Doctors asked to go against their oath. Western Journal Photo.
You make the call. Doctor Coalition Sues California Medical Board for Insisting ‘White Individuals Are Naturally Racist’.
Two doctors, one black, and the other an Iranian-American, have sued the Medical Board of California for its requirement forcing a continuation of medical education courses that are focused on “implicit bias.”
Dr. Marilyn Singleton and Dr. Azadeh Khatibi argued that such a requirement violates their constitutional rights of freedom of speech and civil rights.
They said that such a requirement lacks evidence regarding its efficacy in the medical field and that the mandate is considered widely controversial among doctors.
Do No Harm, an organization that fights for individual patients and against identity politics, joined the doctors in opposing California’s mandate.
The lawsuit was filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a freedom-fighting organization, and challenges a mandate from California lawmakers that requires all medical courses to include “implicit bias” training.
“Physicians have free will and act in the best interest of their patients,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Do No Harm’s chairman.
“The idea of unconscious bias states that one acts on those biases, and there’s no evidence of this happening in the medical community,” he added.
“Medical professionals take the Hippocratic oath to do no harm, and do not need lawmakers or medical organizations to tell them what they should think when providing medical advice to patients,” he continued.
The lawsuit points out that all state-licensed physicians must complete 50 hours of continuing medical education every two years.
It describes “implicit bias” as the “idea that medical professionals unconsciously treat patients differently based on their race or other immutable characteristics,” as reported by The Messenger.
In a Fox News Op-Ed, Singleton blasted the California law for what it truly is.
“While the law doesn’t say it, the accusation is clear: White people are oppressors and Black people are oppressed. Nationwide, implicit-bias trainings for medical professionals routinely discuss systemic racism, White supremacy, and other race-based attacks on classes of people,” she said.
“I don’t care that I’m not the target. This still represents the kind of racist thinking that was starting to fade 50 years ago. I don’t want to be taught this evil, nor do I want to teach it to others,” she added.
Singleton also said that medical professionals should focus on teaching medicine rather than pushing an agenda shared wholly by a political party.
Lions of Liberalism. Fascism rearing it's ugly head.
Historically-based policies of fascism included: socialized medicine, extremely high and complicated taxation (including “inflation tax”), centralization (anti-state rights), nationalization of education, massive welfare programs, mandatory labor union (German Labor Front), socialist economics, anti-gun rights, one-party rule, “social justice,” high government borrowing, censorship and suppression of the opposition, racism, anti-capitalism, anti-individualism, anti-religion, price/wage/and rent controls, belligerent nationalism, anti-classical “liberalism.” And finally, they ruled by decree not legislative laws, disempowering local police in favor of a nationalized police force to oppose political opponents.
“If you look at what fascism is,” Brooks said, “it’s more government dictatorial control. That’s Democrats’ policies and positions hand in glove. It’s Democrats who are the ones to tend to be more fascist because fascism is the opposite of liberty and freedom, and the Democrats don’t trust us to make our own decisions. They believe the government should be doing it.”
Fascists believe the opposition must be suppressed and that individual interests must give way for the perceived good of the nation and race.
This article comes from the “BuzzLoving.com” 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)
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.
Throwing money at an inner city school never works.
When I first saw this, I thought it was Sacramento. Then I saw why it happened. Not One 8th Grade Student at the Lebron James Akron School Has Passed a State Math Test in 3 Years. Why has this been going on for three years? That’s right, Lebron James.
Well, the school board has said enough is enough. Despite receiving massive funding from the James Foundation along with local, state, and federal funding, the I Promise school’s “Black students and those with disabilities, are now testing in the bottom 5% in the state.”
So why did the Akron school board just now act shocked? The low test scores will now cause the Ohio Department of Education to intervene at the school in a last effort attempt to reverse the downtrend in test scores.
Having terrible so called Journalists doesn't help. MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
Why CNN is failing. All you have to do is look at their so called Journalists that they have. Now of course you do have MSNBC wh most likely is worse, but they have NBC as a back up and has the finances to back MSNBC. CNN does not. Below are some of CNN gem stories. Or should we call it Hoax stories.
Let me guess. An Ironworker? (Photo by Amy Sussman/Getty Images)
What’s the media’s problem with black masculinity? The only black men now being showcased are those who’ve conceded their masculinity.
No experience in my many decades on this planet felt more degrading than being repeatedly referred to as “intimidating” by my former boss. As far as I know, the affluent, influential white women that I used to work with at Condé Nast lost their right to refer to their black male employees in such racially laden language long before the death of George Floyd. Especially when I was merely asking my (mostly white and female) underlings to simply do their jobs.
I’m reminded of this charge every time I see a black man done up like a woman — which is seemingly all the time these days. Take Alex Newell and J. Harrison Ghee, who were awarded Best Actor statues at the Tony Awards in June, and both accepted them clad in colorful gowns and full makeup. Or Billy Porter, who donned platform heels and a high-collared, vaguely clerical dress to receive his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame last December. Or look in the pages of Architectural Digest, which recently featured RuPaul on its cover and — during my time working there — profiled the homes of celebrity stylist Law Roach along with Christopher Griffin, also known as the Plant Kween. All black, all stridently positioned and presented as femme.
Don’t get me wrong. I am gay and African American and appreciate efforts to showcase the widest range of men like myself in popular media. The problem is that the only black men — particularly gay black men — now being showcased appear to be those who’ve conceded their masculinity.
To be clear, there is a long tradition of black men costuming themselves as women across screens large and small. Indeed, Tyler Perry — perhaps the most successful black culture creator of all time — first attained stardom as Madea, the smart-talking Aunt Jemima-like caricature who helped make him a billionaire. Eddie Murphy, Jamie Foxx and Martin Lawrence have also cross-dressed for Hollywood — as have Shawn and Marlon Wayans, whose 2004 cult hit White Chicks rendered them not merely as women, but as white women to boot.
But this most recent embrace of African-American gender ambiguity marks a worrisome evolution from the era of Murphy and Madea. This should come as little surprise. Back in 2007, Oscar-nominated African-American film director John Singleton was already making clear that he was “tired of all these black men in dresses,” going on to wonder, rather presciently, “how come nobody’s protesting that?”
Three years later, Dave Chappelle straight-up declared to Oprah Winfrey, “why all these brothers gotta wear a dress?” Fresh off his $50 million fuck-you to Tinseltown, Chappelle went on to describe himself as a “conspiracy theorist… connecting dots that maybe shouldn’t be connected.” Nearly fifteen years later, those dots — and the power dynamics they connect — have never been clearer.
From MSNBC to major fashion magazines, black women — propelled by the intersecting potency of #MeToo and BLM — now lead much of mainstream media. But this status shift has yet to be extended to black men. In fact, when I became head at Alexa, the New York Post’s lifestyle broadsheet, in 2016, I was the only black male editor-in-chief at a major publication in the entire nation. There are still no others.
Things appeared to be slightly better in Britain, where Edward Enninful was appointed editor-in-chief of British Vogue in 2017. Unlike me — supremely skeptical of all things “woke” — Enninful proved masterful at navigating the ideological zeitgeist now required to succeed as a top corporate creative. He aggressively adopted the race- and gender-first mantras currently powering pop culture, even going as far as to suggest that British Vogue become “gender-neutral.” Yet Enninful was ousted in early June, a casualty of a losing power struggle with his American counterpart, Anna Wintour — the white female boss of my former white female boss with the nasty habit of calling me “intimidating.”
Coincidence, perhaps — but Enninful’s demise can’t help but remind me of Chappelle’s theorizing from so long ago. Women such as Wintour remain unrivaled gatekeepers to rarified worlds of elitism and privilege that are rapidly eroding all around them. Indeed, Wintour is credited with overhauling the sartorial standards of awards shows like the Tonys, where Newell and Ghee recently triumphed so glamorously.
Yet while they front as champions of diversity, these women actually promote a limited view of inclusiveness that reinforces the worst stereotypes of black men — scary, uncivilized, minstrel-like, dangerous. Rather than remedy such outdated views with truly comprehensive displays of what black manhood can be, they erase and neuter them instead. And there’s no better way to do so than to put these men in a dress.
As evidenced by Wintour’s now infamous banishing of the late Vogue editor André Leon Talley — who actually preferred elaborate capes rather than dresses — in the eyes of many powerful white women, powerful black men are little more than dispensable and disposable. Widely regarded as an inevitable successor to Wintour herself, Enninful is now making do with lucrative commercial ventures while staying on at Condé Nast in a hastily-manufactured “global advisory position.”
Meanwhile, as nearly 60 percent of black kids grow up without fathers, this year’s Pride month offered endless additional examples of dudes done up like ladies. Again: representation is a good thing — it matters. But most black men — gay or straight — bear little resemblance to Billy Porter in full make up. Sadly, with black men mostly absent from media C-suites, this is unlikely to change anytime soon — just as women like Wintour have probably always wanted it.
This article was originally published in The Spectator’s August 2023 World edition.
My new American Hero.Sonja Shaw, President of Chino Valley Board of Education
Affirmative action Ass is shown the door. California Has No Right to Stop Parental Notification on Transgenderism. We did a article on this last week, but I missed this tweet.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1682242871330754562
My new American hero school board President Sonja Shaw told Breitbart News on Sunday that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the State of California were trying to intimidate parents across the state on transgender policy.
Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) sent the board a letter in which he said: “In addition to infringing upon student privacy, forced “outing” of students to their parents is very likely to result in significant emotional, mental, and even physical harm and subject students to discriminatory harassment.” And Shaw’s response.
“They go into ed[ucational] codes and things like that, which are laws, but then there’s that area where it’s ‘guidelines’ … and guidelines, we both know, are not laws. We keep showing them, and telling them, ‘Show us the law that we’re breaking?’ … They can’t do that. That’s why they’re upset.” The state had sent Thurmond to the school board meeting to intimidate the board and the parents — and to send a broader message, Shaw said.
