Categories
Just my own thoughts Opinion Politics

No Labels party is a threat to the Democrats more so than Republicans.

Views: 12

No Labels party is a threat to the Democrats more so than Republicans. Recently The Gateway Pundit did an article claiming that the No Labels party was a Liberal Party. Sadly  some of our friends on the right will call anyone a Liberal who isn’t 100% Conservative. I found that out a few years back when a Tea party dude called me a RINO because I only agreed with him on 99 out of a 100 issues.

No Labels party is a mixture of RINOS and Blue Dogs. They will get some Republicans, but they will be Republicans who haven’t voted for a Conservative/Moderate since  the two Bush’s.

They’re big draw will be moderate Democrats and Independents who normally vote Democrat.

Loading

159
Categories
Leftist Virtue(!) Media Woke Racism The Courts WOKE

This Supreme Court case could spell the beginning of the end for affirmative action. DEI-ers are bracing for a crisis.

Views: 19

This article appears in the June/July 2023 issue of Fortune with the headline, “The end of affirmative action?”https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=3JgZEG_0mfat9pt00

**Fortune Magazine is a woke-promoting organization. Notice the blatant propaganda in their choice of the picture above**
Somewhere along the way, “Diversity and Inclusion” added “Equity” — which is the left’s code word for “preferential treatment” — TPR

Why diversity advocates see a Supreme Court case on college admissions as a looming crisis for corporate America.

It may seem like a harsh assessment of human nature, but people don’t generally do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to do, says Natalie Gillard, who has worked in diversity, equity, and inclusion for over a decade. That’s why laws and mandates exist.

And that’s why Gillard has been anxiously watching the Supreme Court. While the ruling had not come down when this issue went to press, court watchers say the conservative majority is very likely to strike down or severely restrict race-based college admissions programs in June. Many fear that prohibiting the use of race as a factor in college admissions will unleash a legal dismantling of over half a century’s worth of laws and rulings aimed at remedying the systemic inequities racial minorities face in the U.S.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in October in the case brought by Students for Fair Admissions, an organization founded by the anti-affirmative-action legal activist Edward Blum, against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, accusing the institutions of discriminating against Asian American and white applicants.

While this decision on affirmative action will most directly affect higher education admissions, legal analysts say it could open the floodgates to upending diversity initiatives in other areas, including the corporate landscape.

And Gillard and her colleagues in DEI are bracing for a crisis. Gillard created Factuality, a 90-minute interactive game and “crash course” in structural inequality that has been used as an employee-training tool at companies such as Google, Nike, and American Express, as well as at Yale University, among others. Factuality has seen an uptick in demand in recent years, but Gillard is under no illusions about why companies hire her: “I really feel that there are people who participate in these programs and initiatives because it’s required and mandatory,” she tells Fortune, “and that with this decision they’re just emboldened to stop.”

Last year the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, had a transformative cultural and legal effect—leading to a cascade of states passing near-total abortion bans and restrictions on reproductive rights. The affirmative action ruling may not be as far-reaching, but it is a bellwether for a shift in the conversation about race and racism broadly, says Richard Leong, a senior strategist at Collective, a DEI consultancy headquartered in Brooklyn.

“I think it really begins to throw into jeopardy whether or not we can continue to use race and ethnicity as a demographic identifier,” Leong says, adding, “The DEI industry as it is today is already under fire.”

Indeed, DEI initiatives at public universities have been challenged in Florida and Texas this year. Corporate DEI programs have been the target of rage and ridicule in op-eds from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal. And amid a wave of layoffs, many tech companies are rolling back their diversity pledges, cutting DEI roles at disproportionate rates.

Gillard says she has already seen the effects in her business: She used to collaborate often with companies and organizations in Texas and Florida, she tells Fortune, but she no longer works in those states because organizations are unsure about what they can and cannot do, and fearful of causing controversy.

“I’m concerned the decision will only further curtail our efforts,” Gillard says. “After this you’ll really be able to identify who has always been on board and who never really was.”

A ripple effect

Legal experts say that if the Supreme Court decision goes as expected, it could have a ripple effect on corporate diversity programs. The decision could “augur where the court might go with respect to certain programs for private employers,” says Kevin Cloutier, a partner in the law firm Sheppard Mullin’s labor and employment and business trial practice groups. The courts may rule to strike down affirmative action programs for federal contractors, or be more receptive to reverse discrimination claims against private companies

The most direct impact of the Supreme Court prohibiting race-based admissions decisions is that universities will very likely become less diverse over time—as has happened in public university systems in states where affirmative action is already banned. If so, companies will be left with a more homogenous talent pool to recruit from.

And there are likely to be knock-on effects for companies, says Camille Bryant, an attorney and member of the labor and employment practice group at McGlinchey Stafford. It may be harder to live up to the ESG commitments that companies have made to investors, for example. And less diverse workforces may turn off customers, who increasingly expect brands to be inclusive. More homogenous workplaces are also less appealing to millennial and Gen Z workers, who have high expectations of workforce diversity.

“After this you’ll really be able to identify who has always been on board and who never really was.”

Natalie Gillard, creator, Factuality

Less diverse talent pipelines could have a substantial effect on outcomes at some organizations. A recent study found, for example, that a higher prevalence of Black doctors led to lower mortality rates among Black residents in those counties. But with less diverse medical programs, hospitals will likely employ fewer Black doctors, negatively impacting patient care.

Backlash to the backlash

The Supreme Court case comes at a critical time for the field of diversity, equity, and inclusion. It has been three years since the murder of George Floyd brought about a reckoning on racism in the summer of 2020, and many Black and brown workers remain skeptical of their companies’ lip service to the ideals of diversity, dismissing them as “performative allyship.”

“DEI is a journey, not a destination,” says Ericka Brownlee-Keller, DEI head at a renewable energy company. “It really depends on the fabric and culture of the company you’re in.”

BlackRock is one company that decided to take a hard look at its own record, and the results were revealing. In March 2022, the asset management firm hired a third-party law firm to audit the progress it had and hadn’t made on its multiyear racial equity plans, launched in 2021. The audit found that BlackRock was adhering to the letter of its diversity goals—increasing Black and Latinx hires by 30% and improving representation at senior levels—but was failing in some respects when it comes to the spirit of those goals. It has struggled, for example, to retain its Black and brown employees.

BlackRock is also an early case study of a trend DEI professionals say is growing, and the Supreme Court decision could accelerate: backlash to perceived “wokeness.”

21%

Percentage of companies that have a senior role fully dedicated to DEI. Source: Paradigm’s State of Data-Driven DEO, 2022

In April, the conservative group America First Legal (founded by former Trump administration official Stephen Miller) said it had filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requesting a civil rights investigation into whether the BlackRock Founders Scholarship, an internship for minority students, discriminates against students who don’t qualify as minorities.

Incidents like that are why DEI professionals Fortune spoke with don’t believe it’s overblown to see the looming Supreme Court decision as a time bomb. They’ve kept tabs on the responses to the court overturning Roe v. Wade last year, and watched as state legislators quickly moved to severely restrict or ban abortions in the wake of the decision. They’ve braced themselves as anti-LGBTQ cultural narratives have gathered steam in recent years, leading to new state laws restricting access to gender-affirming care and accommodations. And they’ve watched as bans have throttled discussion of sexual orientation and Black history in schools.

“What we’re seeing is in a lot of ways a backlash to us being able to have made so much progress,” says Brownlee-Keller. “We often talk about ‘When’s the other shoe gonna drop?’ A lot of this is people’s fears being realized.”

Some argue that diversity initiatives won’t completely crumble on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision, that the field has come too far and the people doing the work are too committed. “This might hinder the progress we’ve made in DEI, but I think we’ll find other avenues,” Brownlee-Keller says. “People in these roles are resilient.”

Strategize now

Many DEI professionals are coming up with lists of actions for employers to consider, no matter how the Supreme Court rules. The first is to review DEI programs and ensure the company has a robust and evidence-based case for these initiatives, says Evelyn Carter, a social psychologist and president of the diversity and inclusion consulting firm Paradigm.

For example, a company may discover that the promotion pipeline for Black leaders falls off at a specific ranking, based on 10 years of company data. If the company determines that it has failed to support this talent for promotions, it might implement a program to address the problem. Using data to explain these moves helps ensure that company initiatives are not “misconstrued as things that are being done because Black folks or folks of color are deficient,” says Carter, “but rather recognizing it as what it is: righting systemic inequities.” It could also help ensure that the program would survive a legal challenge.

It’s crucial, too, for companies to diligently vet public statements related to diversity initiatives. For example, in today’s climate, making public promises that a company’s board will be 25% female could create a legal vulnerability, Bryant, the McGlinchey Stafford lawyer, says. “Sometimes messages that are very well intended can get an organization in hot water if it’s not necessarily done and crafted in the right way.”

75%

Percentage of employees who don’t think their organization’s racial equity policies are genuine. Source: Catalyst Survey, 2022

That’s a lesson several of Carter’s clients learned last year after announcing plans to pay for employees’ travel costs if they have to cross state lines to get abortions following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Instead of just applause, they faced controversy and complaints.

“There were employees who said, ‘This goes against my values, and I am upset that you would be seen as a company supporting abortion,’ ” Carter says. “A lot of clients said, ‘We thought we did the right thing. But now these people are upset.’ ” Developing internal FAQs to respond to questions or complaints from employees will help managers and human resources teams avoid being caught off guard if and when such a controversy erupts.

Creating new pathways for diverse recruitment will also be key, and might include doubling down on partnerships with historically Black colleges and universities and other minority institutions and on sponsorship and mentorship programs, as well as more actively developing the pipeline for diverse talent.

“This is the time to help your DEI team.”

Evelyn Carter, president, Paradigm

Most important, company leaders should ask what their DEI teams need. These often small and under-resourced teams may soon have to respond to an influx of reverse discrimination claims and handle a slew of complex internal and external communications. That might involve training managers to see and address bias and harassment and training HR to understand how discrimination impacts employee performance.

Employees may also have to navigate more internal strife, microaggressions, and harassment, so companies might consider increasing access to mental health resources such as therapy services and warmlines for employees—free, confidential lines where employees can seek guidance, support or a listening ear.

“That’s a lot. So this is the time to help your DEI team,” Carter says. “Ask your team what they need, and then deliver on it.”

 

Loading

163
Categories
Education Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Winning. CUNY condemns law school graduate’s ‘anti-American & anti-Israel’ commencement address as ‘hate speech’

Views: 22

I want to thank FOX Digital for this awesome article.

The City University of New York (CUNY) condemned the controversial commencement address from its public law school as “hate speech” Tuesday following intense backlash.

A statement released from CUNY’s Board of Trustees and its chancellor addressed the divisive comments from law school graduate Fatima Mousa Mohammed, who attacked “oppressive” institutions of law and order such as the military, the police, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. prison system, declaring law is a “manifestation of white supremacy” and called the NYPD “fascist.”

“Free speech is precious, but often messy, and is vital to the foundation of higher education. Hate speech, however, should not be confused with free speech and has no place on our campuses or in our city, our state or our nation,” CUNY wrote.

“The remarks by a student-selected speaker at the CUNY Law School graduation, unfortunately, fall into the category of hate speech as they were a public expression of hate toward people and communities based on their religion, race or political affiliation.  The Board of Trustees of the City University of New York condemns such hate speech,” the statement continued.”

The complete article is here.

Loading

144
Categories
Abortion rights? Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Even in blue California, attempts to regulate controversial antiabortion centers continue to fail

Views: 19

At Sierra Pregnancy and Health, Executive Director Cary Wilcox beams with pride holding a plastic model of what will soon be a new mobile clinic thanks to a flood of donations after its “biggest year ever.”

Outside the nondescript nonprofit just 20 miles from the California capital, a sign advertises “abortion pill reversal” — a practice involving the hormone progesterone that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists deems “unethical” and “not supported by science.”

The facility is licensed by the California Department of Public Health as a community clinic but has been flagged as a “crisis pregnancy center” — an industry long accused of misleading women about their services in order to steer them away from abortion.

The Roseville-based center provides free pregnancy tests and first-trimester ultrasounds advertised as part of “pre-abortion screenings” but does not offer abortions or help women get them. Its medical staff includes unpaid retired doctors and nurses who volunteer their time, Wilcox said.

A watercolor painting of a wave hangs above a couch in the consultation room, where clients are warned of abortion-related grief and given pamphlets that ask “is God listening?” A magazine the clinic hands out cites research linking abortion to breast cancer that has been refuted by the American Cancer Society.

Wilcox said part of the clinic’s mission is to “share the love of Jesus,” but she rejects the idea that her industry exists to coerce women out of abortion.

Her clinic is a community resource, she said, pointing to 10,000 diapers and wipes given away in the last year alone and to items such as car seats and baby monitors that parents can “earn” through taking approved parenting classes.

“We don’t force births. Someone can still walk out of here and get an abortion,” she said. “We don’t judge. Our job is to help her make an informed choice.”

A lawn sign reads "Sierra Pregnancy + Health" and "abortion pill reversal" among other writing
Sierra Pregnancy and Health in Roseville, Calif., offers “abortion pill reversal,” which is not authorized by the FDA.
(José Luis Villegas / For The Times)

Across California, where Democratic lawmakers have crafted some of the nation’s strongest abortion rights laws, antiabortion pregnancy centers appear to be untouchable despite repeated attempts to rein them in.

And some are even expanding, boosted by an influx of donations from abortion opponents who object to the enhanced protections enacted in California in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

The centers, primarily faith-based nonprofits, have managed to evade legislative attempts at stricter regulation, which the Supreme Court ruled violated the 1st Amendment.

Two state bills to limit them quietly stalled this month, even as the latest package of abortion access laws is otherwise expected to succeed.

Though the issue has become a legal minefield, California Democrats who have vowed to make the state a reproductive rights haven aren’t giving up.

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta issued a consumer alert last year, warning of potentially misleading practices by crisis pregnancy centers, and created a new process for Californians to file complaints.

Bonta declined to comment on whether there are any ongoing investigations but said the new complaint portal has been “very helpful” and that his office is “prepared to act” on any violation of the law. That could include prohibitions against companies committing fraudulent business acts.

“We’re not just intent on protecting the reproductive freedom that we have but also expanding it, and part of that is Californians getting and having access to truthful and timely and accurate information about abortion services,” he said.

The industry has gotten harder to regulate as it has moved away from the “egregious” misrepresentations that it was built on, Bonta said.

“They’re moving into more of a gray and ambiguous space, where they’re saying things like, ‘Come in and talk to us about abortion options,’ ” Bonta said. “It’s not necessarily false, it might be misleading, but it’s not a black or white violation.”

In 2018, the Supreme Court blocked enforcement of a California law that would have required all clinics to notify patients that the state offers subsidized abortions, birth control and prenatal care. Known as the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act, the bill was sponsored by Vice President Kamala Harris, then state attorney general.

The court’s opinion was led by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who said that the law unfairly targeted faith-based centers by forcing them to provide a “government drafted script” about services they oppose.

Four women stand behind a portable lectern with a microphone. One is holding a baby who is reaching for the mic.
Former client Patti speaks about her experience with the SCV Pregnancy Center in Santa Clarita while she was pregnant with her 9-month-old son Liam at a news conference on Wednesday. The event was to voice opposition to legislative attempts to regulate the controversial centers.
(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Crisis pregnancy centers are central to antiabortion activists’ agenda, said Meghan McGuirk, associate director of state legislative affairs and counsel for the abortion rights organization NARAL. “The anti-choice movement is organized and they know what they’re doing. They are going to use every tool they have to try and undermine access to reproductive healthcare,” she said.

Some centers such as the Mendo Lake Women’s Clinic in Ukiah are expanding their services. The center pledges to work to “erase the need for abortion.”

The facility, licensed by the state as a free clinic, claims on its website that adoption can prevent depression “caused by abortion.” (According to the Journal of the American Medical Assn., research has failed to show abortion has a causal effect on mental health.)

There are at least 165 crisis pregnancy centers in California, and they outnumber abortion clinics, according to a report issued last year by the Alliance, a women’s advocacy collaborative.

The report found that many of those centers make “deceptive and misleading” claims, do not have a physician on staff and offer nondiagnostic ultrasounds that are not recognized as a medical service but as a “keepsake” or souvenir.

Abortion opponents have “expanded and elevated” the role of crisis pregnancy centers in recent years, according to a brief issued by the Alliance in 2022.

While abortion access is protected in California, that also makes the state a target for donors looking for crisis pregnancy centers to support, said Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda.) She worries that more pregnancy centers will pop up in rural and low-income neighborhoods, where women may struggle to access care.

A woman holds a sign that reads "Protecting Abortion Access"
An abortion rights supporter holds a sign during a rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington in 2018, as the Supreme Court heard arguments in a free speech fight over California’s attempt to regulate anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.
(Andrew Harnik / Associated Press)

A bill she proposed this year would have potentially opened crisis pregnancy centers up to lawsuits if they advertise using “false or misleading” statements. But the legislation failed.

“There’s no question that this should be stopped,” said Bauer-Kahan, chair of the Select Committee on Reproductive Health. “It is not just conjecture: They are focusing their energy on states like California.”

California law specifically names “alternative birth centers” as a type of specialty clinic eligible to operate in the state. That means a clinic not part of a hospital that provides “comprehensive” services for pregnant women who spend less than 24 hours at the facility, according to state safety code.

Bonta said although some centers are licensed, it doesn’t mean they are without limits. “Just because you’re licensed to do something doesn’t mean you’re licensed to do everything,” he said.

Pregnancy center leaders maintain that they are upfront about the services they do and don’t provide, but women seeking an abortion still get confused — even by clinics licensed by the state.

A young woman in the Sacramento area confirmed her pregnancy at a Planned Parenthood clinic but could not afford the $450 an abortion would cost there without insurance.

Already a mother of a 1-year-old, she found a pregnancy center online, drawn in by its promise of free medical services for women dealing with unplanned pregnancies. The website advertised a consultation that mentioned parenting, adoption and abortion as options.

California where she thought she could terminate her pregnancy, but later learned they
A Sacramento woman felt duped and shamed by a local crisis pregnancy center when she sought an abortion.
(Jose Luis Villegas/For The Times)

But the center does not actually provide abortions or make referrals for them — which it also states on its website. The woman didn’t realize that until she was already there.

Inside, she was questioned for over an hour about her “lifestyle,” she said. With her boyfriend by her side, a staffer told them that the odds of a couple breaking up because of an abortion are 80%, and that most people regret it.

Ultimately, she miscarried and did not need any services but left feeling “embarrassed and hurt.”

“They shamed me so much in that room,” said the now 29-year-old woman, who asked not to be named for privacy reasons. “Honestly, I had no idea what I was in for. I didn’t know places like this existed. I thought it was just in movies.”

A bill introduced by Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo (D-Chatsworth) would have launched a statewide awareness campaign about any services related to pregnancy care and abortion.

AB 710, which was projected to cost the state up to $8 million, failed this month as part of a mass culling of bills with price tags as California faces a budget deficit.

Schiavo said she viewed the bill as noncontroversial and simply informational as it pertained to any relevant facility, not just crisis pregnancy centers. But she made it clear in legislative hearings that they were her top concern, calling them “extremely dangerous.”

The bill drew fierce opposition from conservative groups, including the California Family Council, which held a news conference on Wednesday outside a pregnancy center in Schiavo’s district, accusing her of defamation and of judging an entire industry based on a few bad actors.

Abortion critics, including the California Catholic Conference, said the bill was prejudiced and that the state should instead be thanking the centers for helping vulnerable women.

Schiavo called the outrage “really telling.”

“In California, this is really the only way that anti-choice extremists can promote their agenda. [Centers] can just proliferate and thrive and grow exponentially with no restrictions,” Schiavo said. “Women simply having the facts … it completely undermines their whole business model.”

The Los Angeles City Council put crisis pregnancy centers on alert last year, passing an ordinance that fines them up to $10,000 for false advertisement and allows people to sue if they have been misled.

Kelly Pfeifer, a doctor who has performed abortions for 25 years, is among those urging the state to do the same. She testified to lawmakers earlier this month that some of her patients have been given false ultrasound images by the centers to convince them they are further along in pregnancy than they actually are.

She has had patients cry, worried that they would be infertile because of false information told to them about abortion by people they believed were trustworthy health professionals, she said.

“Every day, I see people who have been harmed by these fake clinics,” Pfeifer said. “In any other part of the healthcare system, this would be inconceivable.”

Heidi Matzke has positioned herself as the face of California’s modern pregnancy center movement. She traveled to Washington, D.C., last year to testify against a federal bill aiming to crack down on the centers, and has railed against Planned Parenthood on Fox News.

Her newest pregnancy center will open soon in Sacramento and looks more like a high-end salon than a medical clinic. The 7,000-square-foot facility is stark white and filled with hot-pink furniture and gold-trimmed mirrors. Thousands of dollars have been spent on security cameras, bulletproof glass and graffiti-resistant paint.

The building alone cost $1.5 million — all from donors.

The official motto of Alternatives Pregnancy Center, which opened in 1983, is to provide women with medical care “and alternatives to abortion as we proclaim the hope of the Gospel.”

It provides gynecological care such as Pap smears and breast exams at no cost — rare for crisis pregnancy centers. But like most centers, it also offers the controversial “abortion pill reversal” and something called “abortion recovery classes.”

“If they choose life, they go through this door,” Matzke says of her clients, pointing to a room full of pristine baby clothes given away free. If they choose abortion, they’ll still be “loved on” and supported, she said.

“A woman is more than just a choice that she makes,” she said.

Matzke is a tireless debater; for every scientific study that casts doubt on her services, she holds up another more obscure study that supports them. It’s Planned Parenthood, not pregnancy centers, that are judging their patients, she insists.

“They want to choose life but they need help and they need support,” Matzke said of her clients. “And so when they find a clinic like ours to support them … then a lot of them will step up and choose life.”

California’s leading Democratic lawmakers have ignored Matzke’s invitations to visit her clinics, leery of giving a microphone to her cause. But the license granted to her from the state they represent hangs clearly in her lobby, framed with gold prongs to match her new decor.

“We have nothing to hide,” she said.

Loading

141
Categories
Corruption Crime Politics

Most Charges Dropped Against Sai Kandula – The East Asian Migrant Terrorist with Nazi Flag Who Tried to Ram White House ?

Views: 23

Charges Dropped Against Sai Kandula – The East Asian Migrant Terrorist with Nazi Flag Who Tried to Ram White House ?

U.S. Park Police say Sai Varshith Kandula of Chesterfield, Missouri, was taken into custody at the scene. Kandula faces multiple charges including assault with a dangerous weapon, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, the threat to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm on a President, Vice President, or family, destruction of federal property, and trespassing. We now see that Gateway Pundit is reporting that most of the charges against the leftist undocumented Liberal have been dropped.

We now see that BPR and the New York Post are reporting that most of the charges against the leftist undocumented Liberal have been dropped. His federal charges have since been downgraded to a single count of depredation of property of the United States in excess of $1,000.

 

Loading

153
Categories
Politics

Two things I like about the compromise. The Pipeline and no new IRS agents this year.

Views: 20

Two things I like about the compromise. The Pipeline and no new IRS agents this year. There’s a lot that’s lacking in this so called compromise, and it’s not a sure bet to pass.

But I do like the fact that The  Mountain Valley Pipeline is projected to create 2,500 construction jobs, $40 million in new tax revenue for West Virginia, $10 million in new tax revenue for Virginia and up to $250 million in royalties for West Virginia landowners.

Also it stops at least for this year no new IRS agents are to be hired. There are other small things in here that are good, but I think we get the bigger items next year.

Loading

146
Categories
Child Abuse Education How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) WOKE

College Student Got a Zero on Project for Two True Words: ‘Most Biased Grade Ever’

Views: 46

“Biological woman” is now hate speech

A college student named Olivia posted a viral TikTok video in which she revealed she received a zero on her final assignment based on woke ideology, not the content of her work merely because she used the term “biological woman” in her project.

Olivia does not reveal her last name, nor does she identify her woke college or professor, but in her now-viral TikTok video, she tells her followers that she got a zero because she used the term “biological woman” as a description. She said her professor told her that the term was “exclusionary” and perpetuates “heteronormativity.”

SIDEBAR: WTH?

In other words, “We’re here, we’re queer, deal with it!”

The student even noted that the professor told her that her paper was good except for that one verboten term.

“Olivia, this is a solid proposal,” Olivia said the woke teacher allegedly wrote. “However, the terms ‘biological women’ are exclusionary and are not allowed in this course as they further reinforce heteronormativity.”

The student called the grade thoroughly “the most biased grade ever” and said her project “is about transgenders competing in biological women’s sports. How am I supposed to do my final project if I can’t use the word ‘biological women,’ but that’s what my project is about?”

Since that first video, Olivia has posted several follow-ups to explain what is happening in her school.

“This is exactly the issue nowadays. It is not OK or acceptable to be a biological woman,” Olivia said in one video. She said she was told in a meeting with her professor that “it’s transphobic to use the term ‘biological woman’” and that doing so is “implementing T.E.R.F. ideology, which is trans-exclusionary radical feminism,” which the professor said means “women who fight for women’s rights but exclude trans because they think that women’s rights are being affected by trans people.” Olivia then quipped, “Which is literally true.”

Olivia also said she took her case to the school’s Office for Equal Opportunity.

In yet another clip, Olivia said that the rules in her class actually said outright that what the professor did was not proper. Her syllabus says students “will not be graded on the content of your opinions, so long as your opinions do not create emotional and/or mental harm for your diverse classmates or espouse bigoted or anti-scientific views.”

The student said that in her estimation she was using the term in a “scientific” sense, not a political or “emotional” one.

That doesn’t make sense!

Olivia also said the professor insisted that she alter the point of her paper to focus on “women” not “females” so that it satisfies the professor’s political goal of saying anyone can be a woman.

“I know what she’s trying to say, but it doesn’t work because for my project, if I change the wording, it would be … ‘women’s rights and opportunities are being affected because women are competing in women’s sports.’ That doesn’t make sense,” Olivia said.

Who is the real sucker here?

Many people on social media were energized by the school’s political attack on Olivia. But host Jesse Kelly had an extremely important point, saying, “Who is the real sucker? The communist professor?” and adding, “Or the upper middle class Republican parents paying six figures to have their daughter ‘educated’ by said professor?”

Kelly is right. Parents and students who are paying these colleges tens of thousands and sometimes going decades into debt as these crooked, left-wing schools peddle this anti-American ideology that passes for “education.”

It’s bad enough that these extremist, left-wing ideals so permeate our system of higher education, but what is worse is that these biased schools are not even permitting the opposing ideas to be heard. College should be a place for the free exchange of ideas, not a place of stifling bias and indoctrination.

This garbage is happening all over the country. Just this month a boy in Massachusetts was censured by his school for daring to wear a T-shirt that states his personal beliefs about the gender discussion.

Olivia deserves much credit for standing her ground, for keeping her videos centered on the issues, and for not using her platform as a weapon against her school and professor.


Regardless of how you view yourself or how you mutilate yourself, if you have a “Y” chromosome, you are a male. (This does not include those EXTREMELY rare individuals born XXY rather than XX or XY.) — TPR

Loading

159
Categories
COVID Reprints from others.

Steve Kirsch is willing to bet $1M that fully unvaccinated people are healthier than fully vaccinated people

Views: 25

Steve’s willing to put his money where his mouth is.

Steve Kirsch is willing to bet $1M that fully unvaccinated people are healthier than fully vaccinated people. The CDC would like us to believe that we should fully vaccinate to protect us from disease. But the reality is that multiple studies have shown the opposite to be true.

Are unvaccinated kids healthier?

My goal is to expose the truth.

If vaccines are so great, why is it that clinics who eschew vaccines have better health outcomes?

If you think I’m wrong, this is your chance to quickly double your money with a $1M bet.

We’ll agree on a very simple statistical experiment that no one has done, it will be definitive for the bet, have a mutually trusted third party do the experiment, and the statistically significant outcome (or lack thereof) will determine who wins the bet by that trusted third party. Fair and objective. Neither side can cheat. The data will be released to both sides.

If you are interested in accepting the bet, simply use my Accept Bet form and we’ll be in touch.

Drug companies who make vaccines should be jumping on this offer, right?

I will also pay a $10,000 finder’s fee, after the contest is over and payment is made to the winner, to any person who finds a counterparty who will accept my bet.

As for those who believe my bets are not serious, you can have your attorney contact my attorney and he’ll provide the evidence of the previous offer (we’ve agreed to terms, have both signed a written agreement, and are in the process of choosing judges).

This offer can be modified or revoked at any time prior to acceptance via my Accept Bet form. Only one winner.

Loading

129
Categories
Corruption Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

IRS director told to stand down. DOJ Behind Biden Probe Whistleblower Removal

Views: 13

IRS director told to stand down. The IRS was handling the Hunter Biden case. They had 12 agents on it. But something strange happened. Not only was the whole team removed, but the DOJ Behind Biden Probe Whistleblower Removal.

IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel says the Department of Justice directed his agency to remove a whistleblower from the investigation into Hunter Biden’s finances, reports Fox News.

“I want to state unequivocally that I have not intervened — and will not intervene — in any way that would impact the status of any whistleblower,” Werfel wrote in a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith, R-Mo., and ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., in mid-May.

“The IRS whistleblower you reference alleges that the change in their work assignment came at the direction of the Department of Justice. As a general matter and not in reference to any specific case, I believe it is important to emphasize that in any matter involving federal judicial proceedings, the IRS follows the direction of the Justice Department.”

IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel says the Department of Justice directed his agency to remove a whistleblower from the investigation into Hunter Biden’s finances, reports Fox News.

“I want to state unequivocally that I have not intervened — and will not intervene — in any way that would impact the status of any whistleblower,” Werfel wrote in a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith, R-Mo., and ranking member Richard Neal, D-Mass., in mid-May.

“The IRS whistleblower you reference alleges that the change in their work assignment came at the direction of the Department of Justice. As a general matter and not in reference to any specific case, I believe it is important to emphasize that in any matter involving federal judicial proceedings, the IRS follows the direction of the Justice Department.”

Werfel also said he contact the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration in response to allegations of retaliation.

“When I first learned of the allegations of retaliation referenced in your letter and in media reports on May 16, 2023, I contacted the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). In light of laws and policies designed to protect the integrity of pending proceedings, I am unable to provide details on this matter.”

“TIGTA confirmed that my role as commissioner in any whistleblower proceeding is not an investigative one. When an IRS employee raises allegations of this kind, the commissioner’s office does not run an investigation, seek the identity of the whistleblower, or similarly intervene; instead, the inspector general serves as a critical guardian of the whistleblower process and conducts relevant inquiries into the matter,” he added.

 

Loading

145
Categories
Daily Hits. Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

The Debt Ceiling Clock Ticks On Plus: Biden taps Gen. Charles “C.Q.” Brown as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Views: 5

Article from The Morning Dispatch.

The Debt Ceiling Clock Ticks On Plus: Biden taps Gen. Charles “C.Q.” Brown as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Happy Friday! Neuralink—the company founded by Elon Musk to implant chips in humans’ brains—announced yesterday it had received FDA approval to begin clinically studying the technology in humans for the first time. Good thing Ron DeSantis didn’t try to launch his campaign on that platform!

  • The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously in favor of 94-year-old Geraldine Tyler, whose home was seized and sold for a profit by a Minnesota county in 2016 to settle a small tax debt. “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the unanimous opinion, which dealt a blow to the controversial practice often referred to as “home equity theft.”
  • Also on Thursday, the court ruled 5-4 to restrict the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce federal clean water protections, particularly in the nation’s wetlands and other waterways.
  • A 75-year-old Michigan man who in September shot an 84-year-old woman canvassing at his home for Right to Life, a pro-life organization, was handed down a sentence of 100 hours of community service and 12 months probation on Tuesday after pleading no contest to the assault. The woman, Joan Jacobson, survived the attack but received hospital treatment for a shoulder wound.
  • Oath Keepers founder and leader Stewart Rhodes—convicted in November on a number of charges, including seditious conspiracy, for his role instigating the January 6 riots and seeking to disrupt the transfer of power—was sentenced on Thursday to 18 years in prison, the longest such term of any January 6 defendant thus far. The head of the Oath Keepers’ Florida chapter, Kelly Meggs, was sentenced to 12 years in prison.
  • Investigators looking into Donald Trump’s handling of classified material since leaving the White House have reportedly learned that the former president and his aides carried out a “dress rehearsal” for moving sensitive documents around Mar-a-Lago, and that boxes of paper were moved by two Trump employees one day before FBI agents and Justice Department officials traveled to the Florida estate to retrieve the material. The actions, if verified, could justify an obstruction charge—and Trump’s lawyers have reportedly warned him to brace for an indictment this year.
  • The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday formally approved Pfizer’s Paxlovid oral antiviral treatment for adults who contract COVID-19 and are at high risk for severe infections. The drug has been authorized for emergency use since late 2021, but now has full approval.
  • After weeks of speculation, Republican Pennsylvania state lawmaker Doug Mastriano—who was at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and lost to Democrat Josh Shapiro by 15 percentage points in 2022’s gubernatorial race—announced Thursday he will not run for Senate next year. The news likely clears a path for hedge fund executive and Army veteran Dave McCormick, who ran for Senate in 2022 but lost to Dr. Mehmet Oz in the Republican primary.
  • In Arizona, Karrin Taylor Robson—a businesswoman who lost to Kari Lake in the state’s Republican gubernatorial primary last year—announced Thursday she will not mount a Senate bid in 2024. A spokesman for Lake told Dispatch Politics earlier this month he is “99 percent sure” she will enter the race for independent incumbent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s seat in the coming months.
  • The Department of Labor reported Thursday that initial jobless claims—a proxy for layoffs—increased by 4,000 week-over-week to a seasonally-adjusted 229,000 claims last week.

Loading

137
Verified by MonsterInsights