers they critique

Maddox even suggested that Strange World featuring “the first out gay teenager in a Disney animated film” might be a family drawcard. Only in passing does the SMH journalist acknowledge Disney’s gay wokery as a potential put-off — and then, only for “red-state audiences”.

I know this is complex, Garry, but what if parents of all political stripes want to enjoy a day out with their kids without having to discuss birds, bees and Queer Theory with their preschoolers?

Certainly, there was more to Strange World’s failures than its preachiness. Quoting Deadline Hollywood, Maddox noted that “critics found the fantasy pic to be clunky and incomprehensible, and the animation retro and stale”. Lacklustre marketing was also identified as contributing to the film’s performance.

But these factors don’t explain Disney’s comparable letdown with Lightyear. The common denominator between the two is the injection of themes that movie-going families have little interest in.

It’s not as though animated movies are going out of fashion. Universal Pictures took in $940 million at the worldwide box office last year for Minions: Rise of Gru, and close to $700 million in just the opening weeks of The Super Mario Bros Movie.

Both films, incidentally, are notably woke-free, a fact that has critics wringing their hands.

“Go woke, go broke” may not hold true in every situation. But when it comes to children’s films at the box office, those four words appear to be a fixed law of the universe.

And a law Disney ignores at its own peril.

AUTHOR

Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate… More by Kurt Mahlburg.

RELATED ARTICLE: Disney Announces ‘Pride Nite’ Amid Ongoing Battle With DeSantis

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

‘Theybies’: The Rise of ‘Gender-Creative’ Parenting [Video] thumbnail

‘Theybies’: The Rise of ‘Gender-Creative’ Parenting [Video]

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Activists abusing innocent childhood reading schemes to push gender ideology to infants make some parents feel queasy.


The recent controversial feature on parents raising gender-neutral “Theybies” broadcast on Channel Nine’s 60 Minutes documentary strand caused quite a stir. Ideologically motivated parents were seen declaring their belief in referring to their children purely via fashionable they/them pronouns, in the name of letting toddlers decide who they really are, rather than simply letting biology settle the matter for them, as is traditional.

“We’re not trying to eliminate gender,” protested one social scientist and “gender creative expert” wheeled out to justify the experiment. “We’re actually trying to show how limitless gender can be.” Critics may protest that children need limits, and that such child-rearing methods will simply make kids confused, but supporters may equally argue parents have the right to raise their own offspring how they personally feel fit.

The latter argument may have some merit: but what happens when these same people capture our institutions and try to raise other people’s children along these same bizarre intersex lines too, whether other kids’ parents like it or not?

‘They’ came from outer space

One common practice amongst such parents is giving their Theybies weird, non-identifiably male or female names, like Zoomer, Searyl, Zyler, Sparrow or various other things which sound like Pokémon. Another oddly-named gender-neutral infant is Tala, who lives in the English county of Hertfordshire, but at least Tala has an excuse for being so unusually christened – for Tala is an alien.

Unveiled by Hertfordshire County Council in 2022, Tala is a cute cartoon mascot intended to encourage small children to use local library services. Tala replaced the now vanished Bookstart Bear, a previous incumbent who was also happily genderless – but for completely innocent reasons. Wishing to appeal to boys and girls equally, previous librarians had quietly failed to address the hitherto irrelevant issue of Bookstart Bear’s genitalia, pragmatically referring to the beast in promotional literature simply by name, not pronouns, so as not to put one gender or the other off from borrowing books.

Tala is fundamentally different. Intended as a “vibrant community asset”, Tala’s very name is an appeal to the Great God Diversity, having various meanings in global languages like Arabic, Polynesian and Filipino. But Tala also has very definite pronouns – they/them ones, like a true Theybie. “We hope that families love Tala as much as we loved creating them!” said council representatives, thereby getting toddlers grammatically confused as soon as they so much as set foot inside a library building.

Learning an alien language

When stubborn parents of local Hebies and Shebies heard Tala referred to as “they” by library staff, they took to social media to complain about this “trans alien” in their midst, concerns later amplified by prominent British trans-sceptical feminist Maya Forstater. In response, the council denied Tala was transgender, calling the idea “grossly misleading and wildly inaccurate”. But their denial sounded disingenuous: “In the absence of a gender for this alien creature, we simply use gender-neutral language when talking about them to the public.”

Gender-neutral such language may be, but it is not politically neutral; promoting gender-neutral pronouns to babies helps entrench such concepts in the public mind, particularly that of the next generation.

Accordingly, the queer-friendly press jumped to Tala’s defence, with Pink News mocking Forstater’s “truly confounding obsession with the sex, gender and reproduction habits of a made-up library alien”. Hard-left website WorkersLiberty.org (inadvertently accurate slogan: “Reason in Revolt”) acted similarly, although it did take time to note approvingly that, as Tala wore gender-neutral dungarees and bobble hat, the tiny alien “sort of dresses like a queer university student” of lesbian tastes.

The basic implication was clear: local parents and TERFs like Forstater were just suspicious loons, seeing an imaginary agenda of leftists trying to queer their kids where none in fact existed. But were they really so paranoid?

The elephant in the schoolroom

Tala’s case is not without parallel when it comes to using kids’ books as a Trojan Horse (or, as below, Trojan Elephant) to proselytize LGBTQ+ themes to unknowing children. In 2019, Muslim parents in the UK rebelled against the imposition of the gay-friendly teaching-scheme “No Outsiders” in their primary schools. Partly created by a gay teacher named Andrew Moffat, who in 2014 had resigned from his post following parental complaints about him promoting homosexuality to his students, the scheme posed as a pro-tolerance, anti-bullying platform.

As such, liberal media commentators, like Alice Thomson of the London Timesmocked Muslim parents who questioned it as primitive, God-bothering fools, incredulously writing: “They even questioned books about Elmer the patchwork elephant because he is rainbow-colored and so might be teaching their children to be gay.”

Except, as a more honest analysis of the affair on UK Muslim website islam21c.com observed: “Invariably, when describing the “No Outsiders” … programs to the media, Mr Moffat will show the mildest of books, ones that include cute cartoon animals [like Elmer] not fitting into a group because they are a different colour or shape and how they overcome that … It will be stated that the program merely highlights the existence of diversity when it is really much more than that.”

Islam21c.com examined the actual pedagogic academic papers of “No Outsiders”, concluding their authors truly sought to destroy sexual normativity amongst primary-age students by “disrupting [the] heterosexual matrix”. Heterosexual parents were constantly “asserting their majority status” via “the casual and unrestrained use of pronouns”, the academics complained, or showing people photos of their (disappointingly non-gay) wives or husbands at the school gates, and these hideously straight trends had to be counteracted.

However, as Moffat had earlier found, many parents did not appreciate their kids being surreptitiously turned against their normative upbringings in this way. Therefore, as previously shown on MercatorNet, it was thought better to present such schemes as ones in which “homophobia and heteronormativity were challenged as cultural phenomena (like racism)” – i.e. to disingenuously disguise “No Outsiders” as an innocent anti-bullying reading resource, centred upon the theme of not persecuting those who look or act different from their schoolyard peers.

Enter Elmer the Elephant.

Fifty Shades of Grey

The best-selling Elmer books were born in 1968, created by British author David McKee, who was inspired to write them when his mixed-race daughter had racial abuse hurled at her in the street one day. Elmer is an elephant who, like McKee’s daughter in 1960s Britain, was a different colour than all the other animals around him – multi-hued like a patchwork quilt, not grey.

To blend in, Elmer paints himself grey too, using berry-juice. But when rain washes this off, his fellow elephants decide they prefer him this way after all. Accepting his differences, they paint themselves like rainbows too, something initially just an allegory for racial harmony: but which, viewed through woke eyes, has now become a metaphor for queering children instead.

In 2014, Elmer was celebrated by left-wing UK newspaper The Guardian as having “become an LGBT hero!”, with McKee obligingly observing how “I find it interesting that sometimes people write to me and refer to Elmer as a girl in the stories – as Elma.” Like Nelly gone wrong, the elephant had by now indeed packed away his trunk (the one previously hanging politely unseen and unmentioned between his legs) and said hello to the gender circus.

Pink elephants

By 2021, Elmer’s UK publishers Andersen Press had teamed up with gay rights charities to create “new [Gay] Pride assets” for use in schools, “with elephant characters in the colors of the Pride, Lesbian, Bi and Trans flags” for an educationally essential new nationwide brainwashing festival called “School Diversity Week”. Now, rather than simply discouraging racism, “Elmer celebrates everyone’s true colours”, even those of pansexual bigender two-year-olds.

Elmer has even been the subject of a 2011 US doctoral thesis, “Reading Queer Subtexts in Children’s Literature”, which concludes colourful Elmer “is a walking Gay Pride flag”. Apparently, the playful beast “is both gay in the sense that he is delightful and happy and in the sense that he is queer.” Furthermore, “the [hetero]normative assumptions in the text turn out to be false”, meaning Elmer “becomes such a perfect allegory for the closet in which many homosexual children exist.”

Accordingly, Rainbow Elmer’s books are today sold in gay bookshops and appear in LGBTQ+ curriculum guides for teachers. One such document, used in Scotland, takes a leaf from the Andrew Moffat playbook, pointing out that “Although nothing in the story references LGBT people directly, it can be used to start a longer conversation about diversity and difference, and LGBT people or families can be included in those discussions.”

So, when commentators like Alice Thomson smear Muslim parents as paranoid for suspecting their kids might secretly be being groomed to be gay by elephants, they are really just trying to put others off from voicing their (in fact wholly legitimate) concerns by discrediting anyone who speaks out as a delusional extremist nutcase, precisely same tactic used today with Tala the trans alien.

From the 1950s to the 1970s, there was a popular learn-to-read series of books used in British schools called “The Gay Way Reading Scheme“, whose cheerful slogan, “Learn to read the Gay Way!”, ensured they ultimately had to be pulped (their chief competitors, “Through the Rainbow“, benefitted only temporarily …). These days, it increasingly seems that learning to read “the Gay Way” is the only option our kids now have.

The Great Historian Who Understood that Religion is the Key to Understanding History thumbnail

The Great Historian Who Understood that Religion is the Key to Understanding History

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

A guide to making sense of two thousand years of Western civilization.


The impact of Christopher Dawson’s thought has long reflected the boldness of his books and the modesty of his character. His books radiate the intellectual power of his historical vision, while his quiet personality has been apt to work at the personal rather than the corporate level, inspiring individual minds rather than institutional movements.

Dawson died in 1970 after half a century of significant publication. His reputation fell into the usual trough of posthumous neglect, but by the 1990s it had recovered, leading to various studies of his thought, new editions of his books (including a Collected Works series published by the Catholic University of America Press), and several educational initiatives to implement his ideas on the study of Christian culture as the vitalising source of Western civilisation.

Joseph Stuart has played an active role in this revival, both as a history professor at the University of Mary in North Dakota and through his academic writing, including a new Introduction he wrote in 2015 to Dawson’s book on the French Revolution, The Gods of Revolution.

He has now produced a full-length — and much-anticipated — study of Dawson, which is a biography in two senses. On the one hand, it sheds light on Dawson’s life, which was that of a reclusive scholar who became publicly prominent on rare occasions; and thus it provides a valuable supplement to the definitive biography of Dawson, A Historian and His World (1984), by his daughter, Christina Scott.

On the other hand, it is an intellectual biography. It unfolds Dawson’s ideas in exhaustive detail, revealing that he was an intellectual trailblazer whose vital insights into the role of religion in historical development and cultural change have yet to be widely appreciated.

Stuart’s approach is admirably expressed in the subtitle of his book. He explores Dawson’s life and intellect in terms of his “cultural mind”, tracing in the opening chapters its formation in the aftermath of the First World War (1914-18), and in the later chapters its application to the two crucial areas of politics and education.

While “The Age of the Great War” may at first seem limiting, as though the author is confining his study to a remote event a century ago, he presents a convincing case of the Great War’s profound and permanent impact on subsequent history. This tumultuous event in the first half of the century set in train a vast unravelling of the culture of the West — spiritually, morally, and politically – and paved the way for the dramatic changes more usually associated with the second half, particularly from the 1960s onwards.

Dawson was an unconventional historian. He focused on the life and experience of cultures rather than nations or states, on large themes instead of narrow topics, over long historical periods, not short time frames.

His most influential books bear titles such as The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity (1932), which showed how the slow and silent dissemination of Christianity in the Dark Ages brought about the bountiful culture of medieval Christendom; The Movement of World Revolution (1959), which explored the religious and cultural effects of Western and Christian global expansion; and The Dividing of Christendom (1965), which revealed the contributions of the Reformation and the Enlightenment to the divorce of faith from life and thought that culminated in the secularisation of the modern West.

Dawson’s cultural mind was formed at a time when the social sciences were emerging as new fields of study. The perspectives of sociology and anthropology, as Stuart explores thoroughly in separate chapters, illuminated Dawson’s approach to history. They helped him to develop a highly integrated mind, best described by John Henry Newman (whose thought influenced Dawson deeply) as “the power of viewing many things at once as one whole”.

These new disciplines made clear to Dawson the formative role of religion in human history. As he wrote in 1948:

“Religion is the key to history. We cannot understand the inner form of a society unless we understand its religion. We cannot understand its cultural achievements unless we understand the religious beliefs that lie behind them. In all ages the first creative works of a culture are due to a religious inspiration and dedicated to a religious end.”

Dawson’s distinctive approach was to penetrate the inner life of a culture. He saw a culture from within, recognising that its traditions and customs, its feasts and rituals, its art and architecture, its literature and music, are inspired by the deepest human impulses. He did not discount the importance of external factors, such as economic structures or social conditions, but he knew that it was spiritual needs which inspire and guide human beings who inhabit those structures and conditions – that, finally, a culture is not only a material way of life but a spiritual and moral order.

Dawson recognised that, when the religious impulse is disregarded or else privatised and deprived of any public role, as in the contemporary West, the effects will be profound and disturbing. The yearning for transcendental meaning and purpose does not simply fade away. It finds new and menacing expression in substitute faiths, usually in philosophical and political forms.

Stuart devotes two excellent chapters to the rise of “political religions” as the characteristic form of substitute faith in our time. With painstaking scholarship he shows how Dawson’s insights into the cultural importance and power of religion enabled him to interpret the appeal of secular ideologies, such as Nazism and Communism, which function culturally like religions. They convert earthly causes into transcendental faiths, which finally fail because they do not correspond to genuine transcendental realities.

Dawson’s insights into political religions, as Stuart shows from his wide research, have been endorsed by present-day scholars as the spiritual appeal of totalitarian control has become unmistakable. Dawson was prophetic in seeing that a totalitarian solution would appeal to democracies, not just to authoritarian societies – an extension of power recently seen in the Covid response of Western countries, where the promise of social protection was used politically to crush long-cherished freedoms.

The final chapter of Stuart’s book is devoted to the seminal influence of Dawson’s cultural mind on education. In Dawson’s view, the survival of a culture depended on the continuity of its educational tradition, which supplied a common world of thought and moral values and a shared inheritance of knowledge and memory. Any rupture of this educational tradition was far more destructive than any political or economic change, for it finally meant the death of the culture itself.

Dawson believed the secularised West could not survive without a recovery of Christian faith, and that the pathway to this recovery would be educational, especially in the American system of Catholic higher education. He proposed the study of Christian culture as a social reality across the centuries, which could reanimate a Christian sense of identity in a culture no longer friendly to religion and make possible the passing on of a heritage of faith to new generations.

As Stuart documents in depth, Dawson’s educational ideas did not strike root during his lifetime, for reasons of the dual focus on the Graeco-Roman classics in the humanities and on philosophy and theology in Catholic institutions, both of which were threatened by a cultural approach to the centuries of Christian history. Yet in the half-century since Dawson’s death, various programs inspired by his ideas have been implemented – at several Catholic universities in America and at Campion College in Australia.

The 19th century French scholar Ernest Renan foresaw the ramifying effects of the abandonment of Christianity in the West. It began with the collapse of supernatural belief and would inevitably lead to a collapse of moral convictions. “We are living,” he wrote, “on the perfume of an empty vase.”

The cultural perspectives of Christopher Dawson help to explain why even the perfume is now evaporating. They make the reading of Joseph Stuart’s impressive study not only timely but insistently urgent.

AUTHOR

Karl Schmude is co-founder of Campion College in Sydney and a former university librarian. He is the author of short biographies of Christopher Dawson (2022) and G.K. Chesterton (2008) and has published… More by Karl Schmude

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

U.S. Judge Exposes the Reek of Politics in the FDA’s Approval of Medication Abortion thumbnail

U.S. Judge Exposes the Reek of Politics in the FDA’s Approval of Medication Abortion

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

What is the future of mifepristone? The Supreme Court may be forced into making another tough decision.


The drug mifepristone is currently responsible for more than half of all abortions in the United States. Now its legality is in doubt after two judges in different courts issued completely different rulings, both on April 7. The issue is clearly headed for the US Supreme Court, which has already found that there is no constitutional right to abortion. For the moment, the drug, mifepristone, is still available, pending appeal.

In Texas, federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk declared that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had improperly approved mifepristone. He banned its use across the country. In the state of Washington, federal judge Thomas Rice ruled that mifepristone should be made available in 17 states and the District of Columbia. The uncertainty is obviously untenable.

The White House issued a fact sheet which described Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision as “dangerous” and said that the President “stands by FDA’s scientific and evidence-based judgment that mifepristone is safe and effective.”

The drug and biotech sectors were outraged. More than 400 leaders of drug and biotech companies—none of whom make mifepristone—signed a statement condemning the Texas decision. The statement said, “Judicial activism will not stop here. If courts can overturn drug approvals without regard for science or evidence, or for the complexity required to fully vet the safety and efficacy of new drugs, any medicine is at risk for the same outcome as mifepristone.”

Media coverage of this dispute is a classic example of blinkered reporting on a divisive issue.

There was almost no analysis of merits of the judges’ legal arguments.

US District Judge Thomas Rice in Washington state, reported the Washington Post, is an Obama appointee. He worked as an assistant US attorney and then in the tax division of the Justice Department. That’s about as much as we know about his background.

The media did a lot more digging on US District Judge Matthew  Kacsmaryk. The New York Times quickly discovered that this hitherto-unknown judge had been appointed by President Trump, that he was a graduate of Abilene Christian University, that he had expressed pro-life views, that he was a conservative, that he opposed LGBTQ+ rights, and that he had worked for a conservative religious foundation, First Liberty Institute. “For Texas Judge in Abortion Case, a Life Shaped by Conservative Causes” was the headline. No word, though, on his favourite pizza — so much for the investigative powers of America’s paper of record.

Judge Rice ordered the federal government to ensure that mifepristone remains available in 17 states and the District of Columbia. I write as a legal layman, of course, but his reasoning seems unremarkable. He accepted assertions by attorneys-general of the states that “the status quo” should be preserved because women would experience severe, irreparable damage if they were unable to obtain abortion pills.

However, buried in his 31-page judgement is an extraordinary comment:

It is not the Court’s role to review the scientific evidence and decide whether mifepristone’s benefits outweigh its risks …. That is precisely FDA’s role. However, based on the present record, FDA did not assess whether mifepristone qualifies for REMS and ETASU [special scrutiny] … Even under a deferential review, it appears FDA failed to consider an important aspect of the problem. Moreover, the record demonstrates potentially internally inconsistent FDA findings regarding mifepristone’s safety profile.

Great minds think alike. This is precisely the nub of Kacsmaryk’s argument. It is a damning indictment of the FDA. He did not use the word “corrupt”, but it springs to mind as he reviews the FDA’s disgraceful behaviour in approving mifepristone. He raises some uncomfortable questions for the abortion industry, the Biden Administration, Big Pharma, and the FDA. It begins:

Over twenty years ago, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved chemical abortion. The legality of the 2000 Approval is now before this Court. Why did it take two decades for judicial review in federal court? After all, Plaintiffs’ petitions challenging the 2000 Approval date back to the year 2002, right?

Simply put, FDA stonewalled judicial review — until now. Before Plaintiffs filed this case, FDA ignored their petitions for over sixteen years, even though the law requires an agency response within “180 days of receipt of the petition.” But FDA waited 4,971 days to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ first petition and 994 days to adjudicate the second. Had FDA responded to Plaintiffs’ petitions within the 360 total days allotted, this case would have been in federal court decades earlier. Instead, FDA postponed and procrastinated for nearly 6,000 days.

This is a key issue – and one which was barely covered in the media. For most journalists, abortion was settled long ago. It is the status quo. Which is precisely the point, contends Kacsmaryk. Delay created the status quo.

Chemical abortion is only the status quo insofar as Defendants’ unlawful actions and their delay in responding to Plaintiffs’ petitions have made it so. The fact that injunctive relief could upset this “status quo” is therefore an insufficient basis to deny injunctive relief.

In short, the FDA pulled every bureaucratic trick in the book to keep opponents of medication abortion from questioning the approval process – “sixteen years of delay, dawdle, and dithering”.

Kacsmaryk is a judge, not a pro-life activist, although he appears to be sympathetic to the arguments about the humanity of unborn children. He is supposed to assess cases on their legal merits. And that is what he did. He was scathing as he exposed some of the FDA’s stratagems for ensuring that mifepristone would be approved with almost no restrictions.

Take, for instance, the provisions of the Comstock Act. Though often criticised and ridiculed, it is still on the books. It declares that certain things cannot be sent by mail: “[e]very article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use…” [emphasis added]. The plain language of the law excludes distribution of medication abortion through the mail.

Consider also the fact that the FDA fudges its statistics about the dangers of mifepristone. Originally abortion doctors were required to report all non-fatal serious adverse effects of the drug. But in 2016, the FDA eliminated that requirement. “FDA repeatedly altered its original decision by removing safeguards and changing the regulatory scheme for chemical abortion drugs,” writes the judge.

… it is circular and self-serving to practically eliminate an “adverse event” reporting requirement and then point to a low number of “adverse events” as a justification for removing even more restrictions than were already omitted in 2000 and 2016. In other words, it is a predetermined conclusion in search of non-data — a database designed to produce a null set. But even if FDA’s explanation[s] were well-reasoned, the actions would still run afoul of the Comstock Act …

Kacsmaryk concludes that the thread which runs through the FDA’s treatment of this controversial drug is truckling to political pressure:

The Court does not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly. But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns — in violation of its statutory duty — based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions. There is also evidence indicating FDA faced significant political pressure to forego its proposed safety precautions to better advance the political objective of increased “access” to chemical abortion …

On April 7, the day the duelling decisions were handed down, the Oregon Attorney-General, Ellen Rosenblum, crowed on Twitter: “Don’t be too distracted by the breaking news out of Texas—we got a BIG WIN in the case led by Oregon and Washington (and joined by 16 other states).”

Opening the champagne may be premature. If this case goes to the Supreme Court – as seems likely — Kacsmaryk’s forensic dissection of the FDA’s games could be a template for the Roberts Court’s own findings. It exposes the shabby tricks that the FDA has been playing for years to defend an indefensible drug.

Hunter Biden: More Shoes to Drop thumbnail

Hunter Biden: More Shoes to Drop

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

The House Oversight Committee is now investigating six additional members of the Biden family for illicitly profiting off of Joe Biden’s political career, bringing the total to nine.  “The Biden family enterprise is centered on Joe Biden’s political career and connections, and it has generated an exorbitant amount of money for the Biden family,” Committee chair James Comer said.  He said the Committee now has “thousands of pages of financial records” that “confirm the importance of this investigation.”  Committee member Marjorie Taylor Greene alleged the evidence shows, “The Biden crime family participated in human trafficking by soliciting prostitutes from the United States and abroad in countries like Russia and Ukraine.”

Also, we learned yesterday the House Judiciary Committee has found evidence of a link between the letter from current and former intelligence officials dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation and the Biden presidential campaign.  The laptop was later proven to be authentic, showing the real Hunter Biden and his activities.  Republicans are calling the letter a substantial interference in the 2020 presidential election.  The Committee is expected to release its evidence in a report later this month.

The House Oversight Committee has been following the trail of suspicious activity reports, bank records reluctantly but finally given up by the Treasury Department.  U.S. banks generated such reports on more than 150 business transactions involving Hunter and James Biden.

Recent stories chronicle other evidence coming in against the Biden crime family:

  • Senate Republicans have obtained Chinese bank records showing millions of dollars in payments from Chinese companies to Hunter Biden
  • more than a dozen federal whistleblowers have provided information about Hunter Biden’s potentially criminal activities to the FBI
  • another whistleblower who served alongside Hunter Biden as an adviser to a Chinese energy company closely tied to the Chinese Communist Party said he gave “damning information” about Hunter Biden to the FBI in 2019.  The company paid Hunter Biden more than $6 million in 2017 to pursue energy deals in the U.S.
  • Hunter Biden received classified briefings from the State Department on a regular basis and used the information in Biden family business dealings
  • emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop show he shared classified information with Burisma and used classified information in an otherwise impossibly well-informed report on Ukraine, Russia, and the United Kingdom
  • another email on Hunter Biden’s laptop names Joe Biden as participating in a deal in 2017 to sell U.S. natural gas to China.  Critics tie that to Joe Biden’s decision as President to sell oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China.
  • a Chinese energy executive who was arrested in the U.S. for money laundering paid Hunter Biden $1 million to be the ‘fixer’ in his case.  The executive ended up serving only a few months of a three-year sentence.
  • Finally, Hunter Biden’s business associates visited the White House more than 80 times when Joe Biden was Vice-President. 

I’ve just scratched the surface of what’s already known.  Congressional Republicans are still digging.  Stay tuned, there are more shoes to drop.  Justice may never be done, but at least we’re going to get to see the whole sordid mess and to vote accordingly.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

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

Climate Crackpots Blame Global Warming on Rice thumbnail

Climate Crackpots Blame Global Warming on Rice

By The Geller Report

They hate humanity. Gas stoves, no lightbulbs, no gas cars, no air-conditioning and now food that most of humanity survives on.

Rice Is Now Killing The Planet, Apparently

Its the thing most of humanity survives on

By: Steve Watson, Summit News, April 18, 2023:

Now it is firmly ensconced among the climate change cult that eating meat is killing the planet and you must ‘eat ze bugs’, the same people have a new target, rice.

VIDEO: Rice is to blame for around 10 percent of global emissions of methane, a gas that over two decades, traps about 80 times as much heat as carbon dioxide. Scientists say that if the world wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, rice cannot be ignored. pic.twitter.com/46GgkaGPgK

— AFP News Agency (@AFP) April 16, 2023

“Rice cannot be ignored.”

The Food and Agriculture Organization notes that “Rice is one of the most important staple foods in the world. Over 50 percent of the world population depends on rice for about 80 percent of its food requirements. About 95 percent of the global output of rice is produced and consumed in developing countries.”

What is this really about?

This is sinister. Removing rice or wheat from production would trigger global famine. We need to start recognizing voices pushing this agenda so we push back on this nonsense. @wef #2030agenda

— WiseOldOwl (@RealAlexLucio) April 16, 2023

Banning rice would kill tens of millions of innocent people.
I’m starting to think it’s never been about saving the planet . . . https://t.co/Sz1bcbQM49

— Johnny Rotten’s American Cousin (@EERCANE) April 16, 2023

Read more

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED TWEETS:

pic.twitter.com/qQgvJcoBA0

— slimjim (@slimjim33_33) April 16, 2023

Yeah, they want us to eat bugs!

— Betsy Rambo (@BetsyRambo) April 17, 2023

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

Biden Crime Family Investigation Expands To ‘Six Additional’ Biden Family Members thumbnail

Biden Crime Family Investigation Expands To ‘Six Additional’ Biden Family Members

By The Geller Report

Newly accessed financial records show “the Biden family enterprise is centered on Joe Biden’s political career and connections, and it has generated an exorbitant amount of money for the Biden family”. Six more family members named. James Comer says new financial records have revealed six new Biden family members are involved in suspicious foreign transactions believed to be a direct result of influence peddling, bringing the total to nine family members.

A Democrat-led Oversight would have them all in handcuffs by now.

Hallie Biden and James Biden have already been named.

Possible six additional members of Joe Biden’s family:

  1. Sara Biden (James)
  2. Jill Biden
  3. Frank Biden
  4. Valerie Biden Owens
  5. Kathleen Buhle (Biden)
  6. Ashley Biden
  7. Naomi Biden
  8. Finnegan Biden
  9. Maisy Biden
  10. Robert Hunter Biden II

House Republicans Expand Biden Family Investigation To ‘Six Additional’ Kin

By: Tristan Justice, The Federalist, April 18, 2023

House Republicans are expanding their investigation of the Biden family to include “six additional members” who “may have benefitted” from potentially criminal business enterprises.

On Monday, House Oversight Chairman James Comer of Kentucky revealed the committee is now probing nine individuals linked to the family’s influence-peddling operations after a review of “thousands” of documents at the Treasury Department.

“Thousands of pages of financial records related to the Biden family, their companies, and associates’ business schemes were made available to members of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, which confirm the importance of this investigation,” Comer said in a press release. “The Biden family enterprise is centered on Joe Biden’s political career and connections, and it has generated an exorbitant amount of money for the Biden family.”

The House Oversight Committee was granted access to the department’s suspicious activity reports related to the Biden family last month after the administration stonewalled requests for congressional review of the presidential family’s business ventures.

“According to bank documents we’ve already obtained, we know one company owned by a Biden associate received a $3 million dollar wire from a Chinese energy company two months after Joe Biden left the vice presidency,” Comer said in March.

Lawmakers’ review of the records, Comer said, has given committee members new leads to investigate the extent of the family’s undercover business enterprises.

“The Oversight Committee will continue to pursue additional bank records to follow the Bidens’ tangled web of financial transactions to determine if the Biden family has been targeted by foreign actors and if there is a national security threat,” Comer said. “We will soon provide the public with more information about what we’ve uncovered to date.”

The House Oversight chairman did not reveal the names of the six additional individuals now under congressional scrutiny. The House probe has publicly centered on President Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and the president’s brother, James. Lawmakers also requested documents from longtime Biden family business partner Eric Schwerin in February.

Federal investigators at the Department of Justice have been probing Hunter Biden’s tax affairs since 2018. Prosecutors opened the case based on suspicious activity reports the Department of the Treasury flagged regarding the family’s business dealings in “China and other foreign nations.”

Insiders at the DOJ complained to The Federalist that the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office lacks the proper resources to conduct a comprehensive investigation that a special counsel’s office could offer. Senate Republicans demanded in September that the investigation of the Biden family under the Biden administration be moved to a special counsel.

Read more.

🚨NEW🚨

Financial records related to the Biden family were made available to @GOPoversight.

We’ve now identified 6 additional members of Joe Biden’s family who may have benefited from shady deals. This brings our total to 9.

We will provide more details soon. @larry_kudlow pic.twitter.com/DhsnBfvyiv

— Rep. James Comer (@RepJamesComer) April 17, 2023

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Pledges to Veto GOP Bill to Ban Trans Biological Males From Competing in Women’s Sports

EVIL: UN Report Calls for Legalizing Sex Between Adults and Children

RELATED TWEET:

Bombshell from @RepJamesComer @GOPoversight Newly accessed financial records show “the Biden family enterprise is centered on Joe Biden’s political career and connections, and it has generated an exorbitant amount of money for the Biden family”. Six more family members named. pic.twitter.com/0BpuPBgP4K

— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) April 17, 2023

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

NEW YORK CITY: Pro-Jihad Rallygoers Chant for the Total Destruction of Israel [Video] thumbnail

NEW YORK CITY: Pro-Jihad Rallygoers Chant for the Total Destruction of Israel [Video]

By Jihad Watch

This would result in a new genocide of Jews. Leftists, heedless of that fact or indifferent to it, happily join in the chant.

MEMRI, April 8, 2023:

On April 8, 2023, a rally titled “Hands Off Al-Aqsa” was held by several pro-Palestinian organizations in New York City. At the rally, footage of which was posted to the Christopher Leon Johnson YouTube channel on April 8, 2023, speakers praised the Palestinian “resistance” and its “martyrs.”

American-Palestinian activist Sireen Sawalha, the sister of Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist Iyad Sawalha, praised her brother, saying he had been a “hero” and a “freedom-fighter”. Iyad Sawalha, killed by Israeli security forces in 2002, had been responsible for the deaths of dozens of Israelis in several terrorist attacks, including two bus bombings. Sireen Sawalha led the crowd in the chant: “With our spirit and our blood, we will redeem you, oh Palestine!”

An American activist named “Ruqayya” from Al-Awda NY praised “martyrs” and “heroes” Bassel al-Araj (killed in gunfight with Israeli forces in 2017), Ibrahim Al-Nabulsi (killed by Israeli forces in August 2022), and Iyad Sawalha. She said: “We will continue to applaud the bravery and the resilience of the resistance and freedom fighters.” She added that there will never be peace until the Palestinian people have the right to “return to their homes and lands […] in every corner of the land of Palestine from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea.” An activist named “Nay” from the Palestinian Youth Movement said: “We proudly uplift our people’s resistance and commend their steadfastness […] until every inch of the colonized land is liberated.”

The rally was endorsed by several organizations, including NY4Palestine, Palestinian American CC, Within Our Lifetime, Samidoun, CAIR NY, CAIR NJ, ICNA CSJ, Jewish Voices for Peace NYC, Jews for Palestine Right of Return, MAS NY, NNJ DSA BDS & Palestine Sol. WG, and United American Indians of New England.

Sireen Sawalha: “I want you to know Iyad Sawalha from Jenin, this was my brother.

[…]

“I want to condemn the media when they say he was a terrorist – he was a freedom fighter.

[…]

“He was a hero, he lived all his life to see his country free. So, free, free Palestine!”

Crowd: “Free, free Palestine!”

Sireen Sawalha: “With our souls and our blood, we will redeem you, oh Palestine!”

Crowd: “With our souls and our blood, we will redeem you, oh Palestine!”

[…]

Ruqayya: “It is the Palestinian vanguard, which are our freedom fighters and political prisoners, who are the future of a liberated Palestine. This also [includes] our martyrs, who are honored every day. We remember our heroes, Bassel Al-Araj, Ibrahim Al-Nabulsi, also Sireen’s brother Iyad, and countless others, for their bravery, resistance, and resilience.

[…]

“We will continue to applaud their bravery and the resilience of our resistance and freedom fighters who are on the frontlines, facing the brutal violence committed by the paramilitary colonial forces. While they are resisting in Palestine, we must resist and do our part here.

[…]

“There will never be peace in the region until that injustice is ended, until the Palestinian people have the right to return to their homes and lands and live safe in freedom in every corner of the land of Palestine from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea!”

[…]

Nay: “How much violence are Palestinians expected to endure before their right to resist is acknowledged? Their right to resist – again – by any means necessary. Why are Palestinians expected to take their oppression in silence, and why do some people only speak of Palestinians’ oppression, but denounce or stay silent when it comes to their resistance? We are witnessing a shift in the regional orientation to Palestinian resistance. The legacy of the May 2021 uprising has shifted the equation from one isolated Palestinian faction versus the Zionist forces, to multiple unified fronts confronting a broken and internally fragmented entity. Once again, we cannot shout: ‘Free Palestine,’ and then fall silent when it comes to uplifting resistance and acts of decolonization. We proudly uplift our people’s resistance and commend their steadfastness in the face of colonial aggression, until every inch of colonized land is liberated. From the water [of the Jordan River] to the water [of the Mediterranean Sea] Palestine is Arab!”

Crowd: “Palestine is Arab!”

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

Dog Meat, Human Meat, and Other Wonders of Socialist Cuban Hunger thumbnail

Dog Meat, Human Meat, and Other Wonders of Socialist Cuban Hunger

By Family Research Council

I can imagine the face of the person who discovered that bag full of dog heads in San Antonio de los Baños, Cuba. Around those days in 2012, the tumultuous popular festivities of Humoranga had ended, and the local palate still remembered the fabulous skewers that, mysteriously, were being sold at pocket prices in the always hungry Cuban scene.

I can imagine people hearing about the sack. Tying up loose ends can be nauseating.

The possible sale of dog meat keeps reminding me of Donald Trump, who pointed out that people stand up for freedom because they want to walk their dog and not eat it. Sure, maybe not your dog, but the neighborhood dog, who passes a stone’s throw away and doesn’t wear a collar or answer to any name. People are hungry.

That is why a well-known Cuban writer told me that before going cat-hunting in his college years, he would swish some rum, as if to dilute his consciousness. Yes, in Cuba people have also eaten cats. The demand for this and any meat had a peak in the 1990s, the hardest crisis on the island, when this writer was studying to become an engineer, and the nights of hunger did not allow him to sleep.

In that fateful decade, rabbit meat buyers asked for the animal with its head, to make sure they weren’t selling cats. From that period comes an extensive survival recipe. From pizzas with condoms instead of cheese, to steaks with grapefruit peel and mop bedspreads.

Socialism has failed so much and in so many ways that, as Thomas Sowell said, only an intellectual would be unable to see it. In 2007, experts from the University of Loyola and the Cuban university in Cienfuegos studied the impacts of the so-called Special Period and concluded that it had done good for the health of Cubans. Yes, as it reads.

Due to the lack of food and fuel, which forced thousands of Cubans to pedal bicycles to get around, obesity decreased. And, as a consequence, the number of deaths were attributed to diabetes, coronary diseases, and cardiac arrests. At the same time, the famine minimized the amount of calories in the diet. Wow, after zombifying millions of souls, you have Big Brother to thank.

The experts can be, it is known, new tyrants of the postmodern state, and with Cuba, they have tried to rewrite its history to accommodate their delusions. The academics behind the study conveniently ignored the rise in diseases such as polyneuritis or depression during the 1990s.

What would they say about an act of cannibalism if it occurs in socialist Cuba? Would they change the moral compass to justify it? At the end of 2022, it emerged that a hospital employee “was extracting organs and body fat from the deceased to crush them and sell them as mincemeat.” The rumor spread on social networks, and through an official statement the Provincial Health Directorate of Santiago de Cuba confirmed it: the National Revolutionary Police was investigating a possible case of organ trafficking from deceased persons at the Ambrosio Grillo Portuondo Clinical Surgical Hospital.

“Certainly, there are two workers from the reference hospital who work as eviscerators and occupational therapy, arrested on December 9, 2022 for an alleged criminal act, having seized two hearts of possible human origin,” explained the state center. Will revolutionary progress lead to cannibalism?

The United States is one of the main importers of food to the island. In 2021, Castroism disbursed more than $124 million in frozen chicken quarters, a substantial increase compared to 2020, when it paid just over $67 million for the same product.

Yes, imperialism wants the hardened people to die of hunger, the people that (the regime believes) turns on the gossip in the blackout, thinking that at least the right wing does not rule in Cuba, the island that before 1959 produced meat and exported flowers south of the United States. Yes. When the system changes, how things change.

The revolutionaries of 1959 repeated that changes were good, that change was equal to progress, that they could only advance even as nobody knew for sure where it was going. But, as we have seen, progressivism does not mean progress. Having your feet on the ground, a minute, is enough to know.

Luis O. lives in Camaguey, inherited a shotgun, and after a cumbersome process he obtained a license to hunt. It is 2023, but Luis goes out to kill ducks, quails, and whatever he finds in front of the canyon to feed his brother, his mother, his wife, and their two children, as if the city of Camaguey was still Santa María del Puerto del Príncipe. While socialism imposes stores in capitalist currency (euro, dollar, everything) on an impoverished population, the people of Camaguey saw the stores in Cuban pesos dry up. Without food, Luis went back in time. He shares that his days are filled with the need to go into the bush and hunt.

The Cuban State cries about the embargo and paints it as a “blockade,” but the only blockade that exists is that of the State against the citizen, and it is the one that takes its toll, leaving land without crops and stomachs without food. The bureaucrats at the Palace of the Revolution kick their feet because Washington does not give credit to a country that does not pay, and because U.S. politicians consider it immoral to trade freely with a regime that prohibits free trade among its inhabitants.

As in India, for more than 40 years cows were “sacred” in Cuba. In one way by faith, in another by the hand of the god-State. It was only until 2021 that the sale of beef was authorized on the island, and its production and sale by private parties was decriminalized.

Since 1979, no producer could sell this meat, and buyers were punished with up to a year in jail for buying it. At the time of its decriminalization, the pound was paid in the informal market for up to $12. Castroism announced that it would pay the peasant for two kilos of meat. Magnanimous.

Faithful to the disconnection with natural laws, Cuban statism projected in 2021 the allocation of an additional 3,461 million pesos to the annual budget, “in order to stimulate agricultural production.” But the investment was nothing. The same voluntarism that “removed” money from the coffers, generated one of the highest inflation rates on the planet that year and its consequent devaluation of the peso.

He believed that subsidizing with “soft loans” electricity, water, fumigation, and feed costs for pig farming, he would magically compensate for the lack of economic freedom of 63 years.

In 1979, the first revolutionary Penal Code criminalized the slaughter of cattle. But the hunger was so great that, far from stopping, in 1987 the sacrifice of horses had to be made illegal in the letter. In 1999, the severity of sentences for slaughtering cattle increased. Whoever sold or transported that meat would receive up to eight years in prison. But there is no decree that stops hunger. Just freedom and work.

Before 1959, Cuba was an important regional cattle producer. In the first years, Castroism attributed its incipient reduction to sabotage by its internal opponents. However, once thousands of them were shot, and hundreds of thousands more thrown into jail or exile, the phenomenon did not reverse.

Today, the socialist paradise imports 80% of the food it consumes and dedicates annually, with frequent restrictions due to lack of liquidity and non-payment, about $2 billion to these imports.

On the other hand, hunger is an effective control mechanism. It prevents thinking beyond the day to day, to satisfy the urgent need that literally climbs the individual on the tightrope of life or death. At the same time, a desperate society can become a tsunami of violence. Castroism has played the drip strategy for decades: miserable portions through the ration card, enough to cover the cupboard for a few days, occupying your mind by “inventing” most of the month, but in a model that keeps expectant the body until the next sale of products.

So much has been “invented” in Cuba that in 2012, due to a national lack of oil, oil from crematoriums circulated on the Havana black market… for cooking food.

As the presenter, Juan explained at that time, with each cremation, about 20 liters of burning oil are used for the treatment of smoke gases. From a warehouse of the Guanabacoa incinerator, on the outskirts of the capital, the liquid came out of yore.

There was a scandal, in the proportions that the story warranted, and apparently, they cut the network. But what the revolutionaries have not cut is the shortage of oil, which appears from time to time on the island of “there is no.”

A painter friend who came to the United States in the late 1960s experienced a panic attack in Los Angeles. She entered a small grocery store and had to be taken out unconscious. From the empty shelf, the desperation for what to eat tomorrow, and the long lines, to endless shelves, full to the brim and with so many brands and prices to choose from.

My wife and I arrived in Miami already knowing other countries, on both sides of the Atlantic. The impact of overflowing shops was not as much as for compatriots who arrive from nothing every day to a nation of abundance. Even so, when I enter the cheap Dollar Tree or Walmart, the first thing I think about is my friends and their children, my mother, the ministries of my church, which help the elderly and abandoned children, the homeless. It sure happens to others.

One imagines filling suitcases, yes. That lucky patch. But I also think about how much free enterprise could bring to Cuba. Employment, food, and medicines. The more the free market is respected, the closer the paradigm of land flowing with milk and honey is.

For me, a clear mark of abundance in the United States manifested itself on Halloween. For that day, costumes and decorations are prepared for weeks. Candy sales skyrocket. On the night itself, I saw neighborhoods fill up with boys and families where no soul walks at any other time of the year. “Trick or treat!” they shouted before extending their hands.

The next day, on the pavement, the sidewalks, the gardens of the entire neighborhood, there were hundreds of candies, chocolates, and little toys. All sealed, slipped carelessly from baskets and baskets, forgotten because there are more and tomorrow there will be again, because buying a cookie for your son doesn’t cost ten hours in line and a shoving fight.

Children in Cuba, for example, skin pelicans to sell their little meat for 70 Cuban pesos (less than a dollar) each. The story does not take place at the beginning of the Revolution or in the 1990s, but in 2022, in the coastal town of Caibarién. Through dirt streets one of them pedals with a bucket full of pelicans without feathers or skin. Potential buyers appear from the rickety houses.

Meanwhile, the children who “fish” for pelicans kill their hunger by boiling the corpses of the birds with brown sugar and guava leaves. “You throw out the water three times,” they detailed to the reporter, “and that way they don’t taste so bad.”

*This article was done with the help of the Cuban Studies Institute.

AUTHOR

Yoe Suarez

Yoe Suárez is a writer, producer, and journalist, exiled from Cuba due to his investigative reporting about themes like torture, political prisoners, government black lists, cybersurveillance, and freedom of expression and conscience. He is the author of the books “Leviathan: Political Police and Socialist Terror” and “El Soplo del Demonio: Violence and Gangsterism in Havana”.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump Is Out of Line thumbnail

Trump Is Out of Line

By Neland Nobel

You probably have noticed television ads attacking Ron DeSantis from groups supporting Donald Trump.  One of these ads “You don’t know Ron DeSantis” goes after the Florida Governor for voting for changes in Social Security and Medicare while DeSantis served in Congress.

It is certainly fine with us if politicians point out their differences with each other in the primary season.  However, the 11th Commandment from Ronald Reagan should be observed.  The Gipper’s wisdom was that one should not attack a fellow Republican.  Point out differences for sure, but don’t attack the integrity of the other candidate.

Maybe we have devolved too far to even entertain such gentile views and attitudes today.  But attacks often just aid the opposition party.  That was the reason for Reagan’s admonition.

Trump is no longer an outsider and has to use flying elbows to get position under the basketball hoop to make a shot.  He is the titular head of the party.  He is a former President and thus has a good position to start with.  This is not like the first time he ran, as a complete “outsider.”

However, that is not the chief reason for concern about this ad.  What is most bothersome is that it is just this kind of demagoguery that has driven much of America’s deficit crisis and stifled any attempts to fix a very serious problem.  The reason is if you want to be serious about fixing the deficit, and all the spin-off problems it causes ( inflation,wealth redistribution, capital markets distortion, accounting distortion, savings destruction, intergenerational transfers, Federal Reserve hyper-interventionist action, rising interest rates, and generally the problem of enormous government and citizen dependence on the state), you have to go where the spending is.

Below is the source of new spending as projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

No one can speak seriously about dealing with chronic deficits and chronic inflation unless they are willing to talk about entitlement reform in both Social Security and Medicare.  It simply can’t be done.

These two social “entitlement” programs are already about 50% of all spending and along with interest (caused by the rising deficit) will be the source of  79% of new spending.  And they are growing fast. Because we are living longer, and the number of new workers is falling because fewer seem to want babies,  it creates a big problem.

Look at what is going on in France.  Just suggesting that the retirement age be extended by two years is bringing the country to the edge of civil war.

The cold hard fact is when most of these programs were designed, people started getting their benefits at about the time of their actuarial death.  It was never designed for people to live 20 or 25 years in retirement.

In the 1930s, when you were 65 you were quite old (actuarial death), but that is certainly not true today.  We had more intact families then,  having children, three or four, was the norm.

Well, you say you have paid into the program.  Indeed you have, and on average, most people will pull everything they paid into the program out in about 6 to 7 years.  Who pays after that? It is not a fully funded retirement program but rather a “pay as you go system” where you paid in for your parent’s retirement and your kids’ pay for yours.  For such a Ponzi-like structure to work, you need a larger younger population coming in behind the elderly.

That used to be the case.  In the mid-1950s, there were about 14 workers for each Social Security recipient. But now it is below 3:1 and falling.

The program needs to be fixed!  It is unsustainable.

Already Social Security is in negative cash flow, i.e. the system is paying out more money than it is taking in.  The “trust fund” or “lock box” in Al Gore’s terminology, is in nonmarketable US Treasury bonds. This is simply a slick accounting trick where one agency of government lends money to another.  As these “bonds” must be sold to pay benefits, it will cause the “unfunded” liability to become a “funded” liability.  Who will buy these bonds and at what price (interest rate)?

Politicians will not be able to reduce the deficit by having Social Security buy a big slug of the national debt, Social Security will be selling its bonds to fund benefits and others will have to take up the slack.  It is complicated, but the short explanation is that it will drive the deficit even higher, causing a disturbance in either interest rates or inflation because the sums needed are so massive.

Reform will likely require some reduction or restriction in benefits and some increase in funding…increasing payroll taxes or other funding.  To remain solvent, you must have more money coming in than going out.

Social Security and Medicare (and its sister Medicaid) are by far the largest expenditures made by the US and State governments.

They were poorly designed in many ways and are now being eaten alive by demographic changes.

There is no doubt politicians have abused the system. The government has used “trust funds” as its own piggy bank.  Politicians have regularly increased benefits to specific groups for political reasons, without having those groups actually pay into the program.  We have just seen a version of this from Biden, demanding Medicare healthcare coverage for DACA people.  But with Medicare already in financial jeopardy, extending benefits without funding simply weakens the system for everyone, including those that have paid into the program for a long period of time.

Previous attempts to reign in spending, raise revenue, and otherwise stabilize some of these programs have been met by the worst kind of political demagoguery by Democrats.  Remember the now infamous Democrat TV commercial of Speaker Paul Ryan pushing Grandma off the cliff?

The Democrats have made any discussion of reform of these programs the third rail of American politics.  Even by bringing up the subject of the need to reform these programs,  you are basically committing political suicide.

Well, now we see some Trump supporters use the same tactic.  It is just as despicable.  Worse, they should know better.

We have just had another report from the Trustees of Social Security that the program will be short of funds by 2034, one year earlier than the last calculation, and that if nothing is done, it will cause an approximate 24% cut in benefits across the board.  There is no assurance, especially if we have a recession and slow growth, that the due date will not come even closer.

Almost a third of Americans retiring today will depend solely on Social Security.  For many others, it is a third to even more of their retirement income. Thus keeping the program solvent, by initiating sometimes painful and politically risky reforms, are necessary.

But doing nothing is actually worse than talking about reform.  It will cause indiscriminate cuts which will adversely hurt those most dependent on the programs.

Actually imposing such cuts, will stir social rebellion.  It is unfair to make those kinds of cuts when people have been assured of the benefit and already planned their lives around it.  That is especially true for the elderly, who have little time left and can’t earn money to make up for the differences.  This is not like breaking an agreement with a 25-year-old who has both time and opportunity to adjust to the failure to deliver on a promise.

The Republican Party is the closest we have to “an adult party.”  If we want something fixed, we Republicans will have to do it.  We are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility and financial probity.  Lately, we seemed to have abandoned that role.  If so, who is going to fill it?

If we can’t have a civil discussion, even within our own party and among our own candidates, how are we ever going to solve these quite serious and difficult problems?  We can’t with such limited space explore and expound upon the various options available.  What we are saying is we need to have a discussion in a civil way to discuss reasonable options to fix Social Security.  

What we don’t need is more political shenanigans to make both discussion and reform impossible.

Trump makes having that discussion more difficult by demagoguing the subject like a Democrat. 

It is beneath him and his supporters to act this way.  They need to stop behaving like this.

We can’t talk about controlling deficits, inflation, and sound monetary policy if we can’t talk about the very programs driving spending and deficits through the roof.

We don’t need to act like childish Democrats.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.