New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo faced a barrage of criticism from fellow Democrats after The New York Times reported that the second former aide in four days had accused him of sexual harassment.
Why it matters: Cuomo had faced a revolt from legislators for his handling of nursing-home deaths from COVID. Now, the scandal is acutely personal, with obviously grave political risk.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Corteztweeted that the women’s “detailed accounts of sexual harassment by Gov. Cuomo are extremely serious and painful to read,” and said the state attorney general should investigate.
She was among several Democrats said an “independent review” announced by Cuomo was inadequate.
“This is no joke,” Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) tweeted above the Times story. “There must be an independent investigation into these allegations. The accused CANNOT appoint the investigator. PERIOD.”
Charlotte Bennett, 25, an executive assistant and health policy adviser in the Cuomo administration until November, told The Times (subscription) that the governor, 63, had harassed her during the height of the state’s COVID fight, including asking whether “she had ever had sex with older men.”
The most disturbing encounter came June 5, when she was alone with Cuomo in his Capitol office, The Times reports:
[S]he said the governor had asked her numerous questions about her personal life, including whether she thought age made a difference in romantic relationships, and had said that he was open to relationships with women in their 20s — comments she interpreted as clear overtures to a sexual relationship.
Bennett said Cuomo complained about being lonely during the pandemic, mentioning that he “can’t even hug anyone,” then asking her: “Who did I last hug?”
Cuomo requested an independent review, and said in a statement that he had intended to act as a mentor: “I never made advances toward Ms. Bennett nor did I ever intend to act in any way that was inappropriate.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” that she wants an independent investigation and said of the one Cuomo announced: “I wouldn’t consider that to be independent.”
On Wednesday, former aide Lindsey Boylan, 36, wrote that Cuomo suggested: “Let’s play strip poker.”
A second former aide to Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has come forward with allegations of sexual harassment, which came just days after his first accuser made her claims public.
Charlotte Bennett, who is described by The New York Times as “an executive assistant and health policy adviser in the Cuomo administration until she left in November,” alleges that Cuomo “asked her questions about her sex life, whether she was monogamous in her relationships and if she had ever had sex with older men.”
The 25-year-old staffer described to the Times an incident that took place in June when she was “alone” with the 63-year-old governor in his State Capitol office. According to the report, he allegedly asked her if she thought age made a difference in romantic relationships and that he was open to having relationships with women in their 20s, which were noted by the Times as “comments she interpreted as clear overtures to a sexual relationship.”
While Bennett alleges that Cuomo never tried touching her, the governor’s “message” during that exchange was “unmistakable to her.”
“I understood that the governor wanted to sleep with me, and felt horribly uncomfortable and scared,” Bennett told the Times. “And was wondering how I was going to get out of it and assumed it was the end of my job.”
According to the Times, Bennett disclosed the incident to Cuomo’s chief of staff Jill DesRosiers less than a week later and submitted a lengthier statement to Cuomo’s special counsel Judith Mogul towards the end of the month. She was also transferred to another job as a health policy adviser, placing her on the opposite side of the Capitol building.
Bennett told the Times she didn’t persist in seeking an investigation because she “wanted to move on” and that she was content with her new job.
In a press release on Saturday, Cuomo called Bennett a “hardworking and valued member of our team during COVID” who has “every right to speak out.”
“When she came to me and opened up about being a sexual assault survivor and how it shaped her and her ongoing efforts to create an organization that empowered her voice to help other survivors, I tried to be supportive and helpful,” Cuomo said in a statement, which was issued to the Times. “Ms. Bennett’s initial impression was right: I was trying to be a mentor to her. I never made advances toward Ms. Bennett nor did I ever intend to act in any way that was inappropriate. The last thing I would ever have wanted was to make her feel any of the things that are being reported.”
Cuomo added that he will “have no further comment” until a “full and thorough outside review” of Bennett’s claims is conducted and concluded.
As the Times noted in its report, Cuomo did not deny Bennett’s claims about asking such personal questions.
Cuomo’s special counsel Beth Garvey also released a statement, which read, “Ms. Bennett’s concerns were treated with sensitivity and respect and in accordance with applicable law and policy. The matter was promptly escalated to special counsel. Ms. Bennett received the transfer she requested to a position in which she had expressed a long-standing interest, and was thoroughly debriefed on the facts which did not include a claim of physical contact or inappropriate sexual conduct. She was consulted regarding the resolution, and expressed satisfaction and appreciation for the way in which it was handled.”
“The determination reached based on the information Ms. Bennett provided was that no further action was required which was consistent with Ms. Bennett’s wishes.”
Fox News reached out to Bennett and DesRosiers for comment.
Lindsey Boylan, Cuomo’s first accuser, expressed her support for Bennett.
“I am with you Charlotte. We are with you. Always,” Boylan wrote. “I am so proud of you Charlotte.”
Boylan, the former deputy secretary for economic development and a special adviser to Cuomo, published a bombshell essay Wednesday on the website Medium. She accused the governor of going “out of his way to touch me on my lower back, arms and legs,” forcibly kissing her on the lips during a one-on-one briefing, and suggesting that they “play strip poker” during a plane ride.
Cuomo’s office denied Boylan’s harassment claims, calling them “simply false” and insisting the strip poker comment “did not happen.”
Meanwhile, the prominent Democrat is also facing a growing scandal over his controversial policy of ordering COVID-positive patients into nursing homes in the early months of the pandemic and is now reportedly facing investigations by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney over an alleged cover-up of nursing home deaths in his state.
CNN, the home network of Cuomo’s kid brother Chris Cuomo, has given the governor unprecedented cover in downplaying his various scandals. The far-left network previously gave developments into his nursing home controversy little to no airtime — and allowed the “Cuomo Prime Time” anchor free rein to conduct friendly, comical interviews with the embattled Democrat in the early months of the pandemic. CNN also went roughly 24 hours without acknowledging Boylan’s damning sexual harassment claims after she came forward.
Cuomo himself appeared to offer a holier than thou stance during the contentious 2018 confirmation battle of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. As President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee faced allegations of sexual misconduct, Cuomo suggested that he take a “polygraph test” like his prominent accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford did.
“If he does not take a polygraph test, it is the ultimate, ‘he said, she said,'” Cuomo said at the time.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton suggested that Big Tech firms should be treated like utility or phone companies in terms of regulation.
Over the past several years, there have been calls for the federal government to regulate Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and other Big Tech firms as these companies can exercise great control over what can and cannot be discussed on their platforms. Some conservatives, including former President Donald Trump, have said the Section 230 law in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 should be repealed or at least changed, while others have said that Big Tech companies have violated antitrust laws and have pursued monopolistic practices.
Paxton, a Republican, told The Epoch Times’ “Crossroads” that these companies “control the entire platform” and can choose who to keep or who to cancel.
“And so there is no other choice other than” regulating them, he said, suggesting they be regulated like a “utility company.”
These firms “have to provide power to everybody, because you’re the only choice,” Paxton remarked. “Normally, I’d say your rights private company can do what they want,” he said, “And consumers have choices.”
But in terms of social media, “consumers don’t have a choice, they have no choice,” he said. “And so we have to regulate that and make sure that free speech is not being controlled by a few very wealthy tech people.”
In the wake of accounts being suspended or posts being deleted by moderators on Facebook or Twitter, there have been arguments that conservatives should instead create their own social media platforms. However, with Parler being taken down by Amazon Web Services and being deleted from Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store, some have argued that it’s a sign these companies hold too much over. Another alternative social media platform, Gab, suffered similar blows several years ago after a mass shooting suspect posted his intentions to open fire at a Pittsburgh synagogue. As a result, Gab was forced to create its own payment processor and host its own servers.
When applying the term “public utility” to social media, it implies that these websites are public necessities and as a result, should be regulated by the government. These companies are being increasingly viewed as vital for living in an interconnected world, some have argued that living a successful life would be difficult without them.
Paxton also said that his office is investigating five companies “related to the whole issue of the president being deplatformed” last month.
In mid-January, Twitter, Google, Facebook, Twitch, and others suspended Trump’s accounts following the Jan. 6 Capitol riots. Twitter executives later said that Trump likely will never be able to return to the social media account.
But Trump, who favored Twitter to make announcements and voice his frustrations, said last week that Twitter has “become very boring” and suggested that “millions of people are leaving.”
The proposed Equality Act of 2021 (H.R. 5) would make mainstream beliefs about marriage, biological facts about sex differences, and many sincerely held beliefs punishable under the law. The Equality Act makes discrimination the law of the land by forcing Americans to conform to government-mandated beliefs under the threat of life-ruining financial and criminal penalties. Presented as a bill with commonsense and decent protections against discrimination, H.R. 5 is anything but. The Equality Act politicizes medicine and education and demolishes existing civil rights and constitutional freedoms.
Part of last nights’s monologue – while Dems cheer on the Equality Act – here are the consequences they don’t want to talk about… pic.twitter.com/2bzgR2h66B
Every person should be treated with dignity, and no one should face discrimination. But the Equality Act makes discrimination the law of the land.
The so-called Equality Act is anything but. It would give government the power to dictate how Americans think and act regarding gender and sex.
This bill violates Americans’ constitutional freedoms and weaponizes civil rights law to punish those who do not hold the “correct” beliefs.
Myth 1: The Equality Act Simply Punishes Discrimination Against People Who Identify as Gay or Transgender
Fact: The Equality Act—introduced as H.R. 5 in the House of Representatives on February 18, 2021—makes mainstream beliefs about marriage, as well as basic biological facts about sex differences, punishable under the law. Every person should be treated with dignity and respect and no one should face discrimination. But the Equality Act makes discrimination the law of the land by forcing Americans to conform to government-mandated beliefs under the threat of life-ruining financial and criminal penalties. The 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawed state-sanctioned discrimination that caused systematic economic and material harm to black Americans. The Equality Act is different: It forces every American to agree with controversial government-imposed ideology on sexuality or be treated as an outlaw. The Equality Act demolishes existing civil rights and constitutional freedoms.
Myth 2: The Equality Act Preserves Religious Freedom
Fact: The Equality Act guts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and threatens constitutional freedoms by eliminating conscience protections from the Civil Rights Act. If enacted, H.R. 5 would force employers, medical professionals, educators, and religious organizations to allow men into women’s shelters, pay for or perform sex-change operations, and engage in speech that violates their consciences. Faith-based adoption and foster care agencies would be forced to violate their belief that every child deserves a mother and a father. Section 2(a)(2) of the bill refers to the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman as a “sex stereotype.” This stigmatizes the beliefs of hundreds of millions of Americans, including Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, Mormons, and Muslims.
Check out my interview with NTD about the Equality Act, which just passed the House. This legislation is an all-out assault on religious freedom and must be resisted. https://t.co/QsRoFqIH5T
Myth 3: The Equality Act Does Not Expand the Scope of Federal Civil Rights Law
Fact: By expanding the definition of “public accommodations” under Title II of the Civil Rights Act to include “any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting, or legal services,” many more individuals and establishments would, in fact, become liable to discrimination claims, including doctors who do not want to perform abortions.
Myth 4: The Equality Act Is Irrelevant to Abortion
Fact: H.R. 5 endangers unborn children. The Equality Act opens the door to taxpayer funding for elective abortions, which the vast majority of Americans oppose, regardless of political affiliation. The bill does not contain any conscience protections for those with moral or religious objections to paying for or performing abortions. It also takes away judicial relief by blocking claims based on the RFRA. The Equality Act expands the term “sex” to go far beyond the state of being male or female, and includes “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition.” Both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the 3rd Circuit Court have interpreted “related medical condition” to include abortion. This expanded definition of sex applies to public accommodations, which—under the Equality Act—includes providers of “health care.” This definition also applies to section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is the act’s nondiscrimination provision guaranteeing that people will not be denied benefits in a federally run or federally funded health program. Section 1557 of the ACA looks toTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act, which addresses nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs, to interpret what constitutes discrimination. If the Equality Act were to pass, section 1557 nondiscrimination regulations could be used against providers who refuse to perform abortions, or againsthospitals that receive federal funding and do not provide abortions. The Reproductive Blueprint promoted by Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and other abortion industry actors specifically calls on the Biden Administration to interpret section 1557 in this manner.
Myth 5: The Equality Act Is Good for Women and Upholds Title IX of the Education Amendments Act, Which Prohibits Sex Discrimination Against Girls and Women
Fact: The Equality Act’s changes to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act do not uphold Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act. Gender-identity policies will require biological males to be permitted to participate in female-only activities. In sports, the physical bodies of biological males (even after two years on estrogen) put them at an obvious unfair advantage over female athletes, who are losing out on opportunities and scholarships designed for girls and women.Three brave female high school athletes in Connecticut are suing the state because two boys who identify as girls defeated them in track and field and demolished the state records held by 15 other girls.
Myth 6: Safety and Privacy in Sex-Specific Spaces Will Not Be Diminished
Fact: All single-sex spaces will be open to both sexes under the Equality Act. The Equality Act adds sexual orientation and gender identity rules to Title III of the Civil Rights Act on “public facilities” as well as to public accommodations (Title II) and federal funding (Title VI). This would create a nationwide transgender policy in single-sex facilities. It would affect everything from girls’ and women’s showers and locker rooms to women’s shelters and women’s prisons, endangering safety and diminishing privacy. Giving people blanket permission to enter private spaces for the opposite sex enables sexual predators to exploit the rule and gain easy access to victims.
If passed, the Equality Act would devastate women’s sports and open the door for men who identify as women in restrooms, dorms, locker rooms, women’s shelters, and much more. You can read more here in my @DecisionNews article: https://t.co/jYGmacLvKL
Myth 7: The Equality Act Treats All Students Fairly, Promotes Inclusion, and Cannot Affect School Curricula
Fact: By adding sexual orientation and gender-identity rules to the Civil Rights Act’s Title IV on “desegregation of public education,” the Equality Act could pave the way for K–12 federal courts to require sexual orientation and gender-identity curricula the same way they required black history curricula. All children deserve to learn in an environment where they and their views are treated with respect. Imposing one political viewpoint on students about questions of gender and sexual orientation stigmatizes and excludes those who hold disfavored (read: mainstream) views. Denying a child the right to a supportive educational environment effectively denies that child meaningful access to the right to an education. Additionally, changing Title VI to include sexual orientation and gender identity means that any school, even private and parochial schools that receive federal assistance, would have to adopt transgender policies in sports and private facilities.
Myth 8: Doctors Will Not Be Forced to Perform Sex-Change Operations or Prescribe Hormones for “Gender Affirmation”
Fact: As a result of the expanding definition of public accommodations, as well as changing federal funding requirements, doctors (and counselors) could be punished for treating gender dysphoria according to their own best medical judgment. Even a referral to another doctor could be a violation of the Civil Rights Act. If a doctor performs a double mastectomy to treat cancer, she must also do so for a woman who identifies as a man. Transgender individuals have already sued hospitals for discrimination in New Jersey and California because the hospitals refused to perform surgeries, including mastectomies, for “gender affirmation.” This, despite the fact that evidence has shown that “transitioning” does not provide any lasting mental health benefits. In fact, many patients who undergo a sex change end up with damage to their physical health, such as heart problems and decreased bone density, as well as loss of fertility.
Myth 9: Parental Rights Will Remain Unchanged
Fact: The Equality Act’s politicization of medicine and education through gender ideology will undermine parental rights. Since most schools will be pressured to comply with sexual-orientation and gender-identity policies, parents will have limited educational choices for their children. Those who do not believe that their daughters should have to compete against biological males in sports, or who do not believe their daughters and sons should have to share bathrooms with members of the opposite sex, will be hard pressed to find schools where this is not happening. Parents should not have to sacrifice their children’s safety in order to attend school. Counseling that has proven to help children suffering from gender dysphoria reconcile with their bodies will no longer be considered an acceptable approach. This means that parents will be left without therapeutic alternatives that do not cause irreversible harm to their children’s bodies. A judge in Ohio terminated the rights of parents who opposed administering testosterone to their underage daughter and wanted her to go to counseling for gender dysphoria instead.
Equality Act: "Do you want to have equal opportunity?"
Americans: "Yes"
Equality Act: "Do you want to end gender discrimination?"
Americans: "Yeah"
Equality Act: "Good, your children can change their gender and if you object, we take them."
Myth 10: The Equality Act Helps Children in Need of Foster Homes and Adoption
Fact: The Equality Act hurts vulnerable children by punishing faith-based adoption and foster-care agencies that believe that every child deserves both a mother and a father and that children’s bodies should not be irreversibly harmed by hormonal or surgical interventions due to gender dysphoria. Imposing this radical ideology on child-welfare providers will reduce the number of “forever families” for the more than 424,000 foster children in need of them. Adding sexual-orientation and gender-identity requirements to laws in Massachusetts and Illinois diminished the supply of foster families at the same time that more children needed them due to the opioid crisis.
The Equality Act is the most astonishingly radical, anti-religious legislation I've seen. I suspect if communities of faith in Democrat districts knew how bad this bill was, half those members would not be re-elected.https://t.co/zrGArHIXDr
Myth 11: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Requires the Equality Act’s Changes to Civil Rights Law
Fact: The Equality Act goes far beyond the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock ruling. While Bostock invented a misguided theory of sex discrimination in employment law, it did not redefine “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity. But the Equality Act does. Bostock was limited to employment law; the Equality Act adds “sexual orientation and gender identity” to all of the nation’s civil rights laws. Because Bostock was limited to employment, it said nothing about schools, sports, or medicine. The Equality Act adds sexual orientation and gender identity to all of them.
This article is a compilation of analyses from multiple sources (see at bottom).
Biden accepts China’s horrific genocide of the Uighur people
Biden has made it clear that he will not “speak out against” China’s abuse of the Uighur ethnic minority in China, even though a bipartisan commission of the United States Congress stated that China has possibly committed “genocide” in its treatment of Uighurs and other minority Muslims in its western region of Xinjiang.
Joe Biden on China’s human rights violations and genocide against the Uighurs: “culturally there are different norms”
The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) said new evidence emerged in the past year that “crimes against humanity–and possibly genocide–are occurring.”
Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has declared that China is committing “ongoing” genocide against Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province, less than 24 hours before leaving office, The Guardian reports.
In his statement, Pompeo said: “I have determined that the PRC [People’s Republic of China], under the direction and control of the CCP, has committed genocide against the predominantly Muslim Uighurs and other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang.”
“I believe this genocide is ongoing, and that we are witnessing the systematic attempt to destroy Uighurs by the Chinese party-state,” he added.
Pompeo’s declaration also accused China of crimes against humanity.
We shouldn’t worry about hurting General Secretary Xi’s feelings. We should focus on protecting the American people and championing American values. We must remain tough on China.
Dominic Raab, the United Kingdom’s foreign secretary, denounced torture, forced labour and sterilization that he said were taking place against Muslim Uighurs on an “industrial scale”.
“The situation in Xinjiang is beyond the pale,” Raab told the Geneva forum where China is among the 47 member states.
“The reported abuses – which include torture, forced labour and forced sterilisation of women – are extreme and they are extensive. They are taking place on an industrial scale,” he said.
Such abhorrent behavior is acceptable because, according to Biden, China merely has “different norms.” Biden said during a CNN town hall on Tuesday that Chinese President Xi Jinping “gets it” when Biden criticizes China’s for holding the Uighurs in internment camps and other human rights abuses, according to Breitbart.
Biden explained to Xi, “no American president can be sustained as a president if he doesn’t reflect the values of the United States.”
Anchor Anderson Cooper said, “You just talked to China’s president.
Biden said, “Yes, for two hours.”
Cooper said, “What about the Uighurs?”
Biden said, “We must speak up for human rights. It’s who we are. My comment to him was — and I know him well, and he knows me well. We had a two-hour conversation.”
Cooper said, “You talked about this too.”
Biden said, “I talked about this too. not so much refugee, but I said, look, Chinese leaders —if you know anything about Chinese history, it has always been the time China has been victimized by the outer world is when they haven’t been unified at home. It’s vastly overstated, but the center of principle of Xi Jinping is that there must be a united, tightly controlled China. And he uses his rationale for the things he does based on that.”
He continued, “I point out to him no American president can be sustained as a president if he doesn’t reflect the values of the United States. So, the idea that I’m not going to speak out against what he’s doing in Hong Kong, what he’s doing with the Uighurs in Western Mountains of China, and Taiwan, trying to end the one-China policy by making it forceful. I said, and he gets it, culturally there are different norms in each country, and their leaders are expected to follow.”
Cooper said, “When you talk to him about human rights abuses, is that just — is that as far as it goes in terms of the U.S.? or is there any actual repercussions for China?”
U.N. Human Rights chief Michelle Bachelet said that China is restricting basic civil and political freedoms in the name of national security and COVID-19 measures https://t.co/eM7Ehg10J0pic.twitter.com/c9R17X2ToN
Canadian MPs vote to label Beijing's treatment of Uighur minority as genocide China claims policy in Xinjiang is "shining example" of human rights progress Rights groups believe at least one million Uighurs, other Muslim minorities incarcerated in camps there pic.twitter.com/KBCnuMN514
Biden said, “Well, there will be repercussions for China, and he knows that. What I’m doing is making clear that we, in fact, are going to continue to reassert our role as spokespersons for human rights at the UN and other agencies that have an impact on their attitude. China is trying very hard to become the world leader, and goat that moniker and be able to do that, they have to gain the confidence of other countries. As long as they’re engaged in activity that is contrary to basic human rights, it’s going to be hard to do that. But it’s more much more complicated. I shouldn’t try to talk China’s policy in ten minutes on television.”
But the Uighurs who survived the concentration camps have lived through daily gang rapes by Chinese government agents, including the rape and torture of women through the use of electric batons, as National File reported.
Testimony in a recent BBC report add new and horrific details as to the extent of the torture human beings suffered in the camps. A particularly grisly claim is that Chinese Communist guards use electric batons to rape women, electrocuting them from the inside.
One of the survivors interviewed by the BBC, Tursunay Ziawudun, said she endured nine months in a Xinjiang concentration camp and was subjected to torture and gang-rape on almost a daily basis.
This is not a “cultural” difference. And Jinping doesn’t “get it.” Rape and genocide are wrong. Full stop. To handwave such atrocities is not a sign of cultural awareness but psychopathy.
If Biden will ignore China’s genocide against the Uighurs, what will he allow China to do to the United States?
Biden opens door for China to infiltrate U.S. universities
Joe Biden’s administration stealthily eliminated a Trump-era proposal mandating that educational institutions in the U.S. disclose their relationship with the Confucius Institute, which has close ties to the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Ministry of Education. Confucius Institutes are well-documented instruments of Chinese Communist soft power to expand the U.S. adversary’s influence and allies abroad, according to The Federalist.
The Biden administration is marbled with Chinese Communist sympathizers, allies, and assets that extend to the president’s household and possibly the president himself. Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden was reportedly given $3 million by a Communist Party-tied Chinese businessman for “introductions alone,” and a whistleblower business partner of Hunter’s says Joe Biden was well aware of these dealings.
“The family of the incoming commander-in-chief was reportedly given an interest-free loan of $5 million by businessmen with ties to the Chinese military, while Biden’s son Hunter called his Chinese business partner the ‘spy chief of China,’” Lee Smith recently summarized in Tablet magazine.
The order Biden’s administration rescinded, first introduced to the Department of Homeland Security by the Trump administration on Dec. 31, 2020, originally sought to require “Student and Exchange Visitor Program Certified Schools to Disclose Agreements with Confucius Institutes and Classrooms,” a process the administration hoped would curb communist China’s attempts to steal intellectual property and learn other compromising information about the U.S.
EXCLUSIVE: Texas Southern University once involved in contract giving China broad control of its Confucius Institutehttps://t.co/bAoKFstIlL
While the Confucius Institute claims to build “public educational partnerships between colleges and universities in China and colleges and universities in other countries,” federal agencies concluded the organization was a national security threat that warranted action.
Following years of various infiltration by communist China into American institutions such as higher education and Democrat political circles, former President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo often spoke out against the communist nation and its extensions into the United States, specifically warning of the danger associated with the international organization that partners with approximately 500 U.S. schools and 65 U.S colleges.
“[The Confucius Institute] is an entity controlled by the PRC that advances Beijing’s global propaganda and malign influence campaign on U.S. campuses and K-12 classrooms,” Pompeo said in August 2020.
Despite the previous administration’s warnings, Biden’s team discreetly and quickly withdrew the rule proposal on Jan. 26, 2021 as depicted on the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) website without explanation, opening the door for the Chinese propaganda and soft power centers to continue to operate on campuses around the nation without oversight.
The move comes shortly after the CCP’s propaganda paper, The China Daily, called on Biden to start “correcting” the Trump administration’s “fearmongering of the Confucius Institute.”
Currently, the China’s People’s Liberation Army appears to have thousands of undercover spies in the United States posing as graduate students as universities.
Democrats appear to be deeply complicit in Chinese influence operations, so more decisions in China’s interest are to be expected from a Biden administration.
“Incoming Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and Secretary of State Antony Blinken worked at a Beltway firm called WestExec, which scrubbed its work on behalf of the CCP from its website shortly before the election. Longtime Biden security aide Colin Kahl, tapped for the No. 3 spot at the Pentagon, worked at an institute at Stanford University that is twinned with Peking University, a school run by a former CCP spy chief and long seen as a security risk by Western intelligence services,” Smith also noted.
According to the FBI, a Chinese government spy for years slept with Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell, gathering plentiful information to use against the United States. Democrats have chosen to keep Swalwell on the House intelligence committee.
Biden surrounds himself with China-linked figures
William Burns
Joe Biden’s nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), William Burns, has a history of cooperating with organizations linked to the CCP, according to Breitbart.
The Republican Study Committee conducted (RSC) an in-depth study of Biden’s “weakness” on China explaining Burns’ associations with prominent CCP members.
While hile Burns was president of the board of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, he welcomed Zhang Yichen–a Chinese businessman linked to two major CCP organizations, the Chinese People’s Political Consultive Conference, and the Center for China Globalization–to the board, according to the RSC study.
Zhang’s firm, along with the China-U.S. Exchange Foundation, an organization connected to the CCP and responsible for “United Front” work in the U.S., gave Carnegie millions of dollars to help build the think tank’s Beijing-based Carnegie-Tsinghua center.
China Joe's CIA nominee William Burns is precisely the kind of grifter one would expect Joe Biden to pick. https://t.co/05ALfd8QqM
If confirmed by the Senate, Burns would be the first CIA leader whose experience is largely from the State Department, where he served under both Republican and Democrat presidents. He rose through the diplomatic corps ranks to become deputy secretary of state before retiring in 2014 to run the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace.
While at the State Department, Burns helped negotiate former President Barack Obama’s 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which failed to stop the regime’s desire to weaponize its program. Instead, the deal paved the way for them to do so legally in the future. Former President Donald Trump canceled the deal.
After Trump took office in 2017, Burns held his tongue until 2020, when he began writing highly critical pieces of the Trump administration’s policies in Foreign Affairs and other publications. Burns has been a staunch advocate of “rebuilding and restructuring the foreign service,” positions he shares with Biden.
“Ambassador Burns will bring the knowledge, judgment and perspective we need to prevent and confront threats before they can reach our shores,” Biden said. “The American people will sleep soundly with him as our next CIA director.”
Linda Thomas-Greenfield
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday confirmed Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Joe Biden’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on a 78 to 20 vote, Breitbart reports.
Democrat Senators confirmed the new U.S. envoy to the U.N. with the help of 26 Republicans.
During her confirmation hearing last month, the 68-year-old African American woman vowed to fight Communist China’s global influence, saying that Beijing’s “authoritarian agenda” is the antithesis to U.N. values.
However, the conservative House of Representative’s Republican Study Committee (RSC) issued a report last week accusing the ambassador-to-be of downplaying China using its growing political and economic clout to undermine America’s push for democratic values in Africa.
Moreover, the report added, “Thomas-Greenfield is former Senior Vice President for the Albright-Stonebridge Group, which has held a number of senior CCP officials as clients including Jin Ligang, a former senior Chinese government official.”
Madeleine Albright’s Consulting Firm Took Millions in Coronavirus Relief Funding
The Albright Stonebridge Group has deep ties to China, employs former Chinese gov't officials & Biden staffers.
Ambassador Greenfield has a history of troubling comments praising and welcoming China’s role in Africa. As Senator Ted Cruz [R-TX] has pointed out, in 2006, Greenfield said she was not concerned about China’s growing influence in Africa, and in 2013 she stated that she does not see the U.S. competing with China in Africa.
Sen. Cruz and Republicans expressed concern over a 2019 speech the diplomat gave on “China-U.S.-Africa Relationships” at the Savannah State University Confucius Institutes’ fifth-anniversary lecture event.
Sen. Ted Cruz is delaying a vote on U.N. Ambassador nominee Linda Thomas-Greenfield over her past comments on China. https://t.co/rBep7RhR6G
In May 2014, Thomas-Greenfield said she was not concerned about China buying its way into controlling Africa, that African leaders should work to get the best possible deal with China, and in fact we were also "working closely with the Chinese." pic.twitter.com/EteRlAgche
And then in March 2019, Thomas-Greenfield again said she did not see the U.S. as competing with China for influence in Africa and with African leaders and that our role was "to ensure that they have the capacity to strike and negotiate better deals with the Chinese." pic.twitter.com/4N7BEu8Uxi
The Washington Post carried excerpts of the speech in which she called Chinese intervention in Africa a “win-win-win situation” for China and American.
She indicated Beijing’s presence in Africa would pave the way for U.S. and human rights violator China to work together to promote “good governance, gender equity, and the rule of law.”
“I see no reason why China cannot share in those values,” she added. “In fact, China is in a unique position to spread these ideals given its strong footprint on the continent.”
During her confirmation hearing, the nominee expressed regret for comments at the Savannah State University Confucius Institute. She said she now backs an effort to crack down on the Confucius Institutes that begun under the Trump Administration.
Still, Republicans cited the 2019 speech for voting no.
Fox News quoted Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) as declaring in a statement:
Let’s be clear that Linda Thomas-Greenfield has a record of praising and sympathizing with the Chinese Communist Party. It is not an anomaly. An Africa expert, between 2013 and 2019 she testified before both chambers of Congress that the U.S. ‘is not competing with China in Africa.
Using a procedural move to push the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote from earlier this month, Sen. Cruz delayed the timeline for her confirmation, to no avail.
All 20 Senators who voted against the nomination of Thomas-Greenfield were Republicans. Another 26 GOP lawmakers joined Democrats in confirming her nomination.
Linda Thomas-Greenfield, a former director general and HR director of the Foreign Service, will be nominated to be U.N. ambassador. Biden is returning the job to cabinet-level status, giving Thomas-Greenfield a seat on his National Security Council. https://t.co/FhrI3PlVmcpic.twitter.com/BGpzzuuO5A
The RSC members lambasted Thomas-Greenfield’s suggestion that Beijing and Washington can work together in Africa, considering China is promoting communism as an alternative to democratic values on the continent and is a strategic U.S. rival seeking to replace America as the world’s leading superpower.
Beijing has deliberately and aggressively weaponized its political and financial investments in Africa to displace the United States as an influential force on the continent.
Beijing’s engagement in Africa resembles a new form of colonialism consisting of “debt-trap diplomacy” that seeks to saddle borrowing countries with difficult-to-pay enormous debts collateralized with natural resources or other strategic assets to increase Beijing’s leverage on the continent.
In 2019, a top U.S. commander warned that China might expand its military presence in Africa.
Hunter Biden
The Wall Street Journal reported that Hunter Biden’s family name aided deals with foreign tycoons, landing Hunter’s business dealings at the center of a federal tax investigation.
Hunter Biden ramped up business activities with European and Chinese tycoons as his father exited the vice presidency four years ago. For him it was a potential path to income; for the tycoons, the Biden family name promised to burnish their reputations.
The dealings got the younger Mr. Biden a discounted stake in a private-equity firm in China and consulting arrangements with a Romanian property magnate and overall allowed him to maintain a globe-trotting lifestyle, according to interviews, documents and communications reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. A Chinese energy tycoon gave Mr. Biden a 2.8-carat diamond, and entities linked to him wired nearly $5 million to Mr. Biden’s law firm, according to an investigation by Senate Republicans.
These arrangements now loom over President-elect Joe Biden. A federal criminal tax investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings is underway, with findings potentially trickling out in coming months. His business ties to well-connected people in China and other places could add to scrutiny of foreign-policy decisions taken by the Biden administration over possible conflicts of interest. All are likely to provide ammunition to Republicans.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), who has led the Senate Finance Committee whose Republican staff helped investigate Hunter Biden, has said he would continue to look into what he says are possible counterintelligence and criminal concerns related to Mr. Biden’s business dealings.
“Based on all the facts known to date, Joe Biden has a lot of explaining to do,” Mr. Grassley said recently.
Sen. Chuck Grassley: "Have you discussed this Hunter Biden case with the president or anyone else?"
Donald Trump Jr. attacked President Joe Biden, Republican opponents of his father, Big Tech, and the mainstream media during a relatively short speech Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida.
Introduced by girlfriend and TV personality Kimberly Guilfoyle, Trump Jr. began by complimenting the state of Florida and comparing it to the Republican Party in promoting “open schools, open businesses and open churches.”
“Left-leaning states,” he said, “the only thing they have open is open borders.”
He ended his remarks by pointing to former President Donald Trump’s scheduled CPAC speech on Sunday.
“I imagine it will not be what we call a ‘low-energy speech,'” said Donald Jr., who added his father’s address would solidify the Make America Great Again movement as ‘the future of the Republican Party.”
Trump Jr. criticized Biden for stopping the Keystone XL Pipeline, and pointed out how the president “caved to China.” He said money from Chinese companies earned by the president’s son Hunter Biden, “did not come for free.”
“Where is Hunter Biden?” Trump Jr. asked about the president’s son. “I’m sure he’s making billions in China right now.”
The oldest son of Donald Trump then criticized Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who voted to impeach his father.
Trump Jr. also spoke about how Big Tech was trying to stop conservative news programming.
“You don’t see Republicans accusing CNN as a place for disinformation,” he said. “I can assure you, they were lying about Russian collusion.”
He also talked about how the mainstream media was covering the accusation of sexual harassment against Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y.
“Imagine if Ron DeSantis, [R-Fla.] did what Cuomo has done the last couple of years,” Trump Jr. said. “He’d be in jail.”
Toward the end of his remarks, Trump Jr. encouraged the crowd to remain active.
“Together we can win these fights,” he said. “We have to be vocal. We can’t be in the corner. We must be out and engaged.”
Greg Steube repeated himself, “I’m going to repeat that line again. Whenever a nation’s laws no longer reflect the standards of God, that nation is in rebellion against him and will inevitably bear the consequences. And I think we are seeing the consequences of rejecting God in our country today. And this bill speaks directly against what is laid out in scripture…”
That’s when Democrat leader Jerry Nadler jumped in, “Mr. Steube when any religious tradition ascribes as God’s will has no concern of this Congress.”
Jerry Nadler says the Dem position out loud: "What any religious tradition ascribes as God's will is no concern of this Congress." https://t.co/60fVcz0xaz
During the debate yesterday over the Equality Act, a measure that would create a right to kill babies in abortions and force Americans to fund abortions, Republicans accused Democrats of ignoring Biblical values. And a surprising comment from pro-abortion Democrat Congressman Jerry Nadler confirmed that to be true.
Part of the debate over the pro-abortion measure revolved around sex and gender issues and Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) upset Democrats when he confirmed God makes boys and girls unique.
“When men or women claim to be able to choose their own sexual identity, they are making a statement that God did not know what he was doing when he created them,” the congressman said.
“The gender confusion that exists in our culture today is a clear rejection of God’s good design. Whenever a nation’s laws no longer reflect the standards of God that nation is in rebellion against him and will inevitably bear the consequences,” the congressman said. “We are seeing the consequences of rejecting God here in our country today.”
That promoted a rather shocking comment from Nadler.
“What any religious tradition describes as God’s will is no concern of this Congress,” he admitted.
Please join us in praying for his soul!
Congressman Jerry Nadler: “God’s Will is No Concern of This Congress” https://t.co/C9mBMO5QGf
Billionaires played a bigger role in the 2020 election than ever before. Three of them—Donald Trump, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer—ran for president. A fourth, Howard Schultz, flirted with the idea.
They donated money, too. Lots of it. More than 200 chipped in to support their favorite presidential candidates. The top 20 collectively spent $2.3 billion. Or a little more than twice as much as Joe Biden’s campaign. And just one person donated more than half that sum.
Even still, the donations won’t make much of a dent in the billionaires’ fortunes, which are growing at a faster rate than campaigns’ expenditures. In fact, a number of the donations are relatively modest in comparison to their outsize fortunes.
“Buying influence, for a regular American, would be incredibly expensive,” says Robert Maguire, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington research director. “[Billionaires] get an outsize influence at what is—to them—just an incredibly affordable rate.”
To drive home this point, we compared what these billionaires spent to what the equivalent would be for someone with the median American household net worth, which was $121,700 in 2019, according to the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances.
Here are the donors Forbes found, ranked in order of how much they spent and listed with their donation converted to an equivalent sum based on the median household income.
Our analysis tallies itemized contributions of at least $100 made by individual billionaire donors and their known spouses to federal candidates and political action committees tracked by the Federal Election Commission during the 2019–20 election cycle, through December 31, 2020.
1. Michael Bloomberg
Net worth: $54.9 billion
Contributions: $1.2 billion
Equivalent donation for median American household: $2,677
The former New York City mayor spent more of his own money running for president than anyone in history. But even if you don’t count the billion-plus dollars that went to his own campaign, Bloomberg still would have donated more than all but two billionaires to the 2020 election. Bloomberg poured about $150 million into other Democratic campaigns and causes, including $67 million that went into his own super-PAC, which spent more than three quarters of its funds supporting Joe Biden.
2. Tom Steyer & Kat Taylor
Net worth: $1.4 billion
Contributions: $414.9 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $36,023
The hedge fund billionaire spent $342 million on his own presidential campaign, plus another $73 million supporting left-leaning causes and voter-registration efforts. Never mind that he lost the Democratic primary—Steyer is still taking a victory lap. “For over a decade, I’ve spent all my time, energy and resources trying to address the big systemic problems we have in this country,” he said in a statement. “In particular, I have tried to do my part to address climate change, support economic and environmental justice and mobilize young voters. This cycle, those issues were front and center.”
3. Sheldon & Miriam Adelson
Net worth: $29.8 billion*
Contributions: $218.4 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $888
Covid-19 hasn’t been kind to the gambling business, but you wouldn’t know that looking at the Adelsons’ 2020 donations. Sheldon, who died in January, broke his own spending records, doling out $120 million to GOP congressional super-PACs, $90 million to a pro-Trump super-PAC and about another $8 million to other conservative causes and candidates.
*As of The Forbes 400 for 2020
4. Ken Griffin
Net worth: $15 billion
Contributions: $67.6 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $548
Hedge fund heavyweight Griffin, a Mitt Romney supporter in 2012, didn’t donate directly to Donald Trump’s campaigns in 2016 or 2020. Instead, he focused on Congress, dumping $37 million into a super-PAC supporting Senate Republicans and another $10 million to a group backing House Republicans over the last two years.
5. Dustin Moskovitz & Cari Tuna
Net worth: $18.1 billion
Contributions: $51.8 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $353
At 36, Facebook cofounder Moskovitz is the youngest megadonor on this list. He and his wife, Cari Tuna, spent $25 million in 2016, then doubled down with a $47 million donation to a pro-Biden super-PAC in 2020, helping fuel an advertising blitz in the final months of the campaign.
6. Stephen & Christine Schwarzman
Net worth: $22.5 billion
Contributions: $48 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $256
The richest man in private equity, Schwarzman put $35 million into a super-PAC called the Senate Leadership Fund supporting Republican senators. He also gave $2 million to a group supporting one particular Republican senator, Susan Collins of Maine. Former President Trump got some love, too, with committees that support him receiving $3.7 million.
7. Jim & Marilyn Simons
Net worth: $23.5 billion
Contributions: $25.9 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $134
A math professor who started his own hedge fund, Simons has long been a Democratic kingmaker. For years, he has reaped huge returns through his quant firm, Renaissance Technologies—also the source of wealth for Republican donor Robert Mercer and Democratic supporter Henry Laufer (No. 18). Simons stepped down as chairman last month but remains invested in the firm’s funds. He and his wife, Marilyn, gave $10 million to SMP, the super-PAC supporting Democrats in the Senate. They also funneled more than $8 million into committees supporting Joe Biden.
8. Bernard & Billi Marcus
Net worth: $7.3 billion
Contributions: $24.8 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $414
The Georgia megadonor donated $10 million to a super-PAC that ran a slew of anti-Biden ads in the run-up to the election, and put $5.8 million toward a super-PAC focused on GOP Senate races. Marcus’ cofounder from Home Depot, Arthur Blank, supported Biden in 2020, but Marcus spent more than 30 times as much on Trump as Blank did on Biden.
9. Isaac & Laura Perlmutter
Net worth: $6.1 billion
Contributions: $24.3 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $487
Marvel Entertainment chairman Perlmutter has long been loyal to Trump, a neighbor in Palm Beach, Fla. About 95% of the Perlmutters’ contributions went to committees vying to reelect the president. Trump has been good to Perlmutter, too—reportedly giving him vast influence in the Department of Veterans Affairs, even though the comic book tycoon never had an official position in the administration.
10. J. Joe & Marlene Ricketts
Net worth: $3.7 billion
Contributions: $22.3 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $730
Ricketts, who founded a stock brokerage firm that grew into TD Ameritrade, and his wife, Marlene, spent millions supporting Trump and GOP senators ahead of the 2020 election. They also bankrolled a super-PAC called Citizens for Free Enterprise with $7.8 million in contributions. That group spent big on congressional races in New Mexico, Virginia, California and Oklahoma. One of their sons, Todd, serves as finance chairman of the Republican National Committee, while another, Pete, is the governor of Nebraska.
11. Charles & Helen Schwab
Net worth: $10.5 billion
Contributions: $21.2 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $243
The brokerage king and his wife, Helen, shied away from supporting Trump directly, while donating millions to committees and super-PACs supporting Republicans running for Congress. They also gave about $1 million to the Republican National Committee; its records show those funds went into accounts used for putting on the RNC convention and paying for lawyers.
12. Linda McMahon, wife of Vince McMahon
Spouse’s net worth: $1.9 billion
Contributions: $18.4 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $1,180
In 2017 former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon took a cabinet position in the Trump White House, serving as head of the Small Business Administration. She left that gig in 2019 to lead the pro-Trump super-PAC America First Action and ended up pouring $15.7 million into the group.
13. Stephen & Susan Mandel
Net worth: $2.8 billion
Contributions: $18.2 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $791
Connecticut hedge fund mogul Mandel and his wife, Susan, poured millions into supporting Joe Biden’s election, directly and through super-PACs. They got associates to join them as well, making them official Biden bundlers. Susan Mandel also donated $1.3 million to Planned Parenthood’s super-PAC.
14. Warren & Harriet Stephens
Net worth: $2.7 billion
Contributions: $18.1 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $815
Arkansas banker Stephens is a longtime Republican donor. He put $3.5 million into two pro-Trump super-PACs and $6 million into the Senate Leadership Fund. He also dumped money into super-PACs that supported Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). His family founded Stephens Inc., the Little Rock investment bank, which underwrote Walmart’s public offering in 1970.
15. Paul Singer
Net worth: $3.6 billion
Contributions: $16.8 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $572
The often-pugnacious hedge fund titan, who has a history of supporting both conservative and LGBTQ political causes, staunchly opposed Donald Trump in 2016. Singer ended up donating $1 million to the former president’s inaugural committee anyway, but he didn’t spend much more to help Trump. The investor’s largest expenditure ahead of the 2020 election was the $6.5 million he gave to the pro-GOP Senate Leadership Fund.
16. Patrick & Shirley Ryan
Net worth: $3.4 billion
Contributions: $16.2 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $584
The founder and CEO of Chicago insurance firm Ryan Specialty Group avoided donating to Trump. Instead, he and his wife Shirley put the bulk of their contributions into super-PACs that were spending big in key GOP Senate races. Among their largest contributions: $10.5 million to the Senate Leadership Fund (which in turn spent $92 million opposing Jon Ossoff), $1.75 million to Americans For Prosperity Action (which spent $13 million supporting David Perdue) and $1.5 million to Better Future MI Fund (which spent $11 million opposing Gary Peters).
17. Reid Hoffman & Michelle Yee
Net worth: $2 billion
Contributions: $15.1 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $919
Besides pouring millions into super-PACs supporting Joe Biden and other Democrats, LinkedIn cofounder Hoffman took a slightly different approach to his political spending. He spent $4.5 million to team up with a group of media firms and the Lincoln Project to produce digital ads criticizing Trump.
18. Henry & Marsha Laufer
Net worth: $2.1 billion
Contributions: $14.8 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $852
After working as a professor with Jim Simons (No. 7) at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, Laufer joined his colleague at Renaissance Technologies, the hedge fund Simons founded. Both are now big Democratic donors. Laufer and his wife, Marsha, put $2.5 million into a super-PAC supporting Biden and another $1.8 million into a group backing Democrats in the Senate.
19. Steve & Andrea Wynn
Net worth: $3 billion
Contributions: $14.8 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $596
Las Vegas mogul Wynn stepped down as finance chair of the Republican National Committee and CEO of Wynn Resorts amid sexual misconduct allegations in 2018. Wynn, who has denied the allegations, is still spending big for Republicans. He and his wife, Andrea, put more money into the 2020 election than ever before, funneling over $10 million into super-PACs that spent big on the Georgia Senate race.
20. Kelcy & Amy Warren
Net worth: $3.2 billion
Contributions: $14 million
Equivalent donation for median American household: $535
Donald Trump cleared the way for Warren’s Dakota Access Pipeline, then appointed the oil billionaire to the board of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. No wonder Warren was willing to spend more than $10 million to get Trump reelected. Over the summer, Warren told Forbesthatthe 2020 election would be “the most important in a generation.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday pressed President Joe Biden’s nominee for assistant secretary of health on whether the government should override a parent’s consent to allow a gender-dysphoric child to begin taking hormones or pursue sex-change surgery.
Paul asked Dr. Rachel Levine, who identifies as a transgender woman, whether minors are capable of making life-altering decisions to undergo irreversible medical procedures that permanently change their bodies. In his question, Paul compared sex-change operations for minors to genital mutilation.
“Genital mutilation has been nearly universally condemned. … Genital mutilation is considered particularly egregious because, as the WHO notes, it is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children,” Paul said.
“Most genital mutilation is not typically performed by force, but as WHO notes, by social convention. Social norm. The social pressure to conform. To do what others do and have been doing as well as the need to be accepted socially and the fear of being rejected by the community,” he continued.
Rand Paul: 'The left that went nuts' over adults taking HCQ for virus touts hormones for trans kids https://t.co/Mr0gk2r3d8
“American culture is now normalizing the idea that minors can be given hormones to prevent their biological development of their secondary sexual characteristics. Dr. Levine, you have supported both allowing minors to be given hormone blockers to prevent them from going through puberty, as well as surgical destruction of a minor’s genitalia. Like surgical mutilation, hormonal interruption of puberty can permanently alter and prevent secondary sexual characteristics. The American College of Pediatricians reports that 80-95% of prepubertal children with gender dysphoria will experience resolution by late adolescence if not exposed to medical intervention and social affirmation,” he continued.
“Dr. Levine, do you believe minors are capable of making such a life-changing decision as changing one’s sex?” Paul asked.
Levine replied, “Transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field with robust research and standards of care that have been developed and if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as the assistant secretary of health, I’ll look forward to working with you and your office and coming to your office and discussing the particulars of the standards of care for transgender medicine.”
Levine – who is trans and has spoken openly about her beliefs in giving puberty blocking medications to trans identified minors – refuses to answer Rand Paul’s pointed question because they don’t want it on the record.
Unsatisfied, Paul accused Levine of evading his question.
“Do you support the government intervening to override the parent’s consent to give a child puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and/or amputation surgery of breasts and genitalia? You have said that you’re willing to accelerate the protocols for street kids. I’m alarmed that poor kids with no parents, who are homeless and distraught — you would just go through this and allow that to happen to a minor,” he said.
Paul shared the story of Keira Bell, a 23-year-old U.K. woman who is taking legal action against the NHS, claiming that she should have been challenged by medical staff on her decision as a teenager to undergo a sex-change operation to appear male. She now regrets that decision.
“What I am alarmed at is that you’re not willing to say absolutely minors shouldn’t be making decisions to amputate their breasts or to amputate their genitalia,” Paul told Levine.
Levine responded that “transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field and if confirmed to the position of assistant secretary of health, I would certainly be pleased to come to your office and talk with you and your staff about the standards of care and the complexity of this field.”
WashPost gender columnist Monica Hesse thinks Rand Paul is a "monster" for daring to ask if parents have a say in their children deciding to mutilate their own genitals. (via @gabrieljhays) https://t.co/2KvBRPLqnO
Paul again accused Levine of refusing to answer his question.
“You’re willing to let a minor take things that prevent their puberty, and you think they get that back? You give a woman testosterone enough that she grows a beard, do you think she’s going to go back to looking like a woman when she stops the testosterone? You have permanently changed them,” Paul said.
He continued: “Infertility is another problem. None of these drugs have been approved for this, they’re all being used off-label. I find it ironic that the left that went nuts over hydroxychloroquine being used possibly for COVID are not alarmed that these hormones are being used off-label. There’s no long-term studies. We don’t know what happens to them. We do know that there are dozens and dozens of people who’ve been through this who regret that this happened. And a permanent change happened to them. And if you’ve ever been around children, 14-year-olds can’t make this decision.”
“In the gender dysphoria clinic in England, 10% of the kids are between the ages of 3 and 10. We should be outraged that someone’s talking to a 3-year-old about changing their sex!” Paul exclaimed.
“HOw dAre RaNd PAul queStion a trAns pErson abOut trAns iSsues?!?”
The Biden Administration faces increasing criticism for holding unaccompanied migrant children in Border Patrol custody–some longer than the legal 72-hour limit.
Axios reported from a leaked Customs and Border Protection document that the Biden Administration held more than 700 Unaccompanied Alien Children in Border Patrol custody as of Sunday. At least 200 of those children were held by Border Patrol for more than 48 hours — nine were held more than the legal 72-hour limit.
"The Biden Admin halted the use of an emergency health order that had allowed the Trump Admin to quickly expel migrant children who crossed the border. Some experts now say that Biden's policy reversal is part of the reason for the recent increase"https://t.co/T2wzberySi
On Tuesday night, Breitbart Texas reported that by Monday, the number had grown to 800 minors in Border Patrol custody with more than 200 held beyond the statutory 72-hour limit, according to National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki blamed the issue on multiple causes. She blamed last week’s winter storm in Texas and tried to say the Biden Administration’s holding of children without parents at the border was different than what happened during the Trump administration.
According to Axios:
“We have a couple of options: We can send them back home … We can quickly transfer them from CPB to these HHS-run facilities … We can put them with families and sponsors without any vetting,” Psaki said. “We’ve chosen the middle option.”
This means the Biden Administration is choosing to hold children by themselves in Border Patrol facilities that are not designed to hold children and families and where social distancing cannot be maintained, Judd explained on Tuesday.
“She (Psaki) went to great lengths to explain that due to the pandemic and social distancing, [the Office of Refugee Resettlement] only has capacity for a certain number of children,” Judd said.
“What she didn’t explain is that the children that ORR doesn’t have that capacity to take are left in facilities far worse than those of HHS,” Judd continued. “In fact, they are being held in the same locations they accused the Trump administration of inhuman acts when they said he was holding ‘kids in cages.’”
The mainstream media is being silent as the Biden administration holds unaccompanied migrant children in Border Patrol custody longer than legally allowed, the head of the Border Patrol union stated. https://t.co/3WqfTn2Yyd
Axios reported that more than 400 unaccompanied minors were referred to Health and Human Services shelters on Tuesday.
“That’s an eye-catching number, especially compared to the 30-day referral average at the peak of the 2019 crisis — which was 294,” Axios wrote. Some experts point out the Biden Administration’s reversal of applying the Title 42 coronavirus protection protocols to children as a “part of the reason for the recent increase in unaccompanied children arriving at the border.”
The number of Unaccompanied Alien Children illegally crossing the border from Mexico into the U.S. is increasing from month to month, according to reports from U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials. In January 2021, Border Patrol agents apprehended 5,871 unaccompanied minors. This is up from 4,995 in December 2020 and 3,076 in January 2020.
Border Patrol Union: Media Quiet as Biden Illegally Holds Unaccompanied Migrant Childrenhttps://t.co/cSayFD5xYu
Breitbart Texas reached out to U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol for confirmation of the numbers of migrants being held in custody by Border Patrol and how long they are being held. A response has not yet been received.
In January, Biden made the court order exception for unaccompanied children to the CDC order permanent, but he continued the expulsions of families, which caused more parents to send their children causing care facilities to fill up https://t.co/YwaTCFHeNO
Texas sued to block the ban on Biden’s third day in office. Federal Judge Drew Tipton had already temporarily paused it twice prior to Tuesday night’s order.
A federal judge in Texas has put an indefinite halt to President Joe Biden’s 100-day ban on deportations after issuing a preliminary injunction late Tuesday.
The ruling by Judge Drew Tipton comes after he had already temporarily paused the moratorium twice. The ban is nationwide and is in place as the case continues to play out in courts.
The ruling is a victory for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who sued to block Biden’s order three days into the Biden administration. Paxton’s office argued the state would face financial harm if undocumented immigrants were released into the state because of costs associated with health care and education, and said the moratorium would also lure others to come to Texas.
BREAKING — U.S. Judge Drew Tipton temporarily halts the Biden administration’s 100-day moratorium on certain deportations in an early legal battle over the new president’s immigration policy.
Tipton, a Trump appointee to the federal bench, wrote in his order that Texas would also incur costs for detaining immigrants within its state. “Texas claimed injury from unanticipated detention costs is sufficiently concrete and imminent. The harm is concrete or de facto because Texas incurs real financial costs in detaining criminal aliens,” he wrote.
It’s unclear whether the Biden administration will appeal the ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Texas’ federal benches.
Biden’s moratorium was announced as part a review of enforcement policies within Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agencies as the administration developed its final priorities, according to the Biden administration. Tipton’s order does not affect the rest of that review.
I applaud Judge Tipton’s ruling to ban the enforcement of President Biden’s 100-day deportation pause. https://t.co/eWNXR4okyW
The American Civil Liberties Union, which intervened in the case, said the ruling only means an extension of former President Trump’s hardline policies.
“Allowing these deportations to continue means that families will be torn apart and that people who have the opportunity to seek relief in the United States will be returned to danger,” Kate Huddleston, attorney with the ACLU of Texas, said in a statement. “At the same time that Texans face a long recovery from a deadly winter storm, Paxton is inflicting yet another trauma on our communities by creating fear and uncertainty.”
Days after Tipton issued the first order, a witness to the El Paso Walmart shooting was deported after being pulled over during a traffic stop. Her attorney said the woman, who was cooperating with prosecutors in El Paso, would not have been sent back to Mexico had Paxton not filed the lawsuit.
