Over 30 lawsuits, modeled after the tobacco cases of the 1990s, have been filed by state, county, and city attorneys against energy companies seeking damages for the alleged effects of greenhouse gas emissions. An important factor in these lawsuits is the role of third-party funding and nonprofit activists working behind the scenes to shape the litigation and influence the courts. One such organization that has taken center stage is the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, which claims to educate judges on climate science and related legal issues. According to the institute’s website, the project’s goal is to “provide neutral, objective information to the judiciary about the science of climate change as understood by experts.” Since 1990, the Climate Judiciary Project says it has trained more than 3,000 judges across 28 countries. But judges are supposed to be disinterested arbiters of the facts and the law—and critics point out that on climate issues, the Climate Judiciary Project is anything but neutral. In a 12-page report, the American Energy Institute accuses the Climate Judiciary Project of “teaching judges about debatable climate science” and compares it to “working over the referees before the game even starts.” The American Energy Institute contends that the so-called “objective” materials used by the CJP are crafted by activists who either advise the plaintiffs in these cases or support their claims through legal briefs. The American Energy Institute also claims that the CJP has ties to many of the plaintiffs suing energy companies. The CJP denies these allegations, telling RealClearPolitics that it “does not participate in litigation, provide support for or coordinate with any parties in litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule in any case.” Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Energy Alliance, also criticized the CJP’s efforts to influence judges before they rule on climate-related cases. She told RealClearPolitics that the connection between nonprofit groups, judges, and attorneys involved in these cases forms a “tangled web” of “foundation activist groups, law professors, and judges attempting to use lawsuits to enact climate change policy.” “The Environmental Law Institute, through its Climate Judiciary Project, is trying to control the entire process—from who’s suing, what they’re suing for, to what judges think about it,” she continued. In some cases, there are close connections between the CJP and the judges handling these lawsuits. One of the judges presiding over City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, Hawaii State Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald, disclosed that he presented at a CJP course in April 2023. Shortly afterward, Recktenwald authored an opinion that ruled against the oil and gas companies’ motion to dismiss the case in Hawaii. Before he authored the opinion, Sgamma said that Recktenwald “clearly has a conflict of interest and needs to recuse himself from the case.” Several philanthropists funding the CJP have also poured money into Sher Edling LLP, the law firm representing Honolulu and many other cities and states in lawsuits against energy companies. Sher Edling openly states that its mission is to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for “decades-long deception” about climate change. The law firm’s cases, like the one in Honolulu, argue that these companies misled the public and contributed to climate-related damage. Both Sher Edling and the CJP receive funding from major philanthropic organizations such as the MacArthur Foundation, which supports efforts to address climate change. Other shared backers include the Collective Action Fund and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Another player in this arena is the Climate Accountability Institute, which has played a major coordinating role in climate litigation efforts. In 2012, it hosted a workshop in La Jolla, California, titled “Establishing Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Lessons from Tobacco Control,” which was instrumental in planning climate-related lawsuits. Strategies promoted at the Climate Accountability Institute La Jolla workshop were later applied in lawsuits against energy companies. Chris Horner, a former senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told RealClearPolitics that a key approach outlined in the La Jolla workshop summary involved liberal private attorneys and nonprofits encouraging state attorneys general to probe for internal documents. These documents, they claimed, could potentially show that energy companies were aware of the risks of carbon dioxide emissions but either misrepresented or concealed this information. Horner noted that this bore fruit in 2015 when parties representing the Rockefeller Family Fund successfully urged the New York attorney general to leverage the Martin Act, which grants broad powers to investigate possible “misrepresentation of information” to investors, to “subpoena documents from ExxonMobil.”  Later, the House Oversight Committee also subpoenaed energy company records, which, although never publicly released, appeared in an amicus brief filed by a Rockefeller Family Fund-funded group called the Center for Climate Integrity in one of these state lawsuits alleging that energy companies knew of the risks of fossil fuels but chose not to disclose them publicly. Since then, the Climate Accountability Institute has focused on researching the potential damages of climate change and the accountability of energy companies. One of its largest projects is the Carbon Majors Database, which tracks the 100 largest fossil fuel producers since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The Climate Accountability Institute claims that these top 100 organizations are responsible for 52% of all greenhouse gas emissions. This work was not merely an intellectual exercise; the Climate Accountability Institute argues that staggeringly high “reparations” are warranted. In 2022 and 2023, it spent $55,000 on a paper, later published in the academic journal One Earth, titled “Time to pay the piper: Fossil fuel companies’ reparations for climate damages.” The paper argues that “companies engaged in the exploration, production, refining, and distribution of oil, gas, and coal” bear the primary responsibility for the costs associated with addressing climate harm. The estimated “damages” are substantial. The Climate Accountability Institute’s analysis indicates that cumulative reparations from the top 20 climate-producing companies would total $5.4 trillion for the period of 1988-2022, payable over 25 years from 2025 to 2050. However, the institute states that even if this $5.4 trillion were paid, it would not cover all damages being sought in “climate-related litigation filed in numerous jurisdictions based on varying legal theories against major oil, gas, and coal companies.” Not covered in the paper? Where the money to pay such judgments would ultimately come from. “In gas and oil, if they have to pay an enormous settlement, that gets passed on to the customers,” Peggy Little, senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, told RealClearPolitics. “The settlements are so enormous that they have to have a bearing on the cost of gasoline and fossil fuels, which will hurt the oil and gas companies’ bottom lines, but also the price of filling up a tank of gas and everyday goods.” This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire The post Nonprofits Influence Climate Litigation Against Major Energy Companies appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Democrats are making abortion into a “sacrament” by completely eliminating doctors from the process, glorifying the act, and deregulating the procedure, according to the president and CEO of the world’s largest pro-life organization. Shawn Carney is the president and founder of the annual 40 Days for Life campaign, which has just concluded in a record 703 cities around the world. The organization helps end what it calls the “injustice of abortion” by empowering people to take action against abortion on a local level through prayer and community outreach. Its annual 40-day campaign helps accomplish this goal by hosting public prayer vigils outside abortion clinics. ? The largest 40 Days for Life campaign EVER begins TOMORROW in 703 cities worldwide! Join the mission to end abortion where YOU live. Watch our new video, share it with your friends, and spread the word. ? pic.twitter.com/UHplP33t2V— 40 Days for Life (@40daysforlife) September 24, 2024 Carney said Democrats do not want any regulations on abortion. “That’s been the message—that the Democrats are making abortion into a sacrament, and they don’t want any regulations on the sacrament,” Carney told The Daily Signal. “That’s why you see the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] doing things they never would have done before the overturning of Roe v. Wade.” The FDA has removed many abortion pill regulations. It has allowed retail pharmacies, such as CVS and Walgreens, to offer the pills and has allowed the pills to be sent to patients through the mail, with both changes significantly expanding access to abortion. According to The Washington Examiner, Kansas, Idaho, and Missouri are leading a renewed legal challenge against the FDA’s efforts to deregulate mifepristone, one half of the two-drug cocktail that is used to abort children under 10 weeks gestation. Carney also told The Daily Signal that doctors are being removed from the abortion process as many states with more lax abortion laws do not require a doctor to perform the abortion. According to Carney, this is another way of deregulating the process and making abortion more like a sacrament. “It’s really a brave new world when you get away from the original talking point which is, ‘I want this to be between a woman and her doctor,’” said Carney. “The abortionist isn’t her doctor. It’s usually not even an OB-GYN, and now it’s getting more rare than ever to actually see a doctor for an abortion.” Carney also highlighted the fact that a Planned Parenthood in Iowa invented something called a “webcam abortion,” in which an administrator gets on a webcam with a woman taking the abortion pill. Carney also said another way that Democrats are turning abortion into a sacrament by glorifying the act—he explained how left-leaning celebrities such as Alyssa Milano or Chelsea Clinton exalt abortion by invoking religious justifications. “Actress Alyssa Milano articulated her pro-abortion stance, suggested that the decision to have an abortion should involve a woman, her physician, and, you guessed it—God,” Carney wrote in Townhall. “Chelsea Clinton went so far as to say it is downright ‘unchristian’ to overturn Roe v. Wade.” This year’s 40 Days for Life Campaign came to an official close Wednesday evening. In Washington, D.C., organizers hosted a closing event outside a local Planned Parenthood. Organizers of the Washington, D.C., 40 Days for Life campaign outside a Washington, D.C., Planned Parenthood abortion facility on Nov. 20, 2024. (Ann Moreno, The Daily Signal) “Even though the official 40 Days for Life campaign is over, the message was clear,” Michael New, leading coordinator for 40 Days for Life D.C., told The Daily Signal. “Building a culture of life is not a 40 days of the year activity; it is a year-round activity. Attendees left motivated to step up their efforts in preventing abortion and offering meaningful, life-affirming alternatives to women, families, and children.” Carney said that the purpose of the campaign is to empower people on a local level to do something about abortion, to change hearts and minds, and to pray, fast, and call upon God. He also said that, according to ex-abortion workers who have joined his campaign over the years, the “no show” rate for abortion appointments goes up significantly when participants are outside clinics praying. “Many of them don’t show up for their appointments, according to the Planned Parenthood workers who have left,” Carney told The Daily Signal. “They say that, according to Planned Parenthood’s internal number, the ‘no show’ rate for abortions goes up by 75% when we’re out there praying.” This Fall we had 3 abortion workers approach @40daysforlife after having a change of heart and quitting. That’s 266 abortion workers total. God is merciful and good.— Shawn Carney (@CarneyShawn) November 12, 2024 Carney also told The Daily Signal that his campaign includes many women who have had abortions and women who kept their babies because they turned around at the last second due to the prayerful advocates outside the clinics. The Daily Signal reached out to Planned Parenthood, the Biden administration, Chelsea Clinton, and Alyssa Milano for comment, but none have replied as of publication time. The post Pro-Life Leader: 3 Ways Democrats Are Turning Abortion Into a ‘Sacrament’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has initiated an inquiry into the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), responding to claims of a collusion-driven boycott aimed at several social media outlets, notably Elon Musk’s platform, X. GARM is a cross-industry initiative that brings together advertisers, agencies, media platforms, and industry organizations to establish what it calls standards for “brand safety” in digital advertising. This development from Paxton tracks closely behind an August antitrust lawsuit by X, which named GARM and the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) as parties engaged in a coordinated effort to deprive selected platforms of advertising dollars, in breach of GARM’s “Brand Safety Standards.” Paxton, vocal in his critique, has reprimanded the Biden administration for not applying antitrust regulations consistently, especially against allies perceived politically. “Trade organizations and companies cannot collude to block advertising revenue from entities they wish to undermine,” he asserted in a press release, emphasizing the risk such actions pose to free market competition. X’s litigation posits that entities like Mars, CVS, and Unilever among GARM’s ranks, conspired to apply brand safety measures in a manner akin to a “naked restraint of trade,” adversely affecting social media venues. Furthermore, the suit alleges these measures were collectively enforced not for the economic benefit of the advertisers but to compel platforms like X to conform. Rumble, another platform popular among free speech supporters and co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, has decried GARM’s standards which led to the boycotts of alternative platforms. Both X and Rumble are pursuing an injunction to halt further advertiser coordination, alongside seeking compensatory damages and coverage of legal costs. The House Judiciary Committee has presented evidence suggesting that GARM orchestrated boycotts and employed subtle methods to target platforms and creators it disfavored. As Paxton probes into WFA’s conduct, this investigation signals mounting apprehension regarding the sway of global advertising factions over free speech and market dynamics. The resolution of this investigation could profoundly impact the advertising sector and its influence on online dialogue. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Texas AG Ken Paxton Investigates GARM Over Alleged Ad Cartel Demonetization Conspiracy appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Bob Casey Finally Concedes in PA Senate Race

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) used the legacy media's airwaves on Sunday to ask a question that polite society forbids.The topic: vaccines.“I think they should be questioned,” Mullin declared on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.”The question: “Why is America highest in autism? What is causing that?”“Is it our diet?” Mullin continued. “Or is it some of the stuff we’re putting in our children's system?”The question is important and needs to be asked, Mullin explained, because autism “used to be almost not even heard of.” Just one or two generations ago, autism was rare. Today, it's extremely common.If a hierarchy of denialism existed, 'anti-vaxxer' sits just behind 'Holocaust denier' and 'election denier.'In fact, the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder in the United States has skyrocketed from 0.1–0.4 per 1,000 children in the 1980s — the same decade vaccine manufacturers were immunized from civil liability for vaccine-related injuries and deaths — to 27.6 per 1,000 children in 2020, an exponential increase. “What is causing that?” Mullin asked again. “And if it is the vaccines, there’s nothing wrong with actually taking a hard look and finding: Is that what’s causing it?” he continued. “Is it something else that we’re putting in our systems? We do know we’re not as healthy as we should be right now. We’re the most developed country in the world, so all things should be on the table. And if that’s scrutinizing vaccinations, then that is exactly where we need to go.”Moderator Kristen Welker responded to Mullin's question by repeating scientific dogma.“I just have to say, no credible expert or study has shown a link between vaccines and autism,” she said.Anti-vaxxer?The label “anti-vaxxer” is a modern-day scarlet letter.In the hierarchy of denialism, “anti-vaxxer” sits just behind “Holocaust denier” and ”election denier.” Each pejorative epithet functions to discredit a person prime facie, a rhetorical move that signals a person is so detached from reality that debating them is pointless.And unfortunately, Mullin was summarily assigned this scarlet letter after his “Meet the Press” interview.Mediaite accused Mullin of spouting “anti-vaccine talking points.” Left-wing journalist Aaron Rupar claimed Mullin went “full anti-vaxxer.” The Daily Beast accused Mullin of pushing a “bonkers vaccine conspiracy.”But is this true? Is Mullin against vaccines?Not according to Welker, who noted in the interview that Mullin has “been on the record saying” that he does “believe vaccines are safe and effective.”Never once did Mullin question the efficacy of vaccines in the interview. Rather, he asked a basic question inquiring why the United States is experiencing skyrocketing rates of autism while arguing that “all things” should be investigated to understand the worrying trend.That Mullin is being labeled anti-vax for merely asking a question — the first step of the scientific method, after all — proves Peter Thiel's point that “science” has become overly dogmatic.“What has become ‘science’ — I’ll use scare quotes around science — is something that is more dogmatic than the Catholic Church was in the 17th century,” Thiel said in a recent interview.Speaking of the lack of skepticism on vaccines specifically, Thiel added:I don't particularly think that vaccines lead to autism. If they did, I don't think our science is capable of figuring it out because the results would get suppressed because it would undercut the lobby for vaccinations. There obviously are a lot of good vaccines, too. If there was some truth to it, that would undercut it. I'm pretty sure that question isn’t being investigated. There has been a dramatic increase in autism in recent decades. We don’t have particularly good explanations for it. Surely it’s something we should be thinking about more. Yeah. So again, I don’t think vaccines lead to autism. I do think it’s the sort of question that it would be healthy if we were allowed to ask a little bit more than we are. And of course, we just went through this crazy exercise with the COVID epidemic where we somehow cut off skepticism so prematurely so many times where not only was the skepticism healthy, but the skeptics were right.Questions beget questionsPolite society lectures people like Mullin for even raising a question about autism prevalence while uttering the word “vaccine” in the same breath.But Mullin’s question — what is causing the high prevalence of autism in the U.S. compared to recent history and other developed countries — raises another question: Why don’t we have a satisfactory, science-based answer for the sharp rise in autism?Today, the rise of autism is attributed to greater societal awareness of autism and improvements in diagnostics. This explanation implies that autism was always prevalent but previously went unrecognized and was misunderstood because of societal and cultural norms.Like Thiel, I find this explanation unpersuasive. But we owe it to our children and our children's children to find a satisfactory explanation and course-correct if we can.The journey to finding that answer must include asking difficult questions — not shutting down anyone who dares question the dogmas of “scientific truth.”

Donald Trump may have won the presidency, but Dr. Naomi Wolf isn’t resting on her laurels. Rather, the author of “The Pfizer Papers” is continuing her fight for freedom and truth while exposing the corrupt relationship between Big Pharma, health care, and the United States government. However, her eyes weren’t always so open. “I certainly, in the pandemic, saw that the people I’d voted for turned out to be horrible tyrants,” Wolf tells Rick and Bubba of “Rick and Bubba University.” “They censored me when I was trying to warn women accurately about damage to their fertility from the Pfizer injection.” “I got deplatformed and ousted from that world,” she explains, noting that a successful lawsuit led by attorney Aaron Siri led to the release of Pfizer documents that opened her eyes even further. “450,000 internal documents released under court order that the FDA had asked the court to keep hidden for 75 years,” Wolf says. “It turns out the FDA was waving through the biggest crime against humanity in recorded history, and you know, more investigations on our team's part found that the White House knew.” “There was a massive collusion by the very people I’d voted for, in ushering in an injection about which they lied to us, that was sterilizing and disabling and killing people in massive numbers,” she adds. “Did you just find it strange that we rushed this in? Was the need and the panic by the public for an answer part of this that forced us to jump through so many hoops so fast?” Bubba asks. “I was hoping when I went into this project that that’s what I would find. Just the usual story of greedy corporations cutting corners, rushing to meet a deadline, because of a putative, epidemic, emergency. That’s not what the Pfizer papers reveal,” Wolf answers. “Unfortunately, they reveal months and months and months and months before the vaccine was rolled out, in which Pfizer was identifying many, many ways to injure, damage, and destroy the functions of the human body with, again, a special focus on reproduction,” she continues, adding, “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.” Want more from Rick and Bubba?To enjoy more legendary comedy, political arguments, and lessons in common sense, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The contentious campaign for one of Pennsylvania's seats in the U.S. Senate is finally over after Democratic incumbent Bob Casey called Republican challenger Dave McCormick to concede. Republicans accused election officials in several Pennsylvania counties of trying to subvert the election by illegally counting votes in the recount. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with Republicans, but some officials indicated that they would ignore the ruling and continue. 'When a Pennsylvanian takes the time to cast a legal vote, often waiting in long lines and taking time away from their work and family, they deserve to know that their vote will count. That’s democracy.' On Thursday, 16 days since Election Day, Casey conceded the election. "I just called Dave McCormick to congratulate him on his election to represent Pennsylvania in the United States Senate. As the first count of ballots is completed, Pennsylvanians can move forward with the knowledge that their voices were heard, whether their vote was the first to be counted or the last," he said in a video posted to social media. McCormick issued a brief response. "Senator Bob Casey dedicated his career to bettering our commonwealth. Dina and I want to extend our sincere gratitude to Senator Casey, Terese, and their family for their decades of service, hard work, and personal sacrifice," he said. The official count of votes gave McCormick a lead of about 16,000 votes over Casey, which added up to a margin of just under .5%. That narrowly fell within the cut-off point for a recount, though critics said it was unlikely to overturn the official results given historical trends. "When a Pennsylvanian takes the time to cast a legal vote, often waiting in long lines and taking time away from their work and family, they deserve to know that their vote will count. That’s democracy," Casey concluded. The National Republican Senatorial Committee had called Casey's attorney in the matter a "scumbag" as the controversy continued. The seat will give Republicans a 53-47 majority in the next session of the U.S. Senate. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Motherhood is the foundation of all civilization. A movement determined to dismantle society would inevitably target women’s femininity to disrupt the natural male-female dynamic, leaving behind an androgynous, gender-blurring culture that struggles to reproduce itself. In other words, the culture we largely see today. This explains why the far left is so fixated on advancing the “women in combat” agenda and why Trump’s nomination of Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense has left leftists furious and discombobulated.The media’s predictable criticism of Hegseth’s credentials, persona, and ideology began the moment Trump selected him to lead the Pentagon. However, the most surprising aspect of the backlash was the intense outrage directed at one of Hegseth’s less prominent beliefs. NBC News published a dramatic headline that read: “Pete Hegseth’s remarks about women in combat are met with disgust and dissent.”As society debates protecting female-only spaces from male intrusion, perhaps it’s also time to re-evaluate the invasion of women into traditionally male spaces.The “disgusting” comments came up during a podcast Hegseth appeared on last week. During the episode, he made what the left apparently considers the most scandalous claim imaginable. Hegseth said the military “should not have women in combat roles” and argued that “men in those positions are more capable.”Pass the smelling salts.It’s astonishing that, of all the “controversial” opinions Hegseth has expressed over years of cable news appearances, his opposition to sending women into the most grueling and physically punishing roles has drawn the most outrage. Dozens of hit pieces and angry responses from Democrats have focused on this position.Follow the scienceIn today’s post-truth society, it might shock some to hear that women’s bodies are not designed to endure the physical demands of jobs that permanently injure even the strongest men. While debates about the physical toll of military roles often fixate on upper-body strength, the anatomical differences between men and women extend far beyond muscle mass and genitals.Women’s wider thigh bone angles align their legs — from the knees to the ankles — in a way that makes them more vulnerable to stress and injury. This structural difference subjects women’s knees to more pressure, contributing to significantly higher rates of ACL tears among female athletes compared to their male counterparts. Additionally, women’s ACLs are not only smaller, but the intercondylar notch in the femur, where the ACL passes through, is also narrower, further increasing their susceptibility to injury.Why would national policy automatically treat men and women as equals in combat roles? While popular culture may glorify “girlbosses” who strive to prove a point and criticize those who oppose “their right to serve,” the reality remains unchanged: Women face a greater risk of injuries, which can compromise their performance and unnecessarily endanger combat units. This is not speculation but established science.In 2015, as the Obama administration pressured military branches to open all combat roles to women, the Marine Corps, under Gen. Joseph Dunford, conducted an extensive study to evaluate the impact of mixed-gender infantry units. The months-long study, which cost $36 million, compared the performance of all-male units to mixed-gender units. Unsurprisingly to those outside elitist political circles, the study found that mixed-gender units were not just a net liability — they were an absolute liability.Here are some key findings, according to a summary of the report:All-male teams outperformed mixed-gender teams in 69% of tasks, excelling in 94 out of 134 assignments.In every tactical movement, all-male teams moved faster than mixed-gender teams, particularly when carrying heavy crew-served weapons. This trend was consistent across all military operational specialties.All-male teams demonstrated superior accuracy across all weapons systems, including male Marines trained as infantrymen and those from non-infantry MOS roles participating in the testing.Male teams outperformed integrated teams in routine combat tasks. For example, male Marines easily tossed their packs over an eight-foot wall, while female Marines frequently needed assistance. During mock casualty evacuations, all-male teams worked significantly faster unless using a fireman’s carry, where male Marines often carried the evacuee.The study found major differences in anaerobic power and capacity. The top 25% of female Marines overlapped with the bottom 25% of males for anaerobic power, and the top 10% of females matched the bottom 50% of males for anaerobic capacity.Female participants experienced notably higher injury rates and fatigue levels compared to their male counterparts. In the Infantry Training Battalion, women sustained injuries at six times the rate of men.The Marine Corps report highlighted that even the strongest and most skilled female Marines, all graduates of the Infantry Training Battalion, struggled to match the performance of their male counterparts. Combat requires the most resilient and physically capable individuals, which is why placing women in infantry units defies logic.The results revealed that while a few exceptional women might possess the ability to serve in infantry roles, they would still lag their male peers. This disparity could slow down units or create unnecessary risks for themselves and others.Unfortunately, military leaders ignored these findings. As efforts to integrate women into combat roles intensified, reality began to catch up. By 2021, the Army faced significant challenges, including a staggering 65% failure rate among female recruits on its gender-neutral Army Combat Fitness Test.None of this should come as a surprise. As a 1992 report from the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces correctly observed:Unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.Why is the left so obsessed with women in combat?At first glance, the left’s obsession with placing women in combat seems uncanny, given its general disdain for military service and criticism of so-called toxic masculinity. Social engineering to promote women over men in professional settings might align with their goals, but brute warfare?When viewed through the lens of the transgender agenda — which seeks to unravel the natural distinctions between masculinity in men and femininity in women — the push for women in combat begins to make sense. This agenda aims to extinguish feminine energy in a generation of young women, fostering a childless, confused society where men no longer understand how to approach or regard women. Hyper-masculinizing women has stifled their innate nurturing tendencies over the past two generations.The left has groomed an entire generation to believe it’s normal to idolize women cosplaying as warriors. But this is no less absurd than men competing in beauty pageants. In both cases, some individuals might blend in at first glance, but closer inspection reveals the disconnect. Neither scenario aligns with biological realities, and both ignore the long-term consequences for a society that has lost sight of what it means to be a woman.This context explains why the loudest criticism of Pete Hegseth isn’t about his broader political views, his stance on Ukraine, his military strategy, or even his position on abortion. Instead, critics focus on his belief, shaped by his combat experience, that women should be protected and cherished as nurturers of future generations — not thrown into the blood-soaked chaos of the battlefield. As society debates protecting female-only spaces from male intrusion, perhaps it’s also time to re-evaluate the invasion of women into traditionally male spaces.

Bob Casey Jr Finally Concedes to Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania Senate Race

Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida AG Pam Bondi for Attorney General