Back Door Power Grab Corruption Leftist Virtue(!) Medicine MSM Reprints from others.

Here We Go AGAIN: YouTube Announces New Policies To Target ‘Medical Misinformation’

Views: 16

YouTube is taking immediate action to expand its “medical misinformation” censorship policies, according to a blog post by the popular video platform on Tuesday.

YouTube is streamlining its existing policy to three distinct categories in anticipation of a more long-term suppression of medical information authorities disagree with, according to the announcement. A significant portion of YouTube’s announcement focuses on how it will now censor certain cancer-related content.

“Starting today and ramping up in the coming weeks, we will begin removing content that promotes cancer treatments proven to be harmful or ineffective, or content that discourages viewers from seeking professional medical treatment,” the announcement states.

YouTube acknowledges the evolving nature of medical knowledge and information in its announcement.

However, “our goal is to ensure that when it comes to areas of well-studied scientific consensus, YouTube is not a platform for distributing information that could harm people,” its announcement states.

The three categories of “medical misinformation” will be Prevention, Treatment and Denial, according to the announcement. They state that YouTube will remove content that “contradicts health authority guidance.”

Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is suing YouTube and its parent company, Google, for allegedly violating his free speech, according to a complaint filed Aug. 2. YouTube has removed Kennedy’s videos because of its “vaccine misinformation” policies on multiple occasions, according to the complaint.

Since “YouTube does not allow people to say anything ‘that contradicts local health authorities’ (LHA) or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19,’” this means the government sets the medical censorship guidelines, Kennedy’s lawsuit alleges.


Commentary Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

California could resort to using electric cars to charge its struggling power grid.

Views: 30

California could resort to using electric cars to charge its struggling power grid.Pacific Gas and Electric Company says to think of it as a “backup” energy source, like a generator.

The state of California, which has struggled to reconcile its aggressive “green energy” agenda against its unreliable and blackout-prone power grid, may have an admittedly “unconventional” solution thanks to a proposal from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E): Using electric cars to charge the power grid.

PG&E, which provides power for around 16 million California residents, sees “great potential” for EVs to act as power grid backup generators. “The grid needs those electric vehicles. We need to make it available, and it can be a huge resource,” he added, per The Orange County Register.

Just the News contacted PG&E for more details. A spokesman responded by lauding the supposed benefits of “bidirectional charging.”

“PG&E believes in a future where everyone is driving an electric vehicle (EV) and where that EV serves as a backup power option at home and more broadly as a resource for the grid,” the statement to Just the News read. Not only is this a huge advancement for electric reliability and climate resiliency, it’s yet another advantage of clean-powered EVs, which are so important in our collective battle against climate change.”

The company also said tapping electric cars eliminates “the need for non-renewable resources” like fossil fuels.

The state is widely regarded as the most green energy-driven state, but it is also infamous for its rolling blackouts. In August 2020, ABC reported that hundreds of thousands of Californians briefly lost power in rolling blackouts. Many times, the state uses a diesel generator to supplement the grid during peak energy usage.

Nonetheless, PG&E’s 2030 Climate Strategy Report has a goal for the grid “to quickly and safely power at least 3 million EVs— or about 12,000 GWh of EV-related electric load.” Two million of those EVs are being sought for “vehicle-grid integration (VGI) applications, allowing EVs to be a cornerstone of both electric reliability and climate resilience for PG&E customers broadly.”

According to the Pacific Research Institute, California isn’t able to generate enough electricity to meet its pending EV mandate. 12,000 GWh is nearly 18% of its total renewable electricity generated in 2021.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has openly referred to his state’s power grid as having a reliability “issue” that “has to be addressed.” Even though it has an abundance of oil, it still imports more electricity from outside the state than any other state in the nation because of its green agenda pledge. Data culled from the U.S. Department of Energy shows that California led the nation in power outages last year, with 142 major events.

Because the state has notoriously high energy costs—with some reportedly paying triple the providing cost—three utility companies have proposed charging residents based on income rather than energy consumption.


Corruption Crime Government Overreach Immigration Leftist Virtue(!) The Border

Why are the Sanctuary bluebirds crying about their new found voters for 2024?

Views: 27

Why are the Sanctuary bluebirds crying about their new found voters for 2024? We see it in New York, Illinois, and now Massachusetts. We are spending our money on all these future voters is the battle cry.

I guess the bluebirds thought the plan was to send them in just before the 2024 elections. Not now. And the Progressives are crying cause they have to house and educate the undocumented. What did they think that being a Sanctuary city and state meant?


Abortion rights? Emotional abuse How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Media Woke Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Transgender WOKE

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South” Leftist publication whines.

Views: 35

This article comes from the “” website and is written by a Trump-hating leftist calling itself “Milla” — you can see all 81 pages of articles it’s written by going HERE.

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South” – US Supreme Court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights.

–Original Article headline

Before I get into the article proper, let me state my personal opinion to the rainbow community at large.

You have the right to be whatever you chose to be. Just like I have the right to be myself. You DON’T have the right to demand that I think your way and kowtow to your fantasies on penalty of being beaten, killed or labeled a bigot, a Nazi, or any other derogatory term you come up with. I don’t have the right to sue you for being what you chose to be, but you don’t have the right to try to enforce your fantasies on me via a lawsuit, either. You respect me, I’ll respect you, even if we don’t agree on life choices. Simple. That’s the way a mature person behaves.
End of disclaimer.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of an evangelical Christian web designer from Colorado who refused to work on invites for same-sex marriage, giving a significant blow to the rights of LGBTQ couples.

The Supreme Court cited free speech.

Evangelical Christian web designer Lorie Smith has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to decline to endorse messages she disagrees with, it has been decided. This one decision could cause other owners of similar creative businesses to evade penalties under laws in 29 states that defend the rights of the LGBTQ community. (Notice the defendant is a biological woman. –TPR)

The statement from the Justice

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place, where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” He added, “At the same time, this court has also recognized that no public accommodation law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this court has held public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.”

Shutterstock photo

Smith sued on hypothetical grounds.

Smith opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and sued the state in 2016 because she said she would like to accept customers planning opposite-sex weddings but reject requests made by same-sex couples. She was never disciplined for declining a same-sex couple, and it’s unclear if she ever did. Instead, she sued on hypothetical grounds.

(THIS IS NOT “HYPOTHETICAL” Colorado anyone? And the author’s painfully obvious bias is on full display here. –TPR)

Smith celebrated, but many expressed worry and dread.

(How many is “many” there, cupcake? — TPR)

“This is a victory not just for me but for all of us; whether you share my beliefs or completely disagree with them, free speech is for everyone,” Smith told the press. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that this was a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities” and a type of “reactionary exclusion,” calling it “heartbreaking.”

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes.”

Former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman shared that this was a major blow to human rights, writing, “Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South & posit that the owners attest that they have sincere religious beliefs, reinforced by their pastor every Sunday, that Blacks are inferior and that serving them would force them to endorse a message they disagree with..” Litman added, “That’s where we are headed.”

(Oh oh, Not kowtowing is “racist” now, is it? *facepalm*– TPR)

“The opinion is out there like a loaded gun.”

The lawyer also clarified, “To be clear, I’m not saying that’s where we are headed, although to paraphrase Justice Jackson, the opinion is out there like a loaded gun for someone who wants to go that way. The point for today is just that the opinion doesn’t have a limiting principle that forecloses that result.”

(Bloviate much? Oh, I forgot, you’re not only a person with a law degree, but you’re also a bureaucrat. Silly me. –TPR)

Another important takeaway

Time wrote, “Put plainly: states can try to pass local anti-bigotry laws, but national religious liberties still supersede them.” The publication also connected how the ruling came a year after the fall of Roe v. Wade, and Court watchers predicted that things would only get worse for women as well as LGBTQ rights.

(“For women?” Really. Sorry, that just won’t wash. Maybe for those females who are still emotional babies, but not for anyone who accepts the responsibility for their own actions. –TPR)



Back Door Power Grab Gun Control Leftist Virtue(!) Reprints from others. WOKE

Social Credit System: Coming to a bank near you?

Views: 25

UK Banks Take the Lead in Establishing Personal Social Credit System, Critics Charge

Barclays Bank Fleet Street branch in London, England, on Feb. 16, 2010. (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

Original Epoch Times article

Large money-center banks appear to be in the vanguard of a movement to build a system of personal social credit scores.

This week, British bank Barclays became the latest to be accused of shutting the accounts of its customers for political or religious reasons. This followed revelations in April that Coutts, a private bank owned by British Bank NatWest, was alleged to have closed the accounts and publicized personal information of conservative politician Nigel Farage, one of the foremost Brexit advocates and a supporter of the policies of former U.S. President Donald Trump.

And British banks are not alone. Many say that America’s largest banks are in lockstep with UK banks in establishing political and social criteria for their customers and punishing those who don’t comply.

“Sadly, what we’re seeing now with NatWest and Barclays isn’t surprising,” Justin Haskins, director at the Heartland Institute, told The Epoch Times. “There is a mountain of evidence that shows many of America’s largest and most powerful banks are discriminating against customers because of their ideological, social, cultural, religious, or political views.”

“Through various environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies and frameworks, banks regularly choose to screen out customers who are deemed ‘reputational risks’ or considered part of industries disfavored by elites and their powerful institutions,” Mr. Haskins said.

UK Ministers Find Fault With Discriminating Banks

In contrast to the United States, where regulators have taken no action, UK ministers have stepped in to defend their citizens against political discrimination.

“Andrew Griffith, the economic secretary of the UK, met with some of the major banks recently and got them all to commit to a principle of non-discrimination, based on lawful expression,” Michael Ross, counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), told The Epoch Times.

In addition, laws are currently in works to ban UK banks from discriminating against customers on a political or religious basis.

UK Treasury Minister Baroness Penn stated last week: “I think the point that we can all agree on is that the right to lawful freedom of speech is fundamental. And where that has seemed to be brought into question through the provision of services, we have cause to worry.”

UK Foreign Secretary James Cleverly stated that the closure of Mr. Farage’s accounts was “wrong on so many levels.”

“This completely undermines the trust we have in our banking and financial systems,” Mr. Cleverly said. “We are better than this.”

UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman posted to Twitter on July 19: “The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity.’”

A photograph taken on July 28, 2023 shows the headquarters of the private bank Coutts, in London.(Photo by HENRY NICHOLLS/AFP via Getty Images)

As part of the new UK regulations, banks that close customer accounts will be required to give a reason, and customers will have the right to appeal the bank’s decision. Banks who continue to discriminate may lose their licenses.

Meanwhile, British banks themselves appear to be turning against these policies, or at least of the unfavorable publicity they are now facing as a result.

On July 26, NatWest Chief Executive Alison Rose resigned after Mr. Farage’s allegations were substantiated and it was revealed that she had discussed Mr. Farage’s details with BBC news. Ms. Rose stated that she was guilty of a “serious error of judgment.”

On Thursday, Peter Flavel, CEO of Coutts, also resigned, saying he took “ultimate responsibility” for the closure of Mr. Farage’s bank accounts. The UK government data watchdog has promised an investigation, sending a letter to banks to remind them that customers’ personal information should be kept private.

John Edwards, the UK’s information commissioner, said: “The banking duty of confidentiality is over a hundred years old, and it is clear that it would not permit the discussion of a customer’s personal information with the media.

“We trust banks with our money and with our personal information,” Mr. Edwards stated. “Any suggestion that this trust has been betrayed will be concerning for a bank’s customers, and for regulators like myself.”

US Banks Also Discriminate, Experts Say

JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank, has also faced allegations of political and religious discrimination.

“We’re already seeing this happening in the U.S.,” ADF’s Mr. Ross said.

“Before this, there was obviously Sam Brownback and the National Committee for Religious Freedom,” he said, referring to accounts allegedly closed by JPMorgan Chase. “Chase also canceled Defense of Liberty a couple years ago, retired General Michael Flynn, the Family Council—all of them are designated either high risk or reputational risk.”

In May, longtime JPMorgan Chase shareholder David Bahnsen brought a shareholder action against the bank, claiming that it had closed the accounts of a religious organization established by former senator and U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback for political reasons.

While the action ultimately failed to gain majority support from shareholders, Mr. Bahnsen stated, “One thing I am certain of is that the next time a bank manager decides to close an account for somebody like Ambassador Brownback, they’re going to think twice about doing it. This was covered far and wide by both the left wing press and the right wing press, and I do not believe it looked good upon JPMorgan.”

In November 2021, WePay, a payment services company owned by JPMorgan Chase, abruptly canceled services they were providing for Defense of Liberty, a conservative organization, for an event featuring Donald Trump Jr. WePay said at the time that they would not serve anyone who promotes “hate, violence, racial intolerance, terrorism, the financial exploitation of a crime.”

This prompted Missouri Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick to threaten to halt state business with the bank.

In July 2021, Family Council faced a similar denial of service.

“Although Family Council generally tries to avoid doing business with companies like Chase, at 10:29 am on July 7, 2021, our office received a terse email from our credit card processor—a company owned by J.P. Morgan Chase—saying, ‘Unfortunately, we can no longer support your business.’ At 10:30 AM they terminated our account, and we could no longer accept donations,” Family Council stated.

“For nearly two years we had used this company to process donations that our supporters made to Family Council and the Education Alliance via our websites. If you gave by credit or debit card, this company handled the transaction. Without a processor, it’s impossible for a nonprofit to accept donations online.”

On March 23, financial officers from 14 states wrote a letter to JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon expressing their “concern that the bank is engaged in what appears to be politically motivated de-banking of certain industries, individuals and groups.”

“A large number of our pension funds are direct shareholders of Chase, and as stewards of our states’ investment dollars, we are concerned that the company’s recent pattern of apparent politically motivated de-banking constitutes a breach of its fiduciary duty,” they stated. “Under the law, you and the other officers of the company must act to maximize profit and must not subordinate the company’s long-term financial well-being to extraneous personal or political ends.”

And on May 2, 19 State attorneys general wrote a letter to Mr. Dimon stating: “It is clear that JPMorgan Chase & Co. has persistently discriminated against certain customers due to their religious or political affiliation.

“This discrimination is unacceptable,” the AGs wrote. “Chase must stop such behavior and align its business practices with the anti-discrimination policies that Chase proclaims.”

Discrimination Could Spread Beyond Politics

Some say they are concerned that bank discrimination could spread beyond political and religious views to a broader social credit system that might also include things like environmental behavior and gun control.

“There is every reason to believe that current discriminatory practices in banking could soon expand to personal CO2 emissions or gun purchases,” Mr. Haskins said.

“Banks and other financial institutions have already started to discriminate with gun companies, either through higher fees or rates or by refusing to do business entirely, and every large bank in the United States, from Bank of America to Citi and Wells Fargo, have said they have started the process of phasing out CO2 emissions from their entire business model, including lending and banking services,” he said. “This will take a few decades to complete, but if these banks go through with their plans, individuals and companies that rely on fossil fuels—almost everyone today—will be greatly affected.”

“The policies they use to do this are very expansive policies, like ‘reputational risk’ or ‘politically exposed person,’” Mr. Ross said. “There’s not really a limiting principle there, and so we can certainly see it aimed at any sort of political opponent or anyone who has views that activists or even government actors think are unpopular.”

“We’ve been carefully monitoring Chase, which de-banked General Flynn and de-banked other conservatives, then last fall de-banked Ambassador Brownback’s organization,” Scott Shepard, a director at the National Center for Public Policy Research, told The Epoch Times.

“We’ve seen similar behavior at Bank of America, along with Bank of America sharing private information about the transactions of customers without warrants.”

“And just this last week, they de-banked a couple of doctors who are out talking about the inefficacy of [COVID-19] vaccines, that they won’t stop transmission, that they won’t make takers immune, etc., and the bank still hasn’t explained why,” Mr. Shepard said. “We’ve seen similar behavior at Bank of America, along with Bank of America sharing private information about the transactions of customers without warrants. And last week, we found out that that happens all the time; [FBI Director] Chris Wray says so.”

At a Congressional hearing on July 12, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) asked Mr. Wray: “George Hill, former FBI supervisory intelligence analyst in the Boston field office, told us that Bank of America, with no legal process, gave to the FBI gun purchase records with no geographical boundaries for anybody that was a Bank of America customer. Is that true?”

To which Mr. Wray replied: “A number of business community partners all the time, including financial institutions, share information with us about possible criminal activity, and my understanding is that that’s fully lawful.”

Some have argued that, as private companies, banks are free to do business with whichever customers they choose. However, this position has been challenged on the grounds that financial services are critical to the ability of people and organizations to be able to function in modern society.

“Banks in particular receive a ton of bailouts and public benefits from the government and from taxpayers here,” Mr. Ross said. “They do this so that they can serve the public.”

“So when they turn around and start weaponizing these financial services to cut off people with views they don’t like, they’re breaking the public trust,” he noted.

“The American banks that seem to be leading these de-banking and discrimination policies are the too-big-to-fail banks,” Mr. Shepard said. “If you’re backstopped by American taxpayers, you get to keep your profits but we cover your losses—you may not discriminate against the viewpoint of any American.”

The Epoch Times requested comments from JPMorgan Chase, NatWest, and Barclays for this article but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Minor edits for punctuation and emphasis — TPR


Biden Cartel Corruption Economy Education Government Overreach How sick is this? Immigration Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Polls Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Thanks Joe Biden. Confidence in U.S., U.K. Governments Lowest in G7.

Views: 9

Thanks Joe Biden. Confidence in U.S., U.K. Governments Lowest in G7.


For decades, much has been made of the “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom. But in 2022, the national governments of both nations shared a somewhat less special accomplishment: earning the least confidence from their constituents of any G7 member country.

When Gallup first measured national confidence in governments around the world nearly two decades ago, both President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair were well into their terms in office. The governments they led retained extensive confidence domestically — far more so than for almost all the rest of the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Japan and Italy).

Fast forward to 2022, and the tables have turned. Roughly one in three adults in the U.K. (33%) and U.S. (31%) say they have confidence in their national governments: putting them at the bottom of the G7 countries.

As governments on both sides of the Atlantic have struggled, other administrations in G7 nations have solidified their positions among their electorates. In Europe, confidence in Italy’s government has almost doubled since 2019 (from 22% to 41% in 2022). Similarly, confidence in the French government has increased steadily since French President Emmanuel Macron came to power: rising from 37% in 2017 to 46% in 2022. In Olaf Scholz’s first full year as chancellor of Germany, he has continued Angela Merkel’s trend of high German confidence (61%) in government — the highest confidence level in the G7.

Even though confidence in the Canadian government has slipped from its highs under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a majority (51%) nevertheless retain faith in it. In Japan, which ranked last among G7 countries between 2007 and 2012, confidence in government has since more than doubled to 43% in 2022.

Confidence in U.S. Government Continues Free Fall

The U.S. has seen a sharp decline in the public’s confidence in the national government over the past couple of years. In 2020, almost half (46%) of U.S. adults expressed faith in their government, likely boosted by the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

But after President Joe Biden took office, confidence in government slipped to 40% in 2021 and again to 31% in 2022. This is on par with the lowest rates of confidence measured in the U.S. government since Gallup started tracking it globally in 2006 — with the other lows measured in 2013, 2016 and 2018 under former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

Declining domestic confidence in the U.S. government has occurred alongside declining approval ratings on the world stage. Median global approval of U.S. leadership slipped to 41% in 2022, down from 45% in 2021 during Biden’s first year in office.

Turmoil in Westminster May Be Blurring the Lines

Across the Atlantic, Britons’ confidence in their national government has been relatively low since 2019. But as is true for the U.S., confidence in the U.K. also reached a near-record low in 2022, on par with its level in 2008 during the financial crash (32%).

The U.K. political system has been rocked by several major events in recent years, including Brexit, the “Partygate” scandal and frequent turnover among its prime ministers. Since 2019, the U.K. has had four prime ministers in as many years.

For countries across the globe, leadership approval and confidence in government are highly related.

The same relationship is present in the U.K., where since 2006, confidence in the government has been far higher among those who approve of the U.K.’s leadership. But this changed dramatically in 2022, as the Partygate scandal intensified and numerous stories of alleged governmental wrongdoing dominated the headlines.

In 2022, confidence in the government collapsed, especially among Britons who approved of their country’s leadership (38%). This is the lowest level of confidence in the world among people who approve of their leadership — tied with Lebanon.

After years of clear distinction, the line between governmental confidence and leadership approval in the U.K. is now blurred. This may be a concern for the conservatives — in power since 2010 — ahead of the general election likely to be held at the end of next year.

Bottom Line

Much has changed since Gallup surveyed G7 countries in 2022, and recent events could have shifted these trends even further — including the political fallout from Trump’s legal troubles and former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s dramatic resignation from parliament in recent weeks.

The U.S. and the U.K. face crucial elections around the end of 2024. On both sides of the Atlantic, the election results will likely prove decisive in whether the public’s faith in their governments can be rebuilt in coming years or will erode yet further.




Back Door Power Grab Commentary Economy Food Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Life Reprints from others. WOKE

13 Nations agree to engineer global FAMINE by destroying agriculture, saying that producing food is BAD for the planet!

Views: 46

We are now being told that producing food is bad for the planet. To “save” the planet, globalists insist, farms must be shut down across the globe.

A family with starving children, Wikimedia Commons.

Under the guise of reducing “methane emissions,” thirteen nations have signed a pledge to engineer global famine by gutting agricultural production and shutting down farms. Announced earlier this year by the Global Methane Hub — a cabal of crisis engineers who exploit public panic to destroy the world food supply — those thirteen nations are:

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Germany, Panama, Peru, Spain, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and Uruguay.

Imagine no meat production from Australia, Brazil and the USA. This is the goal of the globalists. And they admit it’s all part of the climate fraud which has been thoroughly exposed as a quack science hoax, by the way. As Luis Planas, Spain’s Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says, “I am glad to see the shared commitment by the international community to mitigate methane emissions from agriculture as a means to achieve the goals we signed for in the Paris Agreement on climate.”

“Food systems are responsible for 60% of methane emissions,” warns Marcelo Mena, CEO of the Global Methane Hub. She is saying that farming is destroying the planet. Hence, their demand to shut down farms. Without farms, you have no food. And without food, you get exactly what Kamala Harris called for over the weekend: “Reduced population.”

The depopulation agenda is no longer even a secret. They are bragging about it.

And here’s their logic: FOOD = GLOBAL WARMING. So they are attacking food and shutting it down.

Starving child in Africa.

Cows and chickens to be replaced by crickets and insect larvae

Enjoy the crunchy fake meat patties and Cricket McNuggets. Soon, you’ll be eating bugs because meat will be wildly unaffordable due to the governments shutting down farms and ranches. As journalist Leo Hohmann explains:

We can presume from this language that among the practices being considered are replacing a major portion of the beef and dairy cattle, pork and chicken stocks that populations rely on for protein with insect larvae, meal worms, crickets, etc. The U.N., World Economic Forum and other NGOs have been promoting meatless diets and the consumption of insect protein for years, and billionaires have invested in massive insect factories being built in the state of Illinois, in Canada and in the Netherlands, where meal worms, crickets and other bugs will be processed as additives to be inserted into the food supply, often without clear labels that will inform people of exactly what they are eating.

Hohmann also refers to the Deagel forecast which projects an almost 70 percent reduction of the U.S. population by 2025, saying:

There is no more efficient way to depopulate than through war, famine and plagues. Isn’t it interesting that all three of these time-tested methods of murder are in play right now?

In a related story, Michael Snyder from The Economic Collapse Blog writes:

Global food supplies just keep getting even tighter, and global hunger has risen to extremely alarming levels… According to the United Nations, nearly 30 percent of the global population does not have constant access to food right now, and there are approximately 900 million people that are facing “severe food insecurity”…

Chinese children starving.

Gee, add to that the next global PLANdemic, and you can see (if you take off your leftist blinders) where this is headed. And the BIDEN REGIME is particpating in it!–TPR



Biden Cartel Child Abuse Emotional abuse Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Sexual Abuse

Biden’s DOJ Child Sex Trafficking Office Updates Website – Page Now Half the Size, Critical Info Gone

Views: 28

The Biden administration’s Department of Justice web page on the dangers of child sex trafficking is suddenly missing some very crucial text that raises further questions as to the degree the department has been politicized.

In fact, in recent months, most of the original text on what the public should look for has been deleted — presumably in order to protect an embattled pro-LGBT White House and its failed border policies.

According to an archive of the page, up until recently, the DOJ warned off international sex trafficking rings that use the border to exploit children.

A section on “International Sex Trafficking of Minors” for years read as follows:

“One form of sex trafficking involves the cross-border transportation of children. In these situations, traffickers recruit and transfer children across international borders in order to sexually exploit them in another country.

“The traffickers can be individuals working alone, organized crime groups, enterprises, or networks of criminals working together to traffic children into prostitution across country lines.”

The DOJ reported that once missing and exploited children enter the country illegally, they often are never found and are afraid to come forward.

Other crucial excerpts on the international slave trade are also missing.

One obvious explanation for why this information is suddenly gone is that President Joe Biden and his administration have watched over an open border for the last two-and-a-half years.

Why else would anyone in federal law enforcement in the corrupt federal government feel it is necessary to remove such important information?

But there are also excerpts missing that could be interpreted as pointing toward the LGBT community.

For example, in its previous form, the DOJ warned of predators whose motives might be to take advantage of young people whose backgrounds could match those of confused kids in distress.

One of those excerpts once read:

“Offenders of this crime who are commonly referred to as traffickers, or pimps, target vulnerable children and gain control over them using a variety of manipulative methods. Victims frequently fall prey to traffickers who lure them in with an offer of food, clothes, attention, friendship, love, and a seemingly safe place to sleep.”

Another stated bluntly:

“It is common for traffickers to isolate victims by moving them far away from friends and family, altering their physical appearances, or continuously moving them to new locations. Victims are heavily conditioned to remain loyal to the trafficker and to distrust law enforcement.”

Organizations that cater to children who are confused about sexuality and gender often report they feel ostracized and end up homeless.

For example, the LGBT youth group The Trevor Project states that 28 percent of young people in its community have been homeless.

It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that such a situation would set some of these kids up to be taken advantage of.

We know with the modern left’s extreme views on gender, kids are being urged to undergo life-altering surgeries. Who knows where some of them end up?

That fact might explain why the DOJ’s warning that predators who are known for “altering” the physical appearance of their victims is now gone.

More information about the trafficking of human beings is always better than less — especially in regard to children.

But for some reason that has not been addressed publicly, the DOJ cut out this very important information — whittling it down from more than 1,300 words to only 400.

The department also removed the following 2011 quote from then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole:

“Some of our most vulnerable children also face the threat of being victimized by commercial sexual exploitation. Runaways, throwaways, sexual assault victims, and neglected children can be recruited into a violent life of forced prostitution.”

Given the politicized nature of federal law enforcement under the Biden administration, we can only assume the DOJ removed information about victims who are inconvenient and that it was done for political reasons.

See the updated page here.

The White House is truly shameless.



Child Abuse Corruption Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Reprints from others. Transgender

Who’s Afraid of Moms for Liberty? And Why?

Views: 19

Attendees at the Moms for Liberty Joyful Warrior Summit stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in Philadelphia on July 1. (Michael M. Santiago via Getty Images)

ByRobert Pondiscio

In a breakout session in a windowless conference room at last weekend’s Moms for Liberty “Joyful Warrior Summit” in Philadelphia, Christian Ziegler, the chairman of the Florida Republican Party and father of three school-aged daughters, is stiffening spines. Dozens of attendees, mostly women, are nodding and taking notes as Ziegler explains how to work with local news media.

“Your product is parental rights. Your product is protecting children and eliminating indoctrination and the sexualization of children. You’re the grassroots. You’re on the ground. You’re the moms, the grandparents, the families that are impacted. The stories you tell help set a narrative,” Ziegler coaches them.

One story above us, the ballroom floor of the downtown Marriott is groaning under the weight of crowded press risers, where camera crews have set up for the parade of Republican presidential hopefuls coming here to curry favor with the more than 600 Moms for Liberty members attending—and a few thousand more watching the livestream.

Ron DeSantis held forth this morning. Nikki Haley is scheduled to speak at lunch. Donald Trump will close things out later this afternoon. Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson are on tap for tomorrow.

It’s an astonishing display of political drawing power, considering Moms for Liberty didn’t even exist three years ago. The candidates have all come to pay obeisance to the animating idea that has galvanized these women: that parents—not the government—should be in charge of how their children are raised and educated.

If you want to understand why these politicians have come, you need to go to the breakout sessions, away from the camera’s gaze, where, hour after hour, Moms for Liberty chapter leaders and foot soldiers learn how to run for school boards—and if they win, how to advance their agenda even when in the minority. There are talks on messaging strategies and mining school board minutes for signs of “woke indoctrination.” There are workshops on how to file public records requests and navigate the legal system.

They aren’t messing around. More than half of the 500 candidates Moms for Liberty endorsed for local school board elections last year won their races. “School choice moms” provided the margin of victory in DeSantis’ first run for Florida governor in 2018. Democrat Terry McAuliffe was leading the race for Virginia governor in 2021 before his debate remark that “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach” handed the win to Republican Glenn Youngkin.

Moms for Liberty is the beating heart of this country’s movement of angry parents—and American education has never seen anything quite like it.

Moms for Liberty launched in January 2021 when frustration with pandemic masking rules had reached a boiling point. Requests to form local chapters started coming in almost immediately after co-founder Tina Descovich called in to Glenn Beck’s radio show. Appearances on The Rush Limbaugh Show, Fox News, and Steve Bannon’s War Room quickly followed. Within six months, Megyn Kelly was hosting a fundraiser. Its slogan, emblazoned on thousands of t-shirts, is “We don’t co-parent with the government.”

That message has found an enormous and growing audience. With 120,000 members and nearly 300 chapters in 45 U.S. states, Moms for Liberty is already the most consequential education advocacy organization since Teach For America—but with none of the halo effect that inspired a generation of elite college grads to put off law school and Wall Street to teach in inner cities.

Moms for Liberty is Teach For America’s dark opposite number. They won’t be talked out of their conviction that malign forces in public schools—gender ideology, critical race theory, Marxism, anti-Americanism—have come for their children, and they’re having exactly none of it.

“I think they’re one of the few truly authentic and responsive edu-parental rights groups that has emerged in recent history,” says a prominent parent choice supporter not associated with Moms for Liberty, who would only speak anonymously because of the group’s radioactive reputation in education and philanthropic circles. “They’re not just mouthpieces on social media; they have a real following. If they weren’t effective, and if their message wasn’t resonant, they wouldn’t be so vilified.”

It’s true the group attracts and frequently abides a lunatic fringe, fueling its critics’ counternarrative that the movement is intolerant, racist even.

Just last week, an Indiana Moms for Liberty chapter put a Hitler quote in its newsletter and the story went national. The quote—“He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future”—was intended to warn parents what happens when a regime targets its children for indoctrination. But when critics are calling you ultra-right wing Christofascists, it’s probably unwise to invoke Hitler in any context.

The local chapter chair apologized, “probably because she hasn’t gone through this” training, Ziegler tells the crowd.

“Frankly, it was bullshit.”

Even before the Hitler controversy, media coverage of the group has been harsh. The Nation described Moms for Liberty as “hateful fascist bigots.” The New Republic said the group has “created nightmares for schools across the country.” An article in Vice reported they have ties to the Proud Boys—a claim that co-founder Tiffany Justice strenuously denied to me. A story in The Washington Post led with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s recent designation of Moms for Liberty as an “extremist group” devoted to spreading “messages of anti-inclusion and hate.”

When Ziegler’s wife, Bridget, one of the original Moms for Liberty, started serving on the school board in Sarasota County, Florida, nearly a decade ago, the negative press coverage reduced her to tears. Now, Ziegler tells the room, the couple compares their bad press clips on date nights.

“You actually get to this amazing moment when you realize, ‘Hey, if they attack me, I can go raise money on this. I can get my message out by piggybacking on that attack,’ ” advises Ziegler.

“It’s brutal to be on defense,” he continues. “Always play offense. Never apologize. Never, ever, never,” he insists.

Ziegler, meanwhile, likes this morning’s Washington Post story just fine, even though it details a litany of complaints and criticisms aimed at the group. “Moms for Liberty didn’t exist three years ago. Now,” the paper says, “it’s a GOP kingmaker.”

“Probably the best headline I’ve ever seen,” he grins.

In 2021, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) was forced to apologize after a letter it sent to the Biden administration went viral, asking for federal law enforcement to stop “domestic terrorism” at school board meetings.

While Moms for Liberty was not mentioned by name, the letter cited several incidents at which members had protested. Since then, 25 state associations have cut ties with NSBA. At the Philadelphia summit, a handful of mothers were proudly wearing “Domestic Terrorist” t-shirts.

Outside the Marriott, protesters from ACT UP Philly and the Young Communist League are registering their displeasure with an all-day “dance party protest”—a strange response to the fascist threat they insist is unfolding four flights up. From beyond barricades several hundred feet away they shout at the hotel and wave signs: “Philly is a Trans City,” “Kancel Klanned Karenhood,” and “Moms for Liberty Go Home!” 

But the Moms are unrepentant. They seem almost to revel in the abuse.

On the eve of the Philadelphia Summit, co-founder Tiffany Justice told me, “We are fighting for the survival of America by unifying, educating, and empowering parents to defend their parental rights at all levels of government.”

A few years ago, if you had to bet on which parent organization could influence the 2024 election, the smart wager would have been on the well-funded National Parents Union (NPU), which calls itself an “authentically parent-led organization,” a label that Moms for Liberty would undoubtedly use to describe itself.

The afternoon before Moms for Liberty kicked off their conference, NPU held a sparsely attended rally in Philadelphia’s Love Park to condemn its “evil and divisive” rival, which, it claimed, seeks school book bans and to whitewash history lessons taught to children. What Moms for Liberty insists are efforts to keep pornography out of school libraries and to combat “indoctrination” about critical race theory and gender fluidity, NPU says are attempts to attack and marginalize children of color and LGBTQ youth.

At the Love Park rally, NPU’s president publicly blasted Moms for Liberty, stating unironically that they’re bankrolled by “big checks from the evils of white supremacy.” NPU, for its part, has raised millions in philanthropic support from the Walton Family Foundation, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, and the Charles Koch Institute-backed Vela Fund

Moms for Liberty’s most recent tax filings from 2021 claim a modest $370,000 of revenue. Descovich says accountants are finalizing Moms for Liberty’s updated Form 990, which “will show that our revenue sources have grown from merchandise sales and small donors to include large donors too.” Justice confirms that she and Descovich now draw full-time salaries for their work. They are two of nine full-time staffers.

Their grassroots appeal is easily observable. At the summit, I ran into a neighbor who last year upended our small town in upstate New York with a failed campaign for school board, pushing back on “government overreach” and demanding a return to “traditional education.”

“What are the chances we’d run into each other here!” he greets me.

“Probably 100 percent,” I reply. I write about education for a living and he’s here with his wife, who’s thinking about launching a local chapter. They are the Moms for Liberty couple from central casting.

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley speaks during the Moms for Liberty summit in Philadelphia. (Michael M. Santiago via Getty Images)

“I’ve never seen a consensus like this. This is a winning issue.”

Until Moms for Liberty, efforts to organize parents into an effective political counterweight to teachers unions and to impose their will on K–12 education haven’t amounted to very much. Colleen Dippel, the founder of Houston-based Families Empowered, a parent support organization with no connection to the group, says of Moms for Liberty: “They are doing things that other organizations have received millions of dollars to do and haven’t been able to get done. The National Parents Union hasn’t flipped a school board. They haven’t changed a policy that I’m aware of.”

The rise of Moms for Liberty as a force in education policy, local elections, and now the 2024 campaign is, if anything, a function of their refusal to follow the playbook common to parent advocacy organizations, which tend to wither and die when their philanthropic support dries up.

“Philanthropists will never be able to control these women,” says Dippel. “Why? Because these women are college educated and they don’t need their money. They also have time, they have skills, and they’re empowered primary voters. The message they send to elected officials is, ‘No, no, no. My kid, my money, you work for me. And if you don’t, I’ll organize all these other women, tell them what’s going on, and kick you out of office, because that’s democracy, right?’ ”

At a private dinner on Friday night after Trump’s speech, pollster Jim McLaughlin presented Moms for Liberty’s leaders and advisers with the results of a survey he conducted of likely voters in the upcoming general election. A clear majority (67 percent) feel that K–12 public education in the U.S. is “on the wrong track,” including half of Democrats, he says. Nearly three-fourths, including independents and Biden voters, think it’s more important for schools to teach children “basics” like reading, writing, and math rather than “issues of social justice, reproductive rights, sex education, and transgender issues.”

Matt Palumbo, a 30-year veteran Republican political adviser who has worked on seven presidential campaigns and attended the briefing said, “I’ve never seen a consensus like this. This is a winning issue.”

Obviously, schools do not choose between teaching reading and gender ideology, but it was hard to miss the narrative taking shape in real time in Philadelphia. The basic thrust of Moms for Liberty’s advocacy—that parents, not the government, should have the ultimate say in what children are taught in public schools—has legs. Not one subgroup in McLaughlin’s crosstabs—Trump or Biden voters; pro-life or pro-choice; black, white, or Hispanic; urban, rural, or suburban—disagrees.

Education is a state issue, not a federal one; schools are ground zero in the country’s culture war, and Moms for Liberty is positioned to be at the center of it through next November. A majority of Americans simply don’t buy the idea that a person can be a gender other than the one “assigned at birth,” and they don’t want their children taught otherwise in public schools. Every presidential contender who came to the summit talked about it in one form or another. And the crowd leapt to its feet every time.

Moms for Liberty has angered activists and inspired harsh media coverage—and yet the organization’s status as a GOP kingmaker has only grown. (Michael M. Santiago via Getty Images)

But the passion and energy that has rocketed Moms for Liberty to kingmaker status is also its Achilles heel: some overly zealous members have gone too far.

Members of a local Tennessee chapter last year, for example, sued to remove an outstanding English curriculum, Wit & Wisdom, from their school district, on the grounds that its elementary school texts about civil rights icons Ruby Bridges and Martin Luther King Jr. are too dark and disturbing for children and violate state laws against teaching critical race theory. A New Hampshire chapter offered a $500 bounty “for the person that first successfully catches a public school teacher breaking this [state’s anti-critical race theory] law.” An Arkansas Mom was banned from school grounds after an audio recording captured her saying “if I had any mental issues, [school employees] would all be plowed down by a freaking gun right now.”

Neither are the group’s fanatical elements limited only to local chapters. On Saturday morning at the conference, Moms for Liberty fixture James Lindsay painted a picture of the organization as “war moms” fighting a “Maoist cultural revolution” engineered at the highest levels of government and elite institutions. When Mao came to power, Lindsay claimed, his first step was to close schools and reeducate teachers. “They shut down the schools for two years and came back with a whole new program. Does that sound familiar?”

Lindsay’s conspiracy theory earned him a raucous standing ovation.

Erika Donalds, the wife of Florida Congressman Byron Donalds and another former school board member who was present at the founding (she remains on Moms for Liberty’s board), believes the group is ready for its moment in the national spotlight, but she’s clear-eyed about the potential pitfalls of such a rapid rise. “They’re very intentional about who speaks on behalf of the organization. They train their members on the issues, and they get out in front of things,” she says. “But their biggest risk is some rogue woman wearing a Moms for Liberty shirt at a school board meeting acting like a cuckoo.”

Tiffany Justice acknowledges the risk to the brand but minimizes the downside.

“There is no doubt in my mind that there will be things that chapters do that we may not agree with, or we may not be able to stop in advance,” she tells me. “If it rises to something that’s the level of violating our code of conduct, we have no problem removing a chapter chair or taking the steps to remove a member. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows. This work is difficult. And we know that.”

The Moms for Liberty mission statement, “We Do Not Co-Parent with the Government” has animated an enormous audience—with almost 300 chapters in 45 states. (Octavio Jones via Getty Images)

Teach For America, which is now derided by conservatives for its hard left turn into “woke” education, claims that 270 of its alumni serve in elected positions around the country “from state representatives to city council members to school board officials.” Moms for Liberty might have that many or more school board members already, and a multiple of that number weighing a run. Teach For America has been around for 30 years. Moms for Liberty? Thirty months. And the way things are going, their influence is likely to explode in the next few years.

“Today’s school board members are tomorrow’s state legislators,” said Christian Ziegler, the Florida Republican Party chairman, when I spoke with him a few days after the Philadelphia summit. His wife, Bridget, who is serving what she says will be her last school board term in Sarasota, is leading a new program for school board candidates at the Virginia-based Leadership Institute, which since 1979 has trained 250,000 conservative activists in campaigns, fundraising, and communications.

“And today’s state legislators are tomorrow’s congressmen.”

Robert Pondiscio is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of How the Other Half Learns. Follow him on Twitter at @rpondiscio.

For more about the education culture wars, read Eric Kaufmann’s recent piece “The Indoctrination of the American Mind.”

I have never had a problem with gays or POCs in and of themselves. And I support any who have legitimate grievances. What I DO have a problem with is those who think they are entitled to special treatment because of what they are or claim to be or who DEMAND others bow down in acquiescence to their lifestyle choices. –TPR



Corruption How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Racism Racism. The Law

Dem-Backed Bill Would Force Judges to Consider Race in Sentencing

Views: 31

Dem-Backed Bill Would Force Judges to Consider Race in Sentencing

California lawmakers consider a bill that would require judges to consider a person’s race when deciding how long to sentence them to prison.

The bill, which was introduced in February by Democratic Assembly taxpaying citMember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, was approved by the state Assembly in May and is currently being debated in the state Senate, according to Fox News.

If the Dems didn’t have double standards, they would have none at all.

Assembly Bill 852 would add a section to the California Penal Code requiring courts, when they have the power to decide a prison sentence, to take into account how racial minorities have been affected differently than others in order to “rectify racial bias.”

“It is the intent of the Legislature to rectify the racial bias that has historically permeated our criminal justice system as documented by the California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans,” the proposed section reads.

“Whenever the court has discretion to determine the appropriate sentence according to relevant statutes and the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council, the court presiding over a criminal matter shall consider the disparate impact on historically disenfranchised and system-impacted populations.”

The task force, which was created from legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2020, published its recommendations in June, Fox News reported. The state legislature will debate whether to implement them.

Jones-Sawyer is a member of the reparations task force, according to NBC News.

Eligible black California residents could receive more than $115,000, or roughly $2,352 per year of residency from 1971 to 2020, in compensation for excessive policing and felony drug arrests, as well as disproportionate incarceration during the alleged war on drugs, Fox News reported.

Jones-Sawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Wow. Give criminals money for being caught. What a novel concept!

Isn’t giving someone preferential treatment because of their skin color RACIST????

Answer: YES! (Unless the parties enjoying the preference are non-White, of course.)



Verified by MonsterInsights