RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://lizpeek.com/news/22-million-in-taxpayer-funds-exposed-biden-admins-shocking-fetal-tissue-experiments/?utm_source=newsletter.lizpeek.com&utm_medium=

Efforts to rein in the “mad scientist” culture fostered under President Joe Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci are gaining traction, with new revelations about taxpayer-funded experiments involving aborted baby body parts and animals.

According to a recent investigation by the White Coat Waste Project (WCW), the Biden administration’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) advanced 17 grants—totaling roughly $22 million—for animal experiments using aborted human tissue. These grants worked against a 2019 Trump-era ban meant to curb such research.

“For years, White Coat Waste has been fighting to ensure taxpayers aren’t forced to foot the bill for nightmarish NIH experiments that crudely implant fingers, scalps, and other human fetus parts into animals,” WCW founder Anthony Bellotti said. “Thanks to our newest investigation exposing active Biden-era funding for these sickening animal experiments—and to swift action from the Trump administration—they won’t be.”

The NIH responded to Breitbart News, acknowledging the controversy and pledging not to renew the Biden-era grants. “NIH takes this issue very seriously and remains committed to the highest ethical standards in research,” the agency said. “We are actively reviewing these matters and will take all necessary steps to ensure our policies reflect that commitment.”

While the Trump-appointed NIH Director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, underscored a focus on “valuing human life,” many of the controversial projects approved under Biden were said to trace back to Fauci before his 2022 retirement. Some were funded through 2026.

Not everyone welcomed the shift. Hideyuki Okano, president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), defended fetal tissue research as a “cornerstone of biomedical progress since the 1930s.” He credited the practice with advances in studying infertility, neurodegenerative diseases, and even vaccine development for illnesses ranging from polio to COVID-19. He argued the work is carried out under a “robust ethical and legal framework.”

https://thespectator.com/topic/dallas-shooting-was-a-political-act/

Although we are still learning the details of the lethal assault on the ICE facility in Dallas, we already know some important things, thanks to transparency from the Dallas police and the FBI. We know the shooter’s name; we know he committed suicide as police closed in; we know he fired indiscriminately at the ICE facility, killing at least one detainee but no ICE officers; and we know the assassin had a political motive, encoded on unfired rifle shells. He hated ICE.

We also know exactly what politicians from each side will say. They’ve said it so many times before. The Republicans have a much stronger, more convincing message here than Democrats.

Republicans will say, “This targeted violence against law enforcement and immigration officers has to stop. We have to do more than condemn it. We need to understand that the violence is not just a series a unconnected incidents. We have to name the sources behind it. If the violence is organized, we have to find and prosecute the organizers and the funding sources. We think it is fueled by vile rhetoric, a lot of it from elected Democrats and still more from their media allies. Their fulminations inflame passions and fuel violent demonstrations and deadly attacks. We know that some of this violence is organized. We need the FBI to find out who is doing that and who is funding it. And we need the Department of Justice to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.”

Democrats will respond, “This is just more senseless gun violence. We need to talk with each other, not shoot at each other. All of us condemn this violence. Of course, we bear no responsibility for any of it. So, both sides need to calm down.”

Democrats are losing this argument. Polls show voters strong favor Republicans on both law-and-order and immigration enforcement. Democrats’ response rings hollow with voters because it ignores their reasonable demand for closed borders, strict immigration enforcement and better protection against urban violence. Democrats are seen as opposing all those.

If voters support those positions, why do Democratic politicians find it so hard to fall in line? Because the party’s activist base and its left-wing donors would crush them in the primaries, before they reach the wider electorate in November. They would also face the obvious question: why are you changing your positions now, after years of saying just the opposite?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/former-fbi-director-comey-indicted-192939067.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Prosecutors are expected to ask a grand jury to indict former FBI Director James Comey in the Eastern District of Virginia in the coming days, two sources briefed on the matter told Reuters on Wednesday.

The exact charges remained unclear, and it was uncertain whether the grand jury would return an indictment against one of Trump’s longtime political antagonists.

Comey served as FBI director from 2013 until Trump fired him in 2017, and Trump has since regularly assailed Comey’s handling of the FBI probe into contact between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government.

Any charges against Comey would mark the starkest example of the Trump administration using its law enforcement authority against a prominent critic – after the president promised retribution in his election campaign.

One of the sources said some prosecutors within the Eastern District of Virginia have presented new U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan with a memo explaining why charges should not be filed, saying the case lacked evidence to show probable cause that a crime was committed.

A representative for Comey declined to comment.

At least one of the potential charges being considered would accuse Comey of lying to Congress during his testimony in 2020. The statute of limitations to bring charges against Comey in connection with that testimony would expire on Tuesday.

Since Trump returned to power in January, the Justice Department has been examining Comey’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he addressed Republican criticisms of the Russia investigation and denied he had authorized disclosures of sensitive information to the media.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-lefts-attacks-on-patriotism-and-the-constitution/

A few days before the murder of Charlie Kirk, I posted “The Dangerous Wages of Oikophobia”, a focus on the despicable mockery of patriotism, and the celebration of violence among the many leftist commentators’ gleeful joy over the nearly 3000 fellow citizens murdered on 9-11. One feature of oikophobia is the Left’s––whether progressive or “woke” ––hatred of patriots and the country they love, to the point of cheering on the sadistic murderers of their fellow Americans. The murder of Charlie Kirk has been celebrated with the same despicable oikophobia.

Patriots, in contrast, handle political conflicts, and disagree with fellow citizens by using the tools provided by the Constitution: the unalienable right of free speech, the laws and rules governing elections and legislation, and the general principles codified in the Constitution, most importantly the citizens’ political freedom and equality, without recourse to violence no matter how heated arguments may get.

Charlie Kirk was famous for following these patriotic protocols––seeking dialogue, attempting persuasion, and showing respect, while promoting acts of patriotism and support for the Constitution. Settling conflict through violence and murder is an act of treason against the Constitution and fellow Americans, and thus a threat to the freedom of all.

Since 9-11, such grotesque displays of mockery and unseemly pleasure over our fellow citizens’ suffering have increased the sadistic, juvenile pleasure in the death of a political enemy. With Charlie Kirk’s murder, they have been reined in a bit, but only because the plutocrats running the bosses of left-wing commentators and news-readers have had their fiscal wings clipped by terrible ratings and shrinking audiences. But the poison injected throughout the culture will not cease, no matter how many alleged journalists plumping for the left get fired. Their creed is the moral idiocy of “any means necessary.”

What has caused these moronic, sadistic displays by the intellectual punks created and churned out by our mediocre universities? How does the culture and its so-called adults indulge and applaud the cretins who are historical ignorant, and preen themselves by misusing words like “fascism,” as did the creep who murdered Kirk, and who should remain in the permanent damnatio memoriae reserved for ancient Rome’s worst enemies and traitors.

Let’s also add to him the legions of professors, entertainers, and low-rent politicians too lazy or stupid to make a coherent argument for, say, why they hate Donald Trump and instead shower him with question-begging epithets like “fascist,” “white supremacist,” “racist,” “autocrat,” and of course “Hitler,” the equivalent of the tantrum-throwing toddler’s “poopy-head” slur.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/annunciation-catholic-church-minneapolis-charlie-kirk-shooting-terrorism

In the 1960s and 1970s, America witnessed a wave of political terrorism. Left-wing radicals hijacked airplanes, set bombs in government buildings, and assassinated police officers in service of political goals. The perpetrators were almost always organized, belonging to groups like the Weathermen or the Black Liberation Army. These groups demanded the release of prisoners, denounced capitalism, or called for violent revolution against the United States. Their members were radical but largely lucid, justifying their actions with appeals to a higher cause.

In recent years, a new form of terror has emerged: decentralized, digitally driven violence organized not around coherent ideologies but around memes, fantasies, and nihilistic impulses. The perpetrators of this low-grade terror campaign do not belong to hierarchical organizations or pursue concrete political aims. More often, they come from ordinary families and lash out in acts of violence without discernible purpose.

At the close of this summer, two such incidents underscored the trend: the attack on schoolchildren at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk in Orem, Utah. Though the first resembled the school-shooter archetype and the second evoked a JFK-style political assassination, both share psychological and sociological roots that make them more alike than they initially appear.

The new terror campaign is defined by a particular kind of psychopathology. It is perhaps tautological that anyone willing to kill innocent schoolchildren as they are praying or to assassinate a popular podcast host in broad daylight is pathological. But in these cases, both alleged killers—Robin Westman (formerly Robert Westman), and Tyler Robinson—left behind several warning signs that were psychological in nature.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/political-violence-left-charlie-kirk

In 2011, Martin McGuinness, the former leader of the Provisional IRA (Irish Republican Army), ran for president of the Republic of Ireland. Over the four decades of his public life, McGuinness had moved from supporting terrorism, including assassination, for political ends to pursuing votes through the ballot box. Some now feted him as a “peacemaker.” But to many voters, his personal journey from the use of violence to the use of democratic means to achieve a united Ireland still seemed like a work in progress.

During one televised presidential debate, the moderator for the Irish public broadcaster RTÉ, Miriam O’Callaghan, asked the candidate: “How do you square, Martin McGuinness, with your God, the fact that you were involved in the murder of so many people?” McGuinness called it a “disgraceful comment.” But the blow landed. Worse for McGuinness was that, after the cameras turned off, he took O’Callaghan into a side-room, where she was seen leaving five minutes later “badly shaken.” The Irish electorate did not take well to the news that a broadcaster and mother of young children had been treated in such a way. McGuinness’s run for the presidency failed.

The episode mattered because McGuinness still lived in the gray zone of political violence: not fully condoning it, but not fully condemning it, either—especially when it served his cause or came from his supporters. Some Americans have now entered this same gray zone. Parts of the U.S. Left have inhabited it for years.

Many commentators have pointed to the difference in responses between the killing of George Floyd and that of Charlie Kirk. Floyd’s death led to a summer of violence, burnings, and lootings, behavior often excused by Democratic lawmakers. Groups like Antifa shut down American cities night after night with minimal official condemnation in the summer of 2020. By contrast, Kirk’s death, so far, has led to dignified and mournful prayer meetings. If the American Right were ever to erupt into violence, then it would face its own moment of challenge.

Meantime, the American Left has the bigger questions to answer. In recent days, portions of the Left have expressed greater outrage about Jimmy Kimmel’s brief absence from his late-night talk show on ABC than Kirk’s absence from life. Others—up to and including members of Congress—have suggested that Kirk’s words constituted violence, and that therefore condemnations of the violence directed against him require a certain caveat. Such slips became possible only because the American Left has been increasingly drawn to the gray zone.

We have seen this tendency already in the Left’s response to Luigi Mangione, the 27-year-old accused of assassinating United HealthCare CEO Brian Thompson last December on Sixth Avenue in New York City. Many have noted the gushing support for Mangione from some on the left, or Senator Elizabeth Warren’s comment after the murder that “people can only be pushed so far”—as though gunning down a husband and father could ever be a logical extension of a critique of the American health-care system.

In response to recent criticism of their rhetoric, some on the left have pointed to frivolous right-wing reactions to the 2022 hammer attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband in San Francisco. But such tit-for-tat arguments miss the larger point. The issue is not whether both sides can produce individuals willing to commit political violence—that much is undeniable. The real question is whether those individuals will find a supportive ecosystem or, instead, encounter a firm “no,” like the one the Irish electorate eventually delivered to McGuinness.