Candace Owens on the set of her show Candace in April last year in Nashville, Tennessee. She recently spoke at a student Turning Point USA event and squashed a question about trans students who felt "victimized" by her presence.
JASON DAVIS/GETTY IMAGES
Candace Owens Delivers Powerful Response to Woke Student After She Asks a Question About Crybaby Trans Pupils “Victimized” by Owens’ Presence at University of Albany.
Conservative commentator Candace Owens told trans students to get on with their lives and wear a “helmet” in a recent appearance on TPUSA’s Live Free Tour.
The broadcaster, who is eight months pregnant, attended the University at Albany with Turning Point USA on October 4, where her views received mixed reactions from students.
Turning Point USA is a nonprofit organization that promotes conservative politics at high schools, colleges and university campuses. During an audience question portion of her address, one student asked: “What do you have to say to the trans students on this campus who feel actively victimized by your presence here?”
Student: "What do you have to say to the trans students on this campus who feel actively victimized by your presence here?"@RealCandaceO: "Life's tough. Get a helmet, man." pic.twitter.com/kmQHkpCuLp
Joey Boy is upset that X is now allowing Conservative and real doctors to post facts.John Hardwood interviewed Biden and as usual Joe told one falsehood after another. But what I found interesting was his bull about X since Musk bought them.
Before Musk when it was Twitter, one lie after another from the cultists on the left was allowed to go unchallenged.
After the purchase, more Conservatives were able to voice their opinion and use facts instead of MSM talking points.
We also got shown the proof where real doctors were shadow banned or outright banned. Plus Musk revealed how the Biden administration cabinet members were asking for Conservative thought to be deleted. Biden is now upset because those on the left are finally getting the truth.
Yes, you read that right: Biden Admin Proposal Would ‘Transfer’ Kids Out Of Foster Homes That Don’t Affirm Their ‘Gender Identity.’
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a proposed rule Wednesday that would require states to “transfer” foster children from families who do not support their “gender identity,” a copy of the rule showed.
Under the proposed rule, children in the foster care system will only be placed with families who the HHS classifies as a “safe and appropriate placement,” meaning families must use a child’s “identified pronouns” and “chosen name,” the rule said. “Safe” families will undergo extensive training to “provide” for the child’s “needs,” and the state will transfer fostered children away from families who do not “support” their “self-identified gender identity and expression,” upon completion of an investigation.
“In certain cases, we anticipate that a report from a LGBTQI+ youth that they feel their placement is not safe or appropriate should merit a response of great urgency from the agency,” HHS wrote in the proposed rule. “For example, given the extensive evidence that LGBTQI+ youth who face bullying, discrimination, or harassment related to their sexual orientation or gender identity are at significantly increased risk of violence or self-harm, we anticipate that agencies should respond with urgency when a LGBTQI+ child raises concerns that a placement that is not safe and appropriate.”
Families can apply for a religious exception, but the agency declares it has a “compelling government interest” that outweighs any “religious restrictions.”
Child abuse in its most insidious form,
The rule also clarifies that foster parents will be guilty of “neglect” or “abuse” if they “retaliate” against a child for their “gender identity,” including if they restrict the child’s access to “age-appropriate materials” such as “health care supportive of their sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.”
Families will be required to help children go through sex-change surgeries or allow them to take puberty blockers, including children younger than 14.
President Joe Biden requested in June that the agency “take action” to “safeguard LGBTQI+ youth from dangerous practices,”
Families who have religious objections to changing genders or engaging in same-sex relationships will not be allowed to foster children who “identify” as “LGBTQIA,” because they will not fit under the definition of a “safe placement,” the rule clarifies. HHS says families can apply for a religious exception, but claimed that the agency has “compelling government interest” that outweighs any “religious restrictions.”
HHS created the rule after President Joe Biden requested in June that the agency “take action” to “safeguard LGBTQI+ youth from dangerous practices,” a White House press release said. Biden praised the HHS rule in a Wednesday press release and said the rule would give children “the services they need to thrive.”
HHS plans to publish the proposed rule on Thursday and will allow individuals to comment on the potential rule for the next 60 days.
Elon Musk announced on Wednesday that he has cut the Electoral Integrity team at X (formerly Twitter) in half, including the newly brought on board head of the group, Aaron Rodericks.
When the news was reported, Musk replied “Oh you mean the ‘Election Integrity’ Team that was undermining election integrity? Yeah, they’re gone.”
A person familiar with the circumstances, said that four people had been released, which constitutes the whole of the election integrity unit in Dublin.
In an August blog post, X said that there were positions available on the “threat disruption” team, and that they company was “currently expanding our safety and elections teams to focus on combating manipulation, surfacing inauthentic accounts and closely monitoring the platform for emerging threats.”
In a post concerning election integrity, the platform posted that “You may not use X’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes, such as posting or sharing content that may suppress participation, mislead people about when, where, or how to participate in a civic process, or lead to offline violence during an election. Any attempt to undermine the integrity of civic participation undermines our core tenets of freedom of expression and as a result, we will apply labels to violative posts informing users that the content is misleading.”
The post clarified what that meant, however, and noted further that “Not all false or untrue information about politics or civic processes constitutes manipulation or interference. In the absence of other policy violations, the following are generally not in violation of this policy: inaccurate statements about an elected or appointed official, candidate, or political party; organic content that is polarizing, biased, hyperpartisan, or contains controversial viewpoints expressed about elections or politics; discussion of public polling information; voting and audience participation for competitions, game shows, or other entertainment purposes; using X pseudonymously or as a parody, commentary, or fan account to discuss elections or politics.”
This comes after Musk named a new CEO in the spring, Linda Yaccarino, who had been with NBC. She had stated that X would expand trust and safety teams, along with election integrity units.
Trust in the platform’s ability to police itself took a severe downturn after the publication of the Twitter Files, which revealed intensive bias within Twitter management toward Democrats and the left, and that government agencies had been interfering by insisting on policing speech on the site.
Some of the meddling Twitter undertook during the 2020 presidential election included suppressing negative information about Joe Biden and his involvement with his son’s business dealings. Voters polled after the fact said that had they known about these concerns, they would not have voted for Biden in that hotly contested election.
Better luck next time.
:)
Picture Alliance/Getty Images
Winning again. Lego is having trouble going Green.
The only realization more painful than finding a Lego piece with your bare foot is that producing those blocks sustainably is hard.
The Danish toymaker informed the world yesterday that it’ll have to abandon its plan to manufacture its trademark bricks out of recycled plastic bottles, since it would increase Lego’s energy usage.
When Lego first announced the bottles-to-bricks idea two years ago, it estimated that material from a one-liter-sized bottle could produce approximately 10 bricks.
But the shift toward recycled materials would require major carbon-intensive changes to the company’s current brickmaking process, which uses oil-based plastic. And the sample blocks just weren’t very good.
Building (green) blocks
Lego has been trying to engineer bricks from various eco-friendly materials (including corn and wheat) with limited success. The pieces must be easy to click together and pull apart and durable enough to withstand play from generations of boisterous builders.
Don’t tell the sweet-toothed toddlers in your life, but Lego has pulled off using sugar cane to create bioplastics for softer elements like trees and bushes.
Never back down, never what? Lego said it won’t give up experimenting with different ingredients and that it still aims to make its bricks sustainably by 2032.
“Mr. Erwin was born in 1942 in Tyler, Texas, where the Black community lived on the north side of town, the whites lived on the south side and Black people did not cross Front Street after sundown.”
“And Black people did not cross Front Street after sundown”??? But whites felt free to stroll around the black part of town any time of day?
It’s the incessant myth of WHITE PEOPLE PREYING ON BLACKS!
In case you’re wondering, even in the 1940s, the black murder rate was many, many times higher than the white murder rate:
Time to focus on where Republicans are winning with the American Voters. I’ve made a decision that it’s time to ease up on the criminal activities of Joe and Hunter Biden. Don’t get me wrong. There’s crimes that have been committed, but we must look at the big picture.
Republicans are winning on the Border, The Economy, Education, COVID, and Green Energy. The Biden administration is screwing up in all of those areas. They want us to just focus on Hunter so their other misdeeds will go unnoticed.
So unless it’s earth shattering and a main News issue of the day, this writer will ease up on the Hunter and Joe Biden money laundering.
5 Major Problems with ProPublica’s Latest ‘Ethics’ Hit Piece on Justice Clarence Thomas.
By Ken Klukowski
Lawyer who served in the White House and Justice Department.
There are five major problems with the latest so-called “ethics” attack on Justice Clarence Thomas, which this time is a hit piece from the leftwing ProPublica, attempting to kick Thomas off an upcoming Supreme Court case.
ProPublica has the vapors over the fact that Thomas flew on a private jet to a conference in Palm Springs in 2018 hosted by the network of Charles and David Koch, suggesting several ethics violations. ProPublica is legally wrong on every claim.
Two problems are that Supreme Court justices can speak at nonpartisan gatherings so long as there are no presentations to or from parties to a case currently pending before the Court, and the justice does not engage in fundraising.
First, Thomas did not present at the conference on any issues pending before the court, and no parties or lawyers on cases that were scheduled at the court made any presentations to him.
Second, although fundraising certainly takes place at such gatherings, so long as the justice does not ask for money, the fact that private citizens do so is not an ethics concern for a justice in attendance.
On various occasions when liberal justices like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor have spoken at events, fundraising people huddle about how to promote the justice’s name to raise more money off the event. But Kagan and Sotomayor violate no ethics rules when this happens, because they are not the ones engaged in fundraising.
Third, it is utterly irrelevant that the Koch Network supports filing briefs in a case currently before the court that would change the scope of the federal government’s regulatory law. Justices frequently speak at events hosted by groups that take positions on pending matters, and the upcoming case is no different.
That case, Loper Bright, asks the court to overrule a 1984 case named Chevron, where the court held that courts should defer to agency bureaucrats about whether regulations are consistent with a law passed by Congress, if Congress’s law is either silent or ambiguous about the precise legal question at issue in the regulation.
Chevron should be overruled because it is egregiously wrong and has led to terrible results. It upends bedrock principles of the rule of law for judges who defer to the almost-all-powerful government about the government’s claims as to the government’s own power over citizens and companies. If anyone should get the benefit of the doubt, it should be the powerless ordinary citizen. But better yet, there should be no deference, and judges should just interpret the law and the regulations the same way they interpret any other law, regulation, or contract. (Full disclosure: I coauthored one of the many briefs in Loper Bright urging the Supreme Court to overrule Chevron.)
The left is panicking over Loper Bright. Chevron gives unelected bureaucrats enhanced power over the lives of private citizens on countless issues, from energy production, to transportation, to immigration, to transgenderism in schools, to firearms. It hobbles the ability of courts to require Congress to legislate clearly and for public policy to be made by officials accountable to the people. Overruling Chevron would restore transparency and good government, so the left is trying to disqualify conservative justices like Thomas from being able to vote on it.
Fourth, ProPublica’s authors are again ignoring judicial standards on personal hospitality. During the time in question (2018), if private individuals are a friend of a Supreme Court justice and offer the justice a seat on a private airplane, that form of personal hospitality is ethically allowed. Liberal justices like the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the retired Stephen Breyer frequently accepted such hospitality.
Fifth, even federal judges on lower courts that are already subject to the ethics code that Senate Democrats are trying to foist on the Supreme Court – a code that would be unconstitutional, because the Supreme Court is a coequal branch of government. In May 2005, Judge Ray Randolph – a highly respected judge on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – conferred with ethics counsel at the Judicial Conference regarding a similar trip.
The judicial ethics expert at the Judicial Conference responded that the trip did not even need to be disclosed. So even if the Supreme Court could be forced into a subordinate role to Congress, like the federal appeals courts are, such trips would still be permitted.
The left’s latest desperate attempt to smear Thomas – this one from ProPublica – appears to be yet another swing and miss. And the fact that it focused so heavily on gaslighting the American people about Loper Bright shows that it is just the latest attempt at reverse court-packing to disqualify conservative justices in a brazen attempt to manipulate the outcome of a Supreme Court case on government power.
A court found Dr. Jay Bhattacharya was among those indirectly censored by the Biden administration for his views on COVID-19.
CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag
The Biden administration tried to censor this Stanford doctor, but he won in court.
By Rikki Schlott.
This is a continuation/follow up to an article from Phoenix.
A federal court of appeals ruled earlier this month that the White House, surgeon general, CDC and FBI “likely violated the First Amendment” by exerting a pressure campaign on social media companies to censor COVID-19 skeptics — including Stanford epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
“I think this ruling is akin to the second Enlightenment,” Bhattacharya told The Post. “It’s a ruling that says there’s a democracy of ideas. The issue is not whether the ideas are wrong or right. The question is who gets to control what ideas are expressed in the public square?”
The court ordered that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly” to coerce social media companies “to remove, delete, suppress or reduce” free speech.
Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics and health research policy at Stanford University, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in the fall of 2020 with professors from Harvard and Oxford.
The epidemiologists advocated for “focused protection” — safeguarding the most vulnerable Americans while cautiously allowing others to function as normally as possible — rather than broad pandemic lockdowns.
The Fifth Circuit court found that the Biden administration and other federal agencies pressured social media companies to censor dissenting views on COVID-19.Getty ImagesA court found Dr. Jay Bhattacharya was among those indirectly censored by the Biden administration for his views on COVID-19.CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag
“We were just acting as scientists, but almost immediately we were censored,” said Bhattacharya, director of Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. “Google de-boosted us. Our Facebook page was removed. It was just a crazy time.
“The kinds of things that the federal government was telling social media companies to censor included us — along with millions of other posts from countless other people who were criticizing government COVID policy,” he added.
A New Orleans-based three-judge panel found that the federal government “likely coerced or significantly encouraged social-media platforms to moderate content” by vaguely threatening adverse regulatory consequences if social media companies did not suppress certain viewpoints on the pandemic.
Dr. Bhattacharya (from right) co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration with Oxford researcher Sunreta Gupta and Harvard professor Martin Kulldorff.UnHerdBhattacharya is a professor of medicine, economics and health research policy at Stanford University, where he serves as director of the Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging.Getty Images
“The government had a vast censorship enterprise,” Bhattacharya said. “It was systematically used to threaten and coerce and jawbone and tell all these social media companies, ‘You better listen to us: Censor these people, censor these ideas, or else.’”
It was later revealed that then-NIH director Dr. Francis Collins called for a “swift and devastating takedown” of Bhattacharya and his co-authors — whom Collins dubbed “fringe epidemiologists” — in an email to Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Subsequent reporting from Elon Musk’s so-called Twitter Files — internal documents and communications released by Musk, after he bought the platform, to expose Twitter’s inner workings — revealed that Bhattachrya’s profile was being suppressed on the platform.
“It’s akin to the efforts by governments to suppress the printing press when it first was invented, when books represented an enormous threat to power,” Bhattacharya said, referring to efforts by King Henry VIII and the Catholic Church to curb use of the printing press in the 16th century.
“There’s an analogous fight that’s currently going on with social media, which makes it vastly easier for anybody to express their ideas, and very powerful people find that incredibly threatening.”
The September 8 ruling affirmed but narrowed a lower court order, issued on July 4 by US District Judge Terry Doughty, which found that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “engaged in a years-long pressure campaign [on social media outlets] designed to ensure that the censorship aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints” and that “the platforms, in capitulation to state-sponsored pressure, changed their moderation policies.”
In an email to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins (above) referred to Bhattacharya and his co-authors as “fringe epidemiologists.”AP
Bhattacharya says the first victory, although in a lower court, was the most exciting to him.
“I was just absolutely thrilled, especially to have it on July 4th,” he said. “I think that judge was sending a message by issuing this ruling on July 4th that we’re going to restore free speech in this country.”
Judge Terry A. Doughty declared the Biden administration’s actions “Orwellian” in a July 4th ruling.Youtube
But he believes it’s “unlikely” the Supreme Court will overturn the Fifth Circuit’s decision.
He feels his is a landmark case in curbing the influence the government has over social media — on matters that extend far beyond just COVID-19 and lockdowns.
