“I didn’t do that.” The post Biden Not Aware of Own Proclamation Making Easter Sunday “Transgender” Day appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Maoist China controls The WHO (World Health Organization). The WHO demands 194 nations sign the Pandemic Treaty by May 2024‚ claiming it is an emergency because the imaginary Disease X will appear soon. Don’t listen to me. Watch the clip at the end from Mr. Roguski. He reviews the amendments and what they mean! The […] The post The WHO to Usurp Sovereignty of 194 Nations in May appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

According to 60 Minutes‚ a new report claims that a secretive Russian intelligence group is likely behind the mysterious Havana syndrome. The Syndrome‚ which has not been proven to exist‚ causes people to hear sounds and experience headaches and nausea suddenly. Allegedly‚ there are more lasting symptoms‚ including memory problems. I don’t think Russia is […] The post Russia‚ Russia‚ Russia Caused a Disease We Aren’t Sure Exists appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

This is the first part of a speech delivered by Michael Knowles at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on Wednesday‚ March 13‚ 2024. For most of American history‚ the intentional killing of unborn babies was illegal. From the colonial period through the middle of the nineteenth century‚ when abortion was surgically impossible and chemically dubious‚ it was not a major public issue. In that era — obviously long before ultrasounds — people did not know exactly when or how conception occurred‚ outside of the basics. Inasmuch as they did know‚ and in so far as it was addressed by the law‚ abortion was outlawed. By the turn of the twentieth century‚ abortion was a felony in every state. The legal distinction between early abortions and later-term abortions also began to disappear as scientists came to understand that the first movement of the unborn baby — known as quickening — did not represent a particularly significant moment in the development of the baby. One can understand why earlier generations might have thought that “quickening” would be morally and legally significant. But scientific advancements revealed details about human physical development that thinkers such as Aristotle simply would not have been able to know. And as our understanding of when and how conception occurs changed‚ our laws changed to reflect it. Simple enough. A couple of decades into the twentieth century‚ with the rise of the eugenics movement that sought to exterminate disfavored populations such as the mentally handicapped and certain racial minorities‚ Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League‚ which became Planned Parenthood a couple decades later. By the late 1960s‚ after decades of activism‚ the pro-abortion movement successfully decriminalized abortion in certain limited cases — rape‚ incest‚ threat to the health of the mother — in one state: Colorado. Several states soon followed. By the early 1970s‚ some states‚ such as New York‚ had gone further‚ legalizing abortion all the way up to the 24th week of pregnancy. Then in 1973‚ the Supreme Court discovered a previously unidentified constitutional “right” to murder babies.  That supposed “right” seems to have eluded the men who wrote the Constitution‚ as well as the nine generations of Americans that lived between ratification and Roe v. Wade. Perhaps the abortion clause of the Constitution was written in some secret code known only to twentieth-century liberals. Whatever the case‚ in 1973‚ the Court pretended that the Constitution granted a right to kill babies through abortion. 19 years later‚ as the pro-life movement picked up steam and Roe began to crumble under its own incoherence‚ the Court revisited the question in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show In Casey‚ the Court made an even stranger ruling than it had in Roe‚ deciding that the practical outcome of Roe — the license to kill unborn babies in the first trimester‚ sometimes in the second‚ and usually not in the third — was sound‚ but that the reasoning around the decision was not sound. So the Court threw out Roe’s trimester system and changed the reasoning to argue that women had a right to kill their kids until the baby was “viable‚” after which point they might still kill their kids‚ but it depended on state law. Maybe.  The Casey decision changed some of the other constitutional reasoning — or lack thereof — from Roe as well. But the practical implications — now even more legally and constitutionally preposterous — remained unchanged until the Dobbs decision a couple years ago‚ which happily overturned Roe and Casey and returned our law and jurisprudence to what had been the norm for most of American history‚ when abortion was not considered a right and usually was simply outlawed. That is about three centuries of American abortion law in under ten paragraphs‚ all of which I mention because the pro-abortion crowd wants to pretend that infanticide is a constitutional right deeply embedded in the American political tradition. And it just simply isn’t. In fact‚ the license to abortion is an aberration that even its most significant defenders have admitted is legally dubious. Very sus. Justice Harry Blackmun‚ the most liberal justice on the Court who wrote the majority decision in Roe v. Wade‚ admitted in writing that the Court’s logic was more or less gobbledegook. While some justices favored the viability standard that came to be adopted in Casey‚ Justice Blackmun pointed out the pointlessness of quibbling over the precise moment at which infanticide would be acceptable. “You will observe‚” Blackmun wrote‚ “that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary‚ but perhaps any other selected point‚ such as quickening or viability‚ is equally arbitrary.” Of course it’s arbitrary‚ as must be any selected point other than conception‚ which by definition marks the beginning of the individual human life. Some of the sillier abortion advocates today will sometimes claim that a baby in the womb does not constitute a “human life.” They will say‚ “It isn’t a baby; it’s a fetus” — unaware that the word fetus is just the Latin word for “offspring” — in this case‚ the offspring of two human beings‚ also known as a baby. Or they’ll say that the baby‚ at an early stage of development‚ isn’t a baby but rather a “zygote” or a “blastula.” They make the baby sound like a Pokemon or something. But of course‚ we have all sorts of different terms to denote different stages of human development: zygote‚ blastula‚ embryo‚ fetus‚ baby‚ infant‚ toddler‚ kid‚ teen‚ adult‚ old man‚ geezer. All the stages are distinct. Teens can do some things that babies can’t — like speak. Adults can do some things that teens can’t — like control themselves. Sometimes. Geezers‚ oddly enough‚ start to act like toddlers again. (At the extremes‚ human development starts to look a bit more circular.) But in any case‚ no particular stage between the beginning and the end either confers or negates our humanity. We’re human the whole time. We know that babies in the womb are human because they have human parents. If a woman gave birth to a platypus‚ that would be a cause for great concern. If I were the husband‚ I would have questions. But it wouldn’t happen because that’s not how reproduction works. We know that babies in the womb are human‚ and we also know they’re alive. We know they’re alive because they exhibit the characteristics of life: cellular organization‚ growth‚ the potential to reproduce‚ adaptation‚ etc. All the characteristics you learned in middle school science class. The baby in the womb is obviously human‚ just as the baby in the womb is obviously alive. If the baby were not alive‚ there would be no cause for an abortion. There would be nothing to terminate. Liberals sometimes try to deny these facts or at least to soften them with euphemisms. They do so because‚ even as they advocate for abortion‚ they recognize its moral repugnance. They don’t want to admit what everyone with even a modicum of sense and honesty knows‚ which is that abortion is a type of homicide. The feminist writer Naomi Wolf discussed this fact bluntly in the mid-‘90s. She wrote‚ “Abortion should be legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the fetus‚ in its full humanity‚ must die.” Wolf was wrong‚ obviously‚ in her conclusion‚ but at least she was honest. Abortion‚ by definition‚ ends a human life.

A former lawyer who worked for the Chinese gaming company Yoozoo Games was sentenced to death on Friday for fatally poisoning its billionaire founder‚ Lin Qi. Xu Yao was accused of serving Lin and other colleagues poison following a dispute over business operations‚ per a report from Deadline. Lin became very ill between September and December 2020 and died from complications on Christmas Day 2020. Xu‚ described as “disgruntled” by the New York Times‚ was taken into custody by Chinese police several days later. Yoozoo Games owns the rights to the massively popular new Netflix series‚ “3 Body Problem.”  The company gave Netflix the right to produce an adaptation of the sci-fi trilogy in 2020‚ the outlet noted. “3 Body Problem” is produced by “Game of Thrones” creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. Lin was also named as an executive producer for the project. BBC News reported that Xu was hired as the company’s chief risk officer in 2017. He initially had a good relationship with Lin and his co-workers. The publication noted that Lin appointed Xu to spearhead a subsidiary called The Three Body Universe one year after his hiring. Both men worked together closely on putting together the Netflix deal. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Authorities claim that Xu made his plans to poison his enemies when those relationships fractured after Lin put other executives in charge of business operations. He first tested the poison on animals‚ then moved on to people. An article from The Hollywood Reporter citing local media said that Lin gave Xu and others poisoned tea‚ while the Deadline report claims the poison was distributed via fake probiotic pills. In 2020‚ company reps issued a statement on the passing of its founder on its official Weibo microblog. “Goodbye youth‚” it said. “We will be together‚ continue to be kind‚ continue to believe in goodness‚ and continue the fight against all that is bad.” “3 Body Problem” has become a huge success for Netflix‚ with 11 million views in its first four days on the streaming platform. It follows an astrophysicist who sees her father beaten to death during a struggle session in the Chinese Cultural Revolution. She is conscripted by the military to help save Earth from an alien invasion.

A former Villanova University football player was found not guilty on Thursday of attempting to sexually assault a classmate back in 2019. The football player‚ who will not be named by The Daily Wire because his accuser is not being named by other outlets‚ was found not guilty after a three-day trial in Delaware County‚ Pennsylvania. The jury made the determination on the same day the trial ended‚ The Philadelphia Inquirer reported. While the prosecution maintained that the female accuser was traumatized‚ defense attorney Daniel Bush provided text messages showing the woman continued to spend time with the accused student-athlete after the alleged traumatizing assault. Bush noted that the two shared Uber rides and that the woman invited the accused to her dorm days after the alleged incident. Bush argued that the woman only made the allegations after the two had an argument. “A rape allegation is not a sword you pull out of your pants and swing around every time you get mad‚” Bush said in his closing statement‚ according to the Inquirer. “That’s what she did.” The woman testified that the accused had asked her for nude photos over Snapchat and that she went to his room alone on September 2‚ 2019‚ according to the Delco Times. She claimed she told a friend to get her if she was not back in 30 minutes. She alleged that the accused pulled her onto his lap and she protested‚ saying she had a boyfriend. She claimed the accused kept her from leaving by holding her wrists and laying on top of her on the bed. She also said she was so afraid she started to recite the Lord’s Prayer‚ prompting the accused to finally let her go. The accused‚ who is the son of Nigerian immigrants‚ testified that the woman sat on his lap‚ and he thought she wanted to have sex but that he stopped when she seemed uncomfortable. He also denied that he kept her from leaving‚ saying he walked her to the front door of the building. Friends of the woman testified that she told them about the alleged encounter within days‚ but she also continued to spend time with the accused. The accused testified that after riding together to a party‚ the woman became angry with him and accused him of turning her friends against her after the two had an argument. A text message exchange showed in court revealed that she later texted the accused‚ giving him an ultimatum. The next day‚ she reported the alleged rape to a resident assistant‚ who reported it to police. At that time‚ the woman declined to press charges. But two years later‚ she changed her mind‚ claiming the accused student was following and harassing her. The accused student’s attorney argued in court that campus police could not substantiate the woman’s stalking claims. Bush‚ the defense attorney‚ said that his client had asked the woman to stop spreading rumors that he was a “registered sex offender.” A day after he sent this text‚ the woman went to police to file rape charges. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP After this woman came forward‚ two others claimed the accused sexually assaulted them back in 2019 as well‚ the Philly Voice reported. Later this month‚ a status meeting will be held to determine how to proceed on those allegations. The accused student was removed from campus and kicked off the football team. After the jury verdict‚ his attorney said his client would need to rebuild his life. “This case shows that mere accusations do not mean that someone actually committed a crime‚ but accusations alone can destroy a person’s world. Law enforcement needs to be more diligent on who they actually charge‚” the defense attorney said. “[The accused] has maintained his innocence from day one‚ and fought hard to prove it.”

Hecklers disrupted a prominent House Democrat‘s university lecture on democracy last week‚ after which the president of the school ended the event due to what he called a show of “free speech.” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD)‚ the ranking member of the Oversight Committee‚ spoke at the University of Maryland (UMD) on Thursday until a commotion about the Israel-Hamas war led him to get sidetracked and open the room to questions. Although UMD President Darryll Pines reportedly cut short the lecture and wished the disruptors had been more civil‚ he told Capitol News Service that the result was a positive one. “[Raskin] came here to speak about where our democracy is going in our country‚” Pines reportedly said. “What you saw play out actually was democracy and free speech and academic freedom.” He added‚ “From our perspective as a university‚ there are the difficult conversations that we should be having.” Raskin told the news outlet the “sentiments” of the protesters were “perfectly consistent” with his planned lecture‚ which was titled “Democracy‚ Autocracy and the Threat to Reason in the 21st Century.” The congressman said he is “not really opposed to heckling” but noted that “it seems like heckling today is all about drowning out the speaker‚ and that’s totally antithetical to the spirit of free expression.” As word of what transpired at the event and what Pines had to say about it spread on social media‚ people chimed in about their views on protesters effectively shutting down speakers. Congressman Jamie Raskin tried to give a speech at @UofMaryland on democracy and "the threat to reason in the 21st Century.” It was relentlessly heckled and drowned out by people protesting Israel's invasion of Gaza. The speech was ultimately shut down by the university… pic.twitter.com/DQVH2dkXoI — Nico Perrino (@NicoPerrino) March 31‚ 2024 “President Pines is wrong‚” said Nico Perrino‚ executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). “What you saw play out was mob censorship‚” he continued. “It was a bastardization of free speech and the antithesis of democracy. These shout-downs happen far too often on college campuses — and with the approval of college administrators.” NBC News reporter Jonathan Allen‚ a UMD alumnus‚ suggested that Pines’ comments should be called the “loudest-voice doctrine‚” according to a post on X. “It’s debatable the degree to which federally funded schools have a duty to ensure free speech‚” he added. “What’s not debatable is that the [First Amendment] also protects the right of assembly — to allow political discourse. Nor is it debatable that intimidation can fall outside protected speech.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP UMD professor Howard Milchberg‚ who started the lecture with his family in recognition of his late parents who survived the Holocaust‚ posited that the disruption of Raskin’s remarks was a good thing. “It didn’t go as planned‚ but it maybe turned out better than normal‚” Milchberg told Capitol News Service. “It was an actual exercise of democracy rather than a story about democracy.”

In a recent revelation that has sparked widespread concern among privacy advocates and free speech proponents‚ FBI agents were recorded during a home visit to Rolla Abdeljawad in Stillwater‚ Oklahoma‚ admitting to the routine scrutiny of Americans over their social media activities. This incident‚ confirmed by Reason.com‚ underscores the extensive measures law enforcement agencies are taking in monitoring online expressions‚ raising critical questions about the balance between national security and individual liberties. The encounter between Abdeljawad and the FBI agents‚ which was meticulously documented and shared online by her lawyer‚ Hassan Shibly‚ highlights a disturbing reality. The agents openly acknowledged that scrutinizing social media posts is an "every day‚ all day long" operation aimed at ensuring public safety. However‚ this admission brings to light the intrusive nature of such surveillance practices‚ which seem to encroach upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. BREAKING: The FBI admits to spending all day visiting people's homes about their Facebook posts. Is the U.S government using intimidation to silence citizens? pic.twitter.com/x3thkg12Kb — TaraBull (@TaraBull808) March 30‚ 2024 Abdeljawad's experience is particularly noteworthy as it involved questioning related to her pro-Palestine social media posts‚ which‚ while critical of Israel‚ did not incite violence. This raises significant concerns about the criteria used by law enforcement to target individuals for their online activities and the potential chilling effect on free speech. The involvement of Meta‚ Facebook's parent company‚ in preemptively reporting posts to law enforcement further complicates the issue‚ suggesting a collaborative effort between tech giants and government agencies in policing digital expressions. The FBI's Oklahoma City office responded to the incident by reiterating its commitment to protecting Americans and upholding the Constitution. They emphasized that investigations are not initiated based solely on First Amendment-protected activities. However‚ the vague nature of what constitutes a "valid law enforcement or national security purpose" leaves room for interpretation and potential abuse. Tyrant OBAMA/ Joe Biden’s FBI using intimidation and threats of arrest for critical social media posts. ELECTION INTERFERENCE! Viral Videos Appear To Show FBI Agents Visiting Homes Over Social Media Posts; FBI agent says he does this all day everyday!… pic.twitter.com/rhucCnc01h — TRUTH NOW (@sxdoc) March 31‚ 2024 Meta's policy on sharing data with U.S. law enforcement under specific legal circumstances adds another layer to the debate. While the company claims to review each request for legal sufficiency‚ the transparency and accountability mechanisms in place for such exchanges remain unclear. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the power tech companies wield in shaping the landscape of free expression and privacy. The broader implications of this surveillance practice extend beyond the individual case of Abdeljawad. It signals a growing trend where citizens' online activities are subjected to constant monitoring‚ potentially deterring individuals from engaging in open and honest discourse for fear of government scrutiny. The delicate balance between ensuring national security and preserving civil liberties appears increasingly skewed towards invasive oversight. As the conversation around privacy‚ free speech‚ and the role of technology companies in surveillance continues to evolve‚ it is imperative that safeguards are established to protect individuals from unwarranted intrusion. The case of Rolla Abdeljawad serves as a cautionary tale‚ prompting a reevaluation of the methods employed by law enforcement in the digital age and the need for a more transparent and accountable approach to safeguarding the constitutional rights of all Americans. In conclusion‚ the FBI's admission of daily surveillance on Americans' social media activities opens up a Pandora's box of ethical and legal dilemmas. As we navigate the complexities of the digital era‚ striking the right balance between security and freedom remains one of the most pressing challenges of our time. The post FBI’s Daily Surveillance on Americans’ Social Media Raises Concerns Over Privacy and Free Speech appeared first on The Conservative Brief.