Reports are circulating on social media suggesting that the phrase “cute winter boots,” used by some radical leftists on the Chinese-owned platform TikTok, is code for advocating violence against “cis” people and supporters of President Donald Trump. 

“Thousands of radical Leftists are currently organizing on TikTok to disguise themselves, protest, and k*ll Trump, Republicans, CEOs, and “cis” people Users are obfuscating bans with phrases such as “cute winter boots” Videos reference Luigi Mangione’s “Deny. Defend. Depose,” X user Ashley St. Clair said. 

Thousands of radical Leftists are currently organizing on TikTok to disguise themselves, protest, and k*ll Trump, Republicans, CEOs, and “cis” people

Users are obfuscating bans with phrases such as “cute winter boots”

Videos reference Luigi Mangione’s “Deny. Defend. Depose.” pic.twitter.com/mEzIA62qLe

— Ashley St. Clair (@stclairashley) January 23, 2025

Ashley continued, “Some organizers are calling this Project Mayhem 2025 and using key words such as “Taylor Swift” and other major pop culture references to hide insert videos into the algorithm.” 

Some organizers are calling this Project Mayhem 2025 and using key words such as “Taylor Swift” and other major pop culture references to hide insert videos into the algorithm pic.twitter.com/BCj9MiOBdc

— Ashley St. Clair (@stclairashley) January 23, 2025

Deranged leftists posted videos with “Cute Winter Boots” embedded within the video, while discussing political objectives… 

Remember when I told you about the “cute winter boots” revolution the left is starting? Now they’re showing each other how to conceal using swimming goggles and t-shirts. Are you frightened yet? pic.twitter.com/Y60IKE88om

— Blue State Refugee (@BSRefugee) January 25, 2025

Due to this Red Flag Alert, on TikTok the phrase “cute winter boots” has emerged as a code for discussing sensitive political topics, in an attempt to bypass censorship of their plans to purchase weapons. pic.twitter.com/V7lysU0KVh

— Stella (@clairdestella) January 25, 2025

@DirectorICEgov you need to put out a statement letting these people know “ cute winter boots “ will get you in a lot of trouble on TikTok

They are helping aliens getaway, many more videos pic.twitter.com/RNVhbj013E

— kokobaby (@goddesskokodom) January 24, 2025

As I reported earlier, the latest deranged leftist trend on TikTok, disguised under the code “cute winter boots,” has escalated to encouraging people to buy guns to target ICE agents, share their locations, and spread information about protests against deportations and the… pic.twitter.com/fjBOqrTUVj

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) January 25, 2025

This “cute winter boots” trend is going around, it’s code for evading ICE and other nefarious deeds.

I think it might backfire. pic.twitter.com/PDflLrEl58

— Dr. Jebra Faushay (@JebraFaushay) January 25, 2025

TikTok has tons of videos recently about “cute winter boots.” Anyone know any more about this?
What’s happening Jan 29th? @realchasegeiser @HarrisonHSmith @RealAlexJones @libsoftiktok @ChuckCallesto pic.twitter.com/WNYdlOqxTM

— Skin Diesel (@RiseUpOhio) January 25, 2025

This #cutewinterboots Antifa meltdown is funny. Anyone in Denver? They’re meeting up. Lol pic.twitter.com/ee1fmB0wjg

— Rose (@rosesrroses9) January 25, 2025

Liberals are losing it again 🤣
The new code word on TikTok “cute winter boots” actually stands for how to fight back against ICE etc.
This influencer wraps a T-shirt around her face and head 🤣🤣
I can’t. pic.twitter.com/pWg22AS2HM

— Red_StateRebel (@red_staterebel) January 26, 2025

A TikTok user responded to one leftist: “tips.fbi.gov, your IP has been documented.” 

Another TikToker with text in a video that read “cute winter boots” raged against Elon Musk.

Meanwhile, X user Andy Ngo reported the possibility of a “trans terror cell” operating in the US. 

There appears to be a trans terror cell in the U.S. involved in serial killings. The Vermont @CBP U.S. Border Patrol officer shot dead on Inauguration Day was the fourth known victim.

You know I hate sensationalism but I can’t escape the evidence I’m seeing. https://t.co/dmZPcYFdur pic.twitter.com/vY53N2Z73J

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) January 27, 2025

The phrase “cute winter boots” has surged in Google searches nationwide.

Related queries include “winter boots TikTok,” “winter boots meaning TikTok,” and “what does cute winter boots mean.”

Meanwhile, team “steel toe” TikTokers responded to liberals:

This guy is hilarious! He has a message for anyone wearing those “cute winter boots”! Lol 😆😂 pic.twitter.com/YTJns7Yxi3

— 🕊 𝓐𝓷𝓷 𝓲𝓼 𝓡𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽 🕊 𝐗𝐋𝐕 (@Ann_Lilyflower) January 27, 2025

Heres your #CuteWinterBoots 😎
🤣😂🤣👏🙌 pic.twitter.com/n88H8A6MS8

— Wendy (@CreeksideMaven) January 25, 2025

Confidential law enforcement sources confirm that the “FBI is aware” of the “cute winter boots” phrase circulating on TikTok.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Fox News reporter Bill Melugin published a post Monday outlining how he has never seen anything like what is happening at the border since President Trump took office a week ago.

“Per sources, Border Patrol recorded just 582 illegal crossings at the southern border yesterday, with not a single one of the nine sectors hitting 200. I’ve never seen anything this low in all of my border coverage,” Melugin urged.

He continued, “The numbers were already flat/low in Biden’s final week, bouncing between 1,200-1,400 illegal crossings daily, but the numbers have been falling off a cliff since Trump took office.”

Melugin further breaks the numbers down, noting “To put this into perspective, at the height of the border crisis in December 2023, Border Patrol hit a record high 11,000+ illegal crossings across the border in a single day, with the Del Rio sector alone getting 4,000+”

“I’m told there were 582 illegal crossings across the southern border yesterday, with only 60 happening in the Del Rio sector,” Melugin revealed.

“And there are no longer 1,500+ migrants being released at ports of entry via the CBP One cell phone app every single day, as Trump immediately terminated the program,” he added.

“It’s still very early – we’ll see if these incredibly low numbers hold, especially heading into spring,” Melugin concluded.

Would you believe it, it turns out that enforcing the law at the border actually works!

NEW: Per sources, Border Patrol recorded just 582 illegal crossings at the southern border yesterday, with not a single one of the nine sectors hitting 200.
I’ve never seen anything this low in all of my border coverage. The numbers were already flat/low in Biden’s final week,…

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) January 27, 2025

Wow! The numbers are cratering. Glad to see this. I bet they will go even lower!

— Kellie L. Aldrich (@two_bysea) January 27, 2025

Because we are allowing the border patrol to do their job. Plus we have the U.S. Military on the border.

— Louis Montoya (@montoyalouis1) January 27, 2025

As we highlighted, Trump is deploying active duty troops to the border to assist Border Patrol.

He has also mulled reassigning IRS agents to the border to assist with security.

The encounters figures are unprecedented:

So, we got fewer illegals sneaking in ’cause Trump threw a bunch of soldiers at the border. Coincidence? I think not. It’s like saying, “Hey, wanna cross? Meet our new friends in camo!”

— Panther (@PantherCat10) January 27, 2025

Turns out all the Biden Cartel needed to do to stop the border invasion was do their actual job.

— Texas Boomer (@marklindesr) January 27, 2025

How is it that the previous administration couldn’t do any of what Trump is doing?

This is absolutely incredible.

A reminder that Joe Biden said he needed an act of Congress to do EXACTLY what Trump is doing all by himself…

— Matt Van Swol (@matt_vanswol) January 27, 2025

Which means the previously wide open border was a choice by our government.

— AdamInHTownTX (@AdamInHTownTX) January 27, 2025

They allowed it, didn’t want to stop it! More of the plan to fundamentally change America !

— CYNTHIA FANNING (@CYNTHFANNING) January 27, 2025

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

It’s often said that “elections have consequences.” More than a dozen Department of Justice lawyers can testify that truth, having been mass-fired by the Trump administration on Monday over their participation in pressing two federal criminal cases against Trump. 

“Acting Attorney General James McHenry made this decision because he did not believe these officials could be trusted to faithfully implement the President’s agenda because of their significant role in prosecuting the President,” an anonymous DOJ official told Politico, declining to name the newly-departed. All of them worked under special counsel Jack Smith, who resigned earlier this month, knowing Trump had promised to terminate him. 

The fired lawyers found out via electronic messages sent from McHenry on Monday afternoon. Instead of telling the lawyers they’d been terminated for cause, the notices pointed to Trump’s constitutional power over personnel under Article III. At the same time, however, McHenry did cite a “cause”: 

“Given your significant role in prosecuting the president, I do not believe that the leadership of the department can trust you to assist in implementing the president’s agenda faithfully.” 

Under special counsel Smith, the lawyers fired on Monday brought charges against Trump for alleged unlawful retention of classified documents and alleged interference with the transfer of presidential power following the 2020 election. The documents case was nixed by a judge who said Smith’s appointment was illegal. Smith himself asked a court to withdraw the transfer-of-power case after Trump won in November. 

The firings drew howls from Trump foes, including Obama ethics counsel Norm Eisen, who said the firings are illegal in light of legal protections for career federal workers. “These are spurious terminations. The grounds are a hodgepodge of disinformation and distortion of facts and law,” he told Politico. “This will almost certainly trigger litigation and likely will be met with extreme judicial skepticism.” The termination messages informed recipients, that they may have a right to file an appeal with the US Merit Systems Protection Board within 30 days. Some observers contend that the termination notices themselves will lend strength to any appeals: 

Here’s the money line in the acting AG’s letter firing the prosecutors who worked on the Trump case. Leadership does not trust you in “implementing the president’s agenda.” DOJ supports and defends the Constitution, not the president’s agenda. pic.twitter.com/VP0kY0vpb1

— Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) January 27, 2025

The dumping of Trump’s persecutors was just the latest step in a broader, post-election purge at DOJ. Last week, multiple top officials at DOJ’s Executive Office of Immigration Review, which oversees the country’s immigration courts, were pointed to the door. Nearly two dozen more were reassigned. 

Acting AG McHenry is keeping DOJ’s top chair warm for Trump nominee Pam Bondi, who merrily pummeled Democrats in her Jan. 15 confirmation hearing. Drawing a contrast with what the country witnessed during Biden’s term, Bondi vowed that “no one will be prosecuted [or] investigated because they are a political opponent.” Her next step is a vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee which has yet to be scheduled.

Meanwhile, DOJ employees are feeling like they’re on the wrong end of a shock-and-awe campaign. “It feels like a non-violent war. It’s just wild,” one career DOJ employee told Politico. “People are just in a state of shock and devastated. It’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen … Nothing that happened during the first Trump administration came anywhere close to this.”

Looking at the wreckage, one former DOJ official summed up the picture like this:

“It’s got to be among the most demoralizing moments in the history of the Department of Justice. It is a flat-out purge of individuals who this administration must view either of suspect loyalty or have worked on matters they just did not like. We are in the early phases of what to me is just looking like a wholesale, politically-inspired demolition of the Department of Justice in key places.”

The former official surely didn’t intend for it to sound so wonderful.

President Donald Trump on Monday announced that the construction of a “state-of-the-art Iron Dome missile defense shield” will begin “immediately,” and will be made “right here in the USA 100%.”

Speaking at a Republican dinner in Florida while commending the recent confirmation of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Trump confirmed after landing at Joint Base Andrews that he’d signed four executive orders on the plane – including one for the Iron Dome.

The other EOs include restrictions on transgender service in the military, and the termination of DEI at the Pentagon.

“Pete Hegseth, who’s going to be great, by the way… I think he’s going to be fantastic,” Trump said at the dinner. “I know him very well. I think he’s going to be fantastic.”

“He’s what we need, to immediately begin the construction of a state-of-the-art Iron Dome missile defense shield, which will be able to protect Americans,” Trump continued.

BREAKING: President Trump announces a slate of NEW Executive Orders

— Direct Defense Secretary to immediately begin the construction of an ‘Iron Dome’ system
— Get transgender ideology OUT of our military
— Stop service members from being indoctrinated with CRT
— Offer… pic.twitter.com/PVPe15M0DG

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) January 27, 2025

According to Fox News, Trump added that Americans “protect other countries, but we don’t protect ourselves,” noting that President Ronald Reagan was interested in such a system during the Cold War, but America “didn’t have the technology” at the time.

“And now we have phenomenal technology. You see that with Israel,” Trump continued. “So I think the United States is entitled to that. And everything will be made right here in the USA 100%.”

“We’re going next to ensure that we have the most lethal fighting force in the world.”

On Monday, the State Department said that a future Iron Dome is one of Hegseth’s many priorities.

“Other areas the secretary will study include reinstating troops that were pushed out because of COVID-19 vaccination mandates and developing an Iron Dome anti-missile system for the United States,” the statement read.

This wasn’t Trump’s first mention of an Iron Dome for the U.S. At the Commander-In-Chief inaugural ball on Jan. 20., Trump said that the project was on his radar.

“We’re also doing the Iron Dome all made in America,” Trump said. “We’re going to have a nice Iron Dome.” -Fox News

Last June Trump mentioned an Iron Dome on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in West Palm Beach: “We deserve a dome…it’s a missile defense shield, and it’ll all be made in America.”

Tucker Carlson has unleashed international controversy this week when in an interview with journalist Matt Taibbi, Carlson claimed that former Secretary of State Antony Blinken had pushed for a “real war” with Russia and that the Biden administration sought to “kill Putin.”

The former Fox News host described the plot as madness and insanity on the part of the prior Democratic administration. However, Carlson didn’t offer specifics or any evidence. Carlson stated firmly that the Biden White House “was pushing so hard for a real war, trying to kill Putin, for example… The Biden administration did [it], they tried to kill Putin.” Watch the clip with Carlson and Taibbi:

Tucker Carlson claims Biden administration “tried to kill Putin,” calling it “insane” but providing no details.

“Blinken pushed for real war, even trying to kill Putin.” pic.twitter.com/4c57j5FNbp

— Clash Report (@clashreport) January 28, 2025

Last February Carlson went to Moscow to interview Putin one-on-one, and it’s unclear whether the Russian leader may have conveyed some specific information at that time.

On Tuesday, the Kremlin responded to what was said in the Carlson interview, and the statements were cryptic and vague, neither confirming nor denying the claim of an assassination plot.

Below is a Russian media summary of the Kremlin response:

Russian President Vladimir Putin is well protected from any potential threats, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday. He was responding to a claim by American journalist Tucker Carlson that the administration of former US President Joe Biden planned to assassinate the Russian leader.

…The conservative journalist did not provide any details of the alleged plot. However, he denounced the purported plan as “insane,” considering the power vacuum it would create in Russia and the potential for Moscow’s vast nuclear arsenal to end up in the wrong hands.

Asked to comment on Carlson’s remarks on Tuesday, Peskov would neither confirm nor deny US attempts to target Putin, nor reveal any knowledge of such plans by officials in Washington in the past. “Russian security services continuously take all necessary measures to ensure public safety and the safety of those under state protection. First and foremost, the head of state,” he told reporters.

There was a past drone attack out of Ukraine which hit a building of the Moscow Kremlin complex. At that time it was seen as targeting Russian leadership, but it’s not clear that this episode is what Carlson had in mind.

Carlson seemed to be saying something more significant was afoot – that Washington was will to risk a ‘decapitation strike’ or operation, perhaps especially if something like a Russian nuclear launch was imminent or likely.

But if such a plan was an ‘option’ – it would be highly classified and the Biden admin wouldn’t want it to get out. If there had been such a secretive plot, it’s possible that President Trump could confirm or reveal it at a future date.

* * *

See more of Putin’s interview remarks here:

Zelensky presidency illegitimate even according to Ukrainian constitution, he can’t sign anything — Putin https://t.co/V6hupyFNec pic.twitter.com/vjDCAjX4Ak

— RT (@RT_com) January 28, 2025

Authored by Mark Mason via BitcoinMagazine.com,

Nasdaq has submitted a groundbreaking proposal to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that could transform the operational framework of Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs). The proposal, focused on BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), seeks to introduce “in-kind” bitcoin redemptions, offering a streamlined and cost-effective alternative to the current cash redemption process.

What Are In-Kind Redemptions?

Under the proposed system, institutional players known as authorized participants (APs) – responsible for creating and redeeming ETF shares – could opt to exchange ETF shares directly for bitcoin rather than cash. This innovation eliminates the need to sell bitcoin to generate cash for redemptions, simplifying the process while cutting operational costs.

While this option would only be available to institutional participants and not retail investors, experts suggest that the improved efficiency could indirectly benefit everyday investors. By reducing operational hurdles, in-kind redemptions have the potential to make Bitcoin ETFs more streamlined and cost-efficient for all market participants.

JUST IN: BlackRock files to allow in-kind creations and redemptions for its spot Bitcoin ETF! pic.twitter.com/SSigX4utRG

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) January 24, 2025

Why the Change?

The cash redemption model, implemented in January 2024 when spot Bitcoin ETFs were first approved by the SEC, was designed to keep financial institutions and brokers from handling bitcoin directly. This approach prioritized regulatory simplicity during the nascent stages of Bitcoin ETFs.

However, the rapid growth of the Bitcoin ETF market has created new opportunities to improve its infrastructure. With evolving regulations and a more mature digital asset ecosystem, Nasdaq and BlackRock now see a pathway to adopt a more efficient in-kind redemption model.

Benefits of In-Kind Redemptions

1. Operational Efficiency:

   • Reduces the complexity and number of steps in the redemption process.

   • Streamlines ETF operations, saving both time and costs.

2. Tax Advantages:

   • Avoiding the sale of bitcoin minimizes capital gains distributions, making ETFs more tax-efficient for institutional investors.

3. Market Stability:

   • Reduces sell pressure on bitcoin during redemptions, potentially stabilizing the asset’s price.

Regulatory and Market Context

Nasdaq’s proposal coincides with significant regulatory developments under the pro-Bitcoin Trump administration. Recent policy shifts, such as the repeal of Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 (SAB 121), have paved the way for broader cryptocurrency adoption. The removal of SAB 121 eliminated barriers that previously discouraged banks from offering cryptocurrency custody services, creating a more favorable environment for innovations like Nasdaq’s in-kind redemption model.

BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF: A Market Leader

Since its 2024 launch, BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin ETF has emerged as a market leader, with over $60 billion in inflows. The fund’s consistent growth highlights institutional demand for Bitcoin investment products. Innovations like Nasdaq’s in-kind redemption model could further enhance IBIT’s appeal to institutional investors.

BlackRock’s IBIT Inflows Since Launch. Source: Bitcoin Magazine Pro.

Note the consistent upward trend of green candles, reflecting strong and steady inflows.

Conclusion

Nasdaq’s proposal to introduce in-kind redemptions for BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF represents a pivotal moment for the Bitcoin ETF market. By simplifying redemption processes, offering tax efficiencies, and reducing sell pressure on bitcoin, the model stands to significantly enhance the appeal and performance of Bitcoin ETFs for institutional investors.

As the Bitcoin ETF market matures and regulatory support continues to grow, innovations like this are poised to drive further adoption. If approved, Nasdaq’s proposal could mark a critical step forward, solidifying Bitcoin ETFs as a cornerstone of institutional digital asset investment while indirectly benefiting retail participants.

With a favorable regulatory climate and growing institutional interest, the future of Bitcoin ETFs looks brighter than ever.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt provided much-needed transparency regarding the “dronegate” incident that sparked nationwide concerns over potential threats from China and Russia.

In a press conference on Tuesday afternoon, Leavitt said the drones spotted over New Jersey and New York in December had been authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration for “research purposes.” 

“An update on the New Jersey drones. After research and study, the drones flying over New Jersey in large numbers were authorized to be flown by the FAA for research and various other reasons. Many of these drones are hobbyist and recreational drones that enjoy flying drones,” Leavitt said during her press conference. 

She concluded on the drone subject: “This was not the enemy.” 

🚨 #BREAKING: Press Secretary Leavitt reveals the drones that were flown over New Jersey were AUTHORIZED by the FAA for “research purposes”

“This was not the enemy,” Leavitt says

WHY DID BIDEN LIE? WHY NOT JUST TELL US THAT? pic.twitter.com/rTTnOhdZHL

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) January 28, 2025

Drone gate appears to be a manufactured crisis that cluttered news feeds and headlines with nonsense.  

As we noted then: “NJ Drone ‘Invasion’ Just In Time For Congress To Reauthorize Orwellian Law” … 

NJ Drone ‘Invasion’ Just In Time For Congress To Reauthorize Orwellian Law https://t.co/6tLkbDAP8u

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 14, 2024

NJ Congressman Jeff Van Drew has some explaining to do: 

BREAKING REPORT – DRONES OVER NEW JERSEY ARE FROM IRAN: Congressman Jeff Van Drew claims Iran has stationed a “mothership” off the U.S. East Coast, reportedly launching drones now flying over New Jersey. pic.twitter.com/ayV8tYioXA

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) December 11, 2024

Hmmm.

My theory is the drones are part of the secret and classified Pentagon program “Replicator” where they are testing commercially made inexpensive drones, as well as testing counter-drone capabilities.

That’s why in the official narrative they can say that these drones are not… pic.twitter.com/u9b5jbsk6g

— Over the Target (@overtargets) December 14, 2024

Remember what Trump said earlier this month:

Trump Promises To Reveal What’s Going On With The Drones https://t.co/Y7lUcyF9dq

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 10, 2025

One X user commented on Leavitt’s press conference: “Seems like an easy thing to say out loud… Weird this was kept under such secrecy. Transparency is beautiful.” 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

For years, scientists and commentators who questioned COVID policies were censored, blacklisted, and canceled across the country. Many of these dissenting views have since been vindicated from the lab origins theory to the lack of efficacy of surgical masks to the opposition to the closure of schools. Now, a new study in the Journal of Infection further undermines the once orthodox views of the pandemic, concluding that “reopening schools did not change the existing trajectory of COVID-19 rates.”

In other words, we shut down our schools, without any demonstrable benefit to the country. We did, however, succeed in reducing free speech in the name of combating “disinformation.”

The report is based on one of the comprehensive studies to date on the pandemic:

“Data were extracted from government websites. Cases and COVID-19 hospitalization and death incidence rates were calculated during the Delta and early Omicron periods in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom, for two weeks preceding and six weeks after schools reopened. We summarized stringency of public health measures (GRI), COVID-19 vaccination rates by age and SARS-CoV-2 testing rates.”

In comparing these different countries, the scientists found no significant differences in reported cases: “No consistent patterns in cases, hospitalizations or deaths despite school re-openings or changes to public health measures,”

The suppression of the lab theory and the targeting of dissenting scientists show the true cost of censorship and viewpoint intolerance.

The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory.

In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.

Some experts questioned the efficacy of surgical masks, the scientific support for the six-foot rule and the necessity of shutting down schools. The government has now admitted that many of these objections were valid and that it did not have hard science to support some of the policies. While other allies in the West did not shut down their schools, we never had any substantive debate due to the efforts of this alliance of academic, media and government figures.

Not only did millions die from the pandemic, but the United States is still struggling with the educational and mental health consequences of shutting down all our public schools. That is the true cost of censorship when the government works with the media to stifle scientific debate and public disclosures.

Many still hope that Congress and the incoming Trump administration will conduct a long-needed investigation into the origins to allow for a more credible and open debate. That hope was increased by the nomination of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the organizers of the Great Barrington Declaration, to be the next head of the National Institutes of Health.

One of the most lasting costs was born by our children who have shown both educational and psychological harm from the shutting down of schools. The study confirms what dissenters said all along: there is no evidence that this was necessary or had any benefit to society:

“Our findings show that there were no consistent patterns to case, hospitalisation or death rates in each country or jurisdiction, irrespective of whether schools were open for onsite learning or changes to PHSM. School closures were adopted by many countries as part of a suite of PHSM but in the future should only be implemented where there is strong evidence of effectiveness. Predesigned and approved study protocols, along with scenario-based planning for schools are needed to prepare for the next pandemic. The negative consequences on child health and development are profound, so understanding the role of schools in SARS-CoV-2 transmission should be a priority for pandemic preparedness and response.”

In my recent book, I explore the suppression of dissenting voices in higher education as the true cost of censorship. The media joined the government, corporations, and academia in labeling these experts as extremists, conspiracy theorists or, in the case of the lab theory, racists. As a result, we never had a robust debate that might have curtailed the massive costs from the pandemic policies. It now turns out that it may have been these censorship advocates who were spreading disinformation in the name of combating disinformation.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed federal agencies, in a Jan. 27 memorandum, to suspend the distribution of grants, loans, and other financial assistance while the programs are under review.

A memo, from OMB Acting Director Matthew Vaeth, directs federal agencies to conduct a comprehensive analysis of all financial assistance programs to determine whether they are aligned with the executive orders signed by President Donald Trump after his inauguration on Jan. 20.

“In the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal,” it stated.

Vaeth stated in his memo that the pause will allow the government more time to review agency programs and determine the best uses of funding for those programs consistent with the law and Trump’s priorities.

The suspension will take effect at 5 p.m. on Jan. 28, but the OMB may allow exceptions for certain federal awards to be issued on a case-by-case basis, according to the memo.

The memo required agencies to submit by Feb. 10 detailed information on any programs and activities subject to the pause. Agencies will also need to identify “any legally mandated actions or deadlines” for assistance programs arising while the review is ongoing, it stated.

Democratic House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro and Senate Appropriations Committee vice chair Patty Murray sent a letter to Vaeth on Jan. 28 urging him to reverse the memo.

They raised concerns about Trump’s executive orders and said the OMB memo would result in “further disarray and inefficiency” by halting vast swaths of federal financial assistance to states and communities.

“The scope of what you are ordering is breathtaking, unprecedented, and will have devastating consequences across the country,” the lawmakers stated.

“We write today to urge you in the strongest possible terms to uphold the law and the Constitution and ensure all federal resources are delivered in accordance with the law.”

The lawmakers argued that the administration’s actions would lead to “far-reaching consequences” for nearly all federal programs and activities and could potentially jeopardize people’s financial security.

“The law is the law—and we demand you in your role as Acting OMB Director reverse course to ensure requirements enacted into law are faithfully met and the nation’s spending laws are implemented as intended,” they stated.

One of the executive orders referenced in Vaeth’s memo called for the removal of policies and programs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within the federal government. This order requires federal agencies to terminate all offices and positions related to environmental justice, as well as any equity-focused action plans, grants, and contracts within 60 days of the order’s issuance.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, called it “more lawlessness and chaos in America.”

More court battles are imminent, and Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James plans to ask a Manhattan federal court to block the Republican president’s moves.

“My office will be taking imminent legal action against this administration’s unconstitutional pause on federal funding,” she said on social media.

Among Trump’s presidential executive orders signed on inauguration day was a broad recission of 78 of Biden’s executive orders, many of which set out the former administration’s DEI agenda.

During his inauguration on Jan. 20, Trump said that he aims to “end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life.”

“We will forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based,” the president said in his address.

“As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the OMB for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Authored by Douglas French via The Mises Institute,

Peter Kalmus, a data scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and noted climate scientist, told the Bloomberg audience that the California fires are caused by the fossil fuel industry which produces products that, when used, heat the planet.

“It’s simply physics,” he said with certainty. 

Shawn Hackett of Hackett Advisors makes his living helping agriculture producers deal with climate change.

He told Ash Bennington on Real Vision, “the climate is always changing” because the other planets in our solar system change their rotations. He added that the sun isn’t producing sun spots as it did previously and that is creating volatile weather and will continue to until 2050.

The current spike in temperatures is from the Tonga Effect.

A one-in-a-thousand year VEI-6 Volcanic eruption happened on January 15, 2022, which pumped water vapor aerosol into the atmosphere. Record-high temperatures were predicted and that’s what has happened. But the Tonga Effect is receding.

Hackett reminds us that there was an awful drought in the 1930’s known as the Dust Bowl. Temperatures were above 100 degrees in Iowa for days on end. In the 1970’s, an ice age was predicted.

When asked if fossil fuels had anything to do with climate change, Hackett—who makes money from the insurance industry as well as Ag producers from predicting weather patterns—said, “We have not found a correlation between weather volatility and increases in CO2 concentrations.”

Hackett is open to changing his mind if presented with data indicating a correlation.

Not 50 years of data, but hundreds of years of data.

While TV commentators are wagging their fingers at the fossil fuel industry, Taylor Sheridan has provided a different point of view with “Land Man.”

The co-creator of “Yellowstone” has produced a show about the boom and bust of the oil business set in the Permian Basin. Visvesh Shivakumar summarized “Land Man” in a piece for meaww.com,

In ‘Landman’, Billy Bob Thornton portrays Tommy Norris, a crisis manager tackling the problems of the West Texas oil industry. The series, created by Taylor Sheridan and based on the ‘Boomtown’ podcast, shows us a subtle look at the petroleum sector. Rather than pushing a clear pro or anti-oil agenda, it attempts to depict both the human and industrial sides of the business.

The following monologue is indicative of Land Man’s greatness.

Looking up at huge wind turbines, attorney Rebecca Falcone (Kayla Wallace), who fancies herself an environmentalist, said to Tommy Norris (Billy Bob Thornton):

“Please, Mr. Oilman, tell me how the wind is bad for the environment?”

To which, Norris responded,

“You have any idea how much diesel will have to burn to mix that much concrete or make that steel and haul this s***t out here and put it together with a 450-foot crane? You want to guess how much oil it takes to lubricate that f*****g thing? Or winterize it? In its 20-year lifespan, it won’t offset the carbon footprint of making it. And don’t get me started on solar panels and the lithium in your Tesla battery.”

“If Exxon thought them f*****g things right there were the future, they would be put all over the goddamn place,” he added.

In the season finale on Paramount+, Tommy meets with Rebecca to prepare her to negotiate an oil drilling deal known as a farm-out. After Tommy explains what M-Tex oil is trying to accomplish and a quick overview of what fracking involves, she vents her environmentalist spleen.

“You understand, I don’t think anyone should be doing this, all right. I think [fracking] should be illegal.”

To which Tommy responds,

“Well, you should have run for Congress instead of getting a job with an oil company.”

“I just have a very hard time advocating for something I believe is wrong.”

“Says the lawyer. Good and bad don’t factor into this. Our great-grandparents built a world that runs on this s**t. And until it runs on something else, we gotta feed it or the world stops.”

After Tommy gets in his truck, he rolls down the passenger window and yells to her,

“Hey, there is an alternative. You can throw your phone away and trade in your Mercedes for a bicycle or a horse and start hunting for your own food and live in a tent. But, you’ll be the only one and it won’t make a damn bit of difference. Plus, I hear the moral high ground gets real windy at night.”

If you wonder if climate scientist Kalmus has decided to live in a tent and hunt for his own food, he has not.

Mr. Kalmus, writing recently in the New York Times about leaving Altadena, California after the Bobcat fire in 2020. “In 2022, my wife was offered a job in Durham, N.C., and we moved.”