The Michigan GOP and RNC just got their ninth win against Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D). They argued her new guidance was terrible at verifying absentee ballots. Was her goal to ensure that the…

SAO PAULO/BRASILIA BRAZIL —  Brazil's Supreme Court said on Friday that social platform X still needs to pay just over $5 million in pending fines, including a new one, before it will be allowed…

Now that all our 'conspiracy theories' and becoming true, this lady says we need to bypass the "I TOLD YOU SO's" and be more COMPASSIONATE. UTL COMMENT:- Deep inside I want to punch them all in the face but that won't get them to join us!!! So let's be more compassionate (but maybe drop a couple of subtle "I told you so's" at the right time)!!! I do feel sorry for people if they have bought the lies (only if they haven't pushed the BS onto us)..

Finally.. what appears to be some promising news. The Liberal Party are saying they shall oppose the mis-disinformation Bill. UTL COMMENT:- Wow great news if true.... But I never believe those fuckers

Within the world of statistics and reporting, it has become fashionable to attribute any and all disparities and inequities to discrimination. This is often either grossly exaggerated or, in some cases, simply not true. With the selective omission of facts, studies — motivated by confirmation bias — are often rationalized, post hoc, into an urgent issue that requires societal change. In 2020, for instance, a widely reported study asserted that receiving medical care from white physicians was associated with a higher death rate among black infants. The startling conclusion emerged from the peer-reviewed study, which examined 1.8 million births in Florida between 1992 and 2015 and was published in the distinguished journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Black babies cared for by white physicians were twice as likely to die. Left-of-center media outlets like CNN and The Washington Post published a plethora of commentary in response to the revelation. Its impact proved highly emotive and led U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to assert that having a black pediatrician doubles the chances of survival for black babies. Robert VerBruggen and Harvard economist George J. Borjas co-authored a new study that refuted this widely held belief. Despite examining the same data, the two arrived at different conclusions. It appears that an important variable — low birth weights — was overlooked by the researchers in the initial study. Being severely underweight at birth is a strong indicator of infant mortality. Compared to white women, black women are twice as likely to give birth to a baby that is underweight. Furthermore, the researchers failed to mention that treating underweight babies of all races is standard medical practice for white physicians. It is inevitable that doctors who treat the most serious medical conditions will experience a much higher death rate than the average. Why has it taken nearly five years to debunk something that, let’s face it, a first-year statistics student could easily find out? Progressive racial ideology has become ingrained in the medical field in post–George Floyd America. A seemingly unquestionable premise — that systemic racism is to blame for racial disparities in health outcomes — is tearing apart medical research, training, and patient care. Critical Race Theory is taught in more than half of the top 100 medical schools in the United States. The world of medical literature paints a similar picture. It seems commonplace in medical journals to attribute health disparities to racism. Articles like the “Pathology of Racism” and “How Structural Racism Works—Racist Policies as a Root Cause of U.S. Racial Health Inequities” are routinely published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which has since been ideologically captured. As with all things progressive, it eventually became a part of culture, where it is dutifully amplified — or, in this case, perhaps satirized. In a particularly strange episode of NBC’s medical drama New Amsterdam, a doctor finds that “internalized racism” is the cause of a patient’s tumor. George Floyd’s murder acted as a catalyst for a racial reckoning. The first American jurisdiction to declare racism a public health crisis was Milwaukee County. Its employees receive training on how to attain racial equity in the workplace through a mandatory, 90-hour racial equity ambassador program run by the Office of Equity. A precedent was set by the decision, and hundreds of declarations followed. Forty-two states had passed 265 declarations designating racism as a public health crisis as of September 2024. Governmental institutions and private organizations, including school boards, city councils, and county boards and, in this instance, public health departments, adopted these declarations. Attempts are being made to implement it at the national level. In March, a bill introduced by Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and cosponsored by ten Democrats was introduced to the Senate declaring racism to be, you guessed it, a public health crisis. It raises the question of whether or not we should believe academics who are motivated by political expediency. The only “implicit bias” I can see is coming from the original study’s creators. How many more peer-reviewed studies that purport to expose the harmful effects of systemic racism have been tainted by what Thomas Sowell calls the invincible fallacy? In addition to raising ethical concerns about questionable academic research, proponents of the systemic racism hypothesis are gambling with patients’ lives. They are sacrificing professional standards for political activism; replacing classroom and laboratory time with antiracism lectures. Science lifted humanity out of the darkness and propelled us forward, allowing us to reach heights we could only have imagined. Ever since Galen discovered human anatomy by dissecting animals, medical science has contributed to the advance of civilization. Millions have been spared a lifetime of pain and saved from infectious diseases that, a century ago, would have killed half of the world’s population. However, science suffers when it gets intertwined with politics. To witness the horrific results of combining science and racial politics, one need only contemplate the atrocities of Nazi eugenics and Japan’s notorious Unit 731 under General Shirō Ishi. Objective and value free, science is the antithesis of politics. It proceeds by what Karl Popper called falsifiability — the ability to disprove rather than confirm a theory. According to Popper, for a theory to be classified as scientific, it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. This is how you differentiate science from non-science. The problem with critical race theory is that it is full of unfalsifiable arguments. Radical subjectivity has no place in science. The post ‘Antiracism’ is Coming for Medical Science appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The unexpected announcement by Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that he is suspending his religious lectures has sparked widespread speculation in Iranian circles. In a short video, his first ever, Mojtaba stated that he would halt his online religious teachings without offering a clear explanation, raising questions about the motivations behind the move and its broader political implications. For years, Mojtaba has been a shadowy figure within Iran’s clerical and power establishment. While officially a religious scholar, his rising profile and rumors of his influence have ignited debates about whether he is being groomed to succeed his father as the next Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Critics argue that Mojtaba lacks the necessary religious credentials and experience for such a role, although the same arguments were used to dismiss Ali Khamenei. Many however see Mojtaba’s increasing visibility in religious and political circles as part of an orchestrated plan to establish a dynastic rule in Iran, similar to that in Syria and North Korea. Mojtaba Khamenei’s recent cancellation of his online religious lectures has raised various speculations, particularly due to its timing amidst growing debate about how much longer his 85-year-old father can remain in power. Although Mojtaba himself didn’t offer any official reason, several theories are being talked about based on the current political environment in Iran and in the region. Some have suggested that the suspension of his lectures is for security reasons, in the aftermath of what has happened to Hezbollah members in Lebanon. Others have argued that the announcement of his cancelled lectures could be linked to heightened scrutiny from other established clerics, who are concerned about a hereditary succession in the leadership of the Islamic Republic that overthrew a hereditary monarchy. Finally, some argue the very opposite and say the unexpected announcement by Mojtaba was in fact an attempt to prepare the ground for his succession. To examine the above speculation, let’s first explain some technicalities of Iranian Shia clerics. The type of lectures that Mojtaba has suspended are known as “Kharej Lectures” or “outside lectures.” Kharej lectures are considered the most advanced level of seminary teachings, where the lessons are not from written texts. Instead, the lecturer reviews the written text with his own reasoning, similar to how the Jews debate the Talmud. There is a long tradition that clerics moving up their career ladder suspend their Kharej lectures when their seminary students exceed that of the more established senior clerics. This is both a sign of showing humble piety, and also a declaration that the cleric has reached a milestone in being known and relevant, which is essential to become a Source of Emulation, the highest rank for a Shia cleric. The fact that the news of Mojtaba suspending his lectures has become talked about both inside Iran and outside, actually helps to say he is now an established cleric. Of course, it can be argued that the reason so many seminary students have enrolled in his classes is because of who his father is. In fact, there was a letter published recently that some grand clerics had objected to Mojtaba conducting his lectures from his father’s office and complained that he was taking advantage of his position as the son of the Supreme Leader. Nevertheless, all this talk, even when presented in a critical way, helps to show Mojtaba is now a celebrated cleric. Kharej lectures take a lot of preparation. By suspending them, Mojtaba Khamenei is also hinting that he will be spending more time on politics and will not have time to do these lectures. A source told me that there are discussions within close circles to the Supreme Leader’s office that it is unlikely for Khamenei to be able to continue in office after the next Iranian New Year in March 2025. Mojtaba also mentioned in his video that he had suspended the lectures without telling his father, and only discussed it with two others without naming them. By saying this, he is also declaring that he is acting independent of his father in making some decisions. On balance, and from the information that we have so far, the supposition that Mojtaba has announced the suspension of his lectures to prepare for leadership succession is the most likely scenario. If Mojtaba does become the next Supreme Leader, what would be the implications for Iran and the Middle East? It is widely said that Mojtaba leads an austere, Spartan life, still loyal to the fundamentals of the 1979 Islamic revolution that changed Iran from a secular modern country into a backward religious regime. Mojtaba is close to and well briefed by senior IRGC officers, and has forged deep connections within Iran’s security and intelligence sectors. Apart from his trips to London for IVF treatments that helped his wife to bear their first child, he is not widely travelled, and despite his relative youth, there is no reason to assume he is open-minded and seeks progress. Based on all of the above, it may seem at first that Mojtaba’s succession will bring about more austerity, harsher crackdowns, and more revolutionary fundamentalist dogma. However, Iran’s ruling clerics are also very pragmatic. Their own survival is the most important goal, while all else, including the tenets of Islam, can be temporarily sidestepped. Khamenei himself once publicly described this characteristic as “Heroic Flexibility.” His predecessor, Ayatollah Khomeini, has also famously stated that “Preserving the Islamic Republic is even more important than saving the life of Imam Zaman [the awaited savior for the Shia Muslims].” Mojtaba Khamenei’s pragmatism may compel him to embrace a brief period of reform and moderation as a strategy to secure a smoother path to succession. His understands the critical need to build broad-based legitimacy, both within Iran’s political elite and among its population. A reformist façade, or a temporary more moderate stance on domestic issues such as economic reforms, social freedoms, less destabilization of the region and negotiations with the West, could placate critics and reduce tensions. Potkin Azarmehr, is a British-Iranian journalist and contributor with expertise on Iran and Middle East affairs. Some of his previous articles have been cited by U.S. Congressmen. For other examples of his work, click here, here, and here.  The post Khamenei’s Son Suspends His Religious Lectures appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On Wednesday, Kamala Harris sat down for an interview with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle — although, it’s tough to call it an “interview.” What ended up happening was that Ruhle gave Harris softball questions for about 30 minutes, and then MSNBC sponsored Harris to act in a campaign ad on a set that looked like a construction site but lacked enough sawdust to be convincing. The goal, it seems, was to give Harris a chance to expand on what she calls an “opportunity economy.” She didn’t. (READ MORE: Kamala’s Performance on CNN Was a ‘Mixed Bag,’ Grok Says) Instead, she insisted that “affordable housing” was the “solution” to the problem of sky-rocketing home prices. How do we achieve that solution? By “investing in the middle class.” (Oh, and those tax credits for first-time home buyers, which will likely end up driving up the cost of homes.) She asserted that big corporations and CEOs ought to pay “their fair share,” but it seems like she’ll be relying on their continued friendship to ensure they don’t skedaddle to Mexico when she raises taxes. The ‘New Way Forward’ Plan for an ‘Opportunity Economy’ The same day, her campaign released an 82-page document detailing her economic plan. It includes boring details like the biggest tax hike in history, student loan forgiveness (yeah, those were deemed unconstitutional), and a larger government healthcare program that builds on the ObamaCare subsidies expiring next year. This is Kamala Harris’s “opportunity economy.” The trouble with using a word like “opportunity” is that it means different things to different people. So, because this is a column on artificial intelligence, I decided to ask ChatGPT and Grok to tell me what exactly an “opportunity economy” is. They both gave me rather bland answers. (Incidentally, the more questions I ask of Grok in “fun” mode, the more it becomes obvious that AI isn’t capable of humor. Score one for the humans!) Here’s what ChatGPT told me: Prompt: What is an “opportunity economy”?  An “opportunity economy” refers to an economic system that promotes fairness, inclusivity, and upward mobility by ensuring equal access to resources, education, and employment. It seeks to create conditions where individuals can succeed based on merit and effort, regardless of their socioeconomic background. This model emphasizes reducing systemic barriers such as discrimination, income inequality, and limited access to capital, while fostering innovation, entrepreneurship, and sustainable growth. Policies supporting an opportunity economy often focus on improving education, expanding job training, ensuring fair wages, and promoting diversity in business ownership and leadership, creating broader opportunities for economic advancement. So it’s bland, but if I’m supposed to believe ChatGPT, an opportunity economy is simply one in which diversity, equity, and inclusion are baked into the economic cake. While we’re here, I’d like to point out that “income inequality” and “limited access to capital” aren’t exactly “systemic barriers.” They’re a fact of life. I don’t make as much money as a journalist at this early stage in my career as a welder or software developer does. That’s because those jobs are necessary for society. Mine, if I’m being honest and pessimistic, is not. (READ MORE: The Spectacle Ep. 150: Rand Paul on Violence Against Trump, Balancing Budgets, and Tackling Tariffs) But what about Grok? Surely Elon Musk’s upstart bot won’t spout Communist talking points: Prompt: What is an “opportunity economy”?  Grok: An “Opportunity Economy” under Kamala Harris’s vision seeks to level the economic playing field, ensuring every American has access to upward mobility. It’s about reducing costs for essentials, enhancing tax benefits for startups, expanding opportunities for small businesses, particularly in underserved areas, and making sure economic policies support job creation, homeownership, and equitable growth. Think of it as an economy where the government actively works to provide everyone with a fair shot at success, not just the wealthy or well-connected. The humor here? Imagine if opportunity knocked, but this time, everyone’s got a door to open! A note for Grok: Knock-knock jokes are always lame. Do better. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s talk about that opportunity economy. I think most of us would agree that the American kid growing up in a blue-collar family in Springfield, Ohio, or Charleroi, Pennsylvania, should be able to achieve the American Dream. He should be able to buy a house, have kids, and own a car when he grows up — and his manufacturing job should pay him enough to get him there. That’s not up for debate. I only gave Grok 100 words to define an opportunity economy. That’s not a lot. But Grok didn’t go much further than reading Kamala Harris’ tweets and summarizing them for me (I know, because it linked to them at the bottom of the screen). That, of course, means that its definition is necessarily vague. What, exactly, isn’t “level” about the “economic playing field”? Would “reducing costs for essentials, enhancing tax benefits for startups,” and “expanding opportunities for small businesses” actually level the “playing field”? Is it true that only the “wealthy or well-connected” have a fair shot at success? What is a “fair shot at success”? (READ MORE: Why We Shouldn’t Expect a Return to the Trump Economy) Besides being vague, I detect the faint stench of a Marxist society here. This sentence, “Imagine if opportunity knocked, but this time, everyone’s got a door to open!” sounds rather similar to this one, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” That second, of course, is a quote from the man himself, Karl Marx. But perhaps I’m reading into this a little too closely. Given that this is a Fact-Check the Bot column, you can decide in the comments section below. This is a weekly column at The American Spectator dedicated to exposing the left-wing bent of generative AI machines. If you enjoyed it and want to see what else ChatGPT or Grok comes up with, feel free to leave ideas for prompts in the comments section below! The post What’s an ‘Opportunity Economy’ Anyway? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.