Displaying posts published in

August 2022

The Dismantlers San Diego public schools want to overthrow “heteronormativity” and promote “genderqueer,” “non-binary,” “pansexual,” and “two-spirit” identities. Christopher F. Rufo

https://www.city-journal.org/san-diego-schools-gender-extremism

San Diego Unified is the latest school district to adopt the principles of academic queer theory and translate them into K-12 pedagogy, with the ultimate goal of dismantling “heteronormativity” and promoting a constellation of new sexual identities, such as “genderqueer,” “non-binary,” “pansexual,” and “two-spirit.”

I have obtained a range of publicly accessible documents from San Diego Unified that reveal the district’s new ideology. The materials follow the basic premise of queer theory: white Europeans created a false “gender binary” and used the categories of “male” and “female” to dominate racial and sexual minorities. A San Diego Unified training for facilitators of LGBTQ student groups argues that this system of “heteronormativity” forces students to conform to these norms: they are “assigned” a sex at birth, pressed into the identities of “man” and “woman,” and expected to have heterosexual relationships culminating in “marriage (and kids).” This “gender binary,” however, is arbitrary, socially constructed, and harmful. It is, in the words of the presentation, a “limited system [that] excludes and oppresses trans, nonbinary, intersex, and gender-nonconforming people.”

According to the district, the gender binary has created an unjust society that distributes “heterosexual and cisgender privilege,” the sexual analog to the concept of “white privilege.” In the presentation, administrators explain that “a heterosexual/cisgender person automatically receives” this privilege, which “benefits members of dominant groups at the expense of members of target groups” and “results in institutional power” for straight men and women. Furthermore, the district claims, this sexual privilege is connected to a broader range of privileges and oppressions via the theory of intersectionality. “Racism, classism, heterosexism, etc. do not exist independently,” the presentation reads. “Multiple forms of discrimination interrelate creating a system of oppression.”

The Fightback Against Racial Quotas By Janet Levy

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/08/the_fightback_against_racial_quotas.html

Victories in court over affirmative action discrimination are accumulating, with more in prospect soon.

E pluribus unum, the traditional motto of the United States, means ‘Out of many, one.’ It asserts that our strength is in assimilation of shared values, goals, and vision. It unifies our diverse races, religions, and other groups by appealing to the ideals of a constitutional republic – freedom, equality, the pursuit of wealth, happiness and excellence through free market competition.

But the hackneyed shibboleth of the Left – Diversity is our strength – stands in direct contradiction to our original national motto. It serves their destructive aim of Balkanizing us by race, gender, sexual orientation, and other sub-groups du jour. Denigrating and rewriting our history, the Left aims to radically transform our culture: discounting merit, hard work, knowledge and experience, it wants to make identity the ubiquitous sine qua non of representation in American society.

This strategy is reified in the so-called ‘social justice’ components of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria; diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) guidelines; and critical race theory (CRT) based programs. Such programs try to cure historical discrimination with more discrimination – in the form of quotas based on race, sex, and other increasingly complicated factors – a disastrous strategy that only intensifies social discord instead of ameliorating it. Under such programs, educational institutions, government, businesses and other employers are forced to sacrifice quality and excellence in favor of a diversity that discriminates de novo and is unconstitutional.

One front in the fightback against such quotas is the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation (CERF) v. Alameda County case, recently brought before the Superior Court of California. It exemplifies the conflict between ‘woke’ rhetoric and the enduring legal framework protecting the rights of all citizens – regardless of race, sex, or national origin. CERF, represented by the non-profit Pacific Legal Foundation, is challenging race-based quotas for awarding contracts, contending that this amounts to using taxpayer funds to promote discrimination.

The Covid ‘Vaccine’ Scam By Mark A. Hewitt

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/08/the_covid_vaccine_scam.html

Why were they so hellbent in trying to get every single person on the planet “vaccinated” when Drs. Fauci and Birx knew from the beginning that the “vaccines” were deeply problematic?

“Emergency Use Authorization” (EUA) came into prominence with the “Right to Try” law.  This law was another way for patients who had been diagnosed with life-threatening diseases, who had tried all approved treatment options and who were unable to participate in a clinical trial, to access certain unapproved treatments. 

What is the difference between FDA Approval and Emergency Use Authorization?

“FDA Approval” from the Food and Drug Administration is an independent, scientifically reviewed approval for medical products, drugs and vaccines.  Approval is based on substantial clinical data and evidence, the product is deemed safe, effective and able to be produced within federal quality standards.  Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism used by the FDA to facilitate making products available quickly during a public health emergency, when there is no other adequate and approved medical product available. 

Sen. Kamala Harris of California said during a vice presidential debate that she does not trust the Trump Administration’s push to rush a coronavirus vaccine into production.  When she was asked if Americans should take a vaccine, she responded with, “If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it.  Absolutely.  But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it.  I’m not taking it.”

What is the difference between an EUA “vaccine” under President Trump and the same one under President Biden?  One was available and the other became mandatory.

The dam breaks, and key Dems run away from Biden ’24 Byron York

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-dam-breaks-and-key-dems-run-away-from-biden-24

You’ve seen the polls showing that large majorities of Democratic voters want the party to pick a new nominee for president in 2024, bypassing incumbent President Joe Biden. Now we’re seeing the living embodiment of those polls as some important Democratic lawmakers distance themselves from, or outright oppose, a reelection run by the nearly 80-year-old president.

It’s not that senior Democrats are eager to disparage a president of their own party. They’re not. Instead, they’re being forced into it by the process of the 2022 campaign, in which they are trying to assure their own reelections. They’re campaigning, doing interviews, and taking part in debates, and the question comes up.

Start with Reps. Dean Phillips (D-MN) and Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN). Last week, Phillips appeared on radio station WCCO, where host Chad Hartman asked him outright: “Do you want Joe Biden to run in 2024? Because the number of Democrats who don’t is staggeringly high.”

Phillips began with obligatory praise of the president — any Democrat who wants Biden to leave has to say how many excellent qualities Biden has. “I have respect for Joe Biden,” Phillips said. “I think he has — despite some mistakes and some missteps, despite his age, I think he’s a man of decency, of good principle, of compassion, of empathy, and of strength.” And then: “But to answer your question directly, which I know is quite rare, uh no, I don’t. I think the country would be well served by a new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats to step up.”

SERVANT OF THE CORRUPT: PEDRO GONZALEZ

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/07/22/servant-of-the-corrupt/

Pedro Gonzalez details the connections among Zelensky, oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky and Washington, D.C.

In February 2021, by order of President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine shut down three domestic television channels, accusing them of spreading Russian “propaganda.”

Three months later, Zelenksky arrested Viktor Medvedchuk, who was at the time leading the second-biggest party in Ukraine’s national parliament, the pro-Russia and Eurosceptic Opposition Platform for Life (OPZZh).

Zelensky didn’t have trouble incinerating vaunted democratic norms well-before Russia crossed the Rubicon into Ukraine this year. So it was no surprise when he did it again amid the war in late March, invoking emergency powers under martial law to nationalize TV channels and ban 11 opposition parties, including OPZZh — all supposedly done in the name of combatting Russian misinformation and Russian sympathizers, even though OPZZh’s then-chairman, Yuriy Boyko, denounced the war and called for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine.

Zelensky, however, wouldn’t miss another opportunity to clip the wings of political opposition in his country, certainly not now that Western media rationalizes and glorifies his every move.

The portrait of the Ukraine president as a democratic paragon whitewashes the real Zelensky and conceals a vast web of corruption and international skullduggery of which Ukraine is situated in the center.

Understanding the real Zelensky, requires seeing him as a creation of Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky. He is, in truth, a puppet of intrigue.

The Pandora Papers

I)

It might be hard to believe now, but revelations from documents in the Pandora Papers — millions of file from offshore service providers leaked to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and shared with partners around the world — sent Zelensky reeling last year, threatening to end his political career. Though the actor-turned-politico campaigned as an anti-corruption reformer, the Pandora Papers showed him to be just as crooked as his predecessors.

SchumerCare and Cancer Patients Drug price controls will create perverse treatment incentives.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/schumercare-and-cancer-patients-joe-manchin-chuck-schumer-drug-pricing-deal-richard-gonzalez-abbvie-11659464967?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

Much of the damage from the Schumer-Manchin drug pricing deal won’t become visible for years. But people who understand the industry can already foresee it, and one example is fewer treatment options for desperately ill cancer patients.

The mooted bill would empower the secretary of Health and Human Services to “negotiate” Medicare drug prices. “They have full latitude to basically decide whatever price they want the drug to be,” AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez said Friday on an earnings call. “It’s not a negotiation. We should just call it what it is. It’s price controls.”

Here’s how it would work: The HHS secretary would select 10 to 20 of the top Medicare spending drugs each year. Drug makers that don’t accept the government’s price would get hit with a 95% penalty on their sales. Small-molecule drugs would get a nine-year reprieve starting when the Food and Drug Administration grants approval.

This latter stipulation is intended to soften the blow to innovation, but it could result in patients waiting longer for potentially life-saving treatments. Take experimental cancer treatments, which regulators typically require that drug makers test first on patients who haven’t benefited from existing treatments.