Modern Day Brown Shirts Suppress Free Speech at Yale Law

Why the heckler’s veto is wrong and why universities must prevent its use.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.

As further confirmation that universities have devolved into islands of repression in a sea of freedom, some 120 Yale Law School students seriously disrupted a March 10th event. Sponsored by the Yale Federalist Society, the event featured Kristen Waggoner, lead counsel for the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), and Monica Miller of the progressive American Humanist Association (AHA), appearing together on the panel to discuss (ironically, it turns out) free speech issues. 

Yale’s LGBTQ students had already mobilized their opposition to the appearance of Waggoner, particularly because ADF, they claimed in a flyer they distributed, “is an organization designated by the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] as a hate group” and that the Federalist Society’s invitation to Waggoner provided “a veneer of respectability [that] is part of what allows this group to do work that attacks the very lives of LGBTQ people in the US and globally.” Once it has been predetermined that the organization for which Waggoner is lead counsel was anti-gay, it no longer mattered what she would say at the event. The moral scolds at Yale Law School had already decided she should be canceled and forbidden from giving her opinions about anything at all.

Preventing someone with opposing views to even speak, to make his or her opinions known and heard by the campus community, means that the disruptors are so sure of their beliefs, so positive that their perception is the valid one, the only true one, that they are comfortable with suppressing the alternate beliefs and ideology of those whose speech they seek to silence. Students, even graduate law students, are certainly not omniscient nor do they know the single truths about a range of topics guest speakers bring into debates. Their experience is insufficient to make them credible arbiters of what may be said, and what must not be said, on university campuses. 

They do not have the moral right or intellectual capacity to gauge what is bad speech and what is good speech. 

And they exert their unearned moral and intellectual superiority to silence ideological opponents because feckless administrators have tolerated this outrageous behavior, the use of what is known as the “heckler’s veto,” for too long now and are reaping the inevitable backlash. 

The heckler’s veto is an unethical tactic used the advance one’s own beliefs by defeating an ideological opponent’s argument by silencing him, instead of having to offer a compelling argument of one’s own; someone with alternate views has his speech canceled or, if it is held, shouted down, disrupted, and jeered at.

When students shout down a speaker with whom they disagree and refuse to even let that person voice their opinions—regardless of how abhorrent or aberrant the disruptors think them to be—they are acting both rudely and pretentiously, assuming that their opinions are so valid and powerful that someone with opposing ideas does not even deserve to have them aired and considered. And when law students behave in this manner, as they did in a similarly grotesque fashion recently at UC Hastings School of Law when they shouted down Georgetown’s Ilya Shapiro, one might question both their intellectual maturity and their ability to maintain suitable judicial temperament as future lawyers.

Additionally important, when a speaker like Waggoner is invited to the Yale campus, she is a guest of the entire law school, and it is neither the right nor role of a few self-selected students to censure speakers and decide—in advance—that the speaker has no right to even air his or her views. In most cases, speakers who have been shouted down and prevented from speaking are highly-educated, academically-accomplished, and appropriately credentialed individuals with many years of professional experience behind them, so their ideas are formed by far more education, accomplishment, and intellectual activity than the protesting college students themselves have, making attempts by activist students to suppress the speech of those whose intellects are superior seem not only discourteous and audacious but misguided.  

Waggoner, for example, was the lead counsel for the First Amendment rights case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which she argued before the United States Supreme Court. The law students who disrupted her speech at Yale may disagree with her position on whether a baker should be compelled to create a wedding cake for a gay couple, but her legal skills and knowledge are evident, as is the insight and perspective she brings to a debate over this current cultural issue.

The censorious Yale brown shirts, like their fellow travelers on other campuses, have created their own definitions of free speech, putting limits on it that are contrary to what universities say it is and should be, and classifying certain speech—that with which they disagree—as harmful, cruel, even “violent”—sometimes manifesting itself as “hate speech” because it might, in their minds, discomfort a member of a victimized identity group.

But the Constitution and most university speech codes do not contain those exemptions, nor should they. So-called hate speech is a political categorization, not a legal one.

And the notion that an LGBTQ student, real or imaginary, somewhere may find offense if Waggoner speaks at Yale is no justification for silencing her, regardless of how unacceptable some tendentious, intolerant students may think she and her ideas are.

It is neither the responsibility nor duty of universities to foreclose certain debates because the discussion may hurt someone’s feelings somewhere. And it is certainly not the right of self-selected moral scolds to censor the speech of which they disapprove and promote and allow only speech with which they agree. Such an approach violates both the letter and spirit of academic free speech precepts.

In fact, this very sentiment is defined in the concise but eloquent 2014 University of Chicago Statement on Freedom of Expression, commonly referred to as the Chicago Principles. “The ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict,” the statement reads, in words echoing Yale’s own version of a free speech declaration, the 1974 “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale,” commonly known as the Woodward Report. “But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility . . . concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.” [Emphasis added.]

Universities, including Yale, encourage vigorous responses by students and faculty to speech with which they disagree, including courteous protests outside the venue, the use of placards, sitting in silence at the event with armbands, or issuing flyers and other material encouraging attendees to avoid the event or read alternate information. But vocal disruptions—shouting, pounding on desks, jeering, using noisemakers, or otherwise interfering with a speaking event in a way that prevents attendees to hear the speech—all of those modes of behavior are specifically prohibited. Reports describing the Yale event, however, suggested that the pounding on desks, shouting, and vigorous disruption were so excessive that faculty and students in other rooms in the same building felt and heard the noise through the walls.

Freedom of speech, contrary to the thinking of some activists, does not mean freedom to suppress the speech of another by drowning out his or her speech with yours.

“Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus,” the Chicago Principles read, “and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.” 

Additionally, the university has a duty to ensure that any individual on campus is allowed to speak and present his or her views, and the university has an obligation to protect that right by enforcing, if necessary, cordial behavior and decorum and removing anyone who violates that expected behavior. “To this end,” the statement continues, “the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.”

In fact, Yale law professor Kate Stith, who moderated the event, can be seen in a video recording of the event struggling to read aloud Yale’s free speech policy, although the rude response from the demonstrators was that “this protest is free speech,” and her admonition was ignored.

Yale’s own Woodward Report rejected the idea “that speech can be suppressed by anyone who deems it false or offensive . . . [and] [t]hey make the majority, or any willful minority, the arbiters of truth for all. If expression may be prevented, censored, or punished, because of its content or because of the motives attributed to those who promote it, then it is no longer free. It will be subordinated to other values that we believe to be of lower priority in a university.”

Students must be told during orientation that disruptions such as the type discussed here will never be tolerated, are never appropriate, and will lead to punishment of the offending students, up to and including suspension or expulsion.

Assuming a speaker is the invited guest of a registered student group and is recognized by the university as such, all invited speakers must be treated with civility, courtesy, and deference. Attendance at an event like the Yale lecture was not mandatory, so if a guest speaker’s ideas are toxic or repulsive then a student can choose to not attend an event, but it is not the right of an individual student or group of students to decide that a speaker because his or her ideology is in opposition to the students’, should not be allowed to speak and deserves to have his or her event shut down.

After the outrageous Yale event, D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman suggested in an email to his fellow federal judges that the behavior of the law students involved in shutting down the invited speakers should rightly disqualify them from holding future clerkships, “that students who are identified as those willing to disrupt any such panel discussion should be noted. All federal judges,” he wrote, “should carefully consider whether any student so identified should be disqualified from potential clerkships.”

Whether that punishment is appropriate or just, the truth is that when they do become lawyers, these law students will have to hear competing arguments in a case, convince a judge and jury of their interpretation of an argument, and successfully argue for their client based on reason, facts, legal precedent, and intellectual ability. 

As future lawyers, they will not be able to pound on a table and suppress the speech of others in the courtroom, including opposing counsel and a judge. They will not be able to only present their side of a case without having the other side present theirs. And the university is a place where the same decorum and procedures for promoting views, developing intellectual arguments, providing facts and research to support one’s opinions, and inspiring academic inquiry and scholarly debate is fundamental to the advancement of learning. 

That is precisely why universities exist and why any attempts to suppress certain speech—because it is currently out of favor or novel or even controversial—are antithetical to what the university represents and why, either in a law school classroom or in a courtroom, unfettered free speech is paramount, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. put it, even “for the thought that we hate.”

Photo: Washington Free Beacon YouTube 

A Radicalized Federal Reserve is a National Economic Threat

At the Fed’s Board, there’s only one Republican and 45 Democrats in leadership positions.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Earlier this month the Biden administration's nomination of Sarah Bloom Raskin as a top bank regulator fell apart. Raskin, who favored using monetary policy to crush the oil and gas industry while rewarding the subsidized wind and solar boondoggles of politically connected investors, was blocked by Senator Manchin who announced he would not vote for the radical.

“The Federal Reserve Board is not an institution that should politicize its critical decisions. This is a 10-year term to perhaps the most important independent body that is tasked with ensuring the stability of the American economy. At this historic moment for both the United States and the world at large, it is imperative the Federal Reserve Board preserves its independence and steers clear of any hint of partisanship," Manchin stated.

He urged the Fed to focus on fighting inflation instead of pursuing political agendas.

This was the second radical financial nomination the Biden administration had lost after Saule Omarova: a Soviet-trained academic who wanted the Federal Reserve to nationalize banking.

These two high-profile defeats don’t appear to have taught the Biden administration anything.

Still waiting in the wings is Lisa Cook’s nomination to the Federal Reserve Board. Cook is unqualified for the position and she’s only being nominated because of her radical racial views.

Cook has promoted police defunding, advocated for slavery reparations, and declared that “free speech has its limits”. Beyond her abrasive social media presence, Cook’s academic work, such as it is, is oriented toward identity politics and blaming racism for economic disparities.

She's the co-author of a New York Times op-ed titled, "It Was a Mistake for Me to Choose This Field" which falsely claims that, "if economics is hostile to women, it is especially antagonistic to black women". This familiar brand of professional victimhood is the last thing the Fed needs.

Despite all this, Lisa Cook was selected for the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. This is part of a larger phenomenon in which local Fed boards have already been politicized.

The involvement of local Fed boards in politics includes the false claim by the New York Fed that America suffers from "systemic racism" and that "economic equality is a critical component for social justice". These are not only economically misguided views, but they're particularly dangerous when advocated by bodies with the power to manipulate monetary policies.

Finance professor Emre Kuvvet cites research showing that "Democrats outnumber Republicans 4.5:1 among economics faculty at 40 leading universities" and found that "the ratio of Democrats to Republicans among Fed economists is 10.4 to 1."

As disastrous economic policies have triggered a wave of catastrophic inflation, with possible worse consequences to come, while Democrats embrace academic socialist theories like Modern Monetary Theory which insists that money can be endlessly printed with no consequences, the growing radicalization of Fed economists represents a systemic threat.

The Left believes that it understands economics when over a century of history clearly shows otherwise. Destructive policies that have wrecked our economy are being justified by credentialism and gatekeeping through networks of politically aligned academics.

But as the debate over Sarah Bloom Raskin’s Fed nomination shows, we are no longer simply dealing with traditional tax-and-spend policies or even pure spending policies, but larger efforts to transform the economy by eliminating entire industries, like the energy industry, or nationalizing others, such as the banking industry, to force leftist policies on Americans.

Kuvvet notes that “Among those whose voter registration information is available, there are 208 Democrat and only 20 Republican economists at the Federal Reserve System.“ Regionally he finds that there are, “111 Democrat and 18 Republican economists at the regional Federal Reserve Banks” and “44 Democrat and only 3 Republican economists in leadership positions at all regional Federal Reserve Banks.”

Meanwhile “at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, there are 97 Democrat economists and only two Republican economists” and he finds that “at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, there is only one Republican economist in the leadership position, while there are 45 Democrat economists in leadership positions.”

The growing radicalization of the Democrats is translating, over time, into a growing radicalization of Fed economists. The defeat of individual radical nominees who are so far out of step as to be unsuitable for the last moderate Senate Democrat who can cast a crucial vote is not a sign that the system is working, but that a last-ditch battle is being fought for our survival.

The lack of intellectual diversity at the Fed has all but eliminated ideological checks and balances. And while the radicalization of academia, in general, has had catastrophic consequences for American intellectual life, the economic consequences are potentially even more serious. Like the next generation of judges, the next generation of economists will be detached from the very concept of objective truths, they will be convinced that their mission is to transform the institutions they are part of until they bow to their political ideology and values.

That means using the Federal Reserve, like any other institution, to punish their political opponents and reward their allies, to destroy those elements of American life that they oppose, and to abuse their institutional power to build socialist systems at everyone else’s expense.

The radicalization of the Democrats and their preponderance in leadership positions through the Fed system due to a lack of intellectual diversity represents a systemic threat to the American economy. It is a threat that Republicans have been negligent in failing to acknowledge and confront. The consolidation of academia as a hostile environment for conservatives, moderates, libertarians, and other non-leftists is not just a cultural and political, but also an economic crisis.

Without intellectual diversity, the Federal Reserve will become increasingly radicalized, tainted by radical appointees who will insist that a failure to comply with leftist political agendas represents a risk and that complying with those agendas is sound economic policy.

If Republicans fail to meet this threat, socialism will arrive without the need for elections.

When conservatives recognized that the radicalization of the legal profession was tainting the judiciary and endangering the constitution, they rallied and built the Federalist Society. Economics has a strong conservative tendency, but the lack of external attention and support being paid to the problem means that it has not become a priority for conservative groups.

The latest slate of radical Fed nominees is a warning of what a radical group of regulators can look like, but the answer goes beyond casting votes on individual nominees, but remedying the disproportionate ideological tilt within the Fed system before the system decides to remedy us.

How the COVID Vaccine Altered These People’s Lives



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:


  • Some people who have received COVID-19 shots experience a range of debilitating symptoms or death
  • Healthy teenagers, athletes, and doctors are among those who have died within hours or days of receiving COVID-19 shots
  • Others have experienced stroke-like symptoms, paralysis, tics, partial blindness, and seizures following the shots
  • Increasing numbers of people are becoming compelled to speak out and share their stories of how COVID-19 shots altered their lives

Despite assurances of safety from health officials, it’s what the long-term effects of COVID-19 shots will be. Spike proteins from the shots can circulate in your body after injection, causing damage to cells, tissues, and organs. “Spike protein is a deadly protein,” Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and trained epidemiologist, said.1

Experimental and observational evidence shows that the human immune response to COVID-19 shots is very different than the response induced by exposure to SARS-CoV-2, and people who’ve received COVID-19 shots may have damage to their innate immune system that’s leading to a form of vaccine acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (VAIDS), due to the impairment in interferon signaling.2

Further, likely due to monocyte activation by the spike protein from the vaccine, some people who have received COVID-19 shots experience a range of debilitating symptoms similar to those found in long haul COVID-19 syndromes, such as headaches, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, joint pain, and chest pain.3

For some, however, the shot’s adverse effects occur quickly, resulting in life-changing debilitation. You can see 10 powerful examples below, ranging from deaths to lives upended due to illogical quarantine rules that illustrate the absurdity of COVID-19 tyranny.

These are real people with real stories to share, and the more people who see them, the more awareness can grow to provide those who survived with the help and medical care they deserve — while warning others of the potentially deadly consequences of COVID-19 injections.

If you find these stories helpful and motivating then I would encourage you to visit our breaking news blog on our site as this is where the stories below were initially posted. The blog posts stay up continuously and are not removed after 48 hours.

10 People Whose Lives Changed After COVID-19 Shots

1. Jim Ashby — Learning to Walk Again

Ashby was forced to get a COVID-19 shot by December 3, 2021, or his employer would consider him “voluntarily resigned.” Eight days after receiving the Pfizer jab, he had a major hemorrhagic stroke.

He’s been in rehab since October 2021, suffering from complete paralysis on the left side of his body. He still has a long way to go in recovery, and still can’t feel or use his left arm or walk without assistance. His rehab is excruciatingly painful, he says, and he spends up to six hours a day learning how to walk again.

What’s worse, his employer isn’t covering the medical bills for the costs of this stroke. “My life has been totally changed, all because of the vaccine mandate … my old life is dead,” he says, “and I have started my new life as a paraplegic.”

2. Athletes Collapsing and Dying

Healthy athletes around the world are dying of heart attacks and strokes. The numbers are exploding, with athletes suffering neurological problems, too. What’s happened in the last six months to a year that’s different? Is there anything in common that’s changed that hooks all these athletes together? They all have had COVID-19 shots. Among them:

  • Abou Ali, 22-year-old football (soccer) player, who suffered from cardiac arrest in Denmark on September 11, 2021
  • Caddy Alberto Olguin collapsed and died from a heart attack on the golf course on October 9, 2021
  • 30-year-old Venezuelan marathon champion Alexaida Guedez, 30, died of a heart attack during a 5,000-meter race on August 22, 2021
  • Andrea Astolfi, 45, sports director of Calcio Orsago in Italy, died of a heart attack on September 11, 2021, after returning from training
  • Ava Azzopardi, 14, collapsed on a soccer field in the U.S. on October 15, 2021, suffering from cardiac arrest; she had to be put in a medically induced coma to survive

3. Dr. Neil Singh Dhalla, Died From Myocarditis

Dr. Neil Singh Dhalla fell asleep four days after he got a COVID-19 booster shot — and died from a heart attack. The autopsy stated myocarditis — inflammation of the heart muscle that’s a recognized adverse effect of mRNA COVID-19 shots.4 A CEO of a major health clinic, he was only 48 years old and had never had heart problems in his life.

4. Faith Ranson, 16-Year-Old Plagued by Convulsions and Tics

A happy, healthy 16-year-old girl in Australia who got the Pfizer COVID-19 shot is now crippled with convulsions, persistent nausea, and visible tics. The problems began three days after her second shot and have been ongoing for months. Health officials actually admitted, “there is no question Faith has had a delayed reaction to the second Pfizer vaccination” and is suffering adverse reactions from the shot. Her story even made it to mainstream news.

5. Nurse With COVID Told to Go Back to Work

In this video, a “triple vaxxed” nurse from New York explains how she tested positive for COVID-19, and her employer told her to come back to work even though she hadn’t been in quarantine for five days — against CDC recommendations.

Since she was asymptomatic, she was cleared to go to back to work in a health care setting, but told she still had to quarantine in all other aspects of her life. In short, she can go to work to care for patients while actively positive for COVID-19, but she can’t go to a grocery store or a gas station. Not to mention, her kids were quarantined for 10 days, but she was expected to go back to work in less than five.

6. Stroke-Like Symptoms in a Healthy Woman

Complaints of neurological problems and stroke-like reactions continue to pile up. Immediately after receiving the AstraZeneca COVID-19 shot, this previously healthy woman experienced headaches and dizziness and blacked out “a few times.”

Within days, she started experiencing numbness to the point that she couldn’t stand up. Eight days later, she’s in the hospital with a loss of feeling in her left arm, left leg, and face. She states that 19 women were brought into her hospital ward with the same symptoms over the span of one weekend.

7. Two Teenage Boys Die From Myocarditis in Their Sleep

Video may not work on all browsers

Epidemiologists have confirmed that two teenage boys from different U.S. states died in their sleep of myocarditis days after getting the Pfizer shot. Both had received second doses of the shot, and McCullough said that in his view, the shots led to the deaths of the teenagers. In a study that examined the autopsy findings, it’s reported that the “myocarditis” described in the boys’ deaths is “not typical myocarditis pathology”:5

“The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy. Understanding that these instances are different from typical myocarditis and that cytokine storm has a known feedback loop with catecholamines may help guide screening and therapy.”

8.59-Year-Old Woman Dies Hours After Shot

A 59-year-old front-line health care worker in the U.K. took the COVID-19 shot and died a few hours later. In the video, her acquaintance states, “Now I know it’s a given the vaccine’s going to have some casualties — but people are threatened they are going to lose their jobs if they don’t take it … You have the right to take that risk, but you should have the right to refuse it as well — without jeopardizing your job or your freedom of entry or freedom from discrimination.”

9. Vaccine Advocate Nearly Goes Blind

Video may not work on all browsers

The man in this video describes himself as a believer in “science” and a “vaccine advocate,” but this didn’t spare him from the shot’s adverse effects. Five days after his first Pfizer COVID-19 shot, he started having blurry vision in his left eye. Within three days, he had lost 60% of his vision in that eye.

After several medical examinations, doctors, optometrists, and retina specialists diagnosed him with central serous retinopathy (CSR), in which a small vein ruptured, leading fluid to accumulate under the retina, causing retinal detachment and partial blindness.

Other cases of CSR have also been reported following COVID-19 shots, he says, and in a case report published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology it’s stated, “Acute CSR may be temporally associated with mRNA Covid-19 immunization.”6 The man’s doctor told him that the risk of getting additional COVID-19 shots outweighs the potential benefit for him and tried to help him get an official exemption from further shots, but it was denied. He states:

“I have been deprived of my human rights as a citizen … I try to gather all my strength so many times during the past few months to just go and receive my second dose in order to follow the laws.

But the fact that the science says there is an above-average chance that I may lose more of my sight has driven me to anxiety attacks, night terrors and disabling depression … This is a direct violation of my constitutional rights as a citizen and a human being.”

10. Young Woman Suffers From Seizures, Nearly Dies

Caution: This video contains language that may offend some people

Beginning her story by stressing she is NOT anti-vaccine or pro-conspiracy theory, this young woman describes what happened to her after she received a Moderna COVID-19 shot, which she decided to get so she and her husband could join some friends on a cruise.

The day after the shot she started feeling “weird,” delirious, and “disassociated from herself,” she says. Soon after, she blacked out in the bathroom, and when her husband tried to revive her, she began seizing. She had three seizures between the time her husband called 911 and when the ambulance got her to the hospital.

She was intubated and suffered other severe effects, she says. She spent days in the hospital and is now taking anti-seizure medication while living with ongoing anxiety about her near-death experience, which she believes was caused by the shot. “Go out there and do your research so you can make an informed decision,” she says. “Because you don’t want to put something in your body that could potentially harm you.”

Let Your Voice Be Heard

If you or a loved one has been injured by a COVID-19 shot, I will help you share your testimony. Vaccine mandates have led to injuries, devastation, and deaths — while the brainwashing “get your vaccine now” campaign is being used to divide and conquer. One spark is all that is required to start a fire. There is a revolution building — a revolution for freedom to live your life without medical mandates or dictators calling the shots.

Please share your story with us, and encourage others you know who have a story to share theirs. It’s never been more important than now, for you and your family, to take control of your health.

Biden regime putting American troops in Ukraine, setting country up for direct engagement in World War III

ABOVE: Lieutenant General Bryan P. Fenton, the new JSOC commander (Department of Defense).


New Reports of U.S. Boots on the Ground in Ukraine Doing ‘Operational Prep of the Battlefield’





republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Unbeknownst to the vast majority of Americans, the Biden regime has deployed U.S. military personnel on the ground in Ukraine in what appears to be a direct effort to draw the country into a conflict with Russia that will spark World War III.

According to Trending Politics, there are new reports that U.S. Special Forces troops are currently in Ukraine performing “operational prep of the battlefield.”

Seth Harp, an investigative reporter and contributing editor for Rolling Stone, noted on Twitter: “US special operators are currently on the ground in Ukraine doing ‘operational prep of the battlefield,’ according to a well-informed source. The military unit is JSOC’s Advance Force Operations, including members of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6.”

A search of Harp’s Twitter feed did not turn up this tweet, so it’s likely he has deleted it; Trending Politics got a screengrab of it, however, which can be seen below.

While such developments have no doubt concerned the Americans who are eager for our country to stay out of this conflict, Harp cautioned his followers in a second (also deleted) tweet that it would be wrong to automatically presume the stationing of U.S. troops in Ukraine following Russia’s invasion is an “escalation.”

“This should NOT necessarily be perceived as an escalation in Ukraine. Small JSOC teams routinely penetrate foreign countries to do covert work (not fighting) as part of long-shot contingency planning,” he wrote, adding: “These are denied operations under Title 10, no different from CIA activities.”

Here’s the since-deleted tweet, compliments of Trending Politics:

While some reportedly blasted Harp online for revealing what is no doubt top-secret information, another open-source reporting appears to confirm his.

“U.S. special operators are continuing with a mission to build up an elite fighting force in Ukraine, military officials said, even as Russia threatens invasion with its thousands of troops, tanks and artillery massed along their borders,” Stars & Stripes reported on January 19, 2022, more than a month before the Russian invasion.

“The bottom line is that our training mission in Ukraine is ongoing,” said Lt. Col. Juan Martinez, spokesman for U.S. Special Operations Command Europe.

Martinez told the outlet that there are a “ton of outside factors at work,” but went on to add that “the command hasn’t stepped back from Ukraine.”

“We continue to view our mission in Ukraine as part of an ongoing effort in enhancing Special Operations Forces capabilities as a keystone for regional stability,” he said.

“The Stuttgart-based SOCEUR has quietly operated out of a training center outside of Kyiv for the past several years,” Stars & Stripes reported further. “The mission’s focus is assisting Ukrainian forces to defend more effectively against Russian aggression.”

“The presence of U.S. special operators is part of a small American military contingent that remains in Ukraine,” the outlet added.

“There are also more than 100 Florida National Guard troops in Ukraine in an advisory role,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said at the time.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has warned that should peace negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his government fail, World War III is a near-certainty.

“I’m ready for negotiations with Putin, but if they fail, it could mean World War III,” Zelensky said as reported by the Kyiv Independent.

“Zelensky told CNN that he’s ready to negotiate with Putin, but warned that if negotiation attempts fail, it could lead to a new World War,” the report added.

“I’m ready for negotiations with him,” Zelensky said in the interview, referring to Putin. “I was ready for the last two years, and I think that – I think without negotiations we cannot end this war. I think that all the people who think this is shallow and won’t resolve anything, they just don’t understand this is very valuable.”

This war is set to spiral out of control and the Biden-friendly Deep State is obviously setting America up to become involved.

Sources include:

Israel’s Bennett hits Biden’s handlers’ ‘determination to sign the nuclear deal with Iran at almost any cost’

Israel's Fmr Defense Minister: Iran MUST be Stopped & Erdogan CANNOT be Trusted | Watchman Newscast

Breaking down the threats gathering at Israel’s doorstep. On today's Watchman Newscast, host Erick Stakelbeck sits down for an exclusive interview in Jerusalem with Israel's former Defense Minister, Moshe "Bogie" Yaalon, as they tackle the growing Iran threat amid tense nuclear negotiations. Plus, as Turkish President Erdogan hails a “turning point” in relations with the Jewish State, should Israel be cautious?

Benjamin Netanyahu warns against forging Iran nuke deal



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Bennett is right. Biden’s handlers’ monomania about getting a deal with Iran is striking. Do they want to see Iran nuke Israel? Given the makeup of Biden’s administration, which is loaded with haters of Israel, the question is not entirely far-fetched.

“PM Bennett’s Remarks at the Start of the Weekly Cabinet Meeting,” Prime Minister’s Office, March 20, 2022:

Following are Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s remarks at the start of the weekly Cabinet meeting today:

…On another issue, we are very concerned about the United States’ intention to give in to Iran’s outrageous demand and remove the IRGC from the list of terrorist organizations, the FTO.

The IRGC are the largest and most murderous terrorist organization in the world. Unlike ISIS, or other organizations, it is backed by a state.

This is not just an Israeli problem. Other countries – allies of the United States in the region – face this organization day in and day out.

In recent years, they have fired missiles at peaceful countries and launched UAVs at Israel and other countries.

Even now, the IRGC terrorist organization is trying to murder certain Israelis and Americans around the world.

Unfortunately, there is still determination to sign the nuclear deal with Iran at almost any cost – including saying that the world’s largest terrorist organization is not a terrorist organization.

This is too high a price.

Even if this unfortunate decision is made, the State of Israel will continue to treat the IRGC as a terrorist organization, and will continue to act against it as we do against terrorist organizations. As usual, our future will be determined by our actions, not words.”

Twitter Bans Conservative Scribe for Telling the Truth About “Transgenders.” PJ Media’s Margolis: They Are Mentally Ill



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Twitter has banned another conservative, this time for telling the truth about “transgenders,” the men and women who pretend or mistakenly believe they are members of the opposite sex and demand to be treated as such.

Say those unfortunate people are mentally ill, and into exile one goes.

The latest victim is Matt Margolis, who said as much in an exchange about the “victory” of “Lia” Thomas, the University of Pennsylvania swimmer who pretends he is a woman and won the NCAA’s 500-yard freestyle championship last week. 

Margolis told what might be the truth about “Lia” — real name, William — and Twitter banned him.

Not Telling the Truth

“I figured it was inevitable that Twitter would find a reason to suspend me from their platform permanently, and now they finally have,” Margolis wrote for PJMedia.

A social worker had tweeted that we must not insult “transgenders” no matter our opinion about Thomas.

“No matter your opinion on Lia Thomas, I urge you to discuss the topic as if a transgender person were in the room,” Justin Spiro said. “Because one probably is.”

In fact, one probably isn’t, but in any event, the social worker continued:

We can agree or disagree with the NCAA without insulting our transgender friends, classmates, and neighbors.…

40% of transgender youth attempt suicide. 

Prefacing your Lia Thomas criticisms with “Trans people have value” or “I respect trans people” is not difficult — and can literally save lives.

That 40 percent attempt suicide because they don’t get the psychiatric care they need to disabuse them of the false belief they are the wrong sex, as renowned psychiatrist Paul McHugh has repeatedly explained to no avail.

Margolis answered, and was sent packing for his trouble.

“Trans people represent a fraction of a percent of the population,” he wrote, and said that even if he were in a room with a person so afflicted, “I’d tell them the truth: they have a mental disorder.”

Not all of them are mentally ill; some are faking it to get into the ladies’ restroom or, perhaps, dominate in a women’s sport because they are weak men who cannot compete where they belong.

Thomas was a mediocre swimmer until he decided he was a woman and jumped in the pool with the weaker sex.

Continued Margolis:

I was given no warning, and I woke up to find that my account was locked and suspended. Appeals were made, and Twitter promptly sent form responses back.

In short, I am now banned from Twitter. For telling the truth.

Gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder was until very recently considered a mental disorder. No one can honestly say that the decision to no longer classify it as such was based on objective science.

Strike Two

That, of course, is McHugh’s point, as he wrote for The Public Discourse:

The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.

This is Margolis’ second strike on the “transgender” issue.

When he tweeted that Richard “Rachel” Levine, the No. 2 federal health official as assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services, is a man, Twitter forced him to delete it.

“I’m sorry; I don’t give a damn what Twitter thinks,” Margolis wrote:

Rachel Levine is a man, and Twitter banning me won’t change this biological fact. Rachel Levine can call himself a woman all he wants, but that doesn’t mean he’s right. This is what is so dangerous about the transgender movement. They aren’t satisfied unless the rest of us validate how they feel. It’s not enough for a man to call himself a woman. The rest of us are expected to participate in that delusion. They think their right to believe what they want trumps our right to believe the facts.

Does Twitter think they’ve won by banning me? They haven’t.

Maybe, but the “transgenders” certainly think they have won. If they are right, women’s sports are doomed.



Moderna Requesting That the FDA Authorize Covid Shot for Children Aged Six Months to Under Six Years, Other Age Groups

Moderna Requesting That the FDA Authorize Covid Shot for Children Aged Six Months to Under Six Years, Other Age Groups



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The pharmaceutical company Moderna announced it is set to request an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its Covid shot for children ages six months to six years old. The vaccine’s efficacy is estimated to be less than 44 percent for infants, and less than 38 percent for children aged two to six.

According to the announcement posted on Moderna’s website, Phase 2/3 of the so-called KidCOVE study showed “a robust neutralizing antibody response” and “a favorable safety profile” of the two-shot dose that contained a quarter, or 25 μg, of the adult mRNA dose.

KidCOVE tested Moderna’s shot on children in two age groups: from six months to under two years, and from two years to under six years of age. 

The U.S. federal government took part in the trials. Per Moderna, the trials on children are being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

The company will be sending the documents to the FDA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and “other global regulators” in the coming weeks, per the announcement.

Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, noted that there is “the need for a vaccine against COVID-19 in infants and young children,” and that his company will be submitting the data “as soon as possible.” The top pharma executive added that he believes the vaccine for infants and young children “will help end this pandemic.”

Despite the fanfare, the announcement provides that Moderna’s shot efficacy in children six months to two years old was just 43.7 percent. It was even lower in the older age group, with a 37.5-percent efficacy rate in children two to under six years old.

Moderna does not see it as a problem, and says that the “majority” of Covid cases in participants “were mild, and no severe COVID-19 disease was observed in either age group.”

“The absence of any severe disease, hospitalization, or death in the study precludes the assessment of vaccine efficacy against these endpoints,” concludes the biotech giant.

In an interview with The New York Times, Dr. Jacqueline Miller, Moderna’s senior vice president for infectious diseases, said, “What we have seen is a successful trial.”

“What I will say is 37.5 percent and 43.7 percent are higher than zero,” she added. “If I were the parent of a young child, I would want there to be some protection on board, especially if we see another wave of infections.”

Some biotech experts, such as French-American consultant Marc Girardot, argue that the immune protection against coronaviruses in humans is never “zero,” since people have always been surrounded by them and have developed a certain level of immunity.

For Moderna, it is obviously not the case.

As do their colleagues at Pfizer, Moderna believes that to generate a higher immune response in children, they would need to take three instead of two doses.

“Similar to adults, Moderna is preparing to evaluate the potential of a booster dose for all pediatric populations, including those aged 6 months to under 6 years, 6 to under 12 years, and adolescents,” the company says, adding that one of the booster candidates would include the omicron variant booster.  

According to a study published by the New York State Department of Health in late February, Pfizer-BioNTech’s two-dose Covid shot, which, like Moderna’s, uses mRNA technology, provided abysmal protection for children aged five to eleven during the wave of omicron infection in New York. As reported by The New American on the matter,

During the Omicron surge from December 13, 2021 through January 30, 2022, the effectiveness against infection plunged from 68 to just 12 percent for children in that age group. Protection against hospitalization dropped from 100 to 48 percent during the same period.

Moderna also indicated that it has initiated the submission of the document needed for the FDA to authorize its 50-μg, two-dose shot for children aged six to under 12 years.

Finally, the company is updating its request to authorize its shot for those aged 12 to 17. That request, which was filed last summer, was put on hold in October 2021 because the FDA asked the company to provide more data on such side effects associated with the shot as myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart.

As reported by The New American at that time, the Nordic countries have suspended administering Moderna’s Covid “Spikevax” vaccine over an increased risk of side effects such as inflammation of the heart muscle in younger recipients, and have recommended that men under the age of 30 not take it.

On January 31, 2022, the FDA granted full approval for Moderna’s shot, marketed as “Spikevax,” to be used on people aged 18 and older. The agency also shortened the recommended interval between the initial inoculation and booster shot from six to five months.

Moderna and the NIH share ownership of the shot’s patent.