Ted Cruz Introduces Bill To Scrap ‘Natural Gas Tax’ Wedged Inside Biden’s Climate Legislation thumbnail

Ted Cruz Introduces Bill To Scrap ‘Natural Gas Tax’ Wedged Inside Biden’s Climate Legislation

By The Daily Caller

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is introducing a Senate bill that would repeal a “natural gas tax” proposal enabled by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), President Joe Biden’s signature climate bill.

The “Natural Gas Tax Repeal Act” would scrap IRA provisions that deputize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose fines on energy companies that emit methane in amounts above government-dictated limits, according to its text. The rule will likely have a significant impact on producers of natural gas, the form of energy most commonly associated with methane emissions.

“Joe Biden and Biden officials have proven time and time again that they care more about their radical climate agenda than the needs of the American people,” Cruz said in a statement shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation. “They have driven up inflation and jeopardized American jobs and energy security, all of which would be made significantly worse by the methane emissions fee in the Inflation Reduction Act. This fee will particularly harm Texas by undermining producers in the Permian Basin and across the state.”

Natural Gas Tax Repeal Act by Nick Pope on Scribd

Cruz’s bill is supported by the Independent Petroleum Producers of America, the American Exploration and Production Council, the U.S. Oil and Gas Association and the American Petroleum Institute, among other organizations. House Republicans passed a similar bill in March to repeal the IRA’s natural gas tax.

The EPA’s proposal would require companies to pay a penalty of $900 for each ton of methane emitted above limits set by the government starting in 2024, with the penalty for every ton above the government’s benchmarks jumping to $1,200 in 2025 and increasing again to $1,500 in 2026 and after, according to the EPA. The agency describes the proposal as a means to reduce methane emissions, energy producers have criticized it for further complicating the regulatory environment and potentially increasing costs for consumers.

The EPA proposal also dovetails with a December 2023 EPA proposal to impose methane detection requirements, which independent oil and gas producers oppose because the additional compliance costs figure to disadvantage them relative to the major firms.

“President Biden’s tax on natural gas production does nothing but make it harder to produce American-made energy while driving up costs. Congress must take action to repeal this looming regulatory disaster,” Texas Rep. August Pfluger, who authored the House equivalent of Cruz’s bill, said in a statement shared with the DCNF. “The House has already passed my legislation to repeal the tax, and I am proud to work alongside Senator Cruz to get it to the President’s desk. Energy security is national security.”

The EPA and the White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment.





Could Joe Biden’s Natural Gas Pause Cost Dems The Senate In November?

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.

PODCAST: LaBarbera Explains to ‘Crosstalk’ Radio Why Most ‘Queer’ Activists Cannot Say NO to LGBTQ+ Perversions thumbnail

PODCAST: LaBarbera Explains to ‘Crosstalk’ Radio Why Most ‘Queer’ Activists Cannot Say NO to LGBTQ+ Perversions

By Americans for Truth About Homosexuality

‘Polyamory’ — multiple-partner ‘non-monogamous relationships’ — latest sexual deviancy to receive media promotion.

The following is Crosstalk’s description of the program:

Increasingly, the push for full acceptance and promotion of the LGBTQ+ agenda is advancing.  In fact, According to one poll, 28% of Gen-Z adults are identifying as LGBTQ.

The result?  Women’s sports are being decimated and dominated by men who are identifying as women.  Leading up to the Super Bowl, the NFL is committed to bowing to the diversity, equity and inclusion movement as it will be hosting the third annual, “A Night of Pride” with GLAAD during Super Bowl Week.  Politically, additional LGBTQ+ appointments to the federal bench are being made by the Biden administration, while polyamory is on the increase.

Are we fast approaching the days of Lot?  That’s a question to ponder as Crosstalk welcomed Peter LaBarbera back to Crosstalk.  Peter is the founder and president of Americans for Truth.  He’s a former reporter for the Washington Times and LifeSiteNews.com and a former contributing editor for Human Events.

The Public Religion Research Institute is the organization making the claim that 28% of Gen-Z adults (ages 18-25) are identifying as LGBTQ.  Peter doesn’t completely believe that figure because he contends that the PRRI is a liberal polling group and that it’s in their interest to promote progressive ideas in religion and Christianity.  Nonetheless, he found out from Gallop in early 2022 that based upon polling from the previous year, 20.8% of Gen-Z’ers were identifying as LGBT.

Peter believes this crisis is the result of the “mainstreaming” of perversion toward young people and that this activity expands the list of perversions.  This broadcast demonstrates what recent history has shown us in this regard and that since homosexuality was normalized, in the name of diversity, you can’t say “no” to other perverse lifestyles such as transgenderism or polyamory.

Peter’s concern is that the only way out of this cascading deviance is revival because we’re at the stage where young people simply see homosexuality as normal. In fact, they almost see it as “square.”  Instead the cutting edge thing is to be non-binary or gender fluid.

From the LGBTQ perspective, mainstreaming through indoctrination is working and it’s hitting America like a flood because like an open dam, the boundaries have been removed.  The flood is hitting everyone, especially young people, and they’re being offered numerous identity options, all based upon subjective feelings, that go beyond the letters, LGBTQ.

Get the latest news on this advancement, and what it means for you, when you review this vital edition of Crosstalk.

EDITORS NOTE: This Americans for Truth podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘He’s Not Wrong’: Margaret Brennan Presses Buttigieg On Trump’s Stance Over Electric Vehicles Purchased thumbnail

‘He’s Not Wrong’: Margaret Brennan Presses Buttigieg On Trump’s Stance Over Electric Vehicles Purchased

By The Daily Caller

CBS host Margaret Brennan pressed Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg on former President Donald Trump’s stance on the amount of electric vehicles (EVs) purchased, noting Sunday that Trump’s take wasn’t “wrong.”

Buttigieg appeared on “Face the Nation” to discuss President Joe Biden’s current push for the adoption of electric vehicles in the U.S., as well as campaign strategies for climate change. Brennan questioned the Secretary of Transportation on Trump’s campaigning against electric vehicles, playing a clip of the former president calling out that, while millions have been spent on subsidizing electric cars, only a low number of purchases has resulted.

“I want to ask you about something that we hear quite a lot about on the campaign trail and that is electric cars, electric vehicles. Donald Trump repeatedly talks about President Biden’s decision to force the industry towards making 56% of car batteries electric by 2032, 13% hybrid,” Brennan stated before playing a clip of the former president. “He’s not wrong on the purchasing.”

“Oh, he’s wrong,” Buttigieg responded.

“He’s not. Of the 4 million vehicles purchased, 269,000 electric vehicles were sold in the U.S. market. It’s up like 2%,” Brennan stated.

“And every single year more Americans buy EVs than the year before. This is really important —” Buttigieg stated.

“But why aren’t we seeing it move more quickly —” Brennan jumped in.

“Every single year more Americans buy EVs than the year prior. There are two things that I think are needed for that to happen even more quickly. One is the price, which is why the Inflation Reduction Act acted to cut the price of an electric vehicle. The second is making sure we have the charging network we need across America. But I want to talk about the bigger point here, and I take this personally because I grew up in the industrial Midwest literally in the shadow of broken-down factories from car companies that did not survive into the turn of the century because they didn’t keep up with the times,” Buttigieg stated.

Brennan continued to push back on Buttigieg, stating “many of those autoworkers are concerned electric vehicles require fewer humans to manufacture,” to which Buttigieg responded that Biden was focused on making the “EV revolution” an “American-led” one.

“Because of these tariffs we’re talking about that President Biden says he’s going to roll out?” Brennan asked.

“Well, also just making sure we invest in America’s capacity. Making sure that we are on-shoring or friend-shoring the materials and the processing of what goes into these EVs — making sure that America masters these processes because, look, there’s no way that we’re going to get to the middle of this century with the technology that we counted on a century ago. Now there are, obviously, a lot of voices here in Washington who are interested in keeping the status quo,” Buttigieg stated.

“He says it’s going to be one of the first things he does, if he’s reelected,” Brennan responded.

“[Trump] would be happy to see Americans trapped with dirty and expensive fuels. The reality — and I know he’s made a lot of promises to the oil and gas CEOs about some of the favors that he believes his administration will deliver for them —” Buttigieg stated.

“But it obviously is resonating for him because he wouldn’t bring it up so frequently if there wasn’t some anxiety that he’s tapping into,” Brennan noted.

The Biden administration announced on May 14, 2024 that tariffs would be imposed on Chinese EVs. The move would quadruple levies to 100%, as well as raising certain rates for Chinese green energy and EV components such as minerals and batteries. The administration’s move follows the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision in late March 2024 to effectively require 67% of new models sold to be electric or hybrid by the end of 2032.

While recent data from Gallup shows the number of Americans who own electric vehicles has increased 4% from a year ago, fewer Americans are indicating they might consider buying an EV in the future. In 2023, 4% of Americans owned EVs, 12% stated they were “seriously considering buying” and 43% stated they “might consider in future” while 41% noted they would not be buying an EV, according to Gallup. Data from 2024. likewise, indicates that 7% currently own an EV, 9% are “seriously considering buying” and 35% “might consider in future” while 48% stated they would not buy one.



General assignment reporter.


Biden’s Climate Agenda Is Running Headfirst Into A Wall Of His Own Making

EXCLUSIVE: Swing State’s Pension Funds Used To Advance ‘Racial Equity,’ Climate Initiatives, Report Finds

Buttigieg Can’t Explain Why Biden Has Only Built ‘Seven or Eight’ EV Charging Stations – The Savage Nation

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

In Their Own Words: The Sexual Revolution Begins in Kindergarten thumbnail

In Their Own Words: The Sexual Revolution Begins in Kindergarten

By Linda Goudsmit

Globalism is a replacement ideology that seeks to reorder the world into one singular, planetary Unistate, ruled by the globalist elite. The globalist war on nation-states cannot succeed without collapsing the United States of America. The long-term strategic attack plan moves America incrementally from constitutional republic to socialism to globalism to feudalism. The tactical attack plan uses asymmetric psychological and informational warfare to destabilize Americans and drive society out of objective reality into the madness of subjective reality. America’s children are the primary target of the globalist predators.

Planned Parenthood[i] is the instrument of “transformative sexual change” in the United States. Marketed as scientificand evidence-based, transformative sexual change advocates changing restrictive laws that hinder the exercise of reproductive rights, and transforming social norms that perpetuate prejudices on reproductive rights. Over 40 percent of the organization’s revenue comes from your tax dollars in the form of government reimbursements and grants. Planned Parenthood (PP) is a political organization that disguises its political agenda as health education. My last book, The Collapsing American Family: From Bonding to Bondage (Chapter 10, “The Scheme and the Schemers Determined to Reeducate America”), exposes Planned Parenthood’s infiltration of the classroom, and its catastrophic Marxist agenda.

In an August 20, 2020, Daily Signal article, “Problematic Women: Planned Parenthood Ideology ‘Killing the Family,’ Ex-Volunteer Says,”[ii] Monica Cline, former volunteer and “comprehensive sex educator” at Planned Parenthood, is quoted. She explains how children were being pressured and deliberately sexualized in school because no adult was offering them the alternative of abstinence.

At one point she asks a group of thirteen- and fourteen-year-olds, “Guys, do you realize you don’t have to have sex? You don’t have to have oral sex, vaginal sex, or anal sex. And if you don’t, you never have to come in contact with someone else’s body fluids.” A little girl raised her hand and said, “Ma’am, no one has ever told us that.” That was the turning point for Monica Cline. She finally and fully understood:

There is a “huge movement to normalize childhood sex.” The sex education program of Planned Parenthood is “encouraging children to dehumanize themselves and each other, making them sexually active at a young age, normalizing every sexual behavior…. By doing that those children become dependent on getting condoms and contraceptives and getting treated, and yes, even getting abortions. And so, once that dependency occurs, and the parent who is purposely left out of the picture, there’s no one else who’s really guiding those children…. They empathize with them and say, “Oh, yeah. Your mom and dad would probably be really mad to know you are sexually active. But we know it is perfectly normal, and we’re here to help you.” … It sounds so positive. But what they are really doing is creating a barrier between a family and their child, the guidance of a parent.

Cline explains that parents have absolutely no input or control over the sex ed content. PP and other comprehensive sex education organizations consider parents a barrier to services. The goal is to mandate their sex education, which is really an ideology, and change the sexual attitudes of our entire nation by influencing our children. PP volunteers are not supposed to be in schools unless invited, but volunteers are sneaked into schools by sympathetic teachers and administrators. Cline describes the radical sexual ideology being taught by teachers and supported by school administrators and local school boards entrusted with educating America’s children:

They believe that children are sexual from birth. And they use a little bit of truth, and then distort it completely. And just because we’re born with sexual parts doesn’t mean that we should be sexually active.

According to Planned Parenthood and “The Future of Sex Education,”[iii] [an initiative based on the National Sex Education Standards (Second Edition),[iv]] they believe in the sexual rights of children. They do believe that children at any age, even infancy, have the right to sexual pleasure. You can read that in their own mission statements. You can go to their websites and learn that. They’re not hiding it anymore. And they believe it’s normal, and so they’re really trying to change the sexual attitudes of a whole nation and across the globe that this is true.

And so, you’re going to see that they are now creating programs for parents, to start convincing parents that their children are sexual beings, and that they should be able to learn about their bodies and pleasure themselves, or with other children…. They use a lot of Alfred Kinsey’s research, which is incredibly unethical and should have been illegal. But yet, Alfred Kinsey has influenced public health education and has influenced our laws in this nation as well…. Kinsey, they consider him a hero because he loosened the belt of people, of sexual repression, and gave people the spectrum of being from homosexual to straight and everything in between.

And now they are using that same “spectrum” for gender identity as well. So, I think parents need to be very concerned, because even if the curriculum is not in your school, I get phone calls from parents all over the country that progressive teachers are teaching their children this in class, even if it is history, or whatever it may be….

A big piece of this, which for some people, it’s something I think is hard for them to understand, is that there is a huge movement through socialism that really wants to do away with the nuclear family. They want to do away with anything that is of [one’s own], whether it’s private property, or private family.

And so, they believe that children do not necessarily belong to their parents, but that they can educate the children in the way that they want them to go. And sex education is a big piece of that, because when you teach children to dehumanize themselves, to take intimacy and family and marriage out of sex, even to the point of killing your own children through abortion, you are essentially killing the family. You’re destroying the family.

And of all the tactics they are using—you can read any curriculum—not only is it going to be graphic, but they will not ever guide a child to talk to their own parent ever. You won’t hear a word about the parent. A parent is completely eliminated from this education.

They want the children dependent on the government, or on public health, whatever it may be, but they do not want the children to be depending on the parent anymore. And so, all of this really is to break down the family. And they’re essentially…we’re watching it happen…they basically have been given words in school. And they go home and tell their parents, “You’re just old fashioned, or you are worshipping a god of hate, or you’re very conservative. You don’t understand the culture.”

And these kids are learning all this at school.

The primary source of school sexuality education is the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). The organization was founded in 1964 by Dr. Mary Calderone, then medical director of Planned Parenthood, to be the national resource for teaching sex education in public schools. In 2019 the organization changed its name from the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States, to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, to reflect its expanded perspective.

Wikipedia reports[v] that SIECUS disseminates the SIECUS State Profiles, which monitor sex education in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the other U.S. territories. Each profile includes an overview of current sex education laws, policies, and guidelines, newly introduced legislation, and relevant action that advocates have taken to advance or defend sex education in their communities. SIECUS funds and manages The Future of Sex Education (FoSE) project, which promotes institutionalizing Comprehensive Sexuality Education in public schools. (Comprehensive Sexuality Education is discussed at length in Chapter 19.)

In 2019, the organization officially rebranded itself and added a tagline to its name, SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change,[vi] acknowledging that it is no longer a single-issue organization. That same year, it launched the Sex Education Policy Action Council (SEPAC),[vii] a movement to have Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE)become compulsory in all fifty states. SEPAC began with twenty-four participating states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. SEPAC lists Planned Parenthood as an active member in almost all states listed.

SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change is part of the international consortium of organizations fomenting seismic social change across the globe. SEICUS is working to fundamentally transform America. How can sexuality education fundamentally transform a society?

James Lindsay provides an extraordinary explanation in his series of podcasts on “groomer schools.” The first podcast, “Groomer Schools 1: The Long Cultural Marxist History of Sex Education,” The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 54,[viii] which aired on November 21, 2021, is introduced with the following:

Through brand names like “comprehensive sex education” and one of its parent programs, “Social Emotional Learning (SEL),” our government schools have been turned into Groomer Schools, and parents are beginning to notice. What many will not understand, however, is that this isn’t just a fluke of our weird and increasingly degenerate times. It is, in fact, a long-purposed Marxist project reaching back into the early 20th century. In this episode of The New Discourses Podcast, join James Lindsay as he explains the long history of the sexual grooming that has come into our schools through Critical Gender Theory and queer theory as they have crept into educational programs. If you want an explanation for how sexually explicit materials, gender ideology, pornography, and strippers have made their way into our government schools, including for young children, this is a must-hear.

One of Lindsay’s most profound and shocking insights is that sexualization of children through critical theories of identity is purposely designed to dismantle the innocence of children. Critical theorists see the innocence of children as a fundamental problem that must be overcome in order to achieve their dreams of sexual liberation, gender liberation, and racial liberation. The woke consider children’s innocence evidence of a hegemonic narrative that maintains the existing social order and relations of society. Their innocence must be destroyed in order to achieve revolution. The woke intentionally destabilize children as early as possible for maximum political gain. It is horrifying.

Being sexualized is extremely damaging to children, and queer activism attacks a child’s most primary identity—his or her sexual identity. Yet queer activists see themselves as righteous. Lindsay explains the definition of queer theory as an identity without essence. This is an extremely important consideration, because the objective is beyond destroying a child’s sexual identity; the goal is to literally dissolve self.

Queer theory is by far the most regressive sociopolitical construct imaginable. It advocates the boundaryless existence of infancy as liberation while ignoring the powerlessness and total dependence of infancy. Infantile bliss is appropriate in infancy because the ability to reality-test does not exist in newborns. In adulthood, the inability to reality-test—to perceive reality or experience self, or both—is insanity.

Civilized and sane people have a great deal of difficulty wrapping their minds around such malevolence. Yet in the Orwellian madness of Marxist subjective reality, the justification for the assault on children is that children are being rescued from current capitalist hegemonic normativity. In the perverse spirit of globalism’s build back better, the woke are unapologetically destroying children’s sexual identities to groom them to become angry Marxist radicals who will destroy capitalist society and its hegemonic normativity.

Identity is the universal conundrum of the human experience. We want to know who we are, where we came from, and if our lives have meaning. So, who are we?

We begin with our most basic identity. “It’s a boy!” “It’s a girl!” After sexual identity comes family identity, national identity, religious identity, educational identity, professional identity, and so on. Our various identities add up to give us one distinguishing identity.

We have identification cards that verify our identity—passports, driver’s licenses, diplomas, marriage certificates, etc. We verify our identity because we value our identity personally, and because ordered liberty requires verification that we are who we say we are. We trust that a board-certified surgeon is operating on us. We trust that a licensed pilot is flying our plane. We trust that teachers are teaching our children fundamental skills of reading, writing, arithmetic, and basic knowledge.

Identity is an integral part of the universal human experience because it defines and identifies reality. We either are, or we are not, who we say we are. In politics and international affairs, identity has both domestic and international implications. National identity is predicated on both family identity and individual identity.

Without an identity, children become depressed, anxious, politically malleable, and groomable. Groomer schools are designed to dismantle children’s family identity, individual identity, and sexual identity. Because the earlier that grooming begins, the more effective it is, children in kindergarten are targeted for psychological destruction and build back better educational reprogramming.

The compulsory sex education that George Lukács brought to Hungary is parallel to the Comprehensive Sexuality Education disseminated throughout the United Nations institutions and taught in American schools, public and private, under the umbrella of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), specifically the Marxist version of SEL, transformative SEL.

SEL is an educational method marketed to the public as fostering social and emotional skills within school curricula. It is designed to have the same emphasis as classical subjects such as math, science, and reading. It is important to understand that SEL is not equivalent to what was once called good citizenship in school, defined as cooperative, respectful, courteous behavior. SEL is ideologically driven, and it focuses on feelings.

The program began in the 1960s as an effort to address the poor academic report cards of low-income African American communities in New Haven, Connecticut. Its approach supported a whole child perspective that focused on the social and emotional needs of the children. Over the years the program developed SEL strategies across K–12 classrooms, and its framework was adopted by the New Haven public schools. In 1994, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) was founded and three years later published its training manual, Promoting Social and Emotional Learning: Guidelines for Educators, which formally defined the field of SEL. The concentric circular framework for applying SEL strategies is called the CASEL wheel.

The CASEL[ix] website describes its continued advocacy for expanded systemic implementation of its program through federal policy in the U.S. that supports state-wide and district-wide implementation of social and emotional learning in K–12 schools. CASEL also seeks to expand SEL in support of workforce preparation and career readiness. The website drop-down menu Systemic Implementation[x] directs users to an overview that explains the approach:

A systemic approach ensures that SEL is woven into all students’ educational experiences. More than a single lesson or activity, SEL is integrated across key settings where students live and learn: classrooms, schools, homes, and communities. It also aligns school district and state policies, resources, and actions to support SEL. Federal policies play a role in creating ripe conditions for supportive environments and rich learning experiences.

The “whole child” approach of Social and Emotional Learning expanded again in 2019 to become Transformative Social and Emotional Learning(TSEL)[xi] to “critically examine root causes of inequity, and to develop collaborative solutions that lead to personal, community, and social well-being.” You will notice the similarity in the language of transformation that describes TSEL, Marxist critical (criticizing) theories, Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform America,” and the United Nations 17 Sustainable Goals. TSEL is the parent program of Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE).

CSE is designed to destabilize existing morality, destroy childhood innocence, collapse sexual identity, and tear down the existing culture in the classroom, away from parental oversight. Children are assaulted with graphic sexual literature, including scenes depicting oral sex, anal sex, same-sex sex, and adult-child sex. Monogamous sex is mocked and promiscuous sex promoted as freedom and liberation. It is sexual and psychological grooming to bring about societal destruction. That is what transformative education means to the Marxist ideologues in charge of curriculum content. Let’s take a look.

Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is the most publicized demonstration of queer theory being foisted on children in schools, public libraries, and bookstores across America. DQSH is the creation of San Francisco author and queer activist Michelle Tea. Started in 2015, it is geared toward children ages three to eleven and is disingenuously marketed as promoting reading and diversity. Drag queens, men dressed as glamorous, sexualized women, read children’s books featuring LGBTQ characters and themes to the children, and engage in other “learning activities” including nightlife events and sing-alongs.

Wikipedia[xii] reports:

As of February 2020, there are 50+ official chapters of DSH [DQSH], spread internationally, as well as other drag artists holding reading events at libraries, schools, bookstores, and museums. In October 2022, the nonprofit organization officially changed its name to Drag Story Hour, to be more inclusive and “reflect the diverse cast of storytellers.”

From the Drag Story Hour[xiii] website:

What Is Drag Story Hour?

It’s just what it sounds like! Storytellers using the art of drag to read books to kids in libraries, schools, and bookstores.

DSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.

In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where everyone can be their authentic selves!

Clemson University,[xiv] a public university in South Carolina self-described as a place where purpose-driven students, faculty, and staff collaborate on projects that impact our state, country and world, promoted its Drag Storytime with the following invitation:

Beginning with author and activist Michelle Tea in 2015, Drag Storytime aims to “inspire a love of reading, while teaching deeper lessons on diversity, self-love, and an appreciation of others.” Gather your friends and family and join us for Clemson’s first Drag Storytime picture book reading! Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 1:00p to 2:00p.

Clemson’s invitation reveals both the bait, the love of reading, and also the switch, the sexual politics embedded in DQSH. Investigative journalist Christopher F. Rufo’s Autumn 2022 City Journal article, “The Real Story Behind Drag Queen Story Hour,”[xv] explains:

Families with children find themselves caught in the middle. Drag Queen Story Hour pitches itself as a family-friendly event to promote reading, tolerance, and inclusion. “In spaces like this,” the organization’s website reads, “kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where everyone can be their authentic selves.” But many parents, even if reluctant to say it publicly, have an instinctual distrust of adult men in women’s clothing dancing and exploring sexual themes with their children.

These concerns are justified. But to mount an effective opposition, one must first understand the sexual politics behind the glitter, sequins, and heels. This requires a working knowledge of an extensive history, from the origin of the first “queen of drag” in the late nineteenth century to the development of academic queer theory, which provides the intellectual foundation for the modern drag-for-kids movement.

The drag queen might appear as a comic figure, but he carries an utterly serious message: the deconstruction of sex, the reconstruction of child sexuality, and the subversion of middle-class family life. The ideology that drives this movement was born in the sex dungeons of San Francisco and incubated in the academy. It is now being transmitted, with official state support, in a number of public libraries and schools across the United States. By excavating the foundations of this ideology and sifting through the literature of its activists, parents and citizens can finally understand the new sexual politics and formulate a strategy for resisting it.

Rufo’s article provides a valuable history of queer theory and its stated objective: to destroy that which exists in order to build back better. He begins with lesbian writer and activist Gayle S. Rubin, who launched the academic discipline of queer theory with her 1984 seminal essay, “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.”[xvi] In the paper, Rubin compliments Alfred Kinsey’s “positive concept of sexual variation,” saying, “his scientific detachment gave his work refreshing neutrality.” (Kinsey’s work is discussed in Chapter 17.)

Rufo quotes Rubin:

“Modern Western societies appraise sex acts according to a hierarchical system of sexual value,” Rubin wrote. “Marital, reproductive heterosexuals are alone at the top erotic pyramid. Clamouring below are unmarried monogamous heterosexuals in couples, followed by most other heterosexuals…. Stable, long-term lesbian and gay male couples are verging on respectability, but bar dykes and promiscuous gay men are hovering just above the groups at the very bottom of the pyramid. The most despised sexual castes currently include transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers such as prostitutes and porn models, and the lowliest of all, those whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries.” …

For Rubin and later queer theorists, sex and gender were infinitely malleable. There was nothing permanent about human sexuality, which was, after all, “political.” Through a revolution of values, they believed, the sexual hierarchy could be torn down and rebuilt in their image….

“There [are] historical periods in which sexuality is more sharply contested and more overtly politicized,” Rubin wrote. “In such periods, the domain of erotic life is, in effect, renegotiated.” And, following the practice of any good negotiator, they laid out their theory of the case and their maximum demands. As Rubin explained: “A radical theory of sex must identify, describe, explain, and denounce erotic injustice and sexual oppression. Such a theory needs refined conceptual tools which can grasp the subject and hold it in view. It must build rich descriptions of sexuality as it exists in society and history. It requires a convincing critical language that can convey the barbarity of sexual persecution.” Once the ground is softened and the conventions are demystified, the sexual revolutionaries could do the work of rehabilitating the figures at the bottom of the hierarchy––”transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers.”

Where does this process end? At its logical conclusion: the abolition of restrictions on the behavior at the bottom end of the moral spectrum—pedophilia. Though she uses euphemisms such as “boylovers” and “men who love underaged youth,” Rubin makes her case clearly and emphatically. In long passages throughout “Thinking Sex,” Rubin denounces fears of child sex abuse as “erotic hysteria,” rails against anti–child pornography laws, and argues for legalizing and normalizing the behavior of “those whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries.” These men are not deviants, but victims, in Rubin’s telling.

Rubin’s prism is thoroughly Marxist. She perceives a Marxist oppressor/oppressed infrastructure of capitalism as the hidden politics of modern sexuality, and insists that both must be destroyed in order to fundamentally transform society. From the conclusion of “Thinking Sex”:

Like gender, sexuality is political. It is organized into systems of power, which reward and encourage some individuals and activities, while punishing and suppressing others. Like the capitalist organization of labour and its distribution of rewards and powers, the modern sexual system has been the object of political struggle since it emerged and as it has evolved. But if the disputes between labour and capital are mystified, sexual conflicts are completely camouflaged.

Rufo continues his history of queer theory with quotes from Rubin’s collaborator, Pat Califia, a sexually confused individual born female in 1954 who became a lesbian until transitioning into a bisexual trans man. From Califia’s essay “The Age of Consent: The Great Kiddy-Porn Panic of ’77“:[xvii]

American society had turned pedophiles into “the new communists, the new niggers, the new witches.” For Califia, age-of-consent laws, religious sexual mores, and families who police the sexuality of their children represented a thousand-pound bulwark against sexual freedom.

Quoting from Califia’s 1991 article, “Feminism, Pedophilia, and Children’s Rights“:[xviii]

“You can’t liberate children and adolescents without disrupting the entire hierarchy of adult power and coercion and challenging the hegemony of antisex fundamentalist religious values.”

Califia is a member of the third wave of feminism launched with Judith Butler’s 1990 book, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.[xix] Gender Trouble presents Butler’s theory of social change based on the concept of performativity. Performativity claims that gender identity results from enforcing a series of repetitions of verbal and nonverbal acts that generate the “illusion” of a coherent and intelligible gender expression and identity, which otherwise lack any essential property. Basically, Butler is saying that gender is a social construct derived completely from nurture, not nature. Performativity is the foundation for using DQSH and its related interactive drag events to collapse the “social construct” of gender.

Rufo’s City Journal article beautifully summarizes Rubin and Califia’s position, and how TSEL is being used to fundamentally transform America: “All of it––the family, the law, the religion, the culture—was a vector of oppression, and all of it had to go.”

Rufo continues his analysis with references to college professor and drag queen performer Harris Kornstein (aka Lil Miss Hot Mess) and queer theorist Harper Keenan. Kornstein and coauthor Keenan published drag pedagogy’s manifesto, “Drag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood.”[xx] Its goal was the application of queer theory to the education system. Rufo continues:

“The professional vision of educators is often shaped to reproduce the state’s normative vision of its ideal citizenry. In effect, schooling functions as a way to straighten the child into a kind of captive alignment with the current parameters of that vision,” Kornstein and Keenan write. “To state it plainly, within the historical context of the USA and Western Europe, the institutional management of gender has been used as a way of maintaining racist and capitalist modes of (re)production.”

To disrupt this dynamic, the authors propose a new teaching method, “drag pedagogy,” as a way of stimulating the “queer imagination,” teaching kids “how to live queerly,” and “bringing queer ways of knowing and being into the education of young children.” As Kornstein and Keenan explain, this is an intellectual and political project that requires drag queens and activists to work toward undermining traditional notions of sexuality, replacing the biological family with the ideological family, and arousing transgressive sexual desires [those violating socially accepted standards of behavior] in young children. “Building in part from queer theory and trans studies, queer and trans pedagogies seek to actively destabilize the normative function of schooling through transformative education,” they write. “This is a fundamentally different orientation than movements towards the inclusion or assimilation of LGBT people into the existing structures of school and society.”

Queer theory presents the sexualization of children as a human rights issue—specifically children’s human rights. The delivery system is Comprehensive Sexuality Education under the umbrella of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), specifically transformative SEL, the Marxist version of SEL. Drag Story Hour is Marxist transformative SEL that exploits word obfuscation and deconstruction to advance queer theory in public/private American schools, libraries, and bookstores. It is George Lukács’s dream come true in America.

In conclusion, Rufo provides multiple examples of the spread of drag events across America and issues a warning to parents never to forget the purpose of DQSH:

As the movement behind drag shows for children has gained notoriety and expanded its reach, some drag performers have let the mask slip: in Minneapolis, a drag queen in heels and a pink miniskirt spread his legs open in front of children; in Portland, a large male transvestite allowed toddlers to climb on top of him, grab at his fake breasts, and press themselves against his body; and in England, a drag queen taught a group of preschoolers how to perform a sexually suggestive dance.

Scenes from drag events hosted across the United States in bars, clubs, and outdoor festivals have been even more shocking and disturbing: in Miami, a man with enormous fake breasts and dollar bills stuffed into his G-string grabs the hand of a preschool-aged girl and struts her in front of the crowd; in Washington, D.C., a drag queen wearing leather and chains teaches a young child how to dance for cash tips; in Dallas, hulking male figures with makeup smeared across their faces strip down to undergarments, simulate a female orgasm, and perform lap dances on members of a roaring audience of adults and children.

Advocates of Drag Queen Story Hour might reply that these are outlier cases and that many of the child-oriented events feature drag queens reading books and talking about gender, not engaging in sexualized performances. But the spirit of drag is predicated on the transgressive sexual element and the ideology of queer theory, which cannot be erased by switching the context and softening the language. The philosophical and political project of queer theory has always been to dethrone traditional heterosexual culture and elevate what Rubin called the “sexual caste” at the bottom of the hierarchy: the transsexual, the transvestite, the fetishist, the sadomasochist, the prostitute, the porn star, and the pedophile. Drag Queen Story Hour can attempt to sanitize the routines and run criminal background checks on its performers, but the subculture of queer theory will always attract men who want to follow the ideology to its conclusions.

Parents must understand that the attacks on their children’s sexual, individual, family, and national identities are weapons of war disguised as whole childeducation. The sexual revolution that begins in kindergarten can be defeated only by parents, grandparents, and other concerned citizens who understand the weaponization of education and oppose its sinister ideological and tactical purpose of whole child destruction. We the People must stand up to defy whole child education and prevent whole child destruction by protecting children’s innocence.

Our defiance is rooted in education. We fight fire with fire—we protect our children with lessons about secrets. We teach our children that secrets are danger signals. If anyone tells them don’t tell your parents, it is the signal that they will be hurt. Children must be taught to tell their parents the secret. Just like a red light means STOP and a green light means GO, being asked to keep a secret means TELL.

24 GOP Governors Warn Biden against ‘Unconstitutional’ WHO Pandemic Agreement thumbnail

24 GOP Governors Warn Biden against ‘Unconstitutional’ WHO Pandemic Agreement

By Family Research Council

As President Joe Biden considers adopting a global health agreement that would turn the power of the federal government over to leaders of a world government, dozens of governors have put him on notice that they “stand united in opposition” to handing over America’s national sovereignty.

Nearly every Republican governor in the country has signed a letter asking Biden to reconsider adopting a forthcoming accord enhancing the power of the World Health Organization before, during, and after global health crises. Negotiators are working around the clock to hammer out a final version of the WHO Pandemic Agreement before the World Health Assembly meets on Monday. The current text of the accord would require nations to agree with WHO regulations on “routine immunization,” “social measures” such as lockdowns and mask mandates, and require a massive global redistribution of U.S. wealth and technical information based on “equity.” The Biden administration has signaled it will accept the agreement without congressional approval.

The proposed document would grant WHO “unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people,” which “could drastically change the role of governors,” noted the 24 governors in Wednesday’s letter. “The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles.”

The agreement would grant WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus and other leaders “unilateral power to declare a ‘public health emergency of international concern’ (PHEIC) in member nations, extending beyond pandemics to include a range of perceived emergencies,” they said. The current text of the agreement states that “a range of environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic and economic factors may increase the risk of pandemics.” The latest details about the global health treaty are available in Family Research Council’s updated comprehensive explainer on the WHO Pandemic Agreement.

Enhancing global bureaucrats’ authority “would erode sovereignty” by “stripping elected representatives of their role in setting public health policies and compelling citizens to comply with WHO directives, potentially including mandates regarding medical treatments,” stated two dozen governors spanning the party’s ideological spectrum, including Ron DeSantis (Fla.), Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Ark.), Glenn Youngkin (Va.), Doug Bergum (N.D.), and Chris Sununu (N.H).

The state leaders are also concerned about “a global surveillance infrastructure and requirements for member states to censor speech related to public health. Requiring Americans to share information about deadly, incurable, highly-transmissible viruses with the rest of the world may “potentially facilitat[e] the proliferation of biological weapons.”

“[P]ublic health policy is a matter reserved for the states, not the federal government, and certainly not international bodies like the WHO,” they point out. “We are committed to resisting any attempts to transfer authority to the WHO over public policy affecting our citizens or any efforts by the WHO to assert such authority over them.”

Every Republican governor in the United States signed the letter except three: Governors Mike Parson of Missouri, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Phil Scott of Vermont.

“The governors appear to be more concerned about their sovereignty than Joe Biden seems to be concerned about the sovereignty of the U.S.,” said FRC President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch” Thursday. “I also think it is a precursor to one-world government.”

The governors’ letter followed a May 1 letter led by Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) and signed by all 49 Republican senators branding the WHO Pandemic Agreement “unacceptable” and “dead on arrival” if it ever comes before the U.S. Senate for ratification, as required of a treaty. “Instead of addressing the WHO’s well-documented shortcomings, the treaty focuses on mandated resource and technology transfers, shredding intellectual property rights, infringing free speech, and supercharging the WHO,” noted the senators.

They called on the Biden administration to “withdraw your administration’s support for the current IHR amendments and pandemic treaty negotiations” and champion “comprehensive WHO reforms that address its persistent failures without expanding its authority.”

It also comes after 22 state attorneys general put the executive branch on notice that it cannot turn over U.S. health policy to any global governance body, because the “U.S. Constitution doesn’t vest responsibility for public health policy with the federal government,” the legal authorities pointed out in a May 8 letter. They added the present text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement “would lay the groundwork for a global surveillance infrastructure, ostensibly in the interest of public health, but with the inherent opportunity for control (as with Communist China’s ‘social credit system’).”

Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council, said the rising chorus of concern could help uphold fundamental American liberties. “We hear a lot in the press and in the culture right now about protecting democracy,” Weber told Perkins. “The Constitution leaves health care to the states, [it] certainly does not put it in the hands of the federal government to be automatically put in the hands of an international body like the WHO.”

All signs show U.S. opposition to the WHO Pandemic Agreement growing among the American people, as well. Just over 93% of Republicans voted no on Question 8 in Georgia’s primary Tuesday, which asked, “Do you believe unelected and unaccountable international bureaucrats, like the UN-controlled World Health Organization (WHO), should have complete control over management of future pandemics in the United States and authority to regulate your healthcare and personal health choices?”

Opposition has spread globally, as well. On May 8, authorities in the U.K. announced they would not sign on to the agreement unless it no longer required them to turn over 20% of British pandemic vaccines, therapeutics, and medications to WHO for redistribution. Slovak leader Robert Fico had also opposed the accord.

FRC has set up a campaign allowing Americans to email national leaders with their opposition to the WHO Pandemic Agreement, as well.

Signatories of the governors’ letter included Kay Ivey of Alabama, Mike Dunleavy of Alaska, Sarah Sanders of Arkansas, Ron DeSantis of Florida, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Brad Little of Idaho, Eric Holcomb of Indiana, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Greg Gianforte of Montana, Jim Pillen of Nebraska, Joe Lombardo of Nevada, Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, Doug Burgum of North Dakota, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Bill Lee of Tennessee, Greg Abbott of Texas, Spencer Cox of Utah, Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, Jim Justice of West Virginia, and Mark Gordon of Wyoming.


Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.


EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. ©2024 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.

Watch this interview with Joe Garrison, the Owner, Founder and CEO of Garrison Life LLC on Dissent Television thumbnail

Watch this interview with Joe Garrison, the Owner, Founder and CEO of Garrison Life LLC on Dissent Television

By Dr. Rich Swier

We had a wide ranging interview into the life and experiences of Joe Garrison, a successful businessman from Polk County, Florida.

He is the founder of Garrison Life, LLC. Garrison Life LLC, is a t-shirt and merchandise company inspired by the agricultural and grower community in Florida.

Joe Garrison, has always had a passion for agriculture and wanted to create a company that celebrates and supports those who work in the industry.

Joe grew up in a traditional family where both his father and mother worked to keep food on the table. But more importantly Joe learned the value of hard work.

Joe’s father was a craftsman and now Joe supports young people who want to be like his father a craftsman.

Joe is an American patriot. He believes in the working class and does everything he can to support them.

Watch his compelling interview:


Joe Garrison, the Owner, Founder and CEO of Garrison Life LLC.

Not only is Joe an entrepreneur, but also a philanthropist.

Joe runs a non-profit organization where he raises chickens and donates their eggs to various churches, food banks, and those who are less fortunate.

His passion for helping the community is inspiring, and he’s making a difference one egg at a time.

When you purchase from Garrison Life LLC, you aren’t just investing in a product, you’re investing in a cause.

Part of the profits from sales go towards supporting Joe’s non-profit and its mission to provide nutritious food to those in need.

At Garrison Life LLC, we believe that the hardworking men and women who grow our food, fiber, and fuel deserve recognition and respect. That’s why we design and sell t-shirts and merchandise that honor and showcase the agricultural lifestyle.

Our products are made with high-quality materials and feature unique designs that capture the spirit of the farming and growing community. With our modern agriculture-inspired graphics, we have something for everyone.

We are committed to supporting the agricultural community and we thank you for choosing Garrison Life LLC for your t-shirt and merchandise needs.

To learn more about Joe, his family and those that he works with please visit Garrison Life, LLC.

©2024. The Dissent Television Channel and its host Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

LGBT Activists Spend $15 Million Reminding Voters about Biden’s Most Unpopular Agenda thumbnail

LGBT Activists Spend $15 Million Reminding Voters about Biden’s Most Unpopular Agenda

By Family Research Council

If you’re one of those rare voters who just can’t get enough of LGBT extremism, you’re in luck! The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) plans to drop big bucks reminding swing-state Americans how they’ve successfully overtaken classrooms, sports, business, entertainment, and politics with radical gender ideology under Joe Biden. Of course, most people would say they don’t need the recap. As far as they’re concerned, the last three years of the Biden administration have been one long ad for the LGBT movement.

According to HRC, the $15 million campaign will focus primarily on six battleground states they believe could “make or break Biden’s reelection bid”: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Organization President Kelley Robinson told NBC, “This group of voters, when you break them down by state, can actually make the difference. … This is a powerful constituency, a powerful community. It’s our job to make sure that they have the tools that they need to show out to the polls. So we’re going to be knocking on doors, making phone calls, engaging every member that we’ve got to make sure that our people turn out.”

And while no constituency should be happier with Biden — after all, he did more to advance radical transgenderism than every president combined — the LGBT population’s outsized influence in the White House doesn’t exactly translate to election politics. Even this 7.6% of the country (a generous estimate, many believe) isn’t exactly thrilled with Biden, despite his unpopular decision to declare war on every social, scientific, and biological norm.

Despite the White House’s incessant pandering, his most overrepresented base (apart from illegal immigrants, who, at least for now, can’t technically vote) doesn’t necessarily believe that Biden’s overt LGBT gestures are enough. “Like much of the country, LGBTQ+ Americans aren’t particularly enamored with the president,” ABC News warns. “Though they’re more likely to approve of the job Biden is doing than Americans overall, the president’s approval rating was still flat with this group: An equal share (47 percent) said they approved of the job Biden was doing as said they disapproved.”

That’s bad news for an administration that’s put all of its eggs in the transgender basket. Interestingly, “a plurality (30 percent) of LGBTQ+ Americans identified their political leanings as “moderate centrist/independent” in March polling. “When asked to place themselves on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being the most liberal and 10 being the most conservative, the average response was 3.9. Similarly, a plurality said that they’d like politicians to be a 5 on that scale. And when asked what they thought was the most pressing issue in America today, the top response, with 24 percent, was ‘jobs and the economy.’”

For three years, Biden has been willing to hemorrhage moderate and Independent voters with outrageous gender ideology that erases girls’ sports, parental rights, privacy, and children’s health and safety in the hopes that his far-Left base will ride in and rescue him. That seems less and less likely, especially now, in a volatile political environment where his unpopularity is spilling over into the Democrats’ anti-Semitic protestors.

And while HRC estimates that there are 75 million “equality voters” who base their vote on LGBT rights, no one is quite sure how that’s possible. The topic didn’t even make Gallup’s 14 top voter concerns for 2024. In fact, “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights” weren’t even listed in March’s poll, which is a twist from previous election years when it perennially ranked dead last. Maybe Gallup didn’t want to expose what a political loser the issue is — or maybe there wasn’t enough concern for it to even register. Either way, it’s a revealing shift.

At the end of the day, experts say, HRC may not only be losing millions but also making things worse for Joe Biden. “This will not have the effect they think it will,” Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon told The Washington Stand. In fact, she said, “I hope groups like the Human Rights Campaign complain very loudly about how oppressed they are while the Biden administration does their bidding to force men into women’s sports, secretly transition kids at school behind parents’ backs, mandate pronoun usage, and pay for mutilating and sterilizing surgeries in the military and on children. That’s not going to go over well with the average voter,” she warns, “and may further alienate independent and minority voters.”

Saturating swing states with an LGBT message most voters have already rejected — and the affected 7% don’t seem to prioritize — isn’t going to help Biden’s chances. What it will do is remind the fence-sitters where the president has spent the majority of his time — and it isn’t on lowering inflation, prices, and crime; it isn’t on protecting us from China and Iran or even stopping the stampede across the border. No, his perverse fixation on LGBT extremism and punishing its critics exceeds anything this country has ever seen.

“This moment feels so important, not just for this election,” the HRC president said, “but really for what it means for the future of our community. We are seeing an incredible backlash in states across the country to the progress that we’ve made … that’s led by an opposition that doesn’t want us to have the rights we have today.” Robinson is right to worry that the pendulum is swinging away from her agenda, but it’s really no surprise considering the nightmare parents are finding themselves in at work, their children’s school, even their daughters’ swim meets.

As FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter told TWS, “The Biden-Harris administration has prioritized left-wing sexual and gender ideology over basically everything else. Everything from foreign policy to public schools and national defense must include some LGBT-oriented policy in this administration. They even rebranded Resurrection Sunday as ‘Transgender Visibility Day.’”

After having this agenda rubbed in their faces for the last three years, Carpenter believes “parents are waking up to the reality that this ideology, promoted by the Biden-Harris administration and HRC, is being used as a wedge between them and their children. I think young people are waking up to the insanity of gender ideology, in sports and medicine specifically. And I think Americans are tired of everything needing to be rebranded along LGBT-lines, as we’ve seen recently with even woke corporations de-prioritizing LGBT-themes in their advertising and products.”

If HRC thinks they can win people over, good luck, Carpenter says. “They have their work cut out for them.”


Suzanne Bowdey

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


Germany Joins Nations Skeptical of Gender Transition Procedures for Minors as Evidence of Harms Mounts

SCOTUS Rejects Parents’ Petition against ‘Secret Gender Transitions’ in Schools

Growing Number of States Require Age Verification for Online Porn Access

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

Iran Emerges as a Hub for International Organ Trafficking thumbnail

Iran Emerges as a Hub for International Organ Trafficking

By Amil Imani

The life-saving promise of organ transplants is marred by a disturbing reality: international organ trafficking rings. This lucrative criminal enterprise preys on the desperate and fuels a black market catering to wealthy recipients, often oligarchs, seeking a quick fix.

Iran, under a criminal regime, has emerged as a suspected hub in this illicit trade. Accusations point to a system where Iranian citizens, burdened by economic hardship, are coerced into selling their organs to foreign recipients.  While the extent of the practice remains unclear, reports suggest a disturbing trend.

Here’s why this alleged Iran regime-oligarch connection is particularly concerning:

Oligarchs and Unethical Practices

With their immense wealth, Western, Arab, and other oligarchs are willing to pay exorbitant sums to bypass waitlists and legal channels for organ transplants.

Desperation in Iran under the Mullahs

The Iranian economy is in shamble due to the tyrannical regime, creating a breeding ground for exploitation. Individuals facing financial ruin become easy targets for traffickers, promising a way out of poverty and fueling a cycle of abuse.

This raises a troubling question: are helpless people in Iran essentially being turned into human spare parts for the wealthy elite?

Preying on the Vulnerable

Iran, under the rule of mullahs, is just one piece of this global puzzle. International trafficking rings exploit vulnerable people from many countries.  Agents operating within these countries act as the initial point of contact, befriending or manipulating those struggling financially.  They dangle the promise of immense sums of money in exchange for an organ, often a vital organ like a kidney.  The desperation of poverty clouds judgment, making the offer seem like a lifeline.

Deception and Exploitation

The deception goes a step further. Victims are misled about the legality and risks associated with the surgery.  They are promised anonymity and exceptional medical care, but the reality is far from rosy.  These individuals are often transported to Iran or other countries with weaker regulations for the surgery.  The agent pockets a large commission, while the donor receives a fraction of the promised money.  Often, they lack access to proper post-operative care, jeopardizing their long-term health.

Veil of Secrecy

Iran, under the Islamic terrorist regime and with a possible unregulated or poorly regulated transplant system, becomes an attractive destination.  The oligarchs’ main objective of keeping Iran away from international media scrutiny fuels this clandestine trade.  A shroud of secrecy allows the trafficking ring to operate with impunity.

The international community must act to dismantle these trafficking rings. Here are some possible steps:

Investigate and Crack Down

International law enforcement agencies must collaborate on investigations to expose the networks, apprehend the perpetrators, and target the agents operating in different countries.

Financial Disincentives

Sanctions targeting individuals or entities involved in organ trafficking could disrupt their financial operations.

Support for Vulnerable People

Bolstering economies and social safety nets in countries with high poverty rates can reduce the desperation that makes people vulnerable to traffickers.

Combatting Media Blackouts

Shining a light on the Iranian regime’s criminal role in this trade and pressuring for transparency can make it a less attractive destination for oligarchs seeking organs.

Raising Awareness is a Key

The fight against organ trafficking requires a multi-pronged approach.  Raising awareness is crucial – educating potential victims and highlighting the ethical implications for those seeking organs through illicit channels.

Organ transplants should offer a chance at a new life, not fuel a despicable trade. By holding those responsible accountable and ensuring ethical practices, we can ensure organ transplants remain a symbol of hope, not exploitation.

Do we understand that the international community, including various heads of government, is complicit in this scam? Their silence and inaction raise serious questions. They must prove otherwise by taking concrete steps to dismantle this tyrannical regime. They must stand with the people who yearn for freedom and democracy.

©2024. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

Some Observations about Beliefs — Part 1 thumbnail

Some Observations about Beliefs — Part 1

By John Droz, Jr.

This is not about religious beliefs, but rather our beliefs about everything…

Everyone has a wide collection of Beliefs in their head. Further, we each have a dozen or so KEY Beliefs, that effectively run our life. Most of these are not religious in nature. (In Part 2 I’ll share with you what mail list of Beliefs are. Part 3 will be more about Beliefs, including how to get others to change their Beliefs.)

Beliefs are:

  • “rules” (assumed truths) we use to respond to people and events, how we make decisions, etc. (i.e., how we understand and manage the world),
  • the basis for our “self-talk”, (which most of us take for granted), and
  • the foundation of our “values”.

Our Beliefs are learned from: our personal experiences, our thoughts, parents, friends, society, media, religion, etc.

Many of our Beliefs can be summarized into metaphors, proverbs, idioms, or axioms (e.g., “haste makes waste”). These exist not only because that have some truth to them, but also because they are memorable.

Beliefs can be very beneficial as they:

  1. help us to conceptualize what we’ve learned in prior experiences,
  2. save us the time and effort so we don’t have to “start from zero” in every situation, and
  3. help us solve the challenges of life by giving us a basis for acting consistently.

Our Beliefs lead to our actions happening — and determine our happiness. Here’s the general sequence, starting with the fact that each of us has a unique set of Beliefs…

The problems with Beliefs are:

  1. as generalities, they are rarely always correct, even though we assume they are,
  2. since they are in our subconscious, we are often not aware of what they are,
  3. most of us do not routinely examine our Beliefs for accuracy,
  4. sometimes an otherwise correct Belief may be used where it is not appropriate,
  5. when we are faced with evidence that contradicts one of our Beliefs, we tend to dismiss it as an exception, and
  6. when we really want to change a Belief, it takes concerted effort to do it.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Good News on Abortion, World Government, and Judicial Radicals: The Stories You Missed This Week thumbnail

Good News on Abortion, World Government, and Judicial Radicals: The Stories You Missed This Week

By Family Research Council

Liberal news bias affects every aspect of our society, including story selection. Every week, the media highlights certain stories while ignoring or limiting the coverage of others. Like all their content, newsrooms filter these decisions through their editors’ liberal bias, distorting the news you receive and polluting the information ecosystem. The Washington Stand highlights the stories you may have missed while desperately straining to hear the news through the cacophony produced by the legacy media.

This week, the media downplayed good news about abortion, the WHO Pandemic Agreement, and radical judicial appointments — as well as bad news about the Biden administration’s fanatical support of the transgender agenda, its indifference to the consequences of blowing up a train of toxic chemicals in East Palestine, and its belief that Mother’s Day is the perfect time to promote abortion.

1. Voters are beginning to see state abortion referenda as a Democratic get-out-the-vote scheme.

The wave of state ballot initiatives seeking to impose unrestricted abortion-on-demand on states from coast to coast has encountered a serious problem: Voters are beginning to see them as a cynical ploy to elect Democrats. The news comes from reading between the lines of a story in Politico titled “National Dem strategy worries state abortion-rights leaders.”

“Democrats’ efforts to ride the coattails of abortion ballot measures put passage at risk,” declares the subheadline.

The abortion lobby apparently fears defeat if voters realize their state’s referendum serves as little more than a Democratic voter-drive scheme. “We haven’t won or beat back a single one of these ballot measures without significant [I]ndependent and Republican support,” Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL) told Politico. “We spent a lot of last year talking to candidates directly saying, ‘Don’t put things on the ballot just to enhance voter turnout for Dems.” A leader of the Nebraska abortion-expansion referendum, Taylor Givens-Dunn said, “We want to be clear that this is about people, not politicians.”

Their concerns have spread to the professional political class. An anonymous consultant working with multiple state ballot initiatives told Politico that Democratic candidates “don’t need to talk about the specific ballot initiatives all day long,” because if they do, it will “reduce the chances that they win.”

Thus far, Democrats have not only ignored this anonymous individual’s advice; they have openly touted the referenda as their party’s political salvation in November. “[A]bortion has become a key issue that could help drive turnout for Democrats to win up and down the ballot,” said a memo dated May 2 from the Democratic Party’s official campaign arm aimed at winning statewide races, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC). “These measures will cement abortion protections into state constitutions and could boost turnout for competitive races at every level of the ballot.” The DLCC’s president, Heather Williams, apparently provided the memo to Axios along with her own quotation.

Democrats have considered multiplying these initiatives even in self-described “abortion sanctuaries,” such as New York. Although the state has effectively no protections for unborn children, and Governor Kathy Hochul (D) gives millions to abortion facilities, “Democrat lawmakers pushed the effort forward amid hopes that it will bolster turnout,” reported The Hill.

The bad news is that support for abortion-on-demand does, indeed, cut across party lines. That includes a dishearteningly large minority of Bible-believing Christians, according to a study of Ohio’s Issue 1 released by the Center for Christian Virtue (CCV). Based on their numbers, “1 in 3 self-identified weekly church-going Catholics and Evangelicals supported the law, which will rob an estimated 30,000 unborn children of their lives every year,” CCV found. In all, “30 percent of Ohioans who believe life begins at conception voted to pass the radical abortion amendment.”

Even with such odds, the abortion industry apparently frets voters will reject ballot initiatives that are seen as a craven Democratic GOTV effort.

It would be a shame if the word got out.

2. Biden administration admits it will withhold federal funding from hospitals that don’t carry out transgender procedures.

In a move demonstrating its extreme commitment to the transgender agenda, a Biden administration official admitted Democrats would withhold federal funding from health care centers that refuse to administer puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone injections, or transgender surgeries — even if their objection rests on religious grounds.

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra made the admission during a Wednesday hearing of the House Education and Workforce Committee.

“Can you commit here today that your department will not withhold federal funding from hospitals or doctors who refuse to provide the ‘gender-affirming care’ that you are mandating if it violates their religious beliefs?” asked Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.). “What are you going to do if they refuse to provide this care?”

“Doctors don’t get federal funding, ma’am,” said Becerra, attempting to dodge the question.

“But the hospitals do,” Miller replied.

“Don’t confuse the two,” chided Becerra.

Miller then followed up by asking about hospitals and other health care facilities that presented a faith-based objection to carrying out procedures that deny the reality of Genesis 1-3.

“If a health care facility is violating the law and not providing the service they’re required to, they’re not entitled to the resources,” Becerra (finally) answered.

“We knew that you would withdraw federal funding,” replied Miller.

Posting video of the exchange on social media, Miller stated: “HHS Secretary Becerra says the quiet part out loud. Joe Biden’s government will withhold funds from religious hospitals that refuse to provide sex-change operations for young children.”

Such an action is hardly surprising. In May 2022, Biden’s USDA threatened to deny needy children school lunches. Six years earlier, the Obama-Biden Justice Department threatened to cut off all school funding to any school or university that did not give males access to female showers, locker rooms, overnight accommodations, and dorm room housing.

But the video makes it crystal clear that the Biden administration favors the LGBTQ lobby over the survival of your local hospital — and admitted it under oath.

3. Controversial Biden judicial pick doomed?

In an administration stacked with radicals, one appointee stood out: Adeel Mangi, whom Biden nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands. If confirmed, the administration trumpeted, Mangi would be the first Muslim to sit on an appellate court. But it left out critical details about Magni’s autobiography.

During the time Mangi served on the board of Rutgers University Center for Security, Race and Rights (CSRR), it hosted Sami al-Arian, a former professor who admitted he provided material support to the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad. (Al-Arian was subsequently deported to Turkey.)

Mangi also served as a board member of the Alliance of Families for Justice (AFJ), which was co-founded by Kathy Boudin, a member of the radical 1960s domestic terrorist organization the Weather Underground. Boudin also entered a guilty plea in her case to murdering two police officers during a 1981 Brinks robbery. True to form, AFJ asked authorities to release six cop-killers, who were members of the Black Panthers or the Black Liberation Army, describing the murderers as “freedom fighters.”

These associations proved so toxic that numerous Democratic senators — including Catherine Cortez Masto, Jacky Rosen (both of Nevada), and Joe Manchin (W.Va.) — publicly opposed his appointment. Since then, his nomination has hung in limbo. But insiders familiar with the process say Senate Democrats have privately agreed his nomination is toast.

“This nominee has lost all hope from the Biden White House of getting a floor vote, given we are months away from the election,” longtime Senate staff leader Ron Bonjean told Fox News on Sunday. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his colleagues “are more than likely going to let him twist in the wind hoping he withdraws on his own.”

On the other hand, Democrats could theoretically force a vote on Mangi during the lame duck session of Congress, where a sufficient number of absences could place the radical on the court. The fact that Biden nominated such an extremist — tied to multiple forms of domestic and international terrorism — should serve as an indictment of its own.

4. Biden and allies promote abortion on Mother’s Day.

As it has in past years, the Biden campaign and multiple outlets on the cultural Left decided the perfect time to promote abortion is Mother’s Day.

The Biden-Harris presidential campaign marked Sunday’s holiday by releasing a video titled “Trump Attacks Women.”

“Happy Mother’s Day … but not from Donald Trump,” the video begins. It then features the 45th president boasting about overturning Roe v. Wade. All three Trump appointees to the Supreme Court — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — joined the 6-3 Dobbs ruling that declared the U.S. Constitution does not, and never did, contain an unalienable “right” to abortion.

“What a sad, miserable, cowardly existence Crooked Joe Biden and his campaign must have to make such a disgusting ad on such a joyous day,” replied Trump’s campaign team.

Yet the Left has once again chosen to tie the annual celebration of motherly love and affection with the taking of innocent, unborn life. “Forget the flowers. This Mother’s Day, pledge to support the right to abortion,” proclaimed an op-ed written by Nicole Hensel for the Colorado Newsline. “Give a gift to your mother and pledge to support abortion care for everyone,” she concluded. (Colorado Newsline is a faux, astroturf political website affiliated with the States Newsroom, “an operation created in secret by the Arabella Advisors network with funding from partisan interests under the guise of nonpartisan reporting,” according to Nick Givas of Restoration News.)

Ms. Magazine, whose political bias is less opaque, demeaned Mother’s Day as “all a societal forgery — an empty exercise the majority of us have all inexplicably agreed to engage in,” especially “in the post-Roe world [politicians] created with their anti-abortion policies.” “[F]or millions of people with the capacity to get pregnant in this country it is no longer a choice — it’s a government mandate,” wrote Danielle Campoamor. She did not explain what government law requires women to have sex. “I abhor the politicians championing a potential nationwide abortion ban,” wrote Campoamor. “I despise the Republicans.”

Tying Mother’s Day to abortion, which costs women the opportunity to mother a living child and often inflicts lifelong psychological harm on women, exposes the Left’s cruelty as bordering on the inhuman. Perhaps that explains why so few legacy media outlets reported on it.

5. Toxic fumes still waft in the air over East Palestine, Ohio.

An independent test has found that residents in East Palestine, Ohio, continue to breath harmful chemicals more than 15 months after officials vented and exploded toxic gases after a train derailment near the Ohio-Pennsylvania border.

A test of air in the tiny village, conducted in February by Edelweiss Technology Solutions, uncovered the presence of vinyl chloride, acrolein, benzene, ethanol, ethyl acetate, styrene, and toluene. After a town resident could not get the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency to test the area, “Edelweiss found high levels of acrolein inside her home, the report stating the chemical was identified to have the largest potential for health impacts during an independent assessment of the town done in February of 2023,” reported NewsNation on Wednesday.

The EPA had assured residents that vinyl chloride will “degrade rapidly in air by gas phase reaction,” which means some source must be emitting vinyl chloride into East Palestine more than a year after the Norfolk Southern accident.

As it turns out, the explosion was unnecessary and uncalled for, according to the Biden administration. Officials knew that “polymerization was not occurring, and there was no justification to do a vent and burn,” National Transportation Safety Board Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy testified to Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) in March. “There was another option: let it cool down.” But the people with the information did not share it with forces on the ground.

Despite the continuing fallout, President Biden has yet to issue a declaration of a public health emergency for the rural area, where President Donald Trump won 70.7% of the vote over Joe Biden in 2020.

The president seems more interested in trucking aid to the Palestinian Authority than in caring for U.S. citizens in East Palestine, Ohio.

6. The Biden administration stands up for AIDS-infected prostitution.

The Biden administration achieved minor success (the only kind it appears to attain) in its bizarre campaign to stop states from punishing HIV-positive prostitutes whose activity could expose others to the deadly virus. As this author reported in TWS:

“The Biden administration’s Justice Department sued the state of Tennessee over a law it adopted to stop the spread of AIDS, on the grounds that it discriminates against the virus. The state’s aggravated prostitution law (§ 39-13-516) charges anyone who knowingly sells sex while HIV-positive with a Class C felony, rather than a misdemeanor for prostitution. The guilty must also register as sex offenders for life, because they may have exposed the other party to AIDS.”

Although the lawsuit remains pending, the Biden administration announced Thursday it had convinced the district attorney of Shelby County, Tennessee to ignore the law and no longer prosecute offenders. He will also alert those who have been convicted under the statute of their ability to vacate the judgment and any remaining sentences or financial penalties.

The lawless move seems in keeping with the record of the district attorney of Shelby County, which includes Memphis. Steve Mulroy is a Democrat who received $616,000 in donations linked to far-left billionaire George Soros, according to the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. Amy Schumer, Barry Scheck, and executives from Jay Z’s company Roc Nation also donated to Mulroy in 2022.

Laws that prosecute HIV-positive prostitutes “perpetuate bias, stereotypes and ignorance,” said Assistant Attorney Kristen Clarke, who oversees the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Clarke, who stands credibly accused of perjuring herself during her confirmation hearings by omitting details over a purported history of domestic violence, may want to attend to her own legal conundrums.

But the lawsuit furthers the designs of the World Health Organization. WHO Secretary-General Tedros Ghebreyesus instructed nations near the first of this year, “Countries must repeal laws that criminalize homosexuality, sex work and HIV transmission.” The Biden administration’s legal crusade reveals the dangerous lengths to which liberals will go to carry out the will of the WHO.

Speaking of which ….

7. Opposition to WHO Pandemic Agreement spreading like wildfire in Congress.

The Biden administration remains committed to adopting the WHO Pandemic Agreement without Senate ratification, as constitutionally required for a treaty. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) introduced a measure requiring Biden to submit the accord to the U.S. Senate, so it can carry out its duty to advise and consent to it. But during a January 25 appearance on “Washington Watch,” Johnson observed that his bill is “not getting much traction here in Congress,” because the sovereignty-destroying concordat had become “a partisan issue.”

What a difference three and a half months make.

“Every Republican senator has signed on to this bill,” Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) told Perkins on Wednesday. His Wisconsin colleague, Johnson, rallied the entire Senate Republican caucus to sign a May 1 letter calling the pandemic agreement “unacceptable.”

The same momentum took place in the lower chamber of Congress, where Tiffany introduced the companion legislation. “We started out with 14 co-signers on the bill a couple months ago. We are now up to 51 members of the House of Representatives who have signed on,” said Tiffany.

Internationally, officials in the United Kingdom opposed the treaty, saying it would undermine national sovereignty and force them to divert emergency medical supplies intended for the British people to the global governance body for redistribution. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico also had stern words for the WHO Pandemic Agreement, declaring in November, “I will not support strengthening the powers of the World Health Organization at the expense of sovereign states.” He also derided the accord’s provisions as “nonsense that must have been created by insatiable pharmaceutical companies.” A 71-year-old pro-Ukrainian gunman repeatedly shot Fico on Wednesday. As of this writing, the populist prime minister remains in serious condition.

Please spare a few prayers for Fico, and his assailant. And, if you might, a few prayers that the WHO Pandemic Agreement fails.


Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Audacity of Merrick Garland

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 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.

From Sex Education to Sexuality Education thumbnail

From Sex Education to Sexuality Education

By Linda Goudsmit

Globalism is a replacement ideology that seeks to reorder the world into one singular, planetary Unistate, ruled by the globalist elite. The globalist war on nation-states cannot succeed without collapsing the United States of America. The long-term strategic attack plan moves America incrementally from constitutional republic to socialism to globalism to feudalism. The tactical attack plan uses asymmetric psychological and informational warfare to destabilize Americans and drive society out of objective reality into the madness of subjective reality. America’s children are the primary target of the globalist predators.

UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, is a specialized agency of the United Nations and a member of the United Nations Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG), a coalition of thirty-six UN funds, programs, specialized agencies, departments, and offices aimed at fulfilling UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The SDG is defined as “a collection of seventeen interlinked objectives designed to serve as a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future.”

Let’s look at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development website and examine the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the UN planetary 2030 Agenda. The UNSDG mission headline is Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.[i] The 17 Goals are item number 59 on the 91 listed items in the UNSDG Declaration.

Sustainable Development Goals

  • Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
  • Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
  • Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
  • Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
  • Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
  • Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
  • Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
  • Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
  • Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
  • Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
  • Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
  • Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
  • Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
  • Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
  • Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
  • Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

Item 91, the closing statement of the Declaration, confirms that the United Nations Sustainable Development Group 2030 Agenda is a planetary mission to fundamentally transform the entire world into its own vision of a betterworld. Agenda 2030 is a supremacist replacement ideology on a planetary scale:

We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to achieving this Agenda and utilizing it to the full to transform our world for the better by 2030.

Agenda 2030’s lofty language appeals to emotion, the desire to help people around the world. It is the bait. The next two items after the 17 Sustainable Goals, items 60 and 61, reveal the switch. Full implementation of Agenda 2030 requires “a revitalized and enhanced Global Partnership” and “the means required to realize our collective ambitions.” The price of full implementation is the surrender of individual agency and national sovereignty to the agencies and authority of the United Nations. Compliance is the universal objective of Agenda 2030.

60. We reaffirm our strong commitment to the full implementation of this new Agenda. We recognize that we will not be able to achieve our ambitious Goals and targets without a revitalized and enhanced Global Partnership and comparably ambitious means of implementation. The revitalized Global Partnership will facilitate an intensive global engagement in support of implementation of all the goals and targets, bringing together Governments, civil society, the private sector, the United Nations system and other actors and mobilizing all available resources.

61. The Agenda’s Goals and targets deal with the means required to realise our collective ambitions. The means of implementation targets under each SDG and Goal 17, which are referred to above, are key to realising our Agenda and are of equal importance with the other Goals and targets. We shall accord them equal priority in our implementation efforts and in the global indicator framework for monitoring our progress.

Goal 3 is of particular interest to this chapter, especially section 3.7:

By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programs.

What, exactly, is the “information and education” young children will receive? Parents around the world will be shocked to learn what the United Nations and its specialty agencies consider appropriate sexual and reproductive information and education.

UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund (originally United Nations Fund for Population Activities), is the UN’s sexual and reproductive health agency. Its motto is Ensuring rights and choices for all. The agency’s 2014 “Operational Guidance for Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE): A Focus on Human Rights and Gender[ii] is extremely enlightening. Its Introduction states authoritatively and unapologetically:

The Operational Guidance is founded on scientific evidence, international human rights conventions and best technical standards so that a common definition of CSE and associated best practices are promoted by the organization in discussions with counterparts….

The implementation of this Operational Guidance across UNFPA, and in cooperation with our partners, is designed to help achieve the vision of comprehensive rights-based, transformative sexuality education for young people throughout the world.

UNESDOC, UNESCO’s digital library, states unequivocally:

Sexuality education should start early, be age and developmentally appropriate, and should follow an incremental approach. This helps learners internalize concepts, make informed decisions, understand sexuality and develop critical thinking skills that mature as they grow older. Starting CSE early is important because children and young people need specific knowledge and skills at the appropriate time, for example, learning about puberty shortly before they go through it, not after. Moreover, in some countries, many students do not make the transition from primary to secondary school and therefore need access to critical information before leaving formal education.

The foundational assumption in CSE is that schools are the appropriate place for “sexuality education,” not the home. This assumption facilitates the Marxist objective of replacing family authority with the authority of the state in order to collapse America from within. So, let’s take a look at what the United Nations, the international state in this metaphor, considers “age and developmentally appropriate.”

In 2013, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) launched UN Free & Equal,[iii] a global UN public information campaign to promote equal rights and fair treatment of LGBTIQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/queer questioning, plus others) people. Promoted as the United Nations’ global campaign against homophobia and transphobia, the UN Free & Equal campaign targets youth with the motto When #YouthLead, anything is possible! and tagline: In a fearless future everyone’s an ally. Take a stand with LGBTIQ+ youth![iv]

The United Nations is calling on the youth of the world to unite in common LGBTIQ+ cause:

Young people are leading us towards a fearless world. Together, they are standing up and fighting for a world free of poverty, racism, sexism, ableism and all forms of violence, inequality and discrimination.

For LGBTIQ+ youth, this is a fight for survival. LGBTIQ+ youth are more likely to experience family rejection, poverty, discrimination, bullying, violence, exclusion from education—based on their age as well as their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics. As a result, they are at a higher risk of homelessness, poor health outcomes and suicide compared to their peers.

Trans youth are denied recognition of their gender identity and face high levels of hate speech, bullying and exclusion. Intersex children are often subjected to medically unnecessary interventions that cause lifelong pain and trauma. Lesbian, gay, bi and trans youth are subjected to unethical, harmful and traumatic so-called “conversion therapy”. Young LGBTIQ+ people who also face discrimination based on their race, ethnicity, gender, disabilities, religion and migration status are disproportionately affected by exclusion, discrimination and violence.

In a number of countries, LGBTIQ+ youth face censorship both when they seek information and when they speak about their issues, online or offline. In some contexts, discriminatory laws criminalize same-sex relations as well as trans people. Those who speak out and demand equality sometimes face imprisonment, hate speech, violence—even killings.

With great courage and resilience, young LGBTIQ+ people are leading change and standing up for a future that is safe, respectful, empowering and celebrates the beautiful diversity of humankind. A world where each and every one of us is free to be who we are and love whom we choose. Together, all of us can make this future a reality—when #LGBTIQ+ #YouthLead, anything is possible!

UNESCO’s International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (ITGSE) revised edition (2018)[v] is the United Nations’ updated platform for international instruction, and it bills itself as an evidence-informed approach:

Together with UNAIDS, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women, and the WHO, UNESCO completed the extensive technical and political process of updating the “International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education” in January 2018. As a result, the UN has a unified stance on the justification, supporting data, and recommendations for creating and delivering comprehensive sexuality education (CSE).

The updated guidance expands upon the original guidance and incorporates updates and enhancements based on fresh research and verified best practices from around the world. The revision process was influenced and steered by user surveys and structured consultations with experts from a wide range of fields and interest groups.

The updated Guidance is a convenient and very important instrument to move closer to a tipping point for the widespread use of high-quality CSE because of its unified voice, forward-thinking attitude, and focus on significant implementation problems….

It examines frameworks and agreements at the global, regional, and local levels that can be utilized to assist CSE implementation at various levels. The updated Guidance also takes into account CSE’s role in achieving several SDGs, particularly Goal 3: Good Health and Well-Being, Goal 4: Quality Education, and Goal 5:Gender Equality.

It all sounds good. So, what is the problem?

First, sex education is no longer just about human reproduction. The new label, Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), is far more expansive and is defined on the Health and Education[vi] section of the UNESCO website:

“Sexuality” is defined as “a core dimension of being human which includes: the understanding of, and relationship to, the human body; emotional attachment and love; sex; gender; gender identity; sexual orientation; sexual intimacy; pleasure and reproduction. Sexuality is complex and includes biological, social, psychological, spiritual, religious, political, legal, historic, ethical and cultural dimensions that evolve over a lifespan.” (International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education, p. 17)

Key values of CSE include:

Transformative: CSE impacts whole cultures and communities, not simply individual learners. It can contribute to the development of a fair and compassionate society by empowering individuals and communities, promoting critical thinking skills and strengthening young people’s sense of citizenship. It empowers young people to take responsibility for their own decisions and behaviours, and how they may affect others. It builds the skills and attitudes that enable young people to treat others with respect, acceptance, tolerance and empathy, regardless of their ethnicity, race, social, economic or immigration status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics.

CSE is weaponized education on a global level. Its universal curriculum is designed to collapse existing cultures into a singular culture of the planetary Unistate, and indoctrinate students with politicized education according to Marxist collectivist dogma. CSE grooms the children of the world to unite and become activists in preparation for global citizenship in the Unistate.

The deceitful manipulation of language is a weapon of war designed to dupe parents into accepting Comprehensive Sexuality Education as equivalent to the familiar and accepted Sex Education. There is no equivalence. Comprehensive Sexuality Education is a colossal deception that presents lessons in pornography as equal to lessons in human reproduction.

We can no longer trust American schools to teach basic foundational knowledge, or to support American Judeo-Christian values. We are the generation of parents and grandparents who must end the amoral, anti-American, anti-reality indoctrination in American schools. We must read what our children are reading, and see what our children are seeing. We must bring the offensive materials to our local school board meetings and read them into the record.

We the People must exercise our power by recognizing that political power begins locally. It is the foundation of community organizing. Now is the time to organize our community of parents and grandparents across America to oppose existing local school boards. We must run for election to our school boards. We must stand and unapologetically voice our objections at school board meetings, demand accountability, and remove the anti-American ideologues from power. We must protect the children.

©2024. All rights reserved.

Please visit Linda’s Pundicity page: goudsmit.pundicity.com  and her website: lindagoudsmit.com 


[i] Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Developmenthttps://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

[ii] Operational Guidance for Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE): A Focus on Human Rights and Genderhttps://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/UNFPA_OperationalGuidance_WEB3_0.pdf

[iii] UN Free & Equalhttps://www.unfe.org/about-2/

[iv] When #YouthLead, anything is possible! and tagline: In a fearless future everyone’s an ally. Take a stand with LGBTIQ+ youth!https://www.unfe.org/youthlead/

[v] UNESCO’s International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (ITGSE) revised edition (2018)https://unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/ITGSE.pdf

[vi] Health and Educationhttps://healtheducationresources.unesco.org/toolkit/what-comprehensive-sexuality-education-cse

Young adults losing the climate faith in the U.S. and only one third of voters think the IPCC experts are right thumbnail

Young adults losing the climate faith in the U.S. and only one third of voters think the IPCC experts are right

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Good news: despite 2023 being the hottest year since Homo Erectus, there was a 17% fall in the number of 18 to 34-year-olds who call “Climate change”  a very serious problem. Even though there were hottest-ever-headlines month after month, the punters lost the faith.

No one is cracking champagne because 50% of young adults still tell pollsters they think it is a “very serious problem”. But when all is said and done, at least half the generation that was drip-fed the dogma since kindergarten can not only see through the catastrophism but they are brave enough to tell a pollster that, too.

For the most part, after a few hot El Nino years, “climate fear” is back where it was in 2016 or so. Most people still want the government to solve the weather with someone else’s money. But where younger people were once much more enthusiastic about a Big Government fix than older people were, now that gap is almost closed. What was a 21% difference between those age groups is now only 2%. That’s a whopping fall in faith in the government to do something useful, or probably, a recognition that whatever the government does will cost too much.

Looks like young adults are learning to be cynical adults faster?

The Monmouth University group polled 804 people in late April:

Climate Change Concerns Dip:  Younger adults express less urgency than in prior polls

The percentage of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 who see climate change as a very serious problem has fallen by 17 points in the past three years (50%, down from 67% in 2021), compared with smaller declines among those who are 35 to 54 years old (44%, down from 48%) and those age 55 and older (44%, down from 54%).

Click here to the infographic: American Attitudes on Climate Change by Age.

But what does “a very serious problem” even mean?

Anyone can say, “It’s serious,” but only 1 in 6 people can even be bothered pretending to a pollster that climate change influences their vote:

A Monmouth poll released last month found only 15% of voters view climate change as a determinative issue in how they will vote in the 2024 presidential election, ranking far lower than inflation, immigration, and abortion.

People used to lie to pollsters and say they cared and it would affect their vote, but now most don’t even pretend. In 2019, in the UK, two-thirds of people agreed climate was the biggest issue facing humankind. The Guardian writers were sure that climate change would determine how most of the voters would vote, but the party promising to give them better weather lost in a landslide.

In 2015, when nearly half of US voters said climate was a “very serious problem”, other surveys showed only 3% ranked climate change as the most important issue.

If a twenty-something really believed the Antarctic ice cap was about to melt, wouldn’t it rate as a voting issue?

So let’s be clear, year after year, we see the same results. The voters don’t want to spend money on climate change and won’t change their vote, but the politicians act as though their career depends upon it, and the public is “demanding action”.

After years of surveys like this, we know the politicians know the voters don’t care, but they go and force climate action on the voters anyway. Who are they really working for? Their donors? The people who give them “jobs” after they leave office, or the people who employ their children now? Or are they working to appease “the media” — cowed into submission because someone might call them a denier if they don’t grovel before the Climate Demi-God?

Last year, a survey showed more then half of the US are wondering the same question and agree that the people who really “run” the country are not known to voters.

Fully 92% of Democrat voters say they think climate change is real. (What else could they say; they’d be excommunicated from friends and family if they said anything else.) Only 51% of Republicans tell pollsters they think climate change is real. But imagine how fast that would plummet if skeptical professors were interviewed on TV, and half of Republican politicians spoke for half the Republican voters?

Only a third of voters agree with the UN Experts that climate change is mainly a human-driven thing

Despite the UN experts being 97% certain, only one-third of voters completely agree with them. That’s really quite astounding.

Public opinion remains mixed on the degree to which human behavior contributes to change in the climate. Just over one-third (34%) say climate change is caused mainly by human activity, while 31% say human activity and natural changes in the environment play equal roles. Another 7% put climate change down mainly to natural causes, with the remainder saying climate change is not happening (23%) or are not sure if it is happening (4%). Just over half of Americans (51%) say there is still time to prevent the worst effects of climate change, while just 17% say it is too late.

After thirty years of scientific and media purity, only one-third think climate change is “mostly human”. Another third thinks the UN must be exaggerating, and the last third knows the UN is wrong.


Joanne Nova


The Monmouth University poll, Climate Change Concerns Dip, May 6th, 2024

CFACT Monthly Climate Fact Check

RELATED ARTICLE: POLL: 47% of Voters Believe the American Republic Has Fallen

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

LGBT Went a Bridge Too Far thumbnail

LGBT Went a Bridge Too Far

By Royal A. Brown III

There will be no LGBTQ+ Pride lighting in June as symbols of grooming and indoctrination on Florida’s Bridges this year — only Red, White & Blue as it should be.

“We want to make sure that we can turn queer kids into queer adults.”

The Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay won’t be lit up next month with rainbow colors to promote the LGBT agenda. The Florida Department of Transportation has spoken.

The Tampa Bay Times tried to blame one man for the change. But the credit belongs to many.

The paper sobbed, “The FDOT made no public announcement about the Manatee County objection, which came from Commission Chairman Mike Rahn. Instead, the agency announced that for 2024 it will have a display of red, white and blue lights on bridges that will run all summer, from Memorial Day to Labor Day. And it’s not just the Skyway. All Florida bridges will be draped in patriotic colors for the summer, so no Pride bridge lighting elsewhere either in June.

“That will not only wipe out the Pride rainbow lights, but other special days like Juneteenth and Mental Health Awareness Day will also go unrecognized because of the new lighting plan.”

Juneteenth? Excuse me, isn’t that supposed to be a patriotic holiday that commemorates the Union winning the Civil War and ending slavery?

The paper blamed Rahn but his county has say over only one bridge. Paragraph 16 said, “And since this is statewide, Jacksonville’s Acosta Bridge and Sarasota’s Ringling Causeway, which fought hard in 2021 to get FDOT to reverse its lighting policy, won’t get Pride lighting this year either.”

This also cancels gun awareness month lighting. Its color is orange. Its goal is to spay and neuter the Second Amendment.

What color represents illegal aliens violence awareness month?

Byron Green-Calisch, president of St. Pete Pride, whined to the paper, “The queer community has been plagued with gun violence and so has the rest of Florida, from Pulse (nightclub shooting in Orlando) to Parkland (school shooting in South Florida). We need to remember those victims, so that hurts my heart to hear.”

Green-Calisch has only himself and his fellow gay cult leaders to blame for the lights-out tidal change in politics. Their opposition to the Parental Rights in Education law, which banned teachers from talking about sex to kindergarteners, revealed just who they are.


Green-Calisch said last June, “We want to make sure that we can turn queer kids into queer adults. . . We know that representation plays a massive part in increasing feelings of satisfaction and decreasing depression in youth. So (we are) providing spaces for youth to come and see queer adults, and the simple fact that ‘it gets better.’”

He demanded that journalists tailor their coverage of LGBT to advance its agenda. Obviously, most journalists comply. The propaganda campaign, however, has not stopped the truth from seeping out. Parents are enraged about the way LGBT is allowed to groom children in public schools.

The Observer reported on October 27, 2021, “Video recorded by Alicia Farrant — a member of the Orange County chapter of the parent group Moms for Liberty — depicts Orange County [Florida] School Board Chair Teresa Jacobs having police officers remove Jacob Engels, a speaker during the public comment portion of the meeting, after Engels began reading from a book titled Gender Queer: A Memoir.

“The book, which was found in an Orange County Public Schools high school library, is a graphic novel that contains detailed and graphic depictions of sex acts.”

The sex is by pre-teens. I do not know how it escapes being branded child porn and its publisher avoids the long arm of the law.

By the way, Engels is gay. The story said:

A few seconds after Engels began reading from the book, Jacobs interrupted and pressed further when other members of the audience protested her order for Engels to stop reading.

“Sir,” she said. “Mr. Engels, you’re out of order. . . Remove him from the chambers.”

Jacobs continued: “I understand that book is in the classroom, and the language he just read is inappropriate for this forum. . . I understand the contradiction here. This is the first time I’ve heard of this and the board has heard of this. We will look into it, and I do hope the book is removed. OK? And if not, we’ll be back here having this conversation again, but I can guarantee you, I did not know that book was in the library.”

She knows now and schools started dumping them.

Then there is the whole tranny business. Parents face LGBT bullies on two fronts.

The first is (blankety-blanks) like Will Thomas turning women’s sports into a junior league for male athletes who cannot cut it in men’s sports. Thomas repeatedly harassed his female teammates in the locker room. Men who expose themselves like that are flashers who deserve an arrest and trial.

The second front is the move to give children puberty blockers and mutilate their bodies in expensive surgery that AP euphemistically calls gender affirming. Obama in 2014 unilaterally changed public policy and had Medicaid and Medicare cover the surgery. Under Obamacare, he was able to require insurers to cover this experimental surgery that sterilizes children and gives them a lifetime of trouble urinating.

LGBT propagandists also pushed things too far by demanding we call men in drag she. The federal government is all in on this, with the National Institutes of Health saying, “Intentional refusal to use someone’s correct pronouns is equivalent to harassment and a violation of one’s civil rights.”

I would say the NIH should stick to public health but federal public health agencies are terrible at public health. They did more damage during the pandemic panic than good. They quacked that masks stop a virus, they quacked that Pfizer and Moderna shots were vaccines, and they quacked that ivermectin was horse paste. These quacks were all wrong and harmed the public.

Now they push gender-bender surgery.

LGBT had a good thing going as they slowly gained tolerance and acceptance. Then they went after women and children. LGBT went too far.

The damage is taking out DEI as well. Public universities in Wyoming, Florida, Texas and elsewhere are tossing DEI Overboard either by legislative action or under pressure from donors and alumni.

Christopher F. Rufo tweeted, “UNC’s board of trustees has voted unanimously to abolish the university’s DEI department and transfer all funds to the campus police. It’s not 2020 anymore. ‘Defund DEI, refund the police’ is the winning slogan of the day.

“Good work, UNC trustees!”

This comes months after UNC fought along with Harvard all the way to the Supreme Court for the power to discriminate against Asian-Americans and white people. Justices said oh hell no.

Florida is saying no to promoting LGBT’s claim on the month of June. Nice to get the Sunshine Skyway back.

©2024. Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.

Carbon Capture Doesn’t Work, So Why Are They Doing It? thumbnail

Carbon Capture Doesn’t Work, So Why Are They Doing It?

By John Droz, Jr.

This is yet again another VERY bad idea…


Rebecca Terrell is an editor of the New American magazine and has written about unscientific foolishness for a long time. As such, I am honored for her to write this Critical Thinking Substack commentary.

Carbon dioxide harvesting is the Establishment’s latest eco-darling initiative and a big part of the Biden administration’s net-zero fantasies. The 2021 Infrastructure Bill included a mind-blowing $12 billion in carbon capture technology funding and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act increased government subsidies for capturing CO2 from $50 to $85 per metric ton.

“Carbon capture and storage” (CCS) aims to trap CO2 as it is produced by refineries and power plants. “Carbon dioxide removal” (CDR) involves large machines that extract COdirectly from the atmosphere. The trapped gas is liquified and transmitted at extremely high pressure to underground reservoirs. Sometimes it is used to extract oil and gas from deep, otherwise-depleted wells, in a process known as Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).

Around 5,000 miles of CO2 pipeline already exist in this country, but experts estimate that up to 65,000 miles will be added if Biden’s government’s plans are realized.

Of course, all these exorbitant expenditures are based on the lie that CO2 is a pollutant, when carbon dioxide is actually the “gas of life,” as plants require it to survive, and as we rely on plants to survive. Every 8th grader knows this.

But here’s an interesting twist about CCS and CDR. Even environmentalists are against it as a “false solution”! As radical an activist as Al Gore calls it “nonsense.”

Why? Because it doesn’t work, plus it is net carbon additive!

Take, for example, a CDR module from the Swiss manufacturer Climeworks AG. Its energy consumption is approximately 2,650 kilowatt-hours per metric ton captured. In order to generate that amount of electricity, a coal power plant emits 2.4 metric tons of CO2. That’s a net add of 1.4 metric tons. In the case of natural gas plants, the net add is approximately 0.5 metric tons.

And though it is rare that you can make such an absolute statement as this, every single carbon capture project in existence today has missed its forecasted CCS goals. Every. Single. One.

At this point, the critical thinker in you is probably asking, “If the technology doesn’t work, and if it adds carbon instead of removing it from the atmosphere, why are they using it?”

It’s part of the ongoing global land-grab masked behind the virtue-signalling “Save Mother Earth” narrative. We’ve seen the same in regard to wind and solar projects, which gobble up otherwise arable land for wasteful “renewable” energy sources that could not compete in the level playing field of a free market, but depend upon hefty government subsidies for their very existence.

This global land grab has been in the works for years. The Action Plan from the 1976 UN Conference on Human Settlements spelled it out in clear words:

Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlement, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership … contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes… Public control of land use is therefore indispensable to its protection as an asset and the achievement of the long-term objectives of human settlement policies and strategies.

These dystopian ideals have been built into most major UN declarations and conventions, most notably Agenda 21, which then-President George H.W. Bush signed us to at the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Brazil. Its latest update is known as Agenda 2030. The goals are best summed up in the World Economic Forum’s video, “8 Predictions for the World in 2030,” which promises that we modern feudal serfs will “own nothing” and “be happy.”

Owning nothing would most certainly not make me happy, and I hazard a guess it would not tickle your fancy either. The solution? Fight tooth and nail against these encroachments on our God-given rights. Educate yourself, your family and friends, and especially public officials within your reach.

Learn that code words such as “sustainability,” “carbon footprint,” and “renewable” really mean slavery to ever-increasing government overreach. It’s easier than you think to expose the plot to steal our rights, when you can point to the proof playing out in your own backyard.

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

‘Don’t Be Weak And Gay’: 25-Year-Old GOP Candidate Valentina Gomez Goes Viral For Hilarious Video thumbnail

‘Don’t Be Weak And Gay’: 25-Year-Old GOP Candidate Valentina Gomez Goes Viral For Hilarious Video

By The Daily Caller

A 25-year-old GOP candidate for Missouri Secretary of State is going viral for a recent video in which she implored Americans not to be “weak and gay. ”

“In America, you can be anything you want, so don’t be weak and gay,” Valentina Gomez, a real estate investor and former D1 swimmer at Tulane University, said in a Sunday Twitter video.

🚨Don’t be weak and gay🚨August 6th is the day we take Missouri back from these corrupt politicians. @Cobratate @TateTheTalisman🔥MAGA pic.twitter.com/sKoY650Dmw

— Valentina Gomez (@ValentinaForSOS) May 13, 2024

“President Trump and I are leading the charge to take our country back from the weak and gay Biden-Harris administration that has destroyed our nation,” Gomez told the Daily Caller. “I look forward to accepting his endorsement so I can ensure a free and fair election to the people of Missouri, where dead people and illegals will never be voting. All of these cases against President Trump are baseless and if he is facing jail time for defending our freedoms and constitution, I am ready to speak the truth and defend him from this unconstitutional gag order from a compromised judge in the biggest election interference case in history.”

Gomez, a self-described MAGA candidate is “running so [she] can give the people their freedoms back,” she told the Daily Caller.

When asked to give some examples of people being weak and gay, Gomez responded “Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, Zelenskyy, George Bush.”

Gomez, who also went viral in February for taking a flamethrower to a pile of LGBTQ books, gave her recommendations on how to not be weak and gay.

“Put God First, Pray, workout, and I do recommend listening to Dr. Jordan B Peterson as well as Andrew & Tristan Tate. Also, get your testosterone levels up,” she told the Daily Caller.

Gomez faces a wide field of eight opponents in her August 6 GOP primary. She was polling at 10 percent, just behind field leader Denny Hoskins at 12 percent in a February Remington Research poll though over half of the poll’s respondents noted they were still undecided.

Gomez’s camp maintains they run their own polls and that she’s ahead in all of them, they told the Daily Caller.





Country Classifies Transgender People As ‘Mentally Ill’

Swing-State Voters Tell MSNBC That Trump Trial Will Not Cause Them To Support Biden

Kevin O’Leary Says Latest Inflation Numbers Are ‘Nasty’ For Biden’s Reelection Chances

Trump Just Got The Surest Sign Yet He’s Whipping Biden Silly

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

Former FDA Official Cozied Up To Activists Months Before Joining Them, Emails Show thumbnail

Former FDA Official Cozied Up To Activists Months Before Joining Them, Emails Show

By The Daily Caller

A former senior U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official hobnobbed with employees from an anti-tobacco nonprofit just months before coming on as the group’s CEO, emails show.

Kathy Crosby, who played a leading role in shaping public health policy while serving as the director of Health Communication and Education at the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, became the president and CEO of the Truth Initiative, an anti-tobacco and anti-nicotine activist organization, in August 2023.

Prior to her exit from the FDA, emails obtained by the Functional Government Initiative (FGI) and exclusively shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation show Crosby hobnobbing with Truth Initiative employees and even corresponding with the group’s then CEO about setting up a meeting. 

“The emails the Daily Caller showed us raise some serious red flags,” Michael Chamberlain, director of the nonpartisan watchdog group Protect the Public’s Trust, told the DCNF.

“A federal employee is prohibited from accepting gifts, including comped tickets to conferences and galas, that are offered to her because of her status as a federal employee,” Chamberlain said. “That Ms. Crosby appears to have solicited the invitation to the gala she attended compounds the problematic nature of this episode. That she may have leveraged the event as an opportunity to seek outside employment is icing on the cake.”

Federal employees are barred both from soliciting gifts “to be given because of the employee’s official position” as well as from accepting those gifts. Additionally, they are prohibited from using their office for “private gain.” FDA employees are also barred from “seeking or negotiating for employment, that conflict with official Government duties and responsibilities.”

In April 2022, the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids (CTFK) offered Crosby free tickets to its 2022 gala. Crosby was busy that year, so she declined the tickets but asked CTFK to “keep [her] in mind for next year’s event.”

Roughly a year later, Crosby responded to the same email thread and asked the CTFK if it would be “extending an invitation to any FDA colleagues to attend” the 2023 gala. Hours later, the organization offered Crosby complimentary tickets, which she then accepted, saying that she “should definitely be able to join” them this year.

Emails show that Crosby indeed attended the May 18, 2023, CTFK gala and networked with employees of the Truth Initiative while there.

Shortly after attending CTFK’s gala, Crosby emailed then-Truth Initiative president and CEO Robin Koval on May 22 to schedule a meeting so the two could “catch-up.” In the email, she also mentioned that she had already met with Howard Koh, a member of the organization’s board of directors, and other staff at the gala. Koval and Crosby ultimately agreed to meet on May 24, 2023.

“There’s a reason taxpayers are troubled by incestuous relationships between government agencies and activist groups and public health agencies are proving to be no exception,” Functional Government Initiative spokesperson Peter McGinnis said.

“These activist groups have business before the agencies—we know, for example, that [Trust Initiative] lobbies the FDA to increase fines on tobacco product manufacturers and sellers, while also spending millions to advocate for new product bans,” McGinnis continued. “It’s a coup for [Trust Initiative] to land a CEO who knows her way around the FDA, and it’s a lucrative jump for Ms. Crosby.”

On Aug. 15, 2023, Truth Initiative’s board announced its appointment of Crosby as the group’s president and CEO. Following the announcement, and while Crosby was still at the FDA, multiple Truth Initiative employees reached out via email to congratulate her.

“I just wanted to reach out and send a note to say congratulations,” one email from the group’s vice president of communications, Sarah Shank, reads. “It’s always a pleasure working with you and your team at FDA and I’m beyond thrilled to work with you in this new capacity here at Truth Initiative.”

“So excited for this next chapter with our organization,” Tina Morgan, the organization’s vice president of sponsorships, said.

Truth Initiative and Crosby didn’t respond to requests for comment.

“During Kathy Crosby’s 12 years as the Director for CTP’s Office of Health Communication and Education, she frequently communicated via email, phone calls, and in-person meetings with a wide range of stakeholders, including those from national public health organizations, industry, media, and state/local organizations,” an FDA spokesperson told the DCNF.

Crosby “immediately” notified the FDA that she was looking for a job outside the government and “recused herself from any official actions that would financially impact her future employer,” the spokesperson said, adding that Crosby’s attendance at the gala was also “reviewed and approved by FDA ethics officials” prior to the event.

In 2022, the Truth Initiative was hard at work attempting to influence policy through the FDA and other federal agencies.

According to the nonprofit’s 2022 annual report, they submitted 14 comments to federal agencies, provided “policy analyses and research” to inform FDA policymaking, urged the FDA to act against popular synthetic nicotine products, like ZYN, and recruited youth activists to submit comments to the FDA regarding its proposed rule to remove flavored cigars and menthol cigarettes from the market.

During her time at the FDA, Crosby was involved in crafting health warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements, formulating marketing restrictions for new tobacco products and shaping national policy broadly, according to her Truth Initiative biography.

Crosby spearheaded “public education and regulatory communication programs” which aided the federal government in successfully implementing the Tobacco Control Act, which regulates how tobacco products can be marketed.




RELATED ARTICLE: Activist Group’s Leader Declines To Participate In House Hearing On Her Org’s Alleged Influence Over Biden Admin

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.

‘Bully Organization’: FFRF Forces Florida Elementary School to Disband Christian Club thumbnail

‘Bully Organization’: FFRF Forces Florida Elementary School to Disband Christian Club

By Family Research Council

Over the last several years, former President Donald Trump has voiced his disapproval of how people of faith have been treated in America. In late December, he posted a video on his social media platform, Truth Social, with the caption, “Stopping the Persecution of Christians!”

“Americans of faith are being persecuted like nothing this nation has ever seen before,” he said in the video. “Catholics in particular are being targeted, and evangelicals are surely on the watchlist as well.”

Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), an atheist group founded in 1976, has had a history of targeting Christians. Some of FFRF’s past projects include suing a Tennessee elementary school on behalf of The Satanic Temple, suing New Jersey Secretary of State Tahesha Way for forcing public office candidates to swear a religious oath, and ensuring that a Latin cross was taken down at Chino Valley Adult School in California.

While FFRF’s eyes are currently set on demanding that the Birmingham Police Department “end coercive staff prayer,” the group is celebrating another win in their book. An elementary school in rural Florida was forced to disband its Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) club after being accused of indoctrinating children into religion by FFRF. The FCA chapter included a small group of fifth grade students.

On March 29, FFRF legal fellow Samantha Lawrence wrote a letter to the District Superintendent Dorothy Lee Wetherington-Zamor “regarding a constitutional violation” at Hamilton County Elementary School. The sole elementary school in the small town of Jasper was accused of “alienating” and “excluding” non-religious families, as well as violating “students’ First Amendment rights by organizing, leading, and promoting a religious club.”

Lawrence defended FFRF’s stance by pointing out that the Equal Access Act allows students to form religious clubs in secondary schools, but not elementary schools. To further her point, she wrote, “Elementary students are too young to truly run a club entirely on their own initiative with no input from school staff or outside adults,” insinuating that “adults are the ones truly behind the club.”

“Hamilton Elementary should strive to be welcoming and inclusive of all students, not just those who subscribe to a particular brand of Christianity,” Lawrence continued. “The District must immediately investigate this matter and ensure that the FCA club at Hamilton Elementary is disbanded.”

Joseph Backholm, senior fellow at Family Research Council, responded to FFRF’s complaints in a comment to The Washington Stand.

“In general, the FFRF is a bully organization that leverages people’s ignorance of their freedoms against them,” he said. “This is far from the first time someone has tried to force a religious organization out of a school, but the First Amendment has, does, and hopefully always will be acknowledged as protecting those rights.”

After receiving the FFRF’s accusations, a local law firm representing the Hamilton County School District responded with a letter relaying their compliance.

“In an effort to avoid any perception that such a gathering on the campus of Hamilton Elementary is being organized, promoted or endorsed by the District or its employees, the club has been dispersed.” The letter also stated that the participating students would be starting sixth grade in a few months and would “be eligible to participate in FCA on the campus of Hamilton County High School.”

Ultimately, the elementary school caved to FFRF’s demands, a decision the First Liberty Institute — a nonprofit defending religious freedom — disagrees with.

“Banning students from having a religious club at a school while permitting other, secular clubs is a travesty that teaches children their faith is unwelcome and must be hidden,” First Liberty Institute Deputy General Counsel Justin Butterfield told The Christian Post.

While FFRF exists to lessen religious influence in America, organizations like First Liberty fight to preserve religious freedoms. Their mission heavily contrasts with FFRF’s, as they have set out to defend “religious liberty for all Americans.”

Meanwhile, FFRF has begun celebrating their victory in shutting down the FCA chapter at Hamilton Elementary.

“It is well settled that public schools may not show favoritism towards or coerce belief or participation in religion. It is inappropriate and unconstitutional for an elementary school to organize, lead, or encourage student participation in a religious club like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes,” the press release following the disbandment read. “Thankfully, the district was willing to listen to reason and obey the law.”

While some leaders raise the alarm and organizations fight against religious persecution occurring on American soil, Backholm assures Christians ought not to fear.

“The last thing Christians should ever be is afraid,” he said. “There have always been sectarian conflicts in the U.S., but fortunately they have been less serious than in most other parts of the world because respecting the conscience of others has long been an American value. Yes, it’s being threatened by a dogmatic and highly intolerant form of secularism, but relatively speaking we have much to be grateful for.”

Backholm also warned that Christians live “on a spiritual battlefield.” He encouraged those with a faith to stand firm, as “any public testimony to the gospel will illicit some kind of response,” but it is a “reality Christians needs to be comfortable with.”


Abigail Olsson

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 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.

“All of the Above” — A VERY Bad Idea thumbnail

“All of the Above” — A VERY Bad Idea

By John Droz, Jr.

The fundamental fight over enacting effective energy policies is between lobbyists and the public. (A parallel perspective is that it is a contest between real Science and political science.)

Lobbyists are paid to represent their clients’ economic interests or political agendas. The public consists of citizens, businesses, and the military.

Lobbyists are professionals who spend most of their time soliciting legislators on their client’s behalf. See this interesting new book about lobbyists.

The obvious question is: “Who is balancing out this one-sided influence by competently and aggressively representing the public’s interests on energy policies (and other important issues)?  The unfortunate answer is almost no one.

The result of this striking imbalance is that most energy policies are essentially written by lobbyists — which means they are permeated with benefits for their clients, and then conveyed with carefully orchestrated marketing propaganda.

To keep their control, lobbyists full well know that they must maintain the impression that their self-serving policies are actually in the public interest — so they leave no stone unturned to creatively maintain that illusion.

Despite lobbyists’ carefully massaged messages, it is totally accidental if any parts of their policies actually happen to be advantageous to the public.

A classic example of this is the well-known “All of the Above” energy mantra.

This is saying that ALL energy sources should not only be allowed on the Grid but should also be supported. On the surface (especially to non-technical parties) it sounds reasonable, as who wouldn’t be in favor of investigating alternative energy options?

However, allowing an energy source on the Grid is a privilege, not an entitlement! Sound energy policies (i.e., those that would actually benefit the public) would ensure that the only energy alternatives that are permitted on the Grid would be those that have scientific proof that they are a net societal benefit.

Phrased another way, that would mean the only alternative energy sources that should be approved and supported are those that are: a) reliable, b) low cost, and c) environmentally friendly. [Note: Wind and solar are none of these!]

How do we do that? Well, it’s certainly not by taking a salesperson’s (lobbyist’s) word about their product! We assess the real qualifications of proposed alternative energy sources by conducting a scientific assessment.

A key problem with the “All of the Above” policy is that it purposefully bypasses the scientific assessment part…  Why?  Because lobbyists are acutely aware that their clients’ energy products will fail such an evaluation.

To avoid that exposé, they devised a clever end-run around the facts: no scientific assessment is needed if all options are pre-approved as acceptable!

If we buy the lobbyists’ energy mantra, we accept everything. These marketers have cleverly switched the focus from the actual merits of alternative energy sources, to such subjective intangibles as energy “diversity” and “security”…

On the surface, the “All of the Above” slogan sounds innocent enough and even has a ring of reasonableness to it. But, of course, that is the lobbyists’ raison d’Etreto subtly get preferential treatment for third-rate energy sources that otherwise would fall by the wayside.

We need to do some critical thinking about lobbyists’ sales pitches. In this example: does an “All of the Above” policy really make sense?

  1. When we include ALL options, that would mean that unreliable alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.
  2. When we include ALL options, that would mean very expensive alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.
  3. When we include ALL options, that would mean environmentally destructive alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.

Do ANY of those make sense? How do we advance our economy and our society, by allowing unreliable, expensive, and environmentally ruinous alternative power sources on the Grid?

This is a 100% predictable result when political science replaces real Science.

Who benefits from an “All of the Above” energy policy? It certainly is not taxpayers, ratepayers, most businesses, the military, or the environment. Major beneficiaries would be foreign conglomerates who supply us with inferior energy sources, our enemies who are anxious to see our Grid and economy crippled, plus China to whom we will owe an even larger debt.

There is a BETTER path, and one that is in the public’s best interest…

An “All of the Sensible” energy slogan would go a LONG way towards putting some balance in the energy policy fight, plus it would send the message that citizens, businesses, and the environment are a top priority for legislators.

What are our “sensible” energy choices? Well, that is exactly the conversation we should be having — but are not.

I would posit that “sensible” alternative electrical energy sources are those that are proven to have a net societal benefit — so let the discussion begin!

©2024. All rights reserved.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Red States Slap California, Biden Admin With Lawsuits To Halt Electric Truck Push thumbnail

Red States Slap California, Biden Admin With Lawsuits To Halt Electric Truck Push

By The Daily Caller

Large coalitions of red states are suing regulators in Washington, D.C., and California over rules designed to effectively require increases in electric vehicle (EV) adoption.

Nebraska is leading a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently-finalized emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a 17-state coalition suing the state of California in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California over its Advanced Clean Fleet rules. Both regulations would increase the number of heavy-duty EVs on the road, a development that could cause serious disruptions and cost increases across the U.S. economy, as supply chain and trucking sector experts have previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“California and an unaccountable EPA are trying to transform our national trucking industry and supply chain infrastructure. This effort—coming at a time of heightened inflation and with an already-strained electrical grid—will devastate the trucking and logistics industry, raise prices for customers, and impact untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country,” Republican Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers said in a statement. “Neither California nor the EPA has the constitutional power to dictate these nationwide rules to Americans. I am proud to lead our efforts to stop these unconstitutional attempts to remake our economy and am grateful to our sister states for joining our coalitions.”

Heavy Duty Complaint by Nick Pope on Scribd

ACF Complaint by Nick Pope on Scribd

While specifics vary depending on the type of heavy-duty vehicle, EPA’s emissions standards will effectively mandate that EVs make up 60% of new urban delivery trucks and 25% of long-haul tractors sold by 2032, according to The Wall Street Journal. The agency has also pushed aggressive emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles that will similarly force an increase in EVs’ share of new car sales over the next decade.

California’s Advanced Clean Fleet rules, meanwhile, will require that 100% of trucks sold in the state will be zero-emissions models starting in 2036, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). While not federal, the California rules are of importance to other states because there are numerous other states who follow California’s emissions standards, which can be tighter than those required by the EPA and other federal agencies.

Critics fear that this dynamic will effectively enable California to set national policies and nudge manufacturers in the direction of EVs at a greater rate and scale than the Biden administration is pursuing.

Trucking industry and supply chain experts have previously told the DCNF that both regulations threaten to cause serious problems for the country’s supply chains and wider economy given that the technology for electric and zero-emissions trucks is simply not yet ready to be mandated at scale, among other issues.

Neither CARB nor the EPA responded immediately to requests for comment.





New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business

EXCLUSIVE: GOP Lawmakers Press Biden EPA For Details About Massive Payouts To Orgs Laden With Dem Insiders

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.

American Marxism: The Biden Regime—Obama’s Third Term thumbnail

American Marxism: The Biden Regime—Obama’s Third Term

By Linda Goudsmit

Globalism is a replacement ideology that seeks to reorder the world into one singular, planetary Unistate, ruled by the globalist elite. The globalist war on nation-states cannot succeed without collapsing the United States of America. The long-term strategic attack plan moves America incrementally from constitutional republic to socialism to globalism to feudalism. The tactical attack plan uses asymmetric psychological and informational warfare to destabilize Americans and drive society out of objective reality into the madness of subjective reality. America’s children are the primary target of the globalist predators.

Karen McKay (Chapter 17) described with precision the cultural terrorism Marxist George Lukács brought to Hungary as deputy commissar for education and culture in 1919, and Marxist Barack Obama brought to the United States as president in 2008. The ideological motivation for cultural terrorism is purely political, and it is documented in America by W. Cleon Skousen, a former FBI employee, in his 1958 book, The Naked Communist.[i] Skousen lists forty-five communist goals that promote social progressivism, internationalism, societal collapse, and imposition of communism worldwide.

On January 10, 1963, the forty-five communist goals were read into the United States Congressional Record to archive them for future generations. The goals that articulated and exposed the thinking and strategies of the political elite sixty years ago are the same goals and policies being implemented collaboratively by today’s radical leftist Democrat party, corrupt Republicans (RINOs), the colluding media, and the globalists who pull all of their strings. Some of the familiar names are Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, George Soros, Bill Gates, and Klaus Schwab.

Of particular interest in this chapter are Goals 24, 25, 26, 40, and 41:

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free   speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

The first Marxist president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, governed in accordance with socialist Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals(Chapter 14), not the United States Constitution. During his eight-year term, every government institution was politicized to move the country toward socialism.

Obama’s vision of internationalism (global integration) at the expense of national sovereignty (territorial borders) was stated unequivocally during his last speech to the United Nations on September 20, 2016:[ii]

In order to move forward, though, we do have to acknowledge that the existing path to global integration requires a course correction. As too often, those trumpeting the benefits of globalization have ignored inequality within and among nations; have ignored the enduring appeal of ethnic and sectarian identities; have left international institutions ill-equipped, underfunded, under-resourced, in order to handle transnational challenges.

And as these real problems have been neglected, alternative visions of the world have pressed forward both in the wealthiest countries and in the poorest: religious fundamentalism; the politics of ethnicity, or tribe, or sect; aggressive nationalism; a crude populism—sometimes from the far left, but more often from the far right—which seeks to restore what they believe was a better, simpler age free of outside contamination.

We cannot dismiss these visions. They are powerful. They reflect dissatisfaction among too many of our citizens. I do not believe those visions can deliver security or prosperity over the long term, but I do believe that these visions fail to recognize, at a very basic level, our common humanity. Moreover, I believe that the acceleration of travel and technology and telecommunications—together with a global economy that depends on a global supply chain—makes it self-defeating ultimately for those who seek to reverse this progress. Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself….

So, we need new models for the global marketplace, models that are inclusive and sustainable. And in the same way, we need models of governance that are inclusive and accountable to ordinary people.

Obama was not speaking American English. Consistent with his 2008 promise to “fundamentally transform America,” Obama’s parting 2016 United Nations address was spoken in the Marxist language of deceit.

Words matter. Language is the foundation for community. It is the means by which individuals make themselves understood within groups and why translators are necessary to make them understood outside the group. One of the most powerful weapons of war is the deliberate confusion of the meaning of words within a group. In Islam there is a name for this tactic: taqiyya. It means lying in the service of Islam. Radical socialist Saul Alinsky introduced the concept to America in his 1971 book, Rules for Radicals. He instructed his students to cut their hair, put on a suit, and blend in so that no one would suspect they were trying to overthrow the government of American capitalism and impose socialism.

There is no equivalent word in the English language for the deliberate deception of taqiyya, so I coined the term Alinskiyya. Candidate Barack Obama practiced Alinskiyya when he disguised his radical socialist agenda and promised “hope and change” to an unsuspecting American public. President Obama practiced Alinskiyya when he deliberately rebranded terrorism as workplace violence, and scrubbed all mention of Islamic jihad from national security manuals and training.

Shouting “Allahu Akbar,” self-proclaimed “Soldier of Allah” Palestinian-American Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan went on a killing rampage on November 5, 2009, at the Army base in Killeen, Texas, leaving thirteen American soldiers dead. Obama’s immediate response was to caution against “jumping to conclusions” regarding the shooter and his motivations. On August 23, 2013, Hasan’s trial concluded and he was unanimously convicted on all forty-five counts of killing thirteen fellow soldiers and wounding thirty-two others at Fort Hood. Yet Obama and his administration refused to recognize Hasan’s attack as an act of war, labeling the massacre workplace violence.

Obama’s contemptible designation of the Fort Hood attack as workplace violence instead of combat related or terrorism denied Hasan’s victims the right to receive Purple Heart medals and other veteran benefits they would be entitled to had the attack been properly labeled. And Obama’s deceitful same-day declaration[iii] after Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on July 16, 2015, “We know that what appears to be a lone gunman carried out these attacks,” diverted public attention from Islamic terrorism to the absurd, politically motivated, mental health explanation of lone-wolf attacks.

It took six years and a provision in the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act that expanded eligibility to include an attack by a “foreign terrorist organization” for the U.S. Army to finally approve the medals and benefits to victims of the Fort Hood and Chattanooga jihadi terrorist attacks.

Radical Islamic terrorism is the violent expression of Islam’s goal of world dominion, and changing the meaning of words by taqiyya is stealth jihad. To an Islamist, the word peace means the whole world is Muslim and sharia law, the law of Islam, governs the world. Redefining jihadi terrorism as mental illness is a powerful political tactic used to intentionally confuse the public and engage their humanitarianism to view terrorists as victims who need understanding and refuge, instead of recognizing the existential threat such terrorists pose to a nation.

Why would any civilized Western society deliberately rebrand terrorism as mental illness and become an apologist for the barbarity of terrorists and sharia law? To make sense of the nonsensical, it is necessary to examine the motives of the participants. Leftist leaders across the world in Germany, Sweden, England, Canada, Australia, and the Democrat party in the U.S. believe in internationalism and one-world government. Their political platforms reject national sovereignty and seek to destroy Western capitalist infrastructures and replace them with socialism—the stepping-stone to one-world government.

Anarchists and terrorists provide leftist politicians here and abroad the social chaos and instability necessary to dupe the unsuspecting public into surrendering their freedoms for promises of government safety. Once the government imposes martial law to quell social chaos, it is a very short step to internationalizing the police force and imposing one-world government.

The anarchists, including George Soros’s paid political protesters, believe they will realize their Utopian dream of one-world government, social justice, and income equality. The Islamists believe they will realize their dream of a one-world caliphate ruled by religious sharia law. What neither group realizes is that they are Lenin’s useful idiots for the globalist elite, who manipulate both groups to create the instability required for the elite to impose their own dystopian one-world government.

Lord Bertrand Russell’s 1952 book, The Impact of Science on Society,[iv]unapologetically describes in chilling detail the intention of globalist elites in England and America, including the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, to impose one-world government to solve the purported Malthusian problem of Earth’s resources being unable to sustain population growth. They envision a binary sociopolitical system of masters and slaves where they are the masters served by an enslaved population—everyone else is simply eliminated.

At the 1992 Bilderberg Conference, an annual private meeting of the political elite established in 1954, Henry Kissinger remarked:[v]

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government.

The social chaos that Henry Kissinger described in 1992 is fomented and financed today by the globalist elite, and implemented by leftist leaders who are too arrogant to realize they are participating in their own destruction. In case anyone doubts the reality of the elitist one-world-government intention, just read David Rockefeller’s own words at Bilderberg and in his book Memoirs (2002),[vi] where he admits he is part of a secret cabal working to destroy the United States and create a New World Order. These claims are not unhinged conspiracy theories—they are the sinister, long-range plans of a determined few to enslave and rule the world.

Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one-world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. (Memoirs, p. 405)

We are grateful to The Washington PostThe New York TimesTime Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a World Government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries. (David Rockefeller, Bilderberg 1991)[vii]

Obama’s message to the world, delivered at the United Nations a few weeks prior to the 2016 election, was meant to reaffirm his commitment to internationalism in legacy candidate Hillary Clinton’s anticipated presidency. The election of President Donald Trump stunned the Democrats, who responded by savaging him with four years of Alinsky’s Rule 13:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

Trump’s presidency was a temporary setback in globalism’s War on America. The 2020 election put Joe Biden in the White House, and Obama began serving his third term. The Democrats were back in business, the regime’s allegiance to global governance renewed.

The Biden-Obama-Harris regime recommitted the United States to United Nations Agenda 2030 and its 17 Sustainable Goals, designed for international control of “sovereign” governments. Target 7 of Sustainable Development Goal (DG) 4, “Quality Education,” stipulates that “all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through…global citizenship.”

The regime also pledged to rejoin UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations aimed at “promoting world peace and security through international cooperation in education, arts, sciences, and culture.” The Trump administration had withdrawn from UNESCO on December 31, 2018, citing the need for sweeping reform of the organization.

The educational reformation that Obama launched and escalated in his first two terms was put into high gear in his third. UNESCO’s 2022 report, “Where Do We Stand on Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship Education,”[viii] lists two primary outcome-based goals and features an internationalized educational curriculum that indoctrinates students worldwide with belief in the benefits of collectivism, internationalism, and the LGBTQ+ agenda:

By 2030, ensure all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.

Education should be infused with the aims and purposes set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitution of UNESCO and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “In order to enable every person to contribute actively to the fulfilment of [these] aims…and promote international solidarity and co-operation, the following objectives should be regarded as major guiding principles of education policy:

  • an international dimension and a global perspective in education at all levels and in all its forms;
  • understanding and respect for all peoples, their cultures, civilizations, values and ways of life, including domestic ethnic cultures and cultures of other nations;
  • awareness of the increasing global interdependence between peoples and nations;
  • abilities to communicate with others;
  • awareness not only of the rights but also the duties incumbent on individuals, social groups and nations towards each other;
  • understanding of the necessity for international solidarity and co-operation;
  • readiness on the part of the individual to participate in solving the problems of his community, his country and the world at large.”

The influencers in America embraced these goals and objectives with religious zeal, and the National Education Association (NEA), the largest labor union in the United States, representing public school teachers and support personnel from preschool to university graduate programs, joined them. Why?

The answer is found in those communist goals cited above: Goals 24, 25, 26, 40, and 41. Obama’s Marxist America required educational indoctrination in schools, away from parental influence. The tactical plan was the seismic shift to Outcome-Based Education in America that aligned with the UN’s internationalized OBE curriculum. The plan’s success relied on exploiting the difference between univocal and equivocal use of language.

Dr. Dianne N. Irving defines this particular deceit in her March 29, 2019, essay, “‘Social Justice’ Today Grounded in Marxist Communist ‘Liberation Theology’“:[ix]

A term or phrase used “univocally” means that the same term or phrase has only one meaning; a term or phrase used “equivocally” means that the same term or phrase is used but it has a different meaning [e.g., “bank” can mean where you keep your money, or it can mean the earthen side along a river (a river bank), etc.].

Before teaching the History of Philosophy I discovered how the equivocal use of major terms/phrases can be used as a political tool without people realizing what is going on. This was made crystal clear in the terrific book I read by historian of philosophy Etienne Gilson, ‘Being’ And Some Philosophers, in which he explained how the major term in philosophy—”being” (the subject of metaphysics, from which all other sub-fields of philosophy flow)—was used equivocally over 20 times throughout the entire History of Philosophy. (E.g., for some schools of philosophy, it meant “matter only”; for others it meant “form only”; for others it meant “form and matter”; for others it meant “esse”, etc.). Same term, different meanings––and thus different consequences.

There is a seismic difference in meaning between the way Americans use and understand the word democracy and the term critical thinking, and the way Marxists use and understand them. In colloquial usage, Americans often use the word democracy synonymously with our constitutional republic. They are not synonymous. This error has been exploited by Marxists, who use the term democracy as a synonym for socialism or communism, or both. When Marxists, including Obama, talk about their battle for democracy, they are quoting directly from The Communist Manifesto.[x] The words of communism’s supreme leaders, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, are the primary source of Marxist equivocation:

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible….

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc., (The Communist Manifesto, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists, pp. 54–56).

The phrase critical thinking is another example of Marxist linguistic obfuscation. In American colloquial usage, critical thinking is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment. Critical thinking is an essential survival skill for an independent, autonomous, rational adult in a constitutional republic. Marxists use the same phrase to describe the thought process necessary to actively criticize that which exists in service of Marxist Critical Theory, a social theory designed to destabilize and collapse Western society from within, particularly the nuclear family structure. Another quote from The Communist Manifesto describes replacing home education with education by the state, to rescue children from the exploitation of their parents!

Abolition (Aufhebung) of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations when we replace home education by social. (TheCommunist Manifesto, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists, pp. 47–48).

A third example from The Communist Manifesto asserts communism’s internationalism.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality….

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end. (The Communist ManifestoChapter II. Proletarians and Communists, pp. 50–51).

The final pages of The Communist Manifesto exhort the working classes of the world to unite in proletarian internationalism to defeat capitalism, raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, and achieve communist Utopia—heaven on Earth:

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!

(The Communist Manifesto, Chapter IV. Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties, p. 79).

The heaven on Earth promised by the ideological genus of Marxism, including all of its myriad species, seduce impatient, regressed millennials whose infantile longings make them susceptible to the deceitful promises of their Marxist leaders. Regressed adults lack the developed critical-thinking skills required to question the feasibility of Marxist promises, and to examine the actual outcome in communist countries, like Cuba, where the same Utopian promises were made. Regressed adults don’t question why people risk their lives on rafts to escape communism and find freedom in America. They don’t ask why the rafts always float from Havana to Miami—never in the opposite direction.

American Marxism is lipstick painted on an old feudal pig, marketed worldwide by skilled equivocators. It is collectivist political candy in a shiny new wrapper, dangled in front of psychologically regressed millennials, who forfeit their children’s freedom in exchange for deceitful promises of heaven on Earth made by humanitarian hucksters in government, the United Nations, and the World Economic Forum.

On June 12, 2023, UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay formally announced the request of the United States to return to the institution. This means the Biden-Obama-Harris regime plans to return to UNESCO’s internationalized educational curriculum and ideological Marxism, marketed as deliverance from capitalist inequality and oppression. Its curriculum promises worldwide “diversity, equity, and inclusion” through what it calls “critical thinking” and “democracy.” The Great Reset is the new normal of feudal enslavement in globalism’s planetary Unistate, governed under the auspices of the lethally corrupt United Nations and its specialized organizations and agencies.

©2024. Linda Goudsmit. All rights reserved.

Please visit Linda’s Pundicity page: goudsmit.pundicity.com  and here website: lindagoudsmit.com 

RELATED ARTICLE: Great job, Biden! Social Security is going broke and debt payments are breaking the bank


[i]  The Naked Communist, W. Cleon Skousen, Waking Lion Press, 1958; https://archive.org/details/B-001-002-046

[ii]  United Nations on September 20, 2016https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzcxT8XOKw4

[iii]  declarationhttps://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/16/statement-president-shooting-chattanooga-tn

[iv]  The Impact of Science on Society, Bertrand Russell, Simon and Schuster, 1952, Routledge Classics, 2016 edition; https://archive.org/details/impactofscienceo00russ

[v]  Henry Kissinger remarkedhttps://rense.com/general11/ksss.htm

[vi]  Memoirs, David Rockefeller, Random House, 2002; https://archive.org/details/davidrockefeller00davi

[vii] David Rockefeller, Bilderberg 1991https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/no_author/david-rockefellers-chilling-speech-bilderberg/

[viii]  Where Do We Stand on Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship Educationhttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381362

[ix]  ‘Social Justice’ Today Grounded in Marxist Communist ‘Liberation Theology’https://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_246socialjusticecommunist.html

[x]  The Communist Manifesto (1848), Karl Marx, Henry Regnery Company, Gateway Edition, 1965; https://archive.org/details/ComManifesto