Monday, October 2, 2023

Gavin Newsom Picks WOKE Lesbian Black Woman NOT FROM CALIFORNIA To Repla...

Thieves becoming experts at car hacking

Why No One Takes Antifa Seriously Anymore: Seattle Edition

Massachusetts native Dr. Drew Weissman shares Nobel Prize in medicine

9th Annual Breakthrough Prize Ceremony - Arrivals 

STOCKHOLM - The Nobel Prize in medicine was awarded to Massachusetts native Dr. Drew Weissman and Katalin Karikó Monday for discoveries that enabled the development of effective mRNA vaccines against COVID-19.

Thomas Perlmann, secretary of the Nobel Assembly, announced the award in Stockholm.

Weissman, 64, grew up in Lexington and graduated from Brandeis University in 1981. He graduated from Boston University in 1987 with an M.D. and Ph.D. in Immunology and Microbiology. He's currently a professor in vaccine research at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

Karikó, 68, is a professor at Sagan's University in Hungary and an adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Weissman performed his prizewinning research together with Karikó at Penn.

"The future is just so incredible," Weissman said. "We've been thinking for years about everything that we could do with RNA, and now it's here."

Karikó said her husband was the first to pick up the early morning call, handing it to her to hear the news. She then watched the announcement to make sure she wasn't being pranked.

"I was very much surprised. But I am very happy."

Karikó said she was the one to break the news to Weissman, since she got in touch before the Nobel committee could reach him.

The two have collaborated for decades, with Karikó focusing on the RNA side and Weissman handling the immunology: "We educated each other," she said.

The Nobel Prizes carry a cash award of 11 million Swedish kronor ($1 million). The money comes from a bequest left by the prize's creator, Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel, who died in 1896.

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Tennessee, Kentucky’s Bans On Cross-Sex Hormones, Puberty Blockers For Children 

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld Tennessee and Kentucky’s bans on gender-related medical interventions, such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender surgeries on children.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to reject a challenge to the laws from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and families of trans-identifying children.

“This is a relatively new diagnosis with ever-shifting approaches to care over the last decade or two. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for anyone to be sure about predicting the long-term consequences of abandoning age limits of any sort for these treatments,” wrote Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton.

The ACLU called Thursday’s ruling a “devastating result” and promised to take further action.

“The disastrous impact of Tennessee’s law and all others like it has already been felt in thousands of homes and communities. Denying transgender youth equality before the law and needlessly withholding the necessary medical care their families and their doctors know is right for them has caused and will continue to cause serious harm,” the ACLU said Thursday in a statement.

Daily Wire host Matt Walsh reacted to the ruling Thursday evening, calling it “huge.”

“This is huge. Our ban on child mutilation has been upheld. When we passed the bill, trans activists gloated that they would easily get it overturned in court. Who’s gloating now you child butchering ghouls?” Walsh posted on X.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti celebrated the ruling as well, posting on X, “Tennessee’s law that protects children from irreversible gender-related medical interventions remains in effect.”


Tennessee Representative Jason Zachary (R) called the ruling a “big win.”

“Protecting children is a priority in TN,” Zachary said.

Another state congressman, Representative William Lamberth (R), said Tennessee will “continue to lead the way” when it comes to “protecting our children.”

This is a huge win in the fight against a dangerous and extreme ideology that harms children and ruins lives,” Lamberth said.

A similar ban in Alabama was upheld by a federal appeals court last month. Bans in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Montana, and Indiana have been overturned.

Over the last few years, critics have sounded the alarm about the permanent effects of both gender hormone treatments and surgical procedures, especially on children.

Both puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones come with serious health risks. Puberty blockers can affect bone growth and density and cause sexual dysfunction, voice damage, and infertility, among other issues. Cross-sex hormones can cause infertility, deadly blood clots, heart attacks, increased cancer risks of the breasts and ovaries, liver dysfunction, worsening psychological illness, and other serious conditions.

The number of gender surgeries nearly tripled in the U.S. from 2016 to 2019, according to an analysis published Wednesday in JAMA Network Open. In 2016, there were about 4,550 procedures, and that number spiked to around 13,000 in 2019.

Hundreds of girls in the U.S., some as young as 12, have gotten elective, gender-related double mastectomies to remove their healthy breasts over the last few years.

Meanwhile, it is more popular than ever for youth to adopt new gender identities. An estimated 300,000 minors aged 13 to 17 identified as transgender as of last year.

Google Searches Favor Democrat Candidates in 2024 Presidential Race: Media Watchdog

The logo of Google at the Viva Technology conference dedicated to innovation and startups at Porte de Versailles exhibition center in Paris on June 14, 2023. (Gonzalo Fuentes/Reuters) 

Google’s search results on 2024 presidential candidates overlook Republicans and promote Democrats, according to an analysis by media watchdog MRC Free Speech America.

Between Sept. 20 and Sept. 25, MRC Free Speech America analyzed Google search results for three terms related to the upcoming elections—“presidential campaign websites,” “Republican presidential campaign websites,” and “Democrat presidential campaign websites.” The searches were made a week before the second Republican presidential primary debate, which was on Sept. 27.

It found that search results for “presidential campaign websites” were skewed heavily in favor of Democrats, with no notable Republican figures appearing on the first page.

When MRC searched for “Republican presidential campaign websites,” the websites of two candidates appeared on the first page of the search results—author Marianne Williamson, who isn’t a Republican and is running for 2024 as a Democrat, and former Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas), who’s polling at 0 percent as of Sept. 25, according to Morning Consult.

Top Republican candidates for the 2024 race don’t appear on the first page. This includes former President Donald Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, former Vice President Mike Pence, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

“These results are so outrageous,” MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider said. “Google is either the most incompetent search engine on the planet, or it’s intentional. This is not a coincidence.”

When MRC searched for “democrat presidential campaign websites,” President Joe Biden’s website appeared as the first result, with Ms. Williamson appearing in the second spot. However, the website of President Biden’s strongest Democrat challenger, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., didn’t appear on the first page.

MRC then did a third search, this time without mentioning the party of the candidate. For the term “presidential campaign websites,” Google’s first page showed President Biden’s website, Ms. Williamson’s website, and even the 2020 presidential campaign website of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Not a single Republican candidate appeared on the first page of the results.

MRC warned that conservatives “are under attack” and asked supporters to take immediate action.

“Contact Google at 650-253-0000 and demand it be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives,” it stated.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) criticized the allegedly biased Google search engine results.

“This is ABSURD. Blatant election interference,” he wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Sept. 28.

Pushing Liberal Viewpoints, Negative Trump Coverage

In addition to suppressing Republican campaign websites in the first page of search results, MRC’s search for “Republican presidential campaign websites” produced links to articles in which GOP candidates are covered by media outlets CNN, NBC News, The Associated Press, and Politico.

“Each of the liberal outlets made clear their bias against GOP front-runner and former President Donald Trump, primarily listing controversial flashpoints of his administration in their respective write-ups,” it stated.

Epoch Times Photo
Former U.S. President Donald Trump disembarks from his plane “Trump Force One” at Aberdeen Airport in Scotland on May 1, 2023. (Jeff J. Mitchell/Getty Images)

“CNN, for example, characterized Trump’s criticisms of how the 2020 election was conducted as ‘conspiracy theories.’ Meanwhile, Politico touted [President] Trump’s alleged ‘numerous scandals,’ while NBC and AP seemingly eagerly recounted recent criminal charges brought against the former president.”

An Aug. 21 analysis by MRC highlighted that broadcast evening news coverage of the 2024 Republican nomination was “overwhelmingly dominated” by President Trump, with other GOP candidates receiving only a “tiny fraction” of the attention.

And much of the coverage of President Trump wasn’t positive.

“The vast majority of Trump’s coverage (90 percent) has been negative, and heavily focused on the legal allegations made against him by Democratic prosecutors and the Biden Justice Department,” the analysis reads.

“But the networks’ coverage of Trump’s top GOP opponent, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, was nearly as bad (78 percent negative), suggesting a media hostility that extends beyond [President] Trump himself to other Republican candidates and their conservative policy positions.”

Google’s Election Manipulation

During a Sept. 5 hearing of the Arizona House Committee on Oversight, Accountability, and Big Tech, psychologist and researcher Robert Epstein said Google has become so powerful that it can now sway elections according to its interests.

“We don’t even need to hold elections anymore,” he said during the testimony, according to Just The News. “[Google] can tell us to a high degree of certainty how many people are going to vote, how they’re going to vote, and who’s going to win.”

Epoch Times Photo
Dr. Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, in California on March 28, 2022. (York Du/The Epoch Times)

He claimed that if it hadn’t been for Google, former GOP Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake would have won the 2022 election. Mr. Epstein also announced plans to file a complaint against Google with the Federal Elections Commission.

Google dismissed Mr. Epstein’s accusations.

“This individual has continued to make deeply misleading claims that have been widely debunked, including for omitting data that would have changed his findings,” a company spokesperson told the outlet.

During a recent episode of The DrillDown podcast, Mr. Epstein said that if a platform such as Google wishes to influence the outcome of an election, “there’s nothing you can do.”

“[Google] gets us to focus on other election issues (like ballot harvesting) as a distraction,” he said. “The stories about ‘traditional’ election interference involve may [be] a few votes here and there, but these platforms are shifting literally millions of votes, without people noticing what’s going on.”

In an interview with Fox News in 2020, Mr. Epstein said Google had shifted a “bare minimum” of 6 million votes in the presidential election by pushing its political agenda onto users.

“Google search results were strongly biased in favor of liberals and Democrats. This was not true on Bing or Yahoo,” he said. “We found a period of days when the vote reminder on Google’s homepage was being sent only to liberals—not one of our conservative field agents received a vote reminder during those days.”

Google didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

Biden Signs Stopgap Funding Bill Passed by Congress, Averting Government Shutdown

The U.S. Capitol Building following passage in the House of a 45-day continuing resolution in Washington, on Sept. 30, 2023. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images) 

The Senate ratified a 45-day continuing resolution passed earlier today by the House, which President Joe Biden signed late Saturday night, thus averting a government shutdown that would otherwise have occurred at midnight.

The 88-9 vote included broad bipartisan support, although the final bill did not include the additional $6.15 billion in aid for Ukraine that many senators had pressed for.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) praised the bipartisanship in both houses that brought the bill to completion.

“I have very good news for the country. Democrats and Republicans have come to an agreement and the government will remain open. We will have avoided a shutdown. Bipartisanship, which has been the trademark of the Senate, has prevailed, and the American people can breathe a sigh of relief,” Mr. Schumer said.

“The clearest path forward has been to pass a straightforward short term funding extension. It gives us time to continue a number of important discussions about outstanding priorities,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who pledged to continue working to complete the regular appropriations process.

The continuing resolution (CR) extends federal funding at the current rate for 45 days. It also includes money for disaster relief and a reauthorization of Federal Aviation Authority funding.

The omission of additional funding for the war effort in Ukraine threatened to derail the bill. In the end, senators agreed that funding for Ukraine could be provided through other legislation.

“I think we do need to send a strong signal to Russia that its aggression in Ukraine will not be tolerated and that we are not pulling back … from supporting Ukraine,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who theorized that a supplemental spending bill or the defense appropriations bill might be used.

“I think there are a lot of ways of getting assistance to Ukraine,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters just ahead of the vote. “We all believe in stopping Russian aggression. And we all believe that it’s in America’s national security interest for Ukraine to succeed on the battlefield. And I think that America’s commitment to that is clear.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Min.) said before the vote she hoped to see “uninterrupted aid to Ukraine,” adding, “That’s going to be our number one goal” in the next few weeks.

This bipartisan compromise puts to rest, temporarily, the threat of a government shutdown. Yet it does not resolve the problem underlying the brinkmanship, a dispute over the appropriations process itself.

A Compromise Bill

The measure was hurriedly assembled by House Republicans, who scrambled to find an alternative after their preferred CR was torpedoed by members of their own party the previous day.

Epoch Times Photo
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks with reporters during a press conference in Congress on Sept. 19, 2023. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)

Mr. McCarthy originally presented a CR that extended funding for only 31 days with an overall 8 percent reduction in non-defense discretionary spending and the addition of a package of border security provisions.

That bill was brought to the House on Sept. 29 but failed as 21 Republicans joined Democrats in opposing it.

“Would I have wanted the bill we put on the floor yesterday that would secure our border and cut wasteful spending? Yes, I did. But I had some members in our own conference that wouldn’t vote for that,” Mr. McCarthy told reporters shortly after the House vote on Saturday.

“At the end of the day, we kept the government open, kept paying our troops to finish the job we have to get done,” he added.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) praised the bill as a defeat for what he called Republican extremism. “[It] did not contain a single poison pill or policy rider the extreme MAGA Republicans were trying to jam down the throats of the American people,” he told reporters moments after the bill’s passage.

As for additional funding for Ukraine, favored by many Democrats, Mr. Jeffries said, “We have to get to vote on this issue, and that should be done sooner rather than later to ensure that we are providing the training and the resources necessary to Ukraine to fight courageously to defeat Vladimir Putin and Russia.”

Process Problem, Not Spending Fight

Only Congress can authorize the government to spend money, which it does through annual appropriations bills. Twelve appropriations bills are required, one for each major federal department. The government’s fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, so the authority to spend money expires on that day unless new spending has been authorized.

Previous shutdown threats have been driven by demands by the leadership in one party or the other for specific spending or tax-cut initiatives. That has resulted in 10 government shutdowns since 1981, most lasting only a few days.

The term “shutdown” is not entirely accurate because only non-essential government functions are suspended. Most government activities continue, though many people—including members of the armed services—must work without pay for the duration. Even so, any shutdown is costly and disruptive, and both Republican and Democratic leaders have been eager to avoid one this year.

This time the brinkmanship was driven by rank-and-file members of the House in a dispute over the process by which spending bills are passed in Congress, not over specific spending demands.

Mr. McCarthy first mentioned the possibility of a CR on Sept. 1 when it became apparent that both houses of Congress would once again fail to pass the 12 appropriations bills required to fund the federal government before the end of the fiscal year.

While Congress has accomplished that task only a handful of times in the last 50 years, it generally has had little trouble agreeing to a CR to extend the current year’s funding for a set period of time.

A loosely organized group of Republican fiscal hawks immediately signaled their opposition to a CR. They did so on the grounds that it would inevitably lead to additional delays in creating a full-year spending plan, which would result in the necessity of a last-minute catch-all bill that would fund the entire discretionary budget in a single up-or-down vote—with no time to full debate or offer amendments.

“There’s no such thing as a ‘clean’ CR,” Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) told reporters on Sept. 30. “To keep in place the Biden-Pelosi-Schumer policies for another 30 days or 45 days, to keep the spending levels that are bankrupting the country, that is only going to lead to another CR or an omnibus. I predict if we pass a CR we will stop passing our spending bills.”

The speaker delayed bringing any CR to the House until Sept. 29, hoping to convince holdouts that the House would continue working diligently on passing conservative appropriations bills.

Epoch Times Photo
U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) speaks with reporters in Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 18, 2023. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)

That effort was unsuccessful, and the vote failed.

The CR passed in the House today, and then by the Senate, drew even more opposition from House Republicans with 90 voting against it. It passed only with the overwhelming support of House Democrats.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) called the passage of the bill an abdication of Congress’s responsibility to complete the funding process by passing appropriations bills.

“We further abdicated our duties. We decided to kick the can down the road 45 more days,” he said in a video released on X. “That’s not the way this country should run, but it’s run that way for the last 30 years.”

The House has so far passed four of the 12 required appropriations bills, representing about 70 percent of federal discretionary spending. The Senate has passed no appropriations bills.

The CR will expire on Nov. 17.

Emel Akan and Ryusuke Abe contributed to this report.

Correction: A previous version of this article misstated the CR expiry date. The Epoch Times regrets the error.