Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said this week that the Chinese are buying up farmland near U.S. Military bases so that they can have launch areas for drones to spy on the bases. Cruz made the remarks during the most recent episode of his “Verdict” podcast with co-host Ben Ferguson. “There were multiple Chinese spy balloons, and the Biden administration didn’t bother to tell anyone about them,” Cruz said. “Until finally some ranchers in Montana spotted this one and they got outed on the internet. Were it not for that, we wouldn’t even know about this one. They kept it secret that the Chinese had been sending spy balloons over U.S. airspace, over U.S. military bases. They’re engaged in active espionage against us.” “The Chinese are buying up land and they’re claiming they’re buying it up for farming or ranching, but it allows them to set up reconnaissance sites that allows them to install tracking technology, to use radar, to use infrared scanning, and to view the bases, and from there, to attempt to fly drones over the bases and engage in surveillance,” he later added. “And I gotta say, it is insane that we are allowing the Chinese to do this, this should be illegal, we should not allow the Chinese Communists to buy land anywhere near our bases.” He said that Democrats have resisted countering China’s buying up of land around U.S. Military bases because “today’s Democrat Party is structurally pro-China.” Cruz said that the party’s major stakeholders — big business, big tech, big Hollywood, big universities — are all in bed with China. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP WATCH: China Buying Farmland NEXT to U.S. Military Bases to Spy on us, plus Alvin Bragg RELEASED the anti-Israel Protestors who Took Over Columbia. Don’t miss this special video episode of Verdict ? pic.twitter.com/kGQwSAt3Za — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 24, 2024

According to a recently unsealed court document, a trans-identifying Biden official was allegedly behind the push to remove age limits from the official care standards for transgender procedures. The document in question, unsealed as part of Boe v. Marshall — a case challenging the Alabama law banning certain gender transition-related treatments and procedures — was titled “Appendix A To Supplemental Expert Report Of James Cantor, Ph.D.” In the document, Cantor — a Canadian sex researcher — claimed that trans-identifying Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Rachel Levine pushed for the age restrictions to be removed from any official guidelines. “Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Rachel Levine strongly pressured WPATH leadership to rush the development and issuance of SOC-8, in order to assist with Administration political strategy,” Cantor wrote of the changes to World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s Standards of Care Version 8 — which omitted previous age recommendations. The document also included evidence — in the form of communications between WPATH members — that pointed back to Levine as the source of pressure. Most suggested that Levine, born Richard Levine, was pushing to do away with any age limits that could make it easier for states to restrict access to transition-related puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and even surgeries. “I have just spoken to Admiral Levine today, who—as always is extremely supportive of the SOC 8, but also very eager for its release—so to ensure integration in the US health policies of the Biden government. So, let’s crack on with the job!!!” one read. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Another stated, “I am meeting with Rachel Levine and her team next week, as the US Department of Health is very keen to bring the trans health agenda forward.” Sarah Boateng, who is Adm. Levine’s chief of staff [said the] biggest concern is the section below in the Adolescent Chapter that lists specific minimum ages for treatment, she is confident, based on the rhetoric she is hearing in DC, and from what we have already seen, that these specific listings of ages, under 18, will result in devastating legislation for trans care. She wonders if the specific ages can be taken out and perhaps an adjunct document could be created that is published or distributed in a way that is less visible than the SOC8, is the way to go. The issue of ages and treatment has been quite controversial (mainly for surgery) and it has come up again. We sent the document to Admiral Levine … She like [sic] the SOC-8 very much but she was very concerned that having ages (mainly for surgery) will affect access to health care for trans youth and maybe adults too. Apparently the situation in the USA is terrible and she and the Biden administration worried that having ages in the document will make matters worse. The WPATH members reportedly responded to Levine’s concerns by saying that it was too late in the game to make such changes, but somehow, when the new guidelines were published, the age recommendations had been omitted.

Our spouses' dreams can become our dreams, and our dreams can be theirs.

Getting into medical school is tough. You need top grades and test scores to stand out. But fret not, aspiring physician! This guide is packed with practical strategies to help you conquer both your GPA and MCAT, whether you’re a fresh-faced pre-med or a seasoned student ready to launch your application. Here’s how to transform […]

'A threat'

'And the purpose of it is obviously political'

If Democrats seek to swap out President Joe Biden for another candidate on the Nov. 5 ballot, they’ll face legal challenges, according to an analysis by The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project.  That’s because a patchwork of state laws determines what a political party must do to substitute someone else as a presidential nominee.  “If there is a freezing moment or something very consequential that happens at the debate, the likelihood goes up,” Mike Howell, executive director of the Oversight Project, told reporters Tuesday.  https://t.co/ifTNCjpRVD— Oversight Project (@OversightPR) June 24, 2024 CNN will host a 90-minute debate Thursday night between Biden and former President Donald Trump.  “There is not a political exception that if you’ve been trying to cover up the fact that your candidate has been declining rapidly to the extent that you are even invoking executive privilege to hide an audio tape … you just get to supersede all of the election integrity rules that exist in the various states,” Howell told reporters.  Special counsel Rober Hur’s report on Biden’s possession of classified documents from his years as vice president and senator characterized him as “elderly” and “struggling” with memory loss. The Biden administration invoked executive privilege to block release of audio recordings of his two interviews last fall with the special counsel. The Oversight Project is part of a multiparty lawsuit by CNN and other news outlets, as well as watchdog groups, to access the audio recordings of the Biden interviews.  More recently, Biden had a wandering incident at the G7 summit in Italy and also appeared to freeze onstage at the end of a Los Angeles fundraiser and be physically guided away by former President Barack Obama (who Biden served as vice president for eight years).  If delegates to the Democratic National Convention were to nominate another candidate for president in August, it might not affect relevant state laws, said Sam Dewey, counsel for Heritage’s Oversight Project.  “There are two separate questions. One is who gets the party’s nomination. The second is ballot access,” Dewey told reporters. “You can be nominated by a party and not necessarily have access to a ballot. We are seeing that right now with attempts by the DNC to keep Robert Kennedy, RFK Jr., off the ballot. It’s separate. Just being nominated by a party doesn’t get you on a ballot.” Dewey continued:  Even if at the convention, superdelegates and a bunch of [other] delegates get together and said, ‘We’re not doing this, we’re subbing in the vice president [for Biden], we’re subbing in Hillary Clinton,’ pick whomever, that wouldn’t at all speak to what [our] memo was addressing, which was access to ballots. That’s an entirely different question. If someone drops out, that frequently is litigated.   The Oversight Project sent a memo on substituting candidates to top election officials in all 50 states for their review.  Battleground states such as Georgia and Nevada have procedures under which a presidential candidate may withdraw from the balllot. Wisconsin allows it to occur only in case of death, according to the memo.  “Important caveats include the timeline and triggering events,” the Oversight Project’s memo says, adding: For example, some states allow withdrawal before the 74th day before an election, and failure to adhere to these timelines can result in the candidate’s name remaining on the ballot (which provides its own corollary of post-election litigation).  Likewise, the rationale for withdrawal (death, medical, or other) can be outcome determinative. Some states, like South Carolina, do not allow withdrawal for political reasons. Limited case law exists on swapping out political candidates on a ballot, the memo notes. And at least 31 states defer to state or national party rules and nominating committees in the event of a candidate’s withdrawal. “These states circumvent the substitution process highlighted above,” the Oversight Project’s memo says. “There may be some avenues for challenges to these laws on improper delegation grounds, however, these may be marginally beneficial.” For its part, the Biden White House has denied that the president has had any mental or physical problems barring his seeking a second four-year term. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre argued that recent videos unflattering to Biden were “cheap fakes.” First lady Jill Biden has said her husband is a great president “because” of his age. The post If Democrats Want to Drop Biden, They Might Have to Contend With These State Laws appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Democrats Rally Around DA Bragg After Decision to Drop Charges Against Columbia Vandals

Uri Berliner, NPR Whistleblower, Joins The Free Press

President Joe Biden entered office with the attitude of not letting the powerful COVID-19 crisis go to waste. The pandemic was the perfect cover to unfold his coordinated censorship regime.  MRC Free Speech America recently detailed the seven censors of Biden’s federal government. Sitting atop that censorship regime, however, is the Biden White House, which attempted to push nearly every major Big Tech company to censor Americans in the name of “safety” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden, his Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Census Bureau worked alongside Meta and Google, and in the case of the White House, Twitter and Amazon as well, to push their desired narrative about the COVID-19 vaccines. In its recent report, MRC outlined seven federal entities that have worked to censor American citizens’ free speech. These include: the Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, The National Science Foundation and Department of the Treasury. But there are two others that bear mentioning: The White House itself and the Department of Commerce. The White House House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has released a plethora of reports revealing the Biden administration’s relentless requests for social media companies to censor COVID-19 and vaccine-related content online. In February 2021, Facebook began coordinating with the Biden White House to censor disfavored opinions related to COVID-19. According to an internal email from Facebook, these topics included the theory that COVID-19 was a man-made virus; that the virus leaked from a lab in China; and other allegedly “false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, and vaccines in general.” In an email to Mark Zuckerberg, a Facebook employee revealed that Facebook's censorship of these opinions was prompted by pressure from the Biden White House. Jordan’s Facebook Files summarized that “the Biden Administration pressured the companies to censor true information, satire, memes, opinions, and Americans’ personal experiences.” The committee report explained that “internal July 2021 Facebook emails obtained by the Committee and Select Subcommittee show that Facebook understood that the Biden White House’s position as wanting ‘negative information on or opinions about the vaccine’ removed as well as ‘humorous or satirical content that suggests the vaccine isn’t safe.’” The Biden administration even went so far as to ask platforms to remove specific accounts. For example, internal communications at Twitter show that during one of the first meetings the White House had with the platform, it asked why Twitter had not censored COVID-19 vaccine critic Alex Berenson. In another internal note, Lauren Culbertson, then Twitter’s Head of U.S. Public Policy recounted that “The Biden Team was not satisfied with Twitter’s enforcement approach as they wanted Twitter to do more and to deplatform several accounts.” Culbertson further added, “They were very angry in nature.” The YouTube Files similarly show the White House pushing the Google-owned video platform to censor. On July 20, 2021, Rob Flaherty Digital Director of the White House, emailed the YouTube public policy team a tweet from CNN fact checker Daniel Dale that showed his algorithm was presenting him with “anti-vaccine content.” The White House responded confrontationally: “We had a pretty extensive back and forth about the degree to which you all are recommending anti-vaccination content. You were pretty emphatic that you are not. This seems to indicate that you are. What is going on here?” And in August, the White House asked how YouTube was “planning to promote” the Pfizer vaccine, which at the time had been just approved. In September 2021, YouTube worked with the White House to change its policies to remove content that questioned vaccines.  The most recent release of Jordan’s Amazon Files further revealed that Amazon buried 43 book titles offering information and criticism of vaccines in general. Many of the books were written long before the COVID-19 pandemic even began.  Department of Commerce via The U.S. Census Bureau The U.S. Census Bureau entered the censorship game by piggybacking off of the CDC’s obsessive control over the COVID-19 narrative, according to Louisiana Chief District Judge Terry A. Doughty’s Murthy v. Missouri July 4, 2023 court ruling. MRC Free Speech America research utilizing our exclusive CensorTrack database was cited in the complaint for the Murthy v. Missouri case.  “The CDC entered into an Intra-Agency Agreement (“IAA”) with the Census Bureau to help advise on misinformation,” Doughty wrote. “The IAA required that the Census Bureau provide reports to the CDC on misinformation that the Census Bureau tracked on social media.” Facebook had been cooperating with the CDC Director for the Division of Digital Media Caroline Crawford, the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services in their efforts to guide the platform on what speech to censor relating to COVID-19.  Crawford received biweekly CrowdTangle reports showing the top COVID-19-related content on Facebook, in January 2021. She made Census Bureau officials privy to these reports. She reportedly said that the Bureau “was asking for regular meetings with platforms, specifically focused on misinformation,” according to Doughty’s ruling.  Prior to a weekly meeting with Facebook, Crawford even sent a PowerPoint of types of content that the CDC and the Census Bureau sought to censor. “This is a deck Census would like to discuss and we’d also like to fit in a discussion of topic types removed from Facebook,” Crawford reportedly said.  “The ‘deck’ the Census Bureau wanted to discuss contained an overview of ‘Misinformation Topics’ and included ‘concerns about infertility, misinformation about side effects, and claims about vaccines leading to deaths,’”” Doughty wrote. “For each topic, the deck included sample slides and a statement from the CDC debunking the allegedly erroneous claim.”  The Bureau prepared similar slide decks for the “COVID BOLO” [Be on the lookout] meetings it arranged for Facebook with the CDC. These meetings were reportedly an effort to “be sure credible information was out there and to flag information that the CDC thought was not credible for potential removal,” according to Doughty. Each meeting “included five ‘hot topics’ (for example, vaccine shedding, death reports in the VAERS database, and various side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines) with a BOLO note for each topic.” The Bureau and the CDC even held at least one meeting with Google/YouTube on similar topics in March 2021. The ruling further notes that when the Bureau asked for more meetings with the company, Crawford “followed up with Google about using their “regular 4 p.m. meetings” to go over things with the Census. Although misinformation was not the primary topic of conversation in these meetings, they did indeed discuss misinformation.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.