Authored by Marrjorie Dannenfelser via RealClear Wire,

At the State of the Union address this week, President Biden and the Democrats intend to leverage a tragic situation involving a woman who suffered a medical emergency during her pregnancy in order to advance their own abortion agenda. My heart goes out to this mother and any other mother experiencing a similar situation. It is heartbreaking to lose a child under any circumstances. But while President Biden exploits this tragedy for political gain, one critical piece of information you won’t hear during his address is that all state pro-life protections have provisions to protect mothers experiencing medical emergencies.

Unfortunately, Biden and the Democrats think it is more politically expedient to scare women into believing they cannot access the care that they need than to roll up their sleeves and help the majority who want to parent. Peer-reviewed research found nearly 70% of post-abortive women describe their abortions as inconsistent with their own values and preferences, with one in four describing their abortions as unwanted or coerced. What are Biden and the Democrats doing to address this epidemic? They are peddling ever more abortion for any reason, past the point at which unborn children can feel pain and indeed at any time during a pregnancy. Theirs is North Korea and China-style abortion policy – and it utterly fails to align with the compassion and aid Americans desire for women facing difficult pregnancies.

Meanwhile, the pro-life community has quietly built a vast network of charitable organizations across the nation that exist to address the needs of pregnant women who want to keep their babies but lack resources. In 2022 alone, pregnancy resource centers met with clients over 16 million times and delivered services with an estimated total value of at least $358 million. They saw almost 975,000 new clients and provided pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, parenting education programs, baby diapers, wipes, formula, clothing, and much more – all at no cost. These pregnancy resource centers not only meet the material needs of women, they can quite literally save their lives.

That is what happened in the case of survivor Jean Marie Davis, who had been trafficked for nearly three decades in 33 states when an unintended pregnancy became the impetus for her escape. With no money and running from a pimp who was trying to kill her, Jean Marie had almost nowhere to turn. After endless calls, she was finally connected to a pregnancy resource director who changed everything. Jean Marie ultimately escaped a life of drugs, violence, and serial abuse, without sacrificing the son she loves, and today she helps women in similar circumstances by running a pregnancy resource center of her own.

Hundreds of maternity homes across the nation also provide pregnant women in need with long-term housing and the material, medical, educational, and emotional resources to transform their lives and live their dreams. Rachel already had a young child, but her partner had turned abusive toward her, and then she found out she was pregnant again. She knew for the sake of her children she had to leave but had no vehicle and nowhere to turn until she found a maternity home which agreed to help. That home provided a safe and loving environment – plus all the resources Rachel needed to heal and thrive. While there, she pursued her education in the medical field and is now a registered nurse working at a local hospital. 

Now if Biden and the Democrats have their way, the charitable organizations that stepped in to help Jean Marie, Rachel, and the countless other women who come to them because they want to keep their children would no longer exist. From overt calls to “shut them down,” to an HHS proposal to revoke any public funding for these centers, to the DOJ’s refusal to protect them from the massive wave of disturbing pro-abortion violence post-Dobbs, the message is clear: For Democrats, abortion is the only option.

While the president and Democrats say they care about women, their actions speak otherwise.

Marjorie Dannenfelser is president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and author of “Life is Winning: Inside the Fight for Unborn Children and Their Mothers.” 

On Wednesday we reported on the deadly Houthi missile strike on the MV True Confidence, a Liberian-owned vessel, in the Red Sea. The attack resulted in the first fatalities since the Houthi campaign against international shipping began in reaction to the Israeli offensive in Gaza. Three sailors tragically died while the rest of the crew abandoned the stricken vessel as it was on fire.

The UK embassy in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa, confirmed on X: “At least two innocent sailors have died. This was the sad but inevitable consequence of the Houthis recklessly firing missiles at international shipping. They must stop.” A statement by US Central Command later increased the death toll to three.

The vessel’s owners and operator had said it was drifting 50 nautical miles southwest of Aden. True Confidence Shipping and Greece-based operator Third January Maritime Ltd said in a joint statement “The vessel is drifting” and that there the ship had no current connection with any US entity. However, the Indian Navy responded and was able to rescue several crew members, captured in a dramatic video below:

Video of #India’s Armed Forces saving the crew of the TRUE CONFIDENCE that was attacked by the #IRGCterrorists-backed #Houthis yesterday. pic.twitter.com/yR5mMczzCh

— Jason Brodsky (@JasonMBrodsky) March 7, 2024

Reuters has confirmed Thursday that “India’s navy evacuated all 20 crew from a stricken vessel in the Red Sea on Thursday, after a Houthi attack killed three seafarers in the first civilian fatalities from the Yemeni group’s campaign against the key shipping route.”

The vessel’s owners have contacted and expressed condolences to the families. Two of the deceased were Filipino nationals, while the third was Vietnamese.

The Indian Navy conducted a daring helicopter rescue from a small life raft in choppy waters. According to more from Reuters, “Some wounded were shown lying in the bottom of a navy lifeboat sent to assist.”

“They were carried on stretchers onto the ship and were shown later with heavily bandaged limbs as they were evacuated to the Djibouti hospital,” the report continued.

CENTCOM photo showing the vessel on fire and drifting following a direct hit by Houthi missile…

The owners and managers further said in the statement: “The vessel is drifting well away from land and salvage arrangements are being made.” However, even salvage efforts will be high risk at a moment these waters off Yemen come under daily Houthi drone and rocket attacks.

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) accused Special Counsel Jack Smith of election interference in a complaint filed with the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) inspector general on Wednesday.

In a letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Mr. Gaetz asserted that Mr. Smith’s resistance to delaying a trial stems from an unspoken drive to hold it before the upcoming November presidential election.

Last week, former President Donald Trump’s lawyers and Mr. Smith’s office filed motions requesting different trial dates in the classified documents criminal case in Florida. President Trump’s lawyers have argued that a fair trial cannot be held in an election year when he is the leading Republican candidate.

“The witch hunt against President Trump by Attorney General Garland and Special Counsel Smith is a partisan exercise, and the American people know it!” Mr. Gaetz wrote on X (formerly Twitter).

“Jack Smith’s attempt to speed up the trial against President Trump violates the DOJ’s rules and the law,” he continued. “His public comments and his office’s briefs before the Supreme Court demonstrate that he has no reason for his actions other than to unlawfully interfere in the 2024 presidential election.”

In his letter, Mr. Gaetz pointed to statements by Mr. Smith in court filings where he has urged a “rapid” review of the case and stressed its “public importance.” This, according to the Florida congressman, shows that the case is an attempt at election interference.

“Were there a legitimate, non-election related purpose for this request, these attorneys, who have filed in appeals courts many times, would have listed such,” Mr. Gaetz wrote (pdf).

“Since charges have been filed and the defendant himself is taking a legal position on timing and lodging various appeals, that justification cannot, for example, be the rights of the defendant under the Constitution or Speedy Trial Act,” he continued.

President Trump’s legal team made a similar argument last month, writing in a court filing that Mr. Smith was twisting “into logical knots” in his argument against delaying the trial.

“The Special Counsel’s latest filing raises a compelling inference of a political motive—the motivation to influence the 2024 Presidential election by bringing the leading Republican candidate to trial before November 5, 2024,” President Trump’s lawyers wrote.

Mr. Gaetz argued in Wednesday’s letter that Mr. Smith’s apparent rush to trial raises questions about compliance with DOJ policy. According to a 2022 memo issued by Attorney General Merrick Garland, law enforcement officers and prosecutors are prohibited from taking actions that could impact elections.

The memo cites the DOJ’s Justice Manual, which has also been highlighted by President Trump’s legal team. The manual sets clear guidelines against using investigative steps, public statements, or criminal charges for electoral advantage.

Citing legal scholars, including Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith, Mr. Gaetz suggested in his letter that the rush to trial lacks a constitutional or statutory rationale, indicating a possible political motivation. Mr. Goldsmith, in an article referenced by Mr. Gaetz, questions the need for speed in the case and raises concerns about the consequences of such haste.

Mr. Gaetz accused Mr. Smith of violating the law by trying to expedite the case in court.

“It is the core of prohibited conduct that a purpose (not the purpose) of any official action of a prosecutor be to affect any election,” Mr. Gaetz wrote. “It may be morally correct that the American people should see swift resolution of this case, perhaps with dropped charges or a Trump acquittal before the November 2024 Presidential election, but wielding Executive Branch authority in the service of this is a violation of law. Prosecutors must be held to a higher standard.”

Mr. Gaetz urged Mr. Garland to conduct an immediate investigation into potential violations of departmental regulations by Mr. Smith.

The Epoch Times contacted Mr. Smith’s office for comment.

Last week, Mr. Smith’s office requested a new trial date of July 8. On the same day, attorneys for the former president asked for a delay of the trial until after the 2024 election or, alternatively, for it to be held on Aug. 12.

President Trump’s attorneys have argued that the U.S. Constitution affords him the right to run for president, engage in political speech-making protected by the First Amendment, and participate in legal proceedings, a right protected by the Sixth Amendment.

President Trump is accused of violating the Espionage Act through unauthorized possession of national defense information, as well as conspiring to obstruct justice and making false statements.

China’s top diplomat on Thursday hit out at Washington’s “bewildering” trade policy during the much anticipated annual Foreign Minister’s briefing held during the ongoing “two sessions” gathering of China’s rubber stamp legislature.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi charged that the US is “devising various tactics to suppress China” and described that its “lengthening” unilateral anti-Beijing sanctions list is now at “bewildering levels of unfathomable absurdity,” according to Bloomberg.

China has been pushing and touting high-tech development, but this is amid significant barriers erected by Washington. Wang questioned on trade between the world’s two largest economies, “If it gets jittery whenever it hears the word China, where is its confidence as a major country?”

He continued to lash out at the United States by saying, “If it only wants itself to prosper, but denies other countries legitimate development, where is international fairness? If it persistently monopolizes the high end of the value chain and keeps China at the low end, where is fairness and competition?“

The over four hour-long engagement with reporters on a wide array of topics is a rare moment of the year where the foreign ministry can articulate the country’s foreign policy vision directly to reporters.

However, the briefing is typically highly choreographed, and so there’s deep significance in the fact that the first foreign reporter to be called upon for a question was a Russian state media journalist.

Wang praised robust Russian trade ties with China, which have increased in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine over two years ago. China-Russia trade reached a historic high of $240 billion, smashing President Xi and Putin’s target of $200 billion which had been set in a 2019 agreement.

“Russian natural gas is fueling numerous Chinese households and Chinese-made automobiles are running on Russian roads,” Wang in the press conference. “All this shows the strong resilience and broad prospects of China-Russia mutually beneficial cooperation.”

“China and Russia have forged a new paradigm of major country relations that differs entirely from the obsolete Cold War approach on the basis of non-alliance, non-confrontation and not targeting any third party,” he emphasized.

On the question of the Ukraine war, Wang once again urged peace talks and called on all parties to avoid “unthinkable” escalation.

China’s FM Wang Yi with 4 straightforward questions for the US, in the context of the bill to ban TikTok, the semiconductors sanctions on China, and the multiplication of banned Chinese products in the US (EV cars, port cranes, etc.)pic.twitter.com/CG1CnQSHyT

“If the US says one…

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) March 7, 2024

On the issue of rising tensions in east Asian regional waters, which was just this week on display in the South China Sea with a collision incident between Chinese and Philippine Coast Guard vessels, he warned outside powers (of course primarily meaning the US) to not interfere and avoid provocations.

“In the face of deliberate infringement, we will take justified actions to defend our rights in accordance with the law. In the face of unwarranted provocation, we will respond with prompt and legitimate countermeasures,” Wang asserted. “We also urge certain countries outside the region, not to make provocations, excite or stir up troubles.“

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Imposing restrictive lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic led to higher excess mortality in such nations while also damaging their economies, according to a recent Swedish study.

Published in the Economic Affairs journal on Feb. 11, the study—which looked at the health and economic effects of COVID-19 lockdowns in Sweden—found that its less restrictive COVID-19 policies led to lower excess mortality compared to many European nations that imposed stronger lockdown rules. Sweden also suffered a lower negative impact on gross domestic product (GDP) growth during the pandemic period.

Many policymakers made two key mistakes, researchers concluded.

“First, they introduced lockdowns that were too stringent and had negligible positive health effects despite the evidence available at the time pointing toward the limited benefits of such broad measures.

“Second, they responded to the downturn in economic activity with fiscal and monetary policies that were excessively expansionary.”

Researchers looked at the excess mortality in Sweden between January 2020 and July 2022, comparing it to other European nations in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) group.

“Sweden and the other Nordic countries had among the lowest cumulative excess mortality rates of all European countries towards the end of the sample period,” they found. “Countries such as Finland and Norway, with the lowest average lockdown rate, show the lowest excess mortality, actually displaying a negative excess mortality rate.”

“Sweden, which lagged behind other countries in March 2020 in introducing lockdown measures and then largely had an average lockdown rate, has one of the lowest cumulative excess mortality rates towards the end of the pandemic.”

Nations that imposed more stringent lockdown measures didn’t have a lower excess mortality rate, the study said.

For instance, school closures were likely an “inefficient policy” since kids were “relatively mildly affected by Covid-19 and were not a major source of the spread of the virus.”

Of the 20,000 deaths in Sweden during the pandemic, only 21 people younger than the age of 19 years died even as all primary schools remained open throughout the pandemic, the study noted.

Economic Implications

Among economic effects, a “clear negative pattern” was observed in GDP growth rates between 2019 and 2021.

“Countries with a higher lockdown rate displayed poorer economic growth.”

Sweden was found to be doing better than others.

“Sweden, with an average lockdown rate of 39 for 2020–21, shows a weak cumulative GDP growth of 3 percent during the two years 2020–21. Compared with an average annual pre-pandemic growth rate of 2.6 percent, the Swedish economy lost approximately one year of growth,” the study said. However, “countries with a higher lockdown rate lost between one and three years of economic growth.”

“In other words, the Swedish economy took a hit as a result of the pandemic, but it was nevertheless possible to maintain a positive growth rate by avoiding the more severe lockdown measures applied in other countries.”

Lockdown measures also had a fiscal impact. Sweden’s budget deficit due to COVID-19 restrictions was less than 3 percent of its GDP. Nations with more stringent lockdown measures had a higher deficit. For instance, the United Kingdom had a budget deficit of 27 percent, Italy 17 percent, and France 16 percent.

After the pandemic, Sweden had a debt-to-GDP ratio of 36 percent at the end of 2021, just slightly higher than the 35 percent before the pandemic. By the end of 2022, that had declined to 34 percent.

By contrast, France’s debt-to-GDP ratio after the pandemic was higher than what Greece encountered in 2009 at the beginning of the European debt crisis.

“The unprecedented expansionary fiscal measures may have been necessary to support businesses and households through the pandemic and the lockdowns,“ the study said. ”However, the fiscal cost of these measures became exceedingly high in those countries that opted for a higher lockdown rate.”

Researchers recommended that any response to a pandemic crisis in the future “should focus on the long-term perspective” as well.

“We are not all dead in the long run—many have to live with the consequences of the pandemic crisis response. It is essential that crisis policies do not cause more harm than good.”

The research was conducted by Frederick N.G. Andersson and Lars Jonung, two professors from Lund University in Sweden.

Mr. Andersson is a macroeconomist specializing in long-term economic transitions. Mr. Jonung is a professor emeritus at the Department of Economics in the university and served as chairman of the Swedish Fiscal Policy Council during 2012-13.

Litany of Lockdown Harms

Other studies also have detailed lockdown-related harms.

A report published by the Centre of Social Justice (CSJ) think tank last year found that the COVID-19 pandemic was the “dynamite” that blew open the “gap between those who can get by and those stuck at the bottom” in the United Kingdom.

“During lockdown: calls to a domestic abuse helpline rose 700 percent; mental ill-health in young people went from one in nine to one in six; and nearly a quarter amongst the oldest children; severe school absence jumped by 134 percent,” it said.

In addition, “1.2 million more people went on working-age benefits; 86 percent more people sought help for addictions; prisoners were locked up for more than 22 hours per day, and a household became homeless every three minutes.”

In an interview with Bill Maher last year, Scott Galloway, a marketing professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, acknowledged that his decision to push for harsher lockdown policies during the COVID-19 pandemic was wrong.

“I was on the board of my kids’ school during COVID. I wanted a harsher lockdown policy, and, in retrospect, I was wrong. … The damage to kids from keeping them out of school longer was greater than the risk.”

Mexico submitted an official reply to the United States in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade dispute about importing genetically modified (GM) corn. Mexico argued that the herbicide glyphosate in the corn is unsafe for human consumption. Corn plays a vital role in the Mexican diet, particularly as the primary ingredient for tortilla flour.

In a written submission to a USMCA panel, Mexico, the top buyer of US corn, used science to show how GM corn and Glyphosate harm human health. This has given Mexico the authority to ban GM corn for human consumption. 

The submission outlined policies aimed at safeguarding consumers against the potential health effects of GM corn, asserting that these measures would have minimal trade impacts on US farmers.

Here are the most critical parts of Mexico’s submission (list courtesy of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (ITAP)): 

• The scientific evidence of GMO safety presented by the US is out of date, much of it from industry studies not supported by peer-review. According to Mexico, the US did not present any peer-reviewed study showing it safe to eat large quantities of GM corn exposed to Glyphosate in minimally processed form over a lifetime. Mexico makes the case that the US regulatory process is not stringent enough ensure that products are safe for Mexicans to consume at high levels. 

• On public health, the submission details that GM corn, especially Bt corn engineered to kill insect pests, can have adverse impacts on non-target animals. Mammals have been shown to suffer damage to their digestive systems from a GM trait that kills its targets by attacking their guts. 

• Mexican tortillas have been proven to be contaminated with GM corn and Glyphosate, the latter in residues from treatments of GM corn engineered to tolerate the herbicide featured in Roundup. Mexico shows that even low-level exposures can have negative long-term health impact. 

Mexican Deputy Agriculture Secretary Victor Suarez told Reuters:

The United States “argues that the decisions in Mexico are not based on science and that their decisions are … But we still haven’t seen the science of the United States or the companies. We are looking forward to that study with great pleasure.”

Karen Hansen-Kuhn, IATP’s director of trade and international strategies, wrote in a statement: 

“We welcome this vigorous defense of Mexico’s programs to transform its food system. The science they present backs up longstanding civil society campaigns for healthy foods and biodiverse agricultural systems. There’s a lot here that could contribute to more substantive debates on our food and agriculture system in the US, as well.” 

IATP Senior Advisor Timothy A. Wise said: 

“Ever since Mexico first announced its intentions to limit GM corn and glyphosate in its tortilla chain, the US government has asserted that Mexico’s policies are not based on science.” 

Wise continued:

“This comprehensive response refutes that claim, presenting hundreds of academic studies that show cause for concern about human health and the threat to native corn diversity.”

Agri-chemical companies like Bayer have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing GM crops for worldwide export out of the US. They also spend tens of millions of dollars in defending GM foods. 

Meanwhile, Glyphosate is banned or limited in at least 25 countries and some areas within the United States. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared Glyphosate a probable human carcinogen. 

Maybe Mexico is right. Question the chemicals in the food. 

Are GMO foods the reason why there are more increased celiac and gluten sensitivity cases?

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

In a rare collectors moment, CNN took time Tuesday to give Donald Trump credit regarding illegal immigration, admitting that the US does “have a problem,” at the border and that Biden has “made the problem worse.”

While the comments came from Republican strategist Brad Todd, it’s the kind of admission that would never have aired while the likes of former CNN grinning clown Brian Stelter were at the helm on the network.

Todd told other CNN panelists that the “out of control” southern border will be the “pull and push” of the 2024 election.

“I think the fact that the border’s out of control and the Biden administration has made the problem worse is what’s the bigger problem,” Todd said, adding “The key portion of this electorate, I mean people who may not always like the way Trump talks or his choice of words, that they don’t like the way Joe Biden’s policies acted. Immigration is gonna be number one on that. Immigration and crisis both.”

“Can the Biden campaign demonstrate that in fact they’re gonna take a new direction on immigration and on the economy? They’re gonna move more to the center. Or can Trump convince voters to look past some of the rhetoric they don’t like?” Todd further posited.

One of the CNN anchors then attempted to steer the conversation toward criticising Trump, but first admitted:

“You can make the case that the immigration system is broken, I don’t think many people will argue about that.”

“The numbers of illegal immigrants, encounters on the border is what’s gonna drive the election. It’s not gonna end up being about Donald Trump’s rhetoric. It’s gonna end up being about the numbers under Joe Biden and the realities American citizens are seeing in cities across the country,” Todd further urged.

While claiming Trump is exaggerating the border crisis, CNN senior political commentator Ana Navarro nevertheless admitted we do have a problem,” adding  “And the problem is that there’s countries like Cuba, like Venezuela — which he can’t pronounce — like Nicaragua, and Haiti. Three of those are ruled by left-wing dictators who are anti-American.”

Watch:

In a rare collectors moment, CNN took time Tuesday to give Donald Trump credit regarding illegal immigration, admitting that the US does “have a problem,” at the border and that Biden has “made the problem worse.” Report here: https://t.co/hxNFoBm2qK pic.twitter.com/XjKjuQoveL

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) March 6, 2024

While it was hardly Trump friendly, it’s something that MSNBC talking heads refused to even acknowledge as a reality. Indeed they mocked the idea that illegal immigration is a concern for American voters.

Earlier in their broadcast, CNN also admitted that Trump has taken full control of the Republican Party, and that his sweeping Super Tuesday primary wins demonstrate that “He has remade the party in his image.”

“There are still some Republicans who are trying to take it away, like take it back. That’s over. That party doesn’t exist anymore,” one CNN analyst noted.

CNN also carried Trump’s full speech Tuesday night, while MSNBC refused to air it, with extreme TDS sufferer Rachel Maddow declaring it would be “irresponsible” to do so.

*  *  *

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.

Last week, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele told a packed audience at CPAC that gender theory is an blight on society, and said he believes that it’s “important that the curriculum doesn’t [include] gender ideology and all these [other] things,” adding “parents should be informed and have a say in what their children are going to learn.”

Following his comments, El Salvador’s Ministry of Education announced that it will stop teaching gender theory to children.

“Confirmed: we have removed all traces of gender ideology from public schools,” Minister of Education José Mauricio Pineda told El Pais.

Bukele, 42, won his re-election bid with 84% of thevote, while his Nuevas Ideas (New Ideas) party is now the primary political force in the country. They have widespread support of the Salvadorian population, which is in alignment on issues such as gender theory and sex education.

According to Pineda, “every use or trace of gender ideology” has been “removed from public schools.”

Salvadorian feminists are of course screeching over the decision.

“Bukele is a messianic figure, a patriarchal leader… a [paternalistic] president who watches over us and who [seems to think that he’s] anointed by God,” said human rights activist Celia Medrano, in a statement to El Pais. “He’s a highly conservative man with a very clear tendency to manipulate religion [in favor of] the message that women have to be kept at home.”

Meanwhile in Argentina, President Javier Milei is on a similar mission to undo years of feminist policies – demoting the Minister of Women, Gender and Diversity to the level of undersecretary, and announcing that the government will prohibit so-called ‘inclusive’ language and “anything related to the gender perspective” in the administration.

The country’s 144 telephone line for victims of gender-based violence, and shelters created for them, were recently eliminated as part of recent budget cuts.

In response, feminist movements will be out in force on March 8, International Women’s Day.

Beyond El Salvador and Argentina, in Columbia, voters rejected a peace agreement between the Santos government and FARC guerillas – because among other things, the agreements included a push for equality between men, women, LGBTQ+ and other ‘diverse’ identities.

The rejection that took place at the polls that October had been brewing for months. Evangelical and Catholic groups, with the support of former president Álvaro Uribe’s party, had taken to the streets that summer to protest against the government’s “indoctrination in gender identity” due to its guidelines on sexuality.

…

María Fernanda Cabal, the leading senator of the most radical right wing, is a firm defender of these theses. She repeated the phrase: “Gender ideology is disgusting.” –El Pais

One of the earliest leaders to reject DEI and gender ideology  was former President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro – whose government attempted to eliminate gender perspective in schools, only to be struck down by the country’s Supreme Court as being unconstitutional.

That said, Bolsonaro’s head of cultural policy did veto ‘inclusive language’ from projects seeking tax beneffits, and the former president himself mocked the Argentine government after Alberto Fernández insisted on using such language in his official commnications.

“How does that help your people? The only thing that has changed is that now there are shortages, poverty, and unemployment. May God protect our Argentine brothers and help us get out of this difficult situation,” he said.

El Pais also notes Chile and the “ultraconservatives of Mexico” as opposing gender ideology.

“Let’s recover the language, no more cultural deformation,” said Chilean Republican Party under José Antonio Kast during his first presidential run ahead of the country’s 2021 elections. “the so-called inclusive language is part of a political-ideological agenda, and not a cultural agenda. We are going to strengthen the correct use of language, with no forced imposition of its deviations or discrimination of any kind.”

In short, Latin America has led the charge in rejecting the woke revolution.

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

A civil rights group is suing Alabama for allegedly implementing illegal racial quotas in appointments to the Alabama Real Estate Appraisers Board (AREAB).

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey speaks during a news conference in Montgomery, Ala., on July 29, 2020. (Kim Chandler/AP Photo)

The lawsuit comes after Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) issued a report last year showing that as many as 25 states enforce race or sex-based quotas for public board appointments. PLF said there were 63 board mandates for race or sex-based appointments across the country.

Promoted by vocal activists, “these mandates threaten the individual right to equality before the law, and without action, the problem is likely to worsen,” the report said.

AREAB, which was created in 1990, licenses and regulates real estate appraisers in Alabama.

Its nine members are appointed by Alabama’s governor.

But state law imposes racial criteria on appointments: at least two board members have to be members of a racial minority group.

There is currently one opening on the board for a public member, and state law requires the governor to consider race when appointing a person to fill that post.

“Such blatant racial discrimination against individuals who could otherwise sit on AREAB serves no legitimate government purpose,” according to the new legal complaint (pdf) in American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) v. Ivey that was filed last month in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.

“It is demeaning, patronizing, un-American, and unconstitutional,” added the complaint.

The plaintiff, AAER, describes itself as “a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) membership organization dedicated to challenging distinctions and preferences made on the basis of race and ethnicity.” AAER is headquartered in Austin, Texas.

The defendant, Gov. Kay Ivey, is being sued in her official capacity as Alabama’s governor.

The Republican governor was served with the legal complaint on Feb. 26, according to court documents. Judge R. Austin Huffaker Jr., who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, has been assigned to the case.

AAER’s president Edward Blum said his group is suing the state because “there are unfortunately dozens of government boards and commissions that exclude people because of their race or ethnicity. No one’s race should be used to include them, or exclude them, from service on government boards.”

Mr. Blum is also the founder of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). SFFA was a litigant in SFFA v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, a 2023 Supreme Court decision that struck down the use of racially discriminatory admissions policies at U.S. colleges.

AAER states in the legal complaint that it has “members who are qualified, ready, willing, and able to be appointed to AREAB, including Member A, a citizen of Alabama who supports public service and property rights and has applied for the vacant public member position on AREAB.”

However, because Member A is not a member of a racial minority group, she is not eligible for the vacant position, the complaint said.

AAER said it is bringing this lawsuit under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “to ensure that every qualified citizen in Alabama has the equal right to serve on AREAB and to ensure that Alabamians are regulated by a board whose members are not selected on the basis of race.”

“So long as this racial quota remains in place, members of the [AAER] who are not racial minorities will never receive equal consideration for openings on AREAB.”

AAER is seeking a declaration from the court that the policy is unconstitutional and an injunction blocking its enforcement.

Glenn Roper, a senior attorney at PLF, which is representing AAER, said, “It’s wrong for the government to make offensive assumptions about people’s experiences and qualifications based on race. And it’s unconstitutional to exclude some citizens from public service with arbitrary race quotas.”

The public isn’t even aware of these racial restrictions in Alabama and other states, which is why PLF released its report on race and sex-based quotas in effect for public board appointments, the lawyer told The Epoch Times.

The quota at AREAB is “unfair and it makes no sense to exclude people from public service because they don’t meet some racial requirements.

“There’s nothing about real estate appraising, or the history of the real estate appraisal industry in Alabama, that requires having racial minorities be [involved in] regulating. That shouldn’t even be a consideration when deciding who to put on this board.”

Mr. Roper said he was optimistic about the case.

“Because racial considerations require the government to satisfy strict scrutiny, I think we have a very strong case, that’s a high bar for the government to clear. Really, they can’t meet either of the prongs. There’s no compelling interest in forcing racial minorities on the board.

“And then even if there was, they haven’t narrowly tailored it like the Supreme Court requires,” he said.

The attorney was referring to the strict scrutiny test that courts use when reviewing legislative or executive branch enactments that have a bearing on constitutional rights. A government interest is deemed compelling when it is essential or necessary, as opposed to a matter of preference, choice, or discretion.

Just last year in the Harvard affirmative action case, the Supreme Court emphasized how stringent the test was and how “we’re not just going to accept the government’s say-so, so they’ve got to provide solid evidence when they want” to consider race-based government policies, Mr. Roper said.

The Epoch Times reached out to the AREAB for comment but had not received a reply as of publication time.

The Long Beach Unified School district in California is funneling money to a progressive activist group which is paying students $1,400 each to become racial and social justice warriors.

The district paid $900,000 for a one-year contract to Californians for Justice (CFJ), a “youth-powered” non-profit that pushes racial justice ideology on children, the Free Press reports.

Of that, $60,200 was allocated to pay 33 students and 10 families or parents $1,400 each to participate in CFJ’s training programs.

According to the contract, the program exists to “provide assistance to teachers, administrators and selected students in building strategies to support cultural understanding and change.”

On CFJ’s website, the group claims to have “trained hundreds of youth of color in Long Beach to be community leaders and organizers,” adding that it “provides leadership development opportunities throughout the school year and summer to ensure our youth leaders gain the political education and valuable organizing skills they need to lead social justice movements.”

“It’s so fun! You get paid good, you can have a fun time,” one of the students posted recently to Instagram.

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Californians For Justice (@cal4justice)

A spokesman for the Long Beach School District framed the paid program as “internships” which are to ensure “equitable participation in CFJ programs, embracing diverse perspectives in education.” Quite diversity word salad there.

Teachers have serious concerns

Four teachers from the Long Beach district voiced concern over the program, with one telling the Free Press that paying kids to participate is a “horrible propaganda strategy.“

“I am shocked and horrified at such a fact,” another teacher told the outlet.

Interestingly, one of CFJ’s major donors is a descendant of Levi Strauss – the Walter Haas fund. Other donors include the Rockefellers, an the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.

One major donor is a descendant of Levi Strauss, Walter Haas fundhttps://t.co/fsIlNiHVfs

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) March 7, 2024

According to the report, Long Beach has paid CFJ nearly $2 million since 2019 to work with them. In 2021, the organization ran three professional development seminars in Long Beach high schools, during which participants were encouraged to embrace the role of “student voice,” and to “advance a district wide Equity Agenda” in conjunction with teachers and admins, the 2021-2022 contract read.

Per the latest contract, CFJ will be hosting 15 more of these trainings during the 2023-2024 school year.

One teacher told the Free Press on condition of anonymity that the workshops have become open forums for students to complain.

“The way that they are handing scripts to students, even the words coming out of the students’ mouths it just feels like indoctrination and not information,” she told the outlet.

Another teacher, Jay Goldfischer, agreed – saying “They’re teaching them parroting,” adding “which is the exact opposite of how you empower children.”

CFJ defended itself in a statement to the Free Press, saying “Our agenda is not hidden and is simple: we want the Long Beach Unified School District to be a place where every student is represented honestly in classrooms and curricula, and where they are safe to be in critical dialogue supportive of democratic participation across differences.”