Muslims in Canada fight for the right to mask women. The post Are Burkas a Human Right? appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

The institution is just as bad as Trump said it was - if not worse. The post Smithsonian Celebrates Violent Racist Cult appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Lawsuit alleges that school administrators failed to protect her. The post Jewish Teen Faced Nightmare of Persecution in Seattle High School appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

The mRNA era is over. The government health agencies are being redirected and are investing in safer and more promising alternatives. It’s over, at least for now. In early August, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. withdrew funding for 22 government projects that relied on mRNA technology. Dr. Bhattacharya said it […] The post The Era of mRNA Is Over, It’s “Not Viable” appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

The Qatar-based news outlet Al Jazeera coordinates with the terror group Hamas to silence, and often torture, critics and independent media voices in the Gaza Strip. The Free Press and the Center for Peace Communications released the results of an investigation into reporting from Gaza on Tuesday. The investigation includes interviews with journalists in Gaza, as well as expert analysis of reporting out of Gaza by the center’s COO, Michael Nahum. “You have to be affiliated with Hamas to work at Al-Jazeera. Especially in Gaza, because most jobs go through Hamas. Hamas is the primary authority deciding who gets hired and who doesn’t. So, the majority of Al-Jazeera staff are an inseparable part of Hamas,” one independent reporter said in an interview. The reporter’s face has been blurred out in a video accompanying the report to protect his anonymity. Independent reporters in Gaza say that Al Jazeera reporters work with Hamas in Gaza to help identify Palestinian critics and journalists who have reported information critical of the terror group. During the two years that Israel has waged war against Hamas in Gaza, Al Jazeera reporters have served as the terror group’s reconnaissance and surveillance because they can move more freely around the strip that Hamas militants. The report mentions several Al Jazeera reporters who are alleged to work closely, or even for, Hamas while outwardly presenting themselves as journalists for Al Jazeera. “Mohamed Washah is a journalist with Al-Jazeera and the head of Al Jazeera’s operations in the Gaza Strip. … If you look at his Instagram account, you’d see photos with all the Hamas leaders, just like Anas Al-Sharif,” one anonymous Gazan journalist said, referring to two Al Jazeera reporters. “Mohamed Washah in Gaza is a member of the Al-Qassam Brigades and works in Hamas’ internal security centers. He conducts investigations, incites, and directs Hamas’ executive security to break people’s limbs, arrest journalists, terrorize them, and slander their reputation,” a Gazan reporter said. “Mohamed Washah is a journalist with Al-Jazeera and the head of Al Jazeera’s operations in the Gaza Strip. … [But] if you look at his Instagram account, you’d see photos with all the Hamas leaders, just like Anas Al-Sharif.” “When the [anti-Hamas] protests were going on, Al Jazeera, through it’s journalists under Mohamed Washah’s direction, and with Anas Al-Sharif present, tried to buy the loyalty of people and leading families in the northern Gaza Strip so that these young people or these residents would not protest against Hamas,” a reporter said. Al Jazeera reporters will lure targets – including those critical of Hamas or reporters that are not directly affiliated with the terror group – to places where Hamas terrorists stay, such as in hospitals. Once the targets are lured into the proper locations, they may be beaten and tortured. One unnamed reporter featured in the video had his legs broken by Hamas. The Israel Defense Forces have identified reporters with Hamas affiliations. Hamas documents uncovered through the course of the war identified six Al Jazeera reporters who worked with the terror group, according to the Israeli military. “The IDF has disclosed intelligence information and numerous documents found in Gaza confirming the military affiliation of six Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza with Hamas and the Islamic Jihad terrorist organizations. They are: Anas Jamal Mahmoud Al-Sharif, Alaa Abdul Aziz Muhammad Salama, Hossam Basel Abdul Karim Shabat, Ashraf Sami Ashour Saraj, Ismail Farid Muhammad Abu Omar, and Talal Mahmoud Abdul Rahman Aruki,” the IDF said in a news release. In another instance showing how closely Al Jazeera journalists work with the terror group, one Al Jazeera writer was found to have held hostages stolen on October 7 in his own home.

'It doesn't need to be partisan'

'Be careful about playing 2028 politics'

This summer, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation secretly began the process of withdrawing from its longstanding partnership with Arabella Advisors, a central hub of the Left’s dark money network. This news, first reported by The New York Times, may seem irrelevant or esoteric, but it will likely send shockwaves through the political world. The Gates Foundation isn’t just some billionaire’s side hustle—it’s the largest private foundation in the world. The foundation’s endowment stood at $77.2 billion at the end of last year, and it spent $102.3 billion since its inception, giving $8 billion in 2024 alone. Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, has used the foundation to forward many of the left-leaning elites’ preferred causes, such as contraception, global development, vaccines, and more. While many of his causes align with the Left, he has not embraced an outwardly activist image like Hungarian American billionaire George Soros, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, or Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss. The Gates Foundation’s divorce from Arabella doesn’t just represent a loss of cash, but a loss of respectability and clout, as Arabella draws more scrutiny as an engine of leftist political activism. The Gates-Arabella Divorce The Gates Foundation had given $450 million to Arabella-linked entities over the past 16 years, but on June 24, the foundation’s CEO Mark Suzman sent an internal memo announcing the foundation would halt new grants to the nonprofits Arabella works with, The New York Times’ Theodore Schleifer reported last week. Other nonprofits are also seeking to distance themselves from Arabella in order to preserve ties with the Gates Foundation, sources told Schleifer. The June 24 note doesn’t mention politics, instead emphasizing cutting out middlemen. “Teams are increasingly working directly with programmatic partners—organizations that are deeply embedded in the communities we serve and closely aligned with our mission,” it reads. “As we look ahead, this is a chance to build deeper, more durable relationships with those partners—and to reinforce the kind of legacy we want to leave behind.” While a source confirmed with Schleifer that the Gates Foundation has been pulling back from other intermediaries, Arabella has taken considerable heat in recent years. Last year, Capital Research Center President Scott Walter published a book on Arabella Advisors, highlighting how the for-profit company helps left-leaning nonprofits promote climate alarmism, abortion, and other causes. The book’s cover features Bill Gates. That research proved foundational to my own book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.” I testified before Congress alongside Walter on how Americans’ taxpayer dollars prop up leftist groups, including some nonprofits linked to Arabella. This increased scrutiny—coupled with President Donald Trump’s orders cutting federal funding for climate alarmist causes; “diversity, equity, and inclusion” efforts; and gender ideology—may have combined to make Arabella too toxic for the Gates Foundation. Trump reportedly met with Gates in February and in August, but the White House declined to comment on whether the meetings had any impact on the foundation’s decision. The foundation did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment. What Is Arabella? Arabella Advisors describes itself as a service provider, helping nonprofits pursue their missions. It supports independent nonprofit organizations that are tax exempt under Sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) of Internal Revenue Code, providing operational and administrative services such as compliance, accounting, human resources, and more. Arabella Advisors provides these services to “seven sisters”: the New Venture Fund, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the Hopewell Fund, the Windward Fund, the North Fund, the Telescope Fund, and the Impetus Fund. From 2006 to 2023, these organizations generated combined revenues of $9.2 billion and expenditures of $7.8 billion, according to tax returns analyzed by the Capital Research Center. Some of these nonprofits in turn act as “fiscal sponsors” for other projects. This structure allows donors to give to an Arabella-linked nonprofit while cloaking which project their money supports. The company also helps politically active nonprofits, like the 501(c)(4) Sixteen Thirty Fund, which contributes to political action committees. That nonprofit donated $97 million to super PACs seeking to elect Democrats or defeat Republicans since 2016, The New York Times reported. Arabella Advisors had 425 employees as of 2023, according to an internal study. A Messy Separation Not only is the Gates Foundation blocking any new grants to Arabella-managed entities, but it has also begun to “pursue early exits” from ongoing grants, according to Schleifer. Furthermore, Concentric Equity Partners, a private equity firm that acquired Arabella in 2020, removed Arabella from its public “investments” page earlier this year. “We are proud of the work we’ve done and continue to do with the Gates Foundation and the impact we’ve helped support through their giving to the New Venture Fund,” an Arabella Advisors spokesperson told The Daily Signal. “Arabella Advisors provides operational support to hundreds of philanthropic clients pursuing social change. We do not have donors, make grants, or engage in political activity.” What Does This Mean for the Left’s Dark Money Network? It remains unclear just how much the Gates Foundation’s withdrawal will affect Arabella Advisors. “Over the next five years, this decision will probably cost Arabella something close to $1 billion in revenues, at least on the nonprofit side,” the Capital Research Center’s investigative researcher Parker Thayer said in a recent podcast episode. He noted that most of the Gates Foundation’s contributions to the Arabella network were “nonpolitical.” He predicted that Arabella will survive the hit. As I noted in my book, Arabella’s client nonprofits have contributed to many of the activist groups that staffed and advised the Biden administration. The New Venture Fund, for example, gave: $20,000 in 2022 to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which pushed the demonization of conservatives in federal law enforcement under President Joe Biden $50,000 in 2018 to the Human Rights Campaign, which pushed gender ideology in the Biden administration $800,000 between 2010 and 2016 to the National Wildlife Federation, which pushed climate alarmism in the Biden administration $2.97 million from 2012 to 2021 to the Center for American Progress, which pushed climate alarmism and open borders in the Biden administration $120,000 from 2014 to 2017 to Demos, which pushed a federal takeover of elections under Biden The Sixteen Thirty Fund gave $3.6 million to the climate alarmist Sierra Club from 2014 to 2022 and another $300,00 to the Center for American Progress from 2014 to 2021. The Gates Foundation’s withdrawal may not directly impact these grants or similar forms of political activism, but it does deal a heavy blow to the structure Arabella Advisors provides, which in turn will weaken the Left’s dark money network overall. The post Gates Foundation Secretly Deals a Powerful Blow to the Left’s Dark Money Engine appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This is a preview of this week’s episode of “The Signal Sitdown.” Don’t miss politics editor Bradley Devlin’s interview with Professor Patrick Deneen by turning on YouTube notifications for the premiere at 6:30 a.m. EST on Sept. 4, 2025. Notre Dame Professor Patrick Deneen’s book, “Why Liberalism Failed,” was not a project undertaken to explain the Trump phenomenon after President Donald Trump’s surprise victory in the 2016 election. Nevertheless, it quickly entered the panoply of books, with Vice President JD Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” among them, that provided insight into a new era of not only American but Western politics. The book’s success, even featured on former President Barack Obama’s list of recommended books, catapulted Deneen to one of the most prominent academic figures in the West and his ideas to the forefront of America’s most contentious political debates. Much has happened in the years since “Why Liberalism Failed” was published. Liberalism managed to claw back power, first through undermining Trump’s agenda at almost every turn from within, and then through the empty vessel of former President Joe Biden. Yet, Trump was able to mount a surprising return in 2024 with a new resolve to dismantle the forces of liberalism concentrated in Washington, D.C. Deneen joined “The Signal Sitdown” this week to discuss what future lies beyond liberalism. ”Liberalism failed not because it failed to live up to itself, but it failed because it succeeded,” Deneen told The Daily Signal. “In other words, the kind of ideological underpinnings of liberalism, which advances the idea of human life lived in accordance with the sovereign. The choices of the sovereign will must be thoroughly liberated, must be liberated from all bonds, arbitrary limitations, limitations of other human beings, limitations of nature, limitations of inheritance.” “As long as liberalism coexisted with sort of non-liberal institutions and practices and religion and family life and culture, liberalism was not fully itself,” Deneen explained. “And in that way, I think when people are sort of nostalgic for the good old days of liberalism, they’re thinking of a kind of a mixed, a certain kind of mixed regime in a way—liberalism that was not itself thoroughly liberal. But as the kind of ideological commitments and logic of liberalism unfolded, and certainly accelerated, in the last, you know, 30, 40, 50 years, I think we see the kind of catastrophe that it leaves in its wake.” Liberalism’s failure has led us to a new era of politics that Deneen described as postliberal.  “If my thesis is correct, that liberalism has failed, we are already in a postliberal future,” Deneen explained. “I think that’s true. I think we are in a postliberal future.” ”What we’re past is once all of those pre-liberal inheritances had been purified,” Deneen continued, “then the clear sort of inhumanity of living in that condition and the sort of unbearableness of that for especially our ordinary common man who simply was not thriving under conditions of globalization and borderlessness and sexual anarchy and communal devastation and family breakdown that, you know, politically, that meant it was over.” “Postliberalism, then, is what do we do now that we are living in the wreckage of kind of the high watermark of liberalism,” Deneen said.   Just as the epoch of modernity is paired with its intellectual orientation modernism, the postliberal era has a cultural and political ethos of its own called postliberalism. While its critics have treated postliberalism as a monolith, Deneen argues it is not. Of the three main strains of postliberalism Deneen broadly identifies, two could ultimately prove extremely dangerous. The first is the Left’s response to postliberalism: a continuation and consolidation of wokeism. The second is a response from the Right, which Deneen described as “essentially a kind of, ‘We will gain liberty through tyranny or through a kind of despotism.’” “It’s an odd thing to say, ‘We need authoritarianism to ensure liberty because ordinary people don’t want to be free,’” Deneen added. The third kind of postliberalism is the kind Deneen is advocating for. “The alternative that I would propose would be a very distinct form of postliberal, which would be to reject the libertarianism of the Left and the libertarianism of the Right. And so I really think that the coming years are going to be a contestation of these three kinds of postliberalisms,” Deneen said. “Stay tuned.” The post Woke Is Liberalism All Grown Up appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Eric Adams Leaving for the Trump Administration?