ts. Think Responsibly

You May Not Know Who Jeff Zients Is, But He...

David Reavill

July 03 2024 at 01:36 pm

Jeff Zients and Joe Biden Controversy continues to swirl around President Biden as he campaigns to continue his lease on the White House. After last week’s disastrous presidential debate, family and staff rallied around the tottering President. Dr. Jill carefully guides the President on stage, son Hunter attends staff meetings, reports Zero Hedge. The faces are familiar as we’ve come to know Biden’s closest confidants. Except for one, one figure remains elusive: Biden’s Chief of Staff, Jeff Zients. A man of immense wealth and power, he is virtually invisible, unknown to most Americans. Yet he holds the keys to Biden’s day-to-day meetings and pronouncements. Just who is Jeff Zients? Today, we take an in-depth look at this mercurial figure.** Jeffery Zients was born into an elite class that is more aptly described as America’s Financial Aristocracy. Fabulously wealthy, Zients was born into a well-to-do Jewish family in one of the tonier suburbs of Washington. He attended the finest prep school, St Alban’s, and graduated at the top of his class at Duke University. In his first position out of college, Zients set the tone for a meteoric rise in the corporate world. Like many at the very top, it wasn’t that Zients was set for a career; rather, he was launched on a series of “positions,” each higher than the last. Like many in this role, Zient would join a company, perform a prescribed role (generally designated by the Corporation’s Board of Directors or CEO), complete his task, and move on to the next assignment at the next company. Paladin, an old television program, beautifully describes this kind of position as “Have Gun, Will Travel.” These individuals are always wealthy and not in need of their next paycheck. Instead, they come to a corporation needing help, ideally, fix the problem and move on. However, they must inevitably address the real issue of taking the “heat” away from the Board or CEO. Shareholders (often significant funds) may be unhappy with the company’s recent performance, worried about a legal issue, or concerned that the company is not innovative. Whatever the perceived weakness or issue, it’s the “Hired Gun’s” task to provide the expertise to solve the problem. In short, the Gun’s fundamental objective is to provide cover for upper management. Hired Gunds may be called to lay off staff, repair legal issues, or organize new objectives. That way, the CEO can announce that I’ve hired a so-and-so consultant to take care of everything. Does it matter if, at the end of the day, all the problems are not solved? No, just that the CEO and the Board of Directors escape blame and can now enjoy their cocktails at the country club. With that background, you can better understand Jeff Zients’ record. Right out of college, he begins with one of the best “management/consultant” companies in this rarefied field, Bain and Company. The twenty-something Zients joins Bain around the time that it’s headed by one of the true masters of the trade, Mitt Romney. It was during Romney’s brief stop as CEO before heading to Utah and the U.S. Senate. Son of a Governor, Romney is also a hired gun who has assembled not so much of a resume but a list of “positions.” It’s the same route that young Zients has embarked upon, taking positions here and there while collecting substantial sums of money and stock along the way. After leaving Bain, Zients goes on to a group of, you guessed it, consulting firms. The three interlocking firms were DGB Enterprises, The Corporate Executive Board, and The Advisory Board Company. All wonderfully nondescript corporate names, just the kind that the corporate consultant/hired guns like. In 2001, at 35, Zients and his partner took Corporate Executive Board and Advisory Board Company public, making Zients a multimillionaire and listing him as one of Fortune Magazine’s “40 under 40.” The top 40 young executives under 40 years old. Zients was made; from then on, he could call his shots. He joined the Board of X.M. Satellite Radio and Revolution Health Group, where he founded the investment company Portfolio Logic, LLC. To show that he was traveling in all the right circles, he and his partner Colin Powell (yes, that Collin Powell) tried to buy the Washington Nationals Major League Baseball Team. Unfortunately, he lost the baseball team to a higher bid. And it’s here that his golden touch begins to waver. Zients Steps Into Government In his first Government assignment, Zients begins at the very top. Many feel that President Obama created the new position of United States Chief Performance Officer, especially for Zients. In Obama’s words: His assignment was to help “streamline processes, cut costs, and find best practices throughout” the U.S. government. The hired Gun was a perfect fit to help Obama with allegations of a wasteful and profligate federal bureaucracy. “Don’t worry, Zients is on the job.” Did Zients solve the problems of government spending? Of course not, but the heat was off Obama. A year later, Zients moved to the Office of Management and Budget, acting as interim Director for four months, leaving and returning as Director a year later. After that assignment, the disastrous Obamacare website was sinking. Unable to handle the sheer volume, the public saw healthcare dot gov as everything wrong with government-mandated insurance. By now, Obama must have had Zients on speed dial. Again, he called upon his hired Gun to at least answer the complaints. After answering what must have been some painful press conferences, Zients was rewarded with the cushy position of Director of the National Economic Council (NEC), where he served out the rest of Obama’s term. Zients had proven to be a loyal representative of Administration policies, which was sure to attract President Biden’s attention in the future. Just after Zients left Washington, Facebook ran into trouble. A British consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, had been pilfering the personal data of several million Facebook users. Anxious to enhance his “technology” credentials beyond the “healthcare dot gov” debacle, Zients immediately joined the social media giant’s board. At nearly the same time, Zients was asked to become the CEO of another investment firm, The Cranemere Group. Another short stop, about a year later, Zients was off campaigning for Joe Biden for President. Again rising to the top, Zients became Co-Chair of the Biden Transition Team. This was his shortest of all assignments, as the COVID-19 Pandemic was underway, and Biden needed someone to handle the vaccine response. Complaints were fling that there weren’t enough “vaxes” to meet the demand. So, like former President Obama, Biden called upon the hired Gun, Zients. So, as the saying goes, Zients’s pattern continues, stopping at each assignment just long enough to know the way to the executive lounge. Zients has moved from position to position, both inside and outside of government. Along the way, he has become fabulously wealthy, with a host of contacts. Each new assignment is enhanced by Zients’ contacts and his ability to call in past favors. In January 2023, as the old Chief Of Staff was leaving, it would be no surprise that President Biden would call on Zients, the hired Gun, again. Biden could use someone who knew the bureaucracy and had contacts on Wall Street and Social Media. When James O’Keeffe broke the story a year ago that Zients was the second most powerful man in Washington and that a Zients subordinate claimed that Biden repeats everything Zients says, it might have seemed an overstatement. But it would come as no surprise to the careful observer. Zients has been doing that for a long time, both inside and outside government. It’s just that now, after that first Presidential Debate, we all realize just how vital Chief of Staff Jeff Zients really is. Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

Am I An NPC?

Healthy & Awake Podcast

June 29 2024 at 02:35 am

An NPC, or non-playable character, is a term from video games referring to characters who lack personality and simply repeat programmed lines. This concept can be applied to real life, describing people who seem to lack critical thinking and individuality. I believe this is a real phenomenon, and that's why I'm bringing it up. I treat people with respect, and I'm not saying this to insult anyone. However, I think it's worth calling out because almost anyone could be susceptible to this. This phenomenon, driven by something known as deindividuation, occurs when people shift from individual thought to a collective mentality. It makes us vulnerable to manipulation because we become more reactive and susceptible to external influences. One significant factor contributing to this mentality is our digital environments. Spending extensive time on the internet can make it easier for us to fall into groups or movements, often without realizing it. It functions essentially like hypnosis. This is evident in the prevalence of groupthink showcased on social media and in public. I'm not suggesting you should disavow all groups or communities, but it's crucial to maintain our sense of identity in a world that often tries to take it away. We don't want to become NPCs. So, how do you ensure you keep your individuality and critical thinking intact in a digitized world? What steps do you take to avoid falling into groupthink? Have you noticed this phenomenon in yourself or others? If you want to work with a board-certified health coach who values critical thinking and individuality, consider clicking the link in my profile to learn more about Avantia Health Optimization. Your first session is only $1. While you're on the site, check out the testimonials to see the lives we've already helped transform. Full website - 🔗 mikevera.com Healthy & Awake Podcast: 🔗 Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 🔗 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM 🔗 Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V 🔗 YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn 🔗 Substack: https://bit.ly/3TI9Jgw 🔗 X: https://bit.ly/43sR7oa Mike Vera isn't your average Board Certified Health Coach (NBC-HWC). Armed with an MS in Exercise and Health Promotion and extensive experience as a seasoned personal trainer, he's the strategic mind behind Red Pill Health & Wellness and the engaging voice of the Healthy & Awake Podcast. With a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, Mike is adept at unveiling the hidden influences that impact our health.

Government’s green light for embryo research...

angelobottone

June 28 2024 at 08:54 pm

The Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR) Bill, which has been passed by the Oireachtas this week, has sparked some debate primarily around the issue of surrogacy. However, the Bill raises numerous other ethical issues that merit urgent attention, particularly with regard to embryo research and screening. Although the AHR Bill prohibits the creation of embryos specifically for research purposes, it allows the usage of ‘spare’ embryos created during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments but not used for implantation. These surplus embryos can be utilised for research and experimentation aimed at improving IVF procedures, the Bill says. This is a blatant instrumentalisation of human beings at the earliest stage of their lives, failing to accord them the dignity they deserve. While the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill prohibits cloning and genetic manipulation that could affect future generations (germline modification), it permits various other forms of research on human embryos for ‘medical’ purposes, further dehumanising them. The Bill also permits pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) and diagnosis (PGD). These processes allow embryos to be screened for genetic or chromosomal anomalies, such as Down Syndrome. Embryos identified as carrying these anomalies can be discarded, with only those deemed free from certain disorders being selected and used for implantation. This practice is profoundly immoral. The desire for healthy children does not justify the destruction of embryos considered “defective”. This process is a form of eugenics, promoting the selection of the fittest embryos and the destruction of those who do not meet certain criteria. As disability rights advocates have rightly argued, selecting against embryos with specific genetic conditions devalues the lives of individuals living with those conditions, perpetuating negative stereotypes and discrimination. Such practices reinforce societal biases against people with disabilities or anomalous conditions. Another contentious issue addressed by the Bill is that of the sex selection of embryos. While the Bill generally prohibits sex selection, it allows exceptions in cases where there is a risk of a child being born with a genetic disease that affects only one sex, or one sex more than another. What is presented as a medical justification is, in reality, another form of eugenics. Here again, it is not the abnormal condition that is addressed and dismissed, but the person who carries it. Sex selection is not a cure or a preventive treatment; instead, the Bill allows the selection of healthy human beings at their embryonic stage and the destruction of the defective ones. But we wonder how clinics in will police the law against the sex selection of healthy embryos. If the commissioning adults are not allowed to request it, then will the clinic itself implant embryos without knowing their sex? Or will there, in fact, be a nod and wink between the clinic and the couple which will result in the sex selection of embryos in practice? We might never know. In summary, while the AHR Bill aims to regulate and advance assisted human reproduction technologies, it raises severe ethical concerns. These include the potential for eugenic practices, the devaluation of embryonic lives with disabilities, the implications of sex selection, and the ethical considerations surrounding embryo research. Disturbingly, none of these concerns have been adequately discussed in the Oireachtas so far.

Senator Mullen bill aims to protect children...

angelobottone

July 09 2024 at 08:45 pm

In an era where digital content is accessible at the click of a button, the exposure of children to inappropriate material, particularly pornography, has become a pressing issue. In response to these concerns, Senator Rónán Mullen, along with a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, has introduced the “Protection of Children (Online Age Verification) Bill” in Seanad Éireann. This Bill, which will be debated on Thursday, mandates strict age verification measures for accessing pornographic content online, aiming to safeguard children aged under-18 from exposure to such material. Key elements of the Bill include:Age Verification Mandate: Website controllers and app store service providers must ensure that users undergo an age verification process before accessing pornographic content. This can be outsourced to approved third-party organisations, but the ultimate responsibility remains with the service providers.Liability and Legal Defences: Providers will be held liable for any failure to implement age verification measures. However, a legal defence is available if it can be proven that circumvention of the age verification was facilitated by another party.Data Security: The Bill mandates secure storage of age verification data for five years, accessible only for legal proceedings.Focus on Child Protection: Senator Mullen emphasised that the Bill solely focuses on protecting children and does not aim to restrict adult access to pornography. The concern about children’s access to pornography is not confined to Ireland. Various European countries have implemented or proposed similar measures, highlighting the need for a concerted effort to address this public health concern. Spain has recently launched an innovative solution known as the “Porn Passport”. This mobile application aims to verify the age of users before granting access to online pornography. The application, developed to protect minors, requires users to verify their age through a secure and anonymous process. This initiative is part of Spain’s broader efforts to regulate access to adult content and ensure the safety of younger internet users. Italy mandates age verification systems on websites distributing pornography and includes fines and potential site blockage for non-compliance. In France age verification laws have been strengthened, and recently the Court of Cassation ruled that “a child protection can ask the courts to order internet service providers to block access to pornographic sites likely to be viewed by a minor without first having to take action against the host, publisher or author of the content.” The French government is also testing a “double anonymity” verification solution to enhance protection. In Germany, providers must implement age verification mechanisms, and regulatory authorities can block non-compliant sites. Research underscores the detrimental effects of pornography on young people, including the development of addictive behaviours, distorted perceptions of sexuality, and emotional and relational issues. Statistics reveal alarming rates of pornography consumption among minors across Europe, necessitating urgent policy interventions. (More information can be found in the European Child Shield Platform advocacy paper: https://www.fafce.org/european-child-shield-platform-launches-awareness-campaign/ ) The “Protection of Children (Online Age Verification) Bill” represents a critical step towards defending children from the harmful effects of online pornography. By enforcing stringent age verification measures, Ireland aims to join other European nations in addressing this pervasive issue. As Senator Mullen aptly stated, “Everything must give way to the protection of children”. The successful implementation of this Bill could serve as a model for other countries, fostering international cooperation in the fight against the exposure of minors to pornographic material.

Reflections On The Nation's Leader

David Reavill

June 30 2024 at 05:28 pm

The Leader. He’s spent his career in the halls of Government. He was the number two to a head of state who, although charismatic, was also highly controversial. This experience prepared him for his nation’s highest office. Still, he’s one of the oldest leaders ever to serve in that position, so questions about his health remain at the forefront of his legacy. Early in his term, he was forced to recognize the bitter failure of his country’s incursion into Afghanistan. He finally ordered the complete withdrawal of all military from that country. No doubt this will do down as a blot on his record. Nonetheless, the country’s military continued strong. The economy is always a key metric in evaluating any leader, and the record is not so good here. Economic growth declined to between 1% and 2%, some of the lowest growth rates post-World War II. Some analysts have spoken of “stagnation.” Relations with China have deteriorated dramatically, and unless things settle down on that front, a confrontation is likely. For a long time, there have been rumblings in the Capital that the Leader relies too heavily on his cadre of close advisors—a “brain trust,” if you will, of supporters who have been with the Leader for years and who some feel are making many of the country's most critical decisions. Perhaps most important for the average citizen is the perception that things are getting more complex. The cost of living has escalated, and there is genuine concern that consumer goods may be less available in the near future. Leonid Brezhnev. Leonid Brezhnev I think this is a fair evaluation of the nation’s Chief Executive. As you’ve no doubt guessed, I’m speaking of Leonid Brezhnev, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and General Secretary of the Communist Party for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Did you think I was talking of someone else? The parallels are astonishing, aren’t they? You can’t help but notice the close similarity between the Soviet Brezhnev of 40 years ago and America’s Biden of today. Everything we spoke of was the conditions of the old Soviet Union under then Chairman and General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, who led the USSR for 18 years from 1964 until his death in 1982. Ten years after his death, the Soviet Empire would fall, replaced by the current Russian Federation. One wonders if we risk a similar fate. Both countries project their influence across the globe, with militaries that were/are stretched to their limits. Many historians consider these two countries the closest thing to an empire in the modern world. Interestingly, Afghanistan has been called the graveyard of empires, and it has collected two more scalps from both the Soviets and the Americans. President Biden’s ordered withdrawal was among the lowest points in his Presidential record. Chairman Brezhnev and President Biden set the tone for their administrations in their first days in office. Brezhnev immediately set about arresting any political opposition in a move that brought back the oppression of the Bolsheviks. It is estimated that Brezhnev had 5,000 political prisoners incarcerated within months of assuming office. Whether by coincidence or happenstance, the Biden Administration saw more than 1,000 January 6 demonstrators jailed. Few may remember that the Soviets and China had an ongoing border dispute beginning in 1969. Brezhnev spearheaded the Soviet response, but the two communist countries remained bitter enemies throughout Brezhnev’s tenure. Incredibly, the Ukraine War and the EU and American sanctions against Russia have drawn Russia and China back together. Today, China and Russia are the leaders of the BRICS movement, the most significant economic challenger to the American Dollar-based international financial system since World War II. Additionally, America faces a Chinese challenge in the Taiwan Straights. And like Brezhnev, Biden is not hesitant to rattle his missiles. Speaking at the recent U.S. Military Academe’s Commencement, Biden said: “The U.S. is standing up for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait…, he said. “I have always been willing to use force when required to protect our nation, our allies, our core interest. When anyone targets American troops, we will deliver justice to them.” Like Brezhnev, Biden is dedicated to diplomacy at the end of a gun. The old Soviet Union maintained one of the strongest armies in the world throughout Brezhnev’s tenure. Indeed, some analysts believe that the Soviet Military may have surpassed the American military capacity in the mid-1970s. However, by the end of Brezhnev’s leadership, it became clear that American military technology had surged ahead of the Soviets. President Reagan challenged the country’s scientists and engineers to produce an effective anti-missile system. Dubbed “Star Wars” after the popular movie, many believe this was a chief motivation in the Soviets' decision to go to the negotiation table and seek an overall reduction in the two nations' nuclear weapons. Three years after Brezhnev’s death, the Americans and Soviets signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. This was the first time that the two nuclear powers agreed to reduce the number of atomic weapons in their inventories. Today, the tables may have turned. Many believe that the West has little defense against the new generation of Russian hypersonic missiles. Although a great deal of controversy is associated with these new missiles, several European observers claim that two Kinzhal hypersonic missiles may have defeated the American Patriot Anti-missile system in Ukraine. I cannot determine whether these claims are viable or not. However, we all know that technology, especially military technology, continues to advance. What’s inconceivable today will likely become reality tomorrow. Many historians point to Brezhnev’s health as a key reason the INF Treaty was not signed during his lifetime. Although he was old and sick, no one outside his immediate circle was allowed to know that. Brezhnev had assembled a close cadre of advisors around him to help guide the country and prohibit any outsider from learning just how ill he was. Brezhnev suffered from a series of ailments. But it was a massive heart attack that finally took his life on November 10, 1982. He had remained in power to the very end. Perhaps it is a glorious way for a leader to go. However, for the country, he left a legacy of economic stagnation and political decline that ultimately contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. Today, most in Russia point to his leadership as the beginning of 30 years of hardship for the average citizen. Only within the last few years has the Russian Federation regained prominence and is approaching its past. A feeble and dying leader had remained in power long past his prime. Rigid in his views, he could not grasp the changing world dynamics. Brezhnev had trapped the Soviets in their past. Only when a new generation took the reins of power could the new Russian Federation fully meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

Progressive Leftwing Preference for Violence...

Taminad.Crittenden

July 14 2024 at 04:25 am

Violence is the foundation of progressive leftwing Democratic Party, socialist politics. Fundamentally, every law is enforced by the police. Progressive leftwing Democrats/socialists prefer using laws, rather than voluntary non-governmental organizations and rational persuasion, to force their ideas on everyone including dissenters. In contrast, libertarians prefer voluntary relationships and rational persuasion. It is this preference for the mass coercion of police-enforced laws that underlies the fact that America’s most recent brushes with political massacre and assassination were carried out by leftwingers against conservatives. Just a nice image for this article. We need calming images after this latest bout of progressive leftwing violence. We had the socialist Bernie Bro, James Hodgkinson, who came close to massacring a group of Congressional Republicans practicing baseball. We have the leftwing nut preparing to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Now we have the left almost assassinating former President Trump after years of violent rhetoric by prominent leftwing voices explicitly and directly advocating that someone assassinate him. The progressive left of Democratic Party socialist has now incited civilization-ending political violence against all three branches of government. Perhaps the only reason these events have not resulted in political catastrophes is that all these progressive leftwing shooters thankfully failed (as they usually do at everything else too such as public education). _______________ Support Non-Violence writing by tipping me at Ko-Fi.com or by donating some Ethereum digital currency at this public address! 0x5ffe3e60a7f85a70147e800c37116b3ad97afd5e — — — — — — — — — It does not help that progressive leftwing Democrats have spent the past few weeks engaged in mass hysteria (definitely ginned up by some organized campaign) against the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. If you have heard something awful about Project 2025, it likely was a lying hallucination. Every political party throughout history has started planning an agenda in case they win the next election, and Project 2025 is no different. But that’s the leftwing progressive Democratic Party attitude towards a lot of privileges: It is fine when they do it (like violence), but not when their political opponents do it. Right now it is the political left in America that has legions of fascists, Antifa (who act like fascists, and so are fascists despite their deceitful name), Hamas-supporters, and 2020’s Summer of Love and “mostly-peaceful” arson. In contrast, when rightwing extremists attempted to engage in non-violent disruption protests on January 6th (just like how the progressive left has spent decades doing sit-in disruptions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and of state legislative houses like Wisconsin’s), the progressive leftwing Democratic/socialist elites of America engaged in massive gaslighting lying propaganda calling it an “insurrection”. Oh really? A bunch of 2nd Amendment-supporting gun owners supposedly tried to start an “insurrection” and did not bring any guns or even weapons at all??????? That makes no *@(%$# sense. For a round-up of recent violent rhetoric from progressive leftwing Democrats/socialists, including from President Biden himself calling for Trump to be put in a “bull’s eye” a few days ago, just visit Instapundit.com. just another nice calming image True, the American right also engages in violent rhetoric. The difference is that the American right owns far more guns than the American left, yet engages in far less gun violence whether criminal or political. It would take a much higher incidence rate of political gun violence from the American right to even equal, let alone surpass, the severity of the American progressive leftwing Democratic Party’s addiction to violence. So, actually, it is different when conservatives do it. When conservatives engage in violent rhetoric, they have a proven track record of not carrying that over into physical, real violence, whereas progressive leftwing Democratic Party socialists do. And lest you Dearest Reader naïvely reassure yourself that “Surely, this assassination attempt against Trump is just a freak black swan”, ponder over Venezuela. Think back to 1999 when Hugo Chavez, the socialist, took over a country that was the wealthiest in Latin America, with a thriving middle class. Think back to 1999 when American leftwing progressive Democratic Party types were swooning over Hugo Chavez. No one who was swooning over Hugo Chavez should have any influence in America anymore, and yet these are the very people still elitely leeching off and gaslighting the free world. Think that Venezeula's disaster cannot happen in America? You’re kidding yourself. Don't give progressive leftwing Democratic Partisans the coercive government power they crave. UPDATE: According to the most recent information, Trump’s would-be assassin donated money to hardleft organizations while having registered as a Republican, which makes him hard left. If you are deliberately naïve, you might believe that party registration is significant, but donating one’s own hard-earned cash is not, and ignore the fact that political movements have spent decades encouraging their members to register with the opposite side in order to screw with their nominations. _______________ Support Non-Violence writing by tipping me at Ko-Fi.com or by donating some Ethereum digital currency at this public address! 0x5ffe3e60a7f85a70147e800c37116b3ad97afd5e

Washington Gone Rogue - Does Our Government...

David Reavill

June 27 2024 at 11:38 am

Joe Biden was sworn in as President of the United States on January 20, 2021 ** As we near another Presidential Election, it’s easy to focus on the doddering octogenarian who occupies the White House. His falls and foibles are on display daily, so naturally, many of us will associate his failings with the troubles we’re experiencing. Get a new President, this thinking goes, and many of our problems will disappear. While that may be true to an extent, the fundamental issues we face today have their roots as far back as the 1960s. Then, as today, the real problem was a government that did not represent the people — the social contract upon which this nation was founded was broken. A nation of the people, by the people, and for the people, said our 16th President. Abraham Lincoln succinctly described how the American Government was supposed to work. And for the next century, that was the expectation of “we, the people.” In the words of philosopher John Locke, a contract was established between our government and its citizens. It was a “social contract.” As citizens, we would pay our taxes and obey the government’s rules, while the government would represent our fundamental hopes and objectives. The government was NOT our ruler but our representative. The concept presupposed that the government would know and understand its citizens. Elections would help establish that representation by placing citizens’ chosen candidate as our President, Senator, or Congressperson. However, by the 1960s, the country had gone off its rails. Locke’s Social Contract was no longer in effect, as a series of US Presidents, principally Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, took actions that were counter to the goals and desires of a large segment of the population. The occasion was the Vietnam War, a war halfway around the world that, at its peak, enlisted half a million soldiers and would ultimately see 58,000 young Americans die. An unelected war, with a universal draft, meant that many young people were sent to fight in a conflict they did not vote for. The country was no longer a “representative democracy,” if indeed it ever had been. Throughout history, the inevitable result of a government's actions contrary to the people’s desires has been rebellion. By their nature, rebellions are brutish and nasty events in which no party ultimately wins. This is not to justify the rebels' actions or methods. Rather, it is an exploration of the origins and causes of the rebellion. Fundamentally, when a government, any government, goes contrary to its people, the people rebel. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with [their government]… The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776 These are the forces that Joe Biden has unleashed. Americans are a peaceful people, traditionally opposing foreign wars. Unfortunately, Vietnam and a parade of conflicts in this century have gone contrary to our fundamental nature. Presidents have entangled (to use George Washington’s word) the country in relatively small “brush-fire” actions far away from our homeland. As a people, we’ve overlooked these skirmishes. Some have even justified them by saying that “war is good for business.” (Thank you, Lindsey Graham!) But as reprehensible as that sentiment is, most Americans seek peace instead. The Biden Administration, on the other hand, is the most pro-war leadership this country likely has ever seen. Before the President assumed office, the nation was in relative peace. No significant conflicts had broken out. Today, the country faces the possibility of not just one but three conflicts: Ukraine, Gaza, and possibly Taiwan. Something is wrong when a country is embroiled in this number of conflicts. It’s not always the “other guy” who is at fault. The possibility exists that we, too, may be guilty. But even asking the question of America’s provocation in these conflicts invites the ire of this Administration and, regrettably, many of our fellow citizens. How is it that America is currently embroiled in wars around the globe? This question requires a self-examination that many would rather not do. Did the world change so much on January 20, 2021, when Joe Biden took office that now we must fight a two-front and possibly three-front war? It’s highly unlikely. The more probable case is that this is an Administration that would instead “shoot first” and ask questions later. This government has a hair trigger and sees war as the preferred resolution to global disputes. No doubt Joe Biden considers the United States the “big guy” on the block. As he said on 60 Minutes, “We’re the United States of America, for G-d’s sake.” All we have to do is rattle our swords, and other nations will bend to our will. But it hasn’t worked out that way. The opposition, principally Russia, and Hamas, and possibly China, are not backing away. They’ve stepped up to the challenge. The result has been that America is being drained, armaments depleted in Ukraine and Gaza, and a fortune spent supporting the governments of those two countries.* US F16 Fighter Jet. “The idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews — just understand, don’t kid yourself, no matter what y’all say, that’s called World War III,” Biden told a gathering of House Democrats in Philadelphia. Joe Biden, March 11, 2022 Philadelphia https://nypost.com/2022/03/11/thats-called-world-war-iii-biden-defends-decision-not-to-send-jets-to-ukraine/ Recently, President Biden authorized those same F16s to be sent to Ukraine. Does it follow that this is WWIII? ** Americans are increasingly restless. The current situation is not what we want. Even the most “hawkish” of our fellows are beginning to see that our path is a dead-end. Joe Biden’s presidency does not represent the American people. And that’s the fundamental issue. The Biden Administration has broken its Social Contract—its sacred obligation to represent “we the people”—and that’s what’s on this year’s ballot. Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

In Biden's America, When The Negotiations...

David Reavill

July 16 2024 at 05:13 pm

On November 15, 2023, Joe Biden and Xi Jinping met. After the meeting, CNN reported that Biden called Xi a dictator, which is hardly diplomatic protocol. ** Our country is currently embroiled in two wars, the War in Ukraine and the Conflict in Gaza, with the possibility of a third conflict over Taiwan. Fortunately, none of these battles currently involve American soldiers. However, each has the potential to widen into a global confrontation that would impact us all. Here is the back story of how America moved away from negotiations as its primary instrument to settle disputes. These changes were exemplified by subtle but unnoticed changes in the State Department's “Mission Statement,” changes that have inevitably contributed to these wars. You may be as surprised as I was to learn that major departments within our government do not have a standard "Mission Statement." For those who are unfamiliar with that term, a "Mission Statement" is simply a declaration used by most companies, and I thought all government agencies, to tell the world what they do. The Ice Cream Shop down the street may have a mission statement saying, "We make the world's best ice cream." You get the idea. However, things don't work that way in the U.S. government, particularly at "Foggy Bottom" (the U.S. State Department). The "mission statement" seems to change nearly every time a new Administration is elected.I saw these subtle but significant changes when visiting the USA.gov website. There a more traditional mission for State was presented: "The Department of State (DOS) advises the President and leads the nation in foreign policy issues. The State Department negotiates treaties and agreements with foreign entities and represents the United States at the United Nations." (My emphasis.) https://www.usa.gov/agencies/u-s-department-of-state Notice that all-important word: negotiates. That's what Diplomats do; they "negotiate." It's the time-honored method that rival countries avoid war. We've quoted Clausewitz before: "War is Politics by other means.”In this traditional view of the State Department, "negotiation" is one of, if not the chief duty of the country's diplomats. Under then-President Barack Obama State added a very provocative preamble to its "Mission Statement:" "Diplomacy is an instrument of power. It is essential for maintaining effective international relationships and a principal means by which the United States defends its interests, responds to crises, and achieves its foreign policy goals. The Department of State (Department) is the lead institution for American diplomacy; its mission is based on the Secretary of State's role as the President's principal foreign policy adviser." As if listening to their inner Clausewitz, the country's diplomats have acknowledged that U.S. Foreign Policy will henceforth include the exercise of "power." Quite a change from the more traditional view of negotiations within a community of nations. The Obama State Department then goes on to deliver its Mission Statement: "Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." This statement was in effect from January 20, 2009, until January 20, 2017. It's easy to see how this statement reflects the realities of the post-Soviet world that then existed—a world with one superpower, the United States. The Biden Administration simply modified the Obama State Department statement, effective January 20, 2021:Department of State Mission Statement: "To protect and promote U.S. security, prosperity, and democratic values and shape an international environment where all Americans can thrive." https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/FY-2023-APP.pdf p.5 Words have consequences, and never more so than in an organization's all-important core statement, its "raison d'etre" (reason for being). If you're like me, those opening words sound remarkably similar to the Mission Statement of the Department of Defense. Its mission statement reads, "...to defend the security of our country..." Both Government Agencies focus on protecting (State) and/or defending (DOD) our "Security."Perhaps that's why the recent actions of the U.S. State Department read more like Defense Department Policy rather than the chief agency to "make Treaties" Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This may also be why we find ourselves embroiled in countless wars instead of reaching multinational agreements/treaties. With that background and understanding that the word "negotiations" has been eliminated from the State Department's Mission Statement, let's look at the State Department's actions in the three conflicts currently underway. Yemen Houthis, or Ansar Allah Rebels, are a lethal paramilitary group that supports the Hamas Rebels in Gaza. Since October 2023, the Houthis have instituted an effective blockade of all ships bound for the Israeli Port of Eilat. That port has been effectively shut down, a major blow to Israel's war effort. In January 2024, the U.S. State Department declared that the Houthis are a "terrorist organization," effectively cutting off any communication between the U.S. Government and the Rebels. To date, the only U.S. response to Houthi actions has been bombing raids using missiles or fighter jets. The most recent raid on Houthi positions took place on Saturday.Diplomatic solution? There appears to be little hope that a diplomatic solution to this conflict will occur anytime soon, as no diplomatic channels exist between the Houthis and the U.S. State Department. Gaza Israel is currently fighting an all-out war with Hamas in Gaza. Hamas, translated as the Islamic Resistance Movement, grew out of a 1987 Intifada against Israel. In 1997, the U.S. State Department designated Hamas as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), effectively cutting off any American aid or support for Hamas. The FTO designation also precludes any diplomatic communication between America and Hamas. This led to a bizarre situation where the United States could not have a direct contract with Hamas. The closest we've come to negotiations with Hamas came last month when Secretary Blinken visited Doha, Qatar, to talk with "mediators" for Hamas. I reported on this meeting here: https://valueside.ghost.io/ghost/#/editor/post/667959560f6a4d00015c7eba It raises the question: can America find peace in Gaza when we are prohibited from talking with both sides of the dispute? With Hamas off limits, the Americans must rely on Israel for any negotiated settlement, and that appears highly unlikely. Ukraine America finds itself in the same diplomatic box in Ukraine. Immediately following the Russian invasion in February 2022, all communication between Presidents Biden and Putin were severed. That left negotiations in the hands of the Secretary of State. But Antony Blinken was, if anything, less inclined to call his counterpart than the two Presidents were. The two principal diplomats spoke for the first time, nearly two years into the dispute when they found themselves at the same G20 Meeting. With the US State Department effectively out of the loop, there appears to be no alternative communication between the US and Russia. https://davidreavill.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/145942895?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts Conclusion All three of these disputes have one thing in common: There is no American initiative to move the conflict from the battlefield to the negotiation table. Most often, there is no effort to speak to the other side. Neither Secretary Blinken, our chief negotiator, nor President Biden appears willing to pick up the phone. While America talks to its allies, Ukraine and Israel, there is almost no communication with their opponents, Russia, Hamas, or the Houthis. Is it any wonder that in the natural progression of things, war was inevitable in all these disputes? And, what's worse, these conflicts appear interminable as there is little hope for a negotiated settlement. ** Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

The Intersection of Public Health and Tyranny

Nancy Churchill

July 02 2024 at 06:38 pm

On June 25th, Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy declared “gun violence” to be a public health crisis. The impacts of gun violence on our society cited in his report are absolutely true and horrible, but why are we blaming the guns? Don’t we actually have a crime problem, a law enforcement problem, a mental health problem or lifestyle problems? If a drunk driver kills someone, do we ban cars or alcohol? No, we take action to take the driver off the road and help him or her get treatment. So, what does the declaration of a “public health crisis on gun violence” do? After all, the surgeon general has no real power or authority. He doesn’t make laws, doesn’t adjudicate laws, and doesn’t even do scientific research. The surgeon general is a policy advisor with no obvious power. His real role lies laying the groundwork to move the ball down the field. This declaration of a “public health crisis” will allow state attorneys general to file “public nuisance” lawsuits against gun manufacturers and gun owners. According to an article on public nuisance lawsuits from Bloomberg Law, “The plaintiffs...misapply public nuisance law and inappropriately try to expand it far beyond its original meaning and intent.” Public Health Lawfare This type of lawfare has been used successfully against the tobacco industry during the Clinton era, against opioid manufactures in 2022, and is being currently used against “Big Oil” in multiple states using the supposed “public health crisis” caused by “climate change.” If the progressive left can’t get a law passed to ban something they don’t like, they resort to “public nuisance” lawfare. Now, they’re looking to disarm the average American citizen and remove the most common and effective self-defense tool, in the name of public safety and “saving lives.” How does removing the ability to defend oneself from bodily harm save a life? We can see from Chicago and New York City that removing guns creates more gun violence and more death. Perhaps the most infamous use of “public health” to strip citizens of their civil rights happened during the Covid-19 crisis. “Two weeks to slow the spread” turned into a year of lockdowns, mask mandates and school closures. In some areas in western Washington, proof of vaccination was required to enter restaurants and other businesses. Unvaccinated people were fired, masks were mandated, valid science was censored and vilified, and doctors and pharmacists who prescribed alternative treatments were threatened, fired, censored and blacklisted. This was all justified as “for the public good.” The public health system, starting with the CDC and the NIH, was used to propagandize and terrify the public in order justify the nearly complete cessation of medical privacy, patient choice, scientific freedom, public education and even the freedom to travel, to practice religion or exercise in public spaces. Public health officials demanded that citizens give up constitutionally protected rights in the name of “protecting public health.” They demanded censorship on social platforms, and got it. In the name of “public health,” they lit the constitution on fire and tossed it in the trash and felt proudly justified about it. When you hear the phrase “public health crisis,” you know that more government tyranny is coming, using lawfare from progressive attorneys general, executive actions by Democratic governors, rulings by liberal judges, “standard of care” guidance from health insurance companies, and policy from state and local boards of health. The progressive power play in regards to the “gun violence public health crisis” is to try to redefine firearms as “consumer products,” like drugs, tobacco, automobiles—and create new ways to regulate and control them. Democratic candidates want to disarm you What does Washington state Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Bob Ferguson believe about regulating gun ownership? He believes that “Washington’s regulation of assault weapons fits comfortably within the long historical tradition of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons.” What does state Senator Manka Dhingra, candidate for attorney general, think of gun ownership and “public nuisance laws?” Well, Dhingra sponsored SB 5078 which would “allow individuals to sue gun manufacturers... for harm caused by a firearm and authorizes the Attorney General to declare a product a public nuisance.” Weird. Democratic candidates Bob Ferguson and Manka Dhingra believe in using public nuisance laws to destroy both the gun industry and private ownership of firearms. Americans have a constitutionally protected right to posses firearms. That’s what the Democrats hate. That’s why the U.S. surgeon general is declaring a “gun violence public health emergency.” It’s the next move in the long battle to disarm American citizens and complete the destruction of America. With the Supreme Court punting the decision on Murthy v Missouri (free speech censorship by government, you can expect the government and non-governmental organizations to work even harder to censor those fighting against public health tyranny. Fifteen minutes into the future, only the opinions approved by the surgeon general will be acceptable on the topics of gun violence, vaccine mandates, and environmental scams like global warming. WINNING IS THE ONLY CURE The prescription for curing the scourge of public health tyranny is supporting good candidates and working to win elections. It’s time to get busy and get involved. Research your candidates and work to elect good people who believe in the Constitution. Donate money and volunteer your time to a candidate. Make sure you and your family and friends are registered to vote. Observe elections. Serve on boards and attend public meetings. Talk to your elected officials. There is nowhere to run to escape these phony public health emergencies; we must resist. In the words of Samual Adams, writing as Candidus, “The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought.” And as Paul wrote in Galatians 6:9, “And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. Support Dangerous Rhetoric Sources: 1) U.S. Surgeon General Issues Advisory on the Public Health Crisis of Firearm Violence in the United States, June 25, 2024. https://bit.ly/4blEJbT 2) Public nuisance litigation is the real nuisance, Bloomberg Law, Feb. 26, 2024, https://bit.ly/45KZr3G 3) ‘Not tools of self-defense’: Ferguson makes case for Washington’s new semiautomatic rifle ban, Washington State Standard, 05-23-23, https://bit.ly/3XMddB4 4) 2023-24 SB5078, https://bit.ly/4cFf5zK 5) SB 5078, League of Women Voters, Gun Safety Update April 16, 2023, https://bit.ly/3XG6hp7 6) Murthy v Missouri Scotus Decision Analysis, Uncover DC, https://bit.ly/3zpKDLM 7) Who are a free people, Tenth Amendment Center, https://bit.ly/3VLgwWz

How progressives play the game of Civilian...

Nancy Churchill

July 16 2024 at 07:49 pm

A few weeks ago, we explored how the Biden administration is going to weaponize the nation’s public health agencies to work towards the ultimate goal of civilian disarmament. The surgeon general issued an advisory notice declaring “firearm violence” to be a “public health crisis.” As I wrote on July 1, declaring a “public health crisis” will facilitate lawfare against manufacturers, vendors, and gun owners. However, that’s not the only play in the playbook, and it’s important for citizens to be on the lookout for other ways that you or your public officials may be manipulated in order to “move the ball down the field” towards civilian disarmament. It’s important to keep in mind that the progressives play a ground game of slow but incremental progress rather than trying Hail Mary passes. Much of this ground game involves using marketing techniques to “frame” a proposed program in a manipulative way. In today’s example, the “frame” involves manipulating the emotions of greed and compassion to sucker in well intentioned administrators, politicians, and citizens to accept an invitation that probably has some hidden strings attached. Free Stuff! Save Lives! In a recent meeting of the local public health advisory board, I was able to observe a manipulative “frame” for a new program that was basically a pitch to accept some “free stuff” so that we could “save children’s lives and prevent suicide.” The health department runs proposals by the advisory board to get feedback from the public before they pitch the proposal formally to the Board of Health, which in this regional health district involves two commissioners and a mayor from three different counties. The health department staff was asking the advisory board to approve a proposal to participate in a program that would provide free gun safes and gun locks to the community at pop-up events like fairs and festivals. “We’ll save children’s lives! We’ll help mental health professionals assist families to prevent youth suicide! People can’t afford gun locks, and their grandchildren can’t visit until the guns are locked up!” The pitch was an emotional curve ball involving greed and compassion. An official description of the program was not provided to the advisory board, but a vote was expected on this “action item” so it could be presented to the Board of Health. An Unnecessary Program? Upon being questioned, the health department staff had no data available to prove there was a need for this proposed “Lock It Up” program. They could not demonstrate the region is experiencing a “crisis” of accidental child deaths or youth suicides. Neither was there any data provided to prove that gun locks (or gun safes) would actually prevent accidental deaths or suicides. And regarding the affordability argument, no one seemed to consider that if someone can afford to buy a gun and ammunition, they can probably afford to buy a $20 gun lock, too. A review of a scientific meta analysis points out that much more research needs to be done regarding the impact of gun locks and child access prevention laws. After looking for (and not finding) a link between gun locks and fewer accidental deaths and suicides, the article points out: “In the absence of strong causal models, however, alternative explanations remain plausible.” One example pointed out that kids are curious and can often get around gun storage strategies (including locks and safes) that their parents think are secure. The “Lock It Up” program appears unnecessary and spends taxpayer funds on a wasteful program that provides no demonstrated benefit. Taxpayer funds would be better spent on shooting sports teams in our local schools which would teach the student participants about responsible gun use and proper safety. Good people can be easily manipulated. The staff of our health department and the members of the Public Health Advisory Board who supported the “Lock it up” program are good people, who passionately care about public safety. But unfortunately, good people can be easily manipulated by the emotions of compassion and greed. We can easily understand the compassionate desire to save lives, but how is greed at play? How does the health department benefit from joining a program to give away free gun locks? They get more funding, they can hire more staff, they can expand the scope of the health department. This proposed program “primes the pump” to teach the public that the health department is an authority on gun safety. Slowly, this bureaucratic agency grows in funding, public influence, and ultimately gains still more control over the public. Additionally, this program manipulates and conditions the public to expect more and more “free stuff.” This is inexpensive stuff that gun owners can easily pay for, but it’s not free! It’s a program paid for by taxpayers. Finally, the “frame” of the proposal did NOT include the important fact that it was an invitation to participate in an advisory group based in King County and Seattle which is focused on “firearm safety and violence prevention.” Failing to provide all the important facts to the advisory board members before the requested vote was another type of manipulation. Another type of Gun Registry Unfortunately, I can imagine this gun lock giveaway being used to create a gun registry. If they give something away, they’re going to have to collect identification in order to prove that they’re really giving them away to local residents. This could easily be used to create a covert gun registry. Free stuff usually comes with strings attached. Unfortunately, Washington state has had some dramatic first hand experience with the State Board of Health completely destroying civil liberties during the COVID-19 crisis. During that time, the governor seized total control of state government, and used the Board of Health as his personal power tool. Given the past abuses by government officials, I’m not very excited about a new move to expand the scope and future power of our local health department. “Gun safety” and “Gun Violence” should NOT be considered part of the mission of the health department. That’s a new initiative created out of thin air by the Biden administration and the U.S. Surgeon General, who are clearly working towards civilian disarmament. If you’re concerned about protecting your Second Amendment rights, call or email your county commissioners and mayors, to let them know our local Eastern Washington health departments should NOT participate in the “Lock It Up” program. Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. Support Dangerous Rhetoric Sources: 1) U.S. Surgeon General Issues Advisory on the Public Health Crisis of Firearm Violence in the United States, June 25, 2024. https://bit.ly/4blEJbT 2) The Intersection of Public Health and Tyranny, https://bit.ly/4bKJHyO 3) NETCHD Public Health Advisory Board, https://bit.ly/3WmhHgE 4) The Effects of Child-Access Prevention Laws, 1/10/23, https://bit.ly/3xZa32l 5) Lock it up program description, NETCHD, July 2024. https://bit.ly/4cETDve

Protecting Freedom of Speech and Biological Sex

Nancy Churchill

July 10 2024 at 10:51 pm

Last Tuesday, “A federal district court ruled... to halt the Biden administration’s illegal attempt to rewrite Title IX while the lawsuit, State of Kansas v. U.S. Department of Education, continues.” According to Alliance Defending Freedom, “The injunction covers not only the states of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming but also every school across the country attended by plaintiff Katie Rowland, the members of Female Athletes United, the members of Young America’s Foundation, and the minor children of the members of Moms for Liberty.” The states could lose billions in federal funding for their public schools if they don't comply. “The Biden administration’s radical redefinition of sex won’t just rewire our educational system. It means girls will be forced to undress in locker rooms and share hotel rooms with boys on overnight school trips, teachers and students will have to refrain from speaking truthfully about biological sex, and girls will lose their right to fair competition in sports,” said ADF Legal Counsel Rachel Rouleau. “The court was right to halt the administration’s illegal efforts to rewrite Title IX while this critical lawsuit continues.” According to the Southeastern Legal Foundation, “In May 2024, Moms for Liberty and Young America’s Foundation sued the Biden Administration to stop its overhaul of Title IX—an unconstitutional attempt to gut Title IX’s guarantee that America’s schools afford girls the same opportunities as boys and protect girls and boys with sex-separate private spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms. Represented by Southeastern Legal Foundation, the two organizations assert the claims on behalf of their members whose First Amendment rights are being trampled by the Biden Department of Education’s new regulation, which threatens to punish students for voicing their beliefs in biological sex and forces them to affirm views on gender fluidity, transgenderism, and queer theory.” The “Biden Rule” would redefine “Sex” Southeastern Legal Foundation’s article continues, “Biden issued an Executive Order unilaterally changing the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity” and ordered the Department of Education to rewrite Title IX regulations to forever remove equal access and other legal protections. Soon after, the Department of Education proposed changes to Title IX, claiming it had authority to do so as part of its rulemaking powers. “The Department of Education (DoE) sought to change the definition of “sex” to include gender identity, lower the standard for finding harassment, force individuals to use incorrect pronouns that are not based on biology, and centralize all investigative and disciplinary authority under one campus Title IX coordinator. “…the Department of Education forged ahead and ignored the public’s concerns, issuing a final rule (the “Biden Rule”) in late April 2024, which Moms for Liberty and Young America’s Foundation now challenge in court.” In State of Kansas et al. v. U.S. Department of Education, “the states and organizations argue that the Biden Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act and separation of powers because the Department of Education changed Title IX without congressional authority; that the Rule violates students’ First Amendment rights because it will compel them to affirm other students’ so-called “gender identity” and discriminates against opposing views; and that the Rule violates other provisions of the Constitution, including the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment.” “The states and organizations are asking the Kansas federal court to declare the Biden Rule unlawful and unconstitutional and to stop its enforcement.” The Purpose of Title IX: Protecting Biological Women As the judge noted in his ruling, “Significantly, the purpose of Title IX was to protect “biological women from discrimination in education[;] [s]uch purpose makes it difficult to sincerely argue that, at the time of enactment, “discrimination on the basis of sex” included gender identity, sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, or sex characteristics’; The DoE’s reinterpretation of Title IX to place gender identity on equal footing with (or in some instances arguably stronger footing than) biological sex would subvert Congress’ goals of protecting biological women in education (emphasis added).” “...Plaintiff Organizations assert that the Final Rule violates the First Amendment rights of individuals by compelling speech that aligns with Defendants’ ideology, censoring speech through content-based restrictions and viewpoint discrimination, chilling speech through vague and overbroad language, and forcing individuals to engage in speech that violates their sincerely held beliefs.” “The Final Rule’s interpretation of sex and discrimination are therefore contrary to the statute and historical context of Title IX. The court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the DoE exceed its statutory authority in expanding the definition of sex discrimination in the Final Rule… The DoE simply lacks authority to expand sex to mean gender identity.” ACT NOW: Join one of the plaintiff organizations before July 15 In addition to the four states involved in the lawsuit—Alaska, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming—the injunction covers ALL schools attended by the children of members of Moms for Liberty, as well as the members of Young Americans for Freedom and Female Athletes United. Washington parents concerned about protecting freedom of speech and the rights of biological women under Title IX can join Moms for Liberty here. Students can join Young Americans for Freedom here. Student athletes and their supporters can join Female Athletes United here. According to the order, “Plaintiff Organizations are directed to file a notice in the record identifying the schools which their members or their members’ children, as applicable, attend on or before July 15, 2024.” Take action today and join one of the plaintiff organizations before July 15 in order to protect your child’s school from the Biden Rule while this important lawsuit continues! Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. Support Dangerous Rhetoric Sources:Exempt your school! Join one of these organizations by July 14, 2024 1) Moms for Liberty: https://bit.ly/3zJrGna 2) YAF: yaf.org/membership-request-form 3) Female Athletes United: www.femaleathletesunited.org 4) ORDER – Preliminary Injunction GRANTED: STATE OF KANSAS, et al., v UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., https://bit.ly/4cQH7bx Other Sources: 5) SLF Represents Moms for Liberty and Young America's Foundation in Title IX Lawsuit, https://bit.ly/3VXRL9A 6) Third court puts a stop to Biden admin's illegal Title IX rule, ADF Legal, July 2, 2024, https://bit.ly/4btPIzW Unused Sources: 'Humiliating, degrading, erasing women': GOP states swarm Biden Title IX regulation with lawsuits, Just the News, Link A third judge blocks the feds' addition of gender identity to Title IX, Moms for Liberty (source NPR, July 3, 2024), Link ADF represents Female Athletes United, ADF May 14, 2024, Link Redefining ‘Sex’ Threatens Title IX, ADF, May 30, 2024, ADF Legal, Link Moms for Liberty Succeeds in Halting Title IX Changes, Moms for Liberty, Link

Responding to 'Loose Change'

Zavagereo

June 29 2024 at 12:01 am

most likely 9/11 can be accounted for by the 1991 WTC bombing at the base of the tower that weakened the foundation. This movies been out 10-20 years now, and it's worth wrapping up the discussion for the dark web's sake, that whatever criticisms you have of the events surrounding 9/11 it is utterly ridiculous an obscenity even, to divorce the attacks of 9/11 from the world trade center bombing of 1991. Which also happened on it's own 911. That this could be an islamic attack as well has not really been considered, a precusoror to our modern war with terrror. But the documentary, that and zeitgeist, is a precusor to the darkweb, exploring issues, requiring deeper analysis, before the internet had instrumentation to handle it. I liked the idea of loose change, and prompting a further examination into 9/11 is a tangible outgrowth, of what modern dark web criticisms attempt to accomplish, without sending the whole thing into overdrive. What is the darkweb truely, what is the Zeitgeist, that is the spirit of this and that films. A deeper think engine? A jet engine is not a sufficient answer, past bmobs and modernw arfare, and this movie is little more than a discussion on the modern web. NEvertheless this documentary marked a forefront of deeper analysis into probing issues we face right now, like free speech, and other whatnot's. What strikes me as unique about the dark web, and what this documentary didn't have, is an official platform. This style of thought, and probing inquiry into the deeper nature surrounding the events so odd as seems ordinary, And in those early days it appeared there was something more renegade about the dark web, something more worth banishing beneath the surface. apparently it's worthy to creep out.

Should we stop beginning Oireachtas sessions...

angelobottone

July 22 2024 at 07:24 am

A member of Cork City Council has called for an end to saying a prayer at the start of council meetings, appealing to the principle of the ‘separation of Church and State’. Cllr Pádraig Rice noted that more than 50 years ago, the people of Ireland voted to remove the special position of the Catholic Church from the 1937 Constitution. “That seems to have been ignored by Cork City Council. With the prayer and the crucifix, it still feels like 1930s Ireland in there,” he said. But prayers are not just said at council meetings, they are also said at the start of sessions of the Dail and Seanad. However, the origins of this tradition are not so much a legacy of our Catholic history, and are much more connected to British parliamentary practice, which we follow. The custom of beginning official proceedings with a prayer is found in a lot of countries that follow the British parliamentary tradition, including the UK itself, the US, Canada, Australia and South Africa. In the UK, prayers have been a fixture in Parliament since around 1558. Every sitting of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords begins with prayers led by the Speaker’s Chaplain in the Commons and a senior bishop in the Lords. The Northern Ireland Assembly begins with a silent period of prayer or reflection. The Scottish Parliament, instead, has a multi-religious ‘Time for Reflection’ at the beginning of each week. Ireland and Malta, which were both under British rule, are the only European countries maintaining this tradition of initial prayers. Aside from the countries listed above, others that have prayers at the start of parliamentary meetings are Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, and Namibia, again all of which have historical ties to the UK. In contrast, this is much less common in French-speaking African countries, with Muslim-majority Senegal being an exception. Beginning with the French Revolution, France has enforced a very strict form of secularism, often more than in the US which is almost founded on the separation of Church and State, even though religion remains a prominent feature of public life. In Asia, the Indian Parliament traditionally begins its sessions with a short silent prayer or meditation. Pakistan and Bangladesh start their parliamentary sessions with a recitation from the Quran, while in Sri Lanka, prayers from different religious traditions are offered. Again, these countries have historical links with Britain, all being former colonies. In South America, where Catholicism is traditionally prevalent, formal prayers at the beginning of parliamentary sessions are not customary, with these countries often emphasising the secular nature of their state procedures. Nonetheless, in Europe, some religious elements are still present in legislative bodies even if formal prayers are not common. For instance, a survey by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service found that 10 European countries have a parliamentary chapel or prayer room, and 18 offer religious services within their premises or outside, usually at the start of the year or on special occasions such as Christmas or commemorations. In the United States, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have chaplains. While prayer before proceedings is more of a British tradition, religious iconography in public venues is prevalent in other European traditions. Crucifixes are commonly displayed in public buildings, including government offices and schools, in Italy, Poland, Austria, and some parts of Germany. An absolute ban on such displays is instead a key feature of the French concept of laïcité. Many European countries also have crosses in their flags, a heritage of Christianity, even if the religious symbolism is largely lost today. Praying before parliamentary work has deep historical roots in many legislative bodies worldwide, and the practice varies significantly across different countries, reflecting diverse cultural and religious landscapes. In Ireland, in 2017, after numerous calls to end the tradition, the Oireachtas decided to retain the daily prayer at the start of each business day. Additionally, a 30-second period of silent reflection was incorporated into the Standing Orders. This compromise appears to be a reasonable solution that accommodates individuals of all faiths or none. Removing the prayer entirely would not only have dismissed a long-established and deeply felt custom but also denied a brief yet meaningful moment that many consider important. This approach balances respect for tradition with inclusivity for a diverse population.

European Court of Human Rights turns down...

angelobottone

July 20 2024 at 04:29 pm

In some good news, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has recently ruled that there is no right to assisted suicide under the European Convention on Human Rights, allowing individual signatory States such as Ireland to continue banning euthanasia and similar practices. Last month, the ECHR ruled on the case of Dániel Karsai, a Hungarian lawyer suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Mr Karsai argued that Hungary’s ban on euthanasia and assisted suicide violated his human rights under Articles 8 (respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr. Karsai maintained that he was being discriminated against because terminally ill patients in Hungary are allowed to withdraw from life-sustaining treatments, but he had no option to hasten his death. Hungarian law criminalises facilitating suicide, even if it occurs abroad. Given his condition, Mr. Karsai claimed he could not end his life without assistance, which he argued was discriminatory. The Court, which has jurisdiction over 46 member States of the Council of Europe, affirmed that there is no right to assisted suicide in the European Convention on Human Rights. In a 6-1 majority decision, the ECHR rejected Mr. Karsai’s arguments, recognising the distinction between the right to refuse or withdraw from medical treatment, which is common among the members of the Council of Europe, and the request to be actively killed or helped with suicide. The Court acknowledged that while what they call “physician assisted dying” (PAD) has been introduced in some countries, “the majority of member States continue to prohibit and prosecute assistance in suicide, including PAD. Moreover, the Court notes that the relevant international instruments and reports, including the Council of Europe’s Oviedo Convention, provide no basis for concluding that the member States are thereby advised, let alone required, to provide access to PAD”. The judges observed that opinions on this topic differ profoundly in democratic countries, granting member states a considerable margin of appreciation (that is, freedom to decide their own laws). This means States are free to legislate on the matter of euthanasia and assisted suicide according to their societal values. The judges observe that “the wider social implications and the risks of abuse and error entailed in the provision of PAD weigh heavily in the balance when assessing if and how to accommodate the interests of those who wish to be assisted in dying.” The member States enjoy considerable freedom in deciding how that balance should be struck. The ECHR noted that the available options in palliative care, including the use of palliative sedation, are generally able to provide relief to patients in Mr Karsai’s situation and allow them to die peacefully. Mr Karsai complained that Hungary’s law considers as a criminal offence the facilitation of suicide even when it happens abroad. The Court replied that this is nothing unusual or excessive. “The criminal prohibition on assisted suicide is intended to deter life‑endangering acts and to protect interests arising from considerations of a moral and ethical nature”, they said, and the State is entitled to extend this protection of its citizens even outside its borders. This is an important ruling that reaffirms that, even as euthanasia and assisted suicide are gaining wider acceptance, they are not human rights under the Convention and States have no obligation to permit these practices.

Where's Joe? Its Been Six Days Since President...

David Reavill

July 23 2024 at 04:05 pm

President Biden on Marine One. ** Everything changed on Sunday. In the most dramatic transition of government since John F Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, President Joe Biden withdrew from the 2024 Campaign for President on Sunday. At least, that’s what we’ve all presumed. The President, or at least one of his aids, apparently typed a hastily written note indicating that he would no longer be a candidate in the coming election. The note was posted on “X” (the former Twitter). After spending most of the past year traveling the country and raising more than $100 million in campaign financial support, Biden acceded to the wishes of most in the Democratic Party to withdraw. He then proceeded to post his decision on the most popular social media site, “X,” which was the equivalent of nailing the declaration on the nearest “telephone pole” in the days before electronics. It was all so puzzling. Why did Biden not use the official White House Stationary for this all-important declaration? Why did he not call some of his most important and financially committed supporters? Why wouldn’t he provide a written statement to his Vice President, Kamala Harris, whom he has endorsed to take his place? And why didn’t the signature match his normal signature? Someday, we may get the answer to all of these questions but don’t hold your breath. For now, we must face a more critical issue: precisely who is steering the United States? After all, we are living through one of the most dangerous times in memory — two devastating wars rage in Ukraine and Gaza. Additionally, tensions in the South China Sea are mounting as a potential conflict over Taiwan looms. For six days, Biden has been in self-imposed isolation, the result of a relapse of Covid. Biden’s staff has cleared his calendar for most of the coming week, canceling nine Presidential appearances. His only remaining trip is an undisclosed jaunt with Vice President Harris on a presumed campaign stop. Biden’s absence has created a steadily increasing murmur among the country’s Press and pundits. Where is he? Is he OK? After all, an 81-year-old man who has come down with one of the deadliest viruses to hit this country is not a small development. The American President is a critical center of power and influence for this country as well as around the globe. The World focuses on every move and nuance of America’s top leader, especially today. Biden suddenly becoming AWOL (absent without leave) is inexcusable. The American public and the international community deserve to know whether Biden will be able to continue through the remaining six months, until January 20, 2025, of his term. Some may remember a similar crisis with President Ronald Reagan when a would-be assassin shot him. Reagan was critically injured on March 30, 1981. After enduring an operation to remove the bullet, Reagan greeted the Press and even signed a piece of Legislation the very next day. Reagan understood the necessity of maintaining continuity in the Nation’s Government. Eleven days later, Reagan returned to his position at the White House. He was undoubtedly in pain and not feeling 100%, but he was determined to be at his post. Reagan understood the critical importance of demonstrating to the World that America’s leadership was still functioning. Today marks the sixth day that Joe Biden has been out of sight. While we wish him the best, questions are beginning to arise: What is Biden’s current condition? Has there been a transfer of power between the President and Vice President, as there was when Reagan was under anesthesia during his operation? Vice President George H.W. Bush assumed all Presidential duties while Reagan was being operated on. As I’m writing this, there has been no announcement from the White House. Finally, the United States is involved in two active conflicts, Ukraine and Gaza. As the principal supporter in both wars, our country bears responsibility for each. We know, for instance, that the US military closely guides the scope of the Ukraine war. Recently, much has been made on which Russian targets and Ukrainian forces may engage. So, too, for Israel, it is US-supplied bombs and missiles that make the conflict with Hamas possible. Both military conflicts require direct US Presidential authority. A responsibility that President Biden has taken seriously. Yesterday, a new Israeli offensive was launched against forces in Khan Yunis. At the same time, President Zelenskyy of Ukraine complained that he was not receiving sufficient arms and equipment to pursue their war with Russia. Is President Biden monitoring those two wars? Is he still making the determination of which arms are sent to Ukraine and Israel? Our future, and the future of the World, hangs on whether America still has a fully functioning President. Follow me here on Medium for more stories from the ValueSide. ** Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

Time to vote for change

Nancy Churchill

July 24 2024 at 12:47 pm

Now that Washington primary ballots are being delivered, I've been fielding calls about candidates. I know many of the Republican candidates personally from events I've attended around the state. When it's a tough choice between two great candidates, I look at fundraising and endorsements, because both tell me how good the candidates are at connecting with everyday people just like you and me. Republicans have been losing in Washington since the jungle primary was implemented. Since only the top two vote getters advance to the general election, my top strategy is to support good Republican candidates who are "electable". That means they must have good name recognition, strong fundraising, AND can also appeal to independent and moderate voters. The most electable candidate may not be the most conservative candidate, but we've got to start somewhere and prove to the general public that it's time for a change in Washington politics. This year, we have a great opportunity to win some races if we can remember to choose candidates who have a broad appeal! With that in mind, here's my top choices for each race on my ballot. Statewide Races U.S. Senator: Dr. Raul Garcia I've met Dr. Garcia and his lovely wife Jessica at many events over the past two years. He’s extremely passionate about solving the fentanyl crisis and improving public safety. He'd be a great Senator! (garciaforwa.com) US Representative CD #5: Jacquelin Maycumber We have other great candidates in this race, but I've had the opportunity to develop a great working relationship with Rep. Maycumber. She once called me from the floor and asked me why I was opposing a bill that she was about to vote for. She wanted to hear directly from one of her constituents before the vote. She's an extremely hard worker, smart, and has a deep understanding about the process of lawmaking. I think she'd be great in Congress. (votemaycumber.com) Governor: Dave Reichert Dave Reichert is well known in the Puget Sound from his time as King County Sheriff and his service in Congress. He's also a genuinely nice man, who knows how to build relationships with everyone and get things done. He's the change we need in the governor's mansion. (reichertforgovernor.com) Lt. Governor: Bob Hagglund I have worked with Bob Hagglund on the WSRP State Committee, as he's been very active in the Snohomish County Republican Party. I like his "Olympia is Broken" message, and he'd be a great asset in this position. (bobhagglund.com) Secretary of State: Dale Whitaker Dale Whitaker is one of the few candidates I haven't met in person, but my friend Bill Bruch in Skagit County has endorsed him. Dale is focused on Election Integrity and Election Transparency. He's the change we need to restore trust in our elections. (whitakerforwa.com) State Treasurer: Sharon Hanek I've also worked with Sharon on the State Committee. She is a highly trusted campaign treasurer who knows state law and the PDC inside and out. She's worked as treasurer on countless campaigns over the time that I've known her, and her work is stellar. (sharonhanek.com) State Auditor: Matt Hawkins I know Matt Hawkins well. He is the Spokane County state committeeman, and is a dedicated and hardworking conservative who wants to improve accountability and transparency in state finance and audits. (tinyurl.com/mrrkpw2t) Attorney General: Pete Serrano Pete Serrano is the mayor of Pasco, and is a constitutionally conservative attorney. He's part of the Silent Majority Foundation, an organization fighting for 2A rights. He'd be amazing as Attorney General. (serranoforag.com) Commissioner of Public Lands: Jaime Herrera Beutler Herrera-Beutler is one candidate I've never gotten to meet, but she falls into the category of “most electable,” due to her name recognition, fundraising, and endorsements. The former U.S. Representative knows how to work with people to find solutions, and is a true advocate for better management of Washington's Public Lands. (jaimeforlands.com) Superintendent of Public Instruction: David Olson. David Olson understands that parents are the primary stakeholders in their children's education, and his top priority is improving student learning. I think he could turn around our state's failing education results if elected. (electdavidolson.com) Insurance Commissioner: Phil Fortunato Fortunato is a former Republican State Senator. He's running to stop the regressive policies being imposed on insurance markets in Washington State. A vote for Fortunato is a vote for affordable insurance! (votefortunato.org) State Supreme Court Justice Position 02: Dave Larson I've met Judge Larson, and he'd be an awesome addition to Washington's Supreme Court. "Judge Larson respects and follows our state constitution, and unwaveringly believes in upholding the rights of the people." You may not realize how rare it is to have the opportunity to elect a State Supreme Court justice—they're usually appointed by the governor, which is why our court leans so far to the left. Vote for Dave Larson for a justice who will bring some balance to our highest court. (larsonforwa.org)State Representative Races: 7th Leg District It’s very unusual for both of these seats to be open the same election cycle, but here we are. Rep. Joel Kretz has retired, and Rep. Jacqueline Maycumber decided to run for Congress! There are some really good Republicans in these two races, so it has been difficult to decide between them. State Representative Pos. 1, 7th Leg District: Andrew Engell Andrew Engell is highly qualified, having served in Cathy McMorris Rodgers’ field office in Colville for the last seven years. I've often encountered him attending all kinds of meetings all over the region, listening intently and asking good questions. He knows our problems inside and out, and knows how to find solutions. His integrity is unquestioned, and he's just one of the nicest and most honest people I've met in politics. Andrew deserves your vote. (electandrew.com) State Representative Pos. 2, 7th Leg. District: Hunter Abell I know Hunter well, and can highly recommend him! He is a conservative and has been active in the Ferry County Republican Party. He is a veteran and an attorney, and he brings deep experience in defending our freedoms under the U.S. and Washington Constitutions, something that is sorely needed in Olympia. He's another great person who would serve us well in Olympia. (voteabell.com)Ferry County Commissioner Races Ferry County Commissioner #1 (North District): Lorna Johnson. Lorna Johnson is the chair of the Ferry County Republicans and I've worked side-by-side with her for several years now to organize and host our events. We also sit on the planning commission together, and while we don't always see eye to eye, she's deeply knowledgeable about the Growth Management Act and is a fierce advocate for protecting property rights. Her deep knowledge of the county from her years of volunteer work is superior to any of the other candidates in this race. Because of her knowledge of the county, experience with many county committees, and willingness to work hard, Lorna is a great candidate who deserves your vote. Ferry County Commissioner #3 (South District): Zack Trudell I just can't say enough good things about Commissioner Trudell, who was appointed earlier this year. He's a native of Inchelium, he's got a military background and came home to raise his kids in Ferry County. Very smart, a quick study, a very hard worker, and willing to travel the distance to understand the issues that will impact Ferry County. I ran into him last week at an EPA meeting in Northport where we were learning about the proposed Upper Columbia River superfund. Zack and his wife are also volunteers supporting the Sugar Bowl Rodeo in Inchelium. Vote for Zack!Vote for Change As I said, these are my top choices, but I'm not bashing any of the other great Republican candidates in these races. If my favorites don't make it through to the general election, I'll support the Republican who does. Remember to VOTE VOTE VOTE! and FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! Vote and return your ballot as soon as possible! Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. Support Dangerous Rhetoric

Search

Trending Topics

Recently Active Rooms

Recently Active Thinkers

Search close

Trending Topics

Recently Active Rooms

Recently Active Thinkers

Cookies on ts.close

Actions Listclose

Please confirm your account

Description

New Stream close

In this stream

Contributors I Follow

Followersclose

AboutClose

thinkspot TERMS OF USEclose

Search

Cookies on ts.

Actions List

New Stream

Followers

About

thinkspot TERMS OF USE