“Let Me Be Clear”: Harvard Backpedals After Donors Slam ‘Insane’ Protections For Pro-Genocide Students
Harvard University has issued a statement on Wednesday in a furious attempt at damage control, after President Claudine Gay refused to condemn students calling for the genocide of Jews.
During Tuesday testimony in front of the US House Education and the Workforce Committee, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a Harvard grad, asked the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” violates their schools’ code of conduct or constitutes bullying or harassment, referring to calls for “intifada” chanted during several school protests.
🚨🚨🚨Presidents of @Harvard@MIT and @Penn REFUSE to say whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” is bullying and harassment according to their codes of conduct. Even going so far to say it needs to turn to “action” first. As in committing genocide.
In response, MIT President Sally Kornbluth said that they would be “investigated as harassment if pervasive and severe,” while Penn’s Liz Magill said “it is a context-dependent decision” that could be considered harassment “if the speech becomes conduct.”
Harvard’s Gay echoed Magill, saying that it depends on context, such as being “targeted at an individual.”
Major donors rage
In response to the comments, activist investor and Harvard alum Bill Ackman said “They must all resign in disgrace,” adding “if a CEO of one of our companies gave a similar answer, he or she would be toast within the hour.”
The presidents of @Harvard, @MIT, and @Penn were all asked the following question under oath at today’s congressional hearing on antisemitism:
Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate [your university’s] code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment?
“There’s certain speech that is certainly permissible under the First Amendment,” Ackman later told The David Rubenstein Show on Bloomberg TV. “People can be critical of Israel, the Israeli government. But, sadly, there are kids who have been spat on or been roughed up, or have been harassed, or antisemitic statements have been put on Slack message boards on campus.”
Billionaire Dan Loeb also weighed in – saying in reply to Ackman: “The cowardly and unprincipled responses show them each to be unfit to lead.”
Meanwhile, Penn alumnus and founder of AQR Capital Management Clif Asness said “I wish I could quit giving twice,” in a post on X, adding “This is just insane. Insane.”
This is just insane. Insane. The presidents are flat out evil and deeply mediocre. They aren’t even good at hiding their evil. Maybe they just don’t care.
In response to the outrage, Gay said that “There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students,” adding “Let me be clear (as if it’s our fault for understanding her galaxy brain statements on Tuesday): Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account.”
Statement from President Gay: There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic…
As a professor who favors free speech on campus, I can sympathize with the “nuanced” answers given by U. presidents yesterday, about whether calls to attack or wipe out Israel violate campus speech policies.
What offends me is that since 2015, universities have been so quick to… https://t.co/ID6PlSeXDN
The House on Tuesday passed a resolution that says “anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” the chamber’s latest piece of legislation conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
The resolution, which is presented as a resolution condemning antisemitism, passed in a vote of 314-14-92. Only thirteen Democrats and one Republican voted against the legislation, while 92 Democrats voted “present” in protest of a line buried in the bill that explicitly claims anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
The Republican-drafted resolution declares that the House of Representatives “clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.”
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the most senior Jewish member of the House, criticized the language of the bill ahead of the vote. “The resolution suggests that ALL anti-Zionism is antisemitism. That is either intellectually disingenuous or just factually wrong. And it unfairly implicates many of my orthodox former constituents in Brooklyn, many of whose families rose from the ashes of the Holocaust,” he said.
Nadler claimed that “most anti-Zionism is antisemitism” but added that if authors of the bill “were at all familiar with Jewish history and culture, should know about Jewish anti-Zionism that was, and is, expressly NOT antisemitic.”
“This resolution ignores the fact that even today, certain orthodox Hasidic Jewish communities—the Satmars in New York and others—as well as adherents of the pre-state Jewish labor movement have held views that are at odds with the modern Zionist conception,” he said.
“There are over 200 synagogues in our community that officially disavow Zionism”.
Greater Brooklyn boasts even more than that.
Guess what, we are all antisemites according to the ‘Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism’ resolution in Congress…
While coming out strongly against the language, Nadler voted “present” instead of “no.” The thirteen Democrats who voted against the bill include Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Cori Bush (D-MO), Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA), Jesús García (D-IL), Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Summer Lee (D-PA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Delia Ramirez (D-IL), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was the only Republican to vote against the bill. Last week, he was the lone member of Congress to vote against a resolution that claimed “denying Israel’s right to exist is a form of antisemitism.”
Massie and Schumer sparred on X in the aftermath…
If only you cared half as much about our border as you do my tweets. https://t.co/8lj2gheBRL
Explaining his opposition, Massie said the resolution also equated anti-Zionism with antisemitism, although not as explicitly as the bill passed on Tuesday.
Putin Trots Around Middle East, All Smiles With MbS, While US Can’t Secure Ukraine Funding
It was no mere awkward fist bump, but instead Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reception in Riyadh Wednesday was clearly very warm and enthusiastic.
From the moment Putin walked out onto a royal purple carpet-bedecked airport tarmac to later being officially greeted by crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), it was chummy handshakes, back slaps and smiles all the way around.
“Nothing can prevent the development of our friendly relations,” Putin told MbS, and invited him to visit Moscow in return.
“It is very important for all of us to exchange information and assessments with you on what is happening in the region. Our meeting is certainly timely,” Putin said.
Below is the moment of Putin’s being received and welcomed by a glowing MbS, ironically at the very moment President Biden gave a White House speech bemoaning the inability of Congress to pass Ukraine defense funding, which runs out in three weeks…
As Deutsche Welle reviews, the discussions likely centered on the planned OPEC+ output cuts and the Gaza War and regional crisis in the wake of the Oct.7 Hamas attack:
The Kremlin said talks in Saudi Arabia would involve discussions on energy cooperation, including as part of OPEC+, whose members pump more than 40% of the world’s oil.
Other items on the agenda include Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, the situation in Syria and Yemen, and broader issues of stability in the Gulf, as well as the war in Ukraine, the Kremlin said.
Prior to his arrival in Saudi Arabia, Putin’s visit to neighboring UAE also had much fanfare. This is a man still under a Hague-based ICC warrant— but you would never guess it based on the below impressive state reception…
CNN NARRATOR: Putin, leader of the isolated pariah state Russia, was received by the UAE with little fanfare. pic.twitter.com/Bmsih4KkCS
He had met with the President of the United Arab Emirates Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan—with the Israel-Hamas war high on the agenda. Of course, neither Gulf leaders have signed the founding ICC treaty, and their warm embrace of Putin is sure to greatly annoy Washington and European leaders.
Meanwhile, to make matters worse from the West’s perspective and its apparently failed and blunted sanctions on Moscow…
Moscow’s monthly income from oil exports is greater now than before the invasion of Ukraine. Will that force the US to tighten its restrictions on the trade? https://t.co/DtYz8OLbHK
Was Wednesday’s very brief Middle East tour by Putin for the purpose of doing a victory lap? Biden might be able to console himself with the current state of cheaper oil markets for the time being, but one wonders how long that will last.
As of this morning, we are six days into the two-week climate change summit in Dubai.
Yes, as we can all note for the thousandth time, literal fleets of private jets have descended on the desert so that bankers and billionaires can talk about making sure we don’t drive anymore or eat too much cheese.
What’s on the agenda? Globalism – and it’s never been more obvious.
President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva essentially said as much:
The planet is fed up with unfulfilled climate agreements. Governments cannot escape their responsibilities. No country will solve its problems alone. We are all obliged to act together beyond our borders,”
Thursday’s opening remarks were predictably doom-laden, with His Royal Highness Charles III and UN Secretary-General António Guterres falling into a traditional good cop/bad cop hustle.
Charlie warned that we are embarking on a “vast, frightening experiment”, asking “how dangerous are we actually prepared to make our world?”
While Tony offered just the barest, thinnest slice of hope to world leaders:
It is not too late […] You can prevent planetary crash and burn. We have the technologies to avoid the worst of climate chaos – if we act now.”
The rest of the two weeks will doubtless be committed to lobbyists, bankers, royals and politicians deciding exactly how they are going to “act”. Or, more accurately, how they are going to sell their pre-agreed actions to their cattle-like populations.
They are literally telling us their plans, all we have to do is listen.
For example, Friday and Saturday were given over to the “World Climate Action Summit”, at which over 170 world leaders pledged support for Agenda 2030.
On 1 and 2 December, 176 world leaders gathered for the World Climate Action Summit (WCAS), signaling a new era of climate action on the road to 2030.
That would be 176 global leaders out of roughly 195 countries, so they have over 90 per cent of the world covered.
Among the agreements and pledges signed at the summit so far is the “Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action”. Which, according to the BBC, pledges to:
“take aim at planet-warming food”
We’ve all played this game long enough to know what that means, haven’t we?
It means no more meat and dairy, and a lot more bugs and GMO soy cubes.
They never say that, of course. In fact, they never mention any specific foods or practices at all [you can read the whole declaration here].
Instead, they just use phrases like “orient policies [to] reduce greenhouse gas emissions”, or “shifting from higher greenhouse gas-emitting practices to more sustainable production and consumption approaches”
Maintaining plausible deniability via vague language is part of the dance, but anyone paying attention knows exactly what they are talking about.
It doesn’t stop there. World leaders have also agreed to establish a “loss and damage fund”, a 430 million dollar resource for developing countries that need to “recover” after being “damaged” by climate change.
Ajay Banga, head of noted charitable organisation the World Bank, is all in favour of the idea and will be supporting the plan by agreeing to “pause” debt repayments from any government impacted by climate change.
We know how this works, we saw the same thing in the IHR amendments following Covid – it’s a bribe pool. One that serves to both further the narrative of climate change and instruct policy in the third world. Any developing nation’s government that wants a slice of that pie will have to publicly talk about all the negative impacts climate change has on their country.
At the same time, to get the money, they will almost certainly have to agree to “adopt climate-friendly policies” and/or submit their climate policies to an “independent panel of experts” appointed by the UN.
In eastern Africa, catastrophic flooding has followed the most severe drought the region has seen in over 40 years…A tendency to ignore Africa’s developmental and industrial needs is no longer a tenable position…Turning Africa into a green powerhouse is not just essential for the continent, it is also vital for global industrialisation and decarbonisation.”
These companies represent around half the world’s oil production, and just want to help the planet, they have no financial stake in this situation at all.
There’s the smaller Declaration on Climate, Relief, Recovery and Peace, which was signed by only 70 countries (and 39 NGOs). That one emphasizes the link between war and carbon emissions and aims to “boost financial support for climate resilience in war-torn and fragile settings”, whatever that means in real terms I’m not sure.
It is funded to the tune of 1 BILLION dollars from donors such as the Rockefeller Foundation, and supposedly aims to:
better leverage synergies at the intersection of climate change and health to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of finance flows.”
…which might be the worst sentence anyone has ever written.
I’ve written about the agenda behind linking climate change to public health enough for one lifetime. You can read a deeper analysis of the topic here, here and here…and here and here and here.
All this is going to culminate in what they call the “Global Stocktake”. Essentially this is a mid-term report for the Paris Agreements, which can be “leveraged to accelerate ambition in their next round of climate action plans due in 2025”.
Whatever “leveraged to accelerate ambition” turns out to mean, you can be sure all of the attending governments will happily comply.
That includes every government in NATO, the European Union and BRICS by the way.
That includes the USA and China. That includes RussiaandUkraine.
Sure there’s a frisson of animosity being reported, with some delegations storming out of meetings with the Israelis, but basically, even victim and perpetrators of genocide can apparently sink their irreconcilable differences to agree to pretend that climate change is a real problem.
It’s basically covid all over again.
We know, just like Covid, the official narrative of climate change is a lie.
We know, just like Covid, climate change is being used as an excuse to usher in massive social control and global governance.
And we know, just like Covid, almost every world government on both sides of every divide is backing it.
Even if they don’t always agree, even if they are happy to kill each other’s citizens in large numbers, they are all on board the same globalist gravy train, all going in the same direction to the same destination, and it has never been more obvious.
Lebanese Soldier Dies, Army Post Comes Under Israeli Shelling, For 1st Time In The Conflict
There’s been a major escalation on the southern Lebanese border for which Israel has issued a very rare apology, following eight weeks of conflict related to the Gaza war.
On Tuesday Israeli shelling in response to ongoing Hezbollah rocket and mortar attacks killed a Lebanese Army soldier – a first in the conflict. Three other soldiers were wounded in the mortar attack. It comes after repeat warnings from Israeli officials, including PM Benjamin Netanyahu, that all of Lebanon could suffer if Hezbollah persists in escalating the attacks.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued a statement to “express regret” for killing the Lebanese soldier, and explained in a post on X that its fire had targeted a known launch area used by Hezbollah.
The incident marks the first time a member of the armed forces of a sovereign country bordering Israel has died by direct Israeli fire since the Gaza war began.
The US expressed concern over the death, with a government official telling Al Arabiya English, “The Lebanese Armed Forces is an essential institution, not only to the stability and security of Lebanon, but of the entire region.”
“France is gravely concerned by the ongoing clashes on the border between Lebanon and Israel. France condemns the Israeli strike which cost the life of a member of the Lebanese armed forces, and sends its sincere condolences to the victim’s relatives,” a spokesperson in a daily briefing.
So far, dozens of Hezbollah fighter have been killed, but also civilians and at least one journalist. On the other side, Hezbollah attacks have killed and wounded Israeli troops and civilians. Israel has evacuated dozens of communities that lie within a couple miles of the border as well.
Israel’s attack have escalated to include airstrikes on Lebanon in recent days…
The IDF says fighter jets struck several Hezbollah sites in southern Lebanon in response to the attacks on the border today, including an anti-tank guided missile attack that left several soldiers wounded.
In late November, a UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon said that its forces had come under fire from Israeli forces, an incident it called “deeply troubling”.
Noting the Lebanese army confirmation of its soldier killed in Israeli shelling, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said that the “Lebanese Armed Forces have not engaged in conflict with Israel”, and that “we have seen a rapid and alarming increase in violence”.
In this latest and other incidents, Israel has said that it is responding to Hezbollah aggression. What’s been clear thus far is that neither side wants an unlimited, full-on war. So far the violence has been “contained” – but this could change at any moment.
Earlier today, IDF soldiers operated in self defense to eliminate an imminent threat that had been identified from Lebanon. The threat was identified within a known launch area and observation point of the Hezbollah terrorist organization, near al-Awadi. Hezbollah’s activities…
Lebanon, which lacks a serious air force, also doesn’t want to be dragged into a war reminiscent of 2006 – when much of the southern half of the country, including Beirut international airport, was bombed. But further attacks on Lebanese Army posts from Israel could sway public opinion further in Hezbollah’s favor.
An MIT scientist has said that although the global temperature rise owing to a greenhouse effect is real, the increase is small and does not pose any existential threat.
The greenhouse effect is primarily caused by water vapor and clouds, said Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide are minor constituents of the greenhouse effect, Mr. Lindzen told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” in an interview.
“If all other things are kept constant, and you double CO2, you would get a little under one degree of warming,” Mr. Lindzen said. Some climate models estimate the highest warming at three degrees, but “even three degrees isn’t that much,” he added.
“We’re dealing with changes for a doubling of CO2 on the order of between breakfast and lunch,” he said.
According to NASA, the greenhouse effect is “the process through which heat is trapped near Earth’s surface by substances known as ‘greenhouse gases.’ Greenhouse gases consist of carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and water vapor.”
Politicians, universities, international organizations, and media have called climate warming an existential threat to humanity.
President Joe Biden said at a press conference in Vietnam in September that, “The only existential threat humanity faces even more frightening than a nuclear war is global warming going above 1.5 degrees in the next … 10 years.”
The Climate Change Working Group at Western Michigan University has warned that the “global temperature has risen at least 1°C since mid-20th century” and said that “climate change is an existential threat to the quality of life on this planet.”
Bruce Aylward, assistant director General at the World Health Organization (WHO), said in November that climate change poses an existential threat to all people, in particular pregnant women and children.
Mr. Lindzen asserted that calling climate change an existential threat comes from propaganda.
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the United Nations body for assessing the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts, and options to mitigate—does not call it an existential threat, Mr. Lindzen said.
In its report, the IPCC talks about a reduction in GDP by 3 percent by 2100 owing to climate change, Mr. Lindzen added. “Assuming the GDP has increased several times by then, that doesn’t sound existential to most people.”
Extreme Climate Change of the Past
There is also an argument that during major climate changes in Earth’s history, the global mean temperature change was only five degrees, implying that warming by “three degrees could be something serious,” Mr. Lindzen said.
He referred to two climate change events when the mean temperature difference between these two periods and today was only about five degrees.
One of the events was the Last Glacial Maximum, also known as the last ice age, when Illinois was covered with an ice sheet about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) thick.
“The latest ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago, when global temperatures were likely about 10°F (5°C) colder than today,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says.
The second event was the warm period about 50 million years ago when alligator-like creatures were living on Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago located north of the Arctic Circle.
During this hot period about 55–56 million years ago, the global mean temperature “appears to be” higher than today’s temperature by about seven degrees Celsius (13 degrees Fahrenheit), reaching 73 degrees Fahrenheit, NOAA said.
However, the warming of the last 150 years, since the pre-industrial era (1850–1900), has “no resemblance” to these two major climate changes, Mr. Lindzen said.
During these periods, the temperature in the tropics remained almost constant while the temperature difference between the tropics and the pole increased by 20 degrees Celsius during the Last Glacial Maximum and decreased by 20 degrees Celsius during the warm period, the scientist pointed out.
On the other hand, the temperature increase since the pre-industrial age owing to the greenhouse effect observed today remains the same in every place from tropics to pole, Mr. Lindzen explained.
“The tropics-to-pole temperature difference depends on the dynamics of the heat transport by motion. To some extent, the equator depends on the greenhouse effect,” he said.
The increase we are seeing could be attributed to CO2—about a degree—but it is not changing from tropics to pole, Mr. Lindzen asserted, calling the idea that this temperature shift is “existential” and requires massive mitigation “unreasonable.”
Is CO2 Dangerous?
CO2 reduction is “the dream of a regulator,” Mr. Lindzen said. “If you control CO2, you control breathing; if you control breathing, you control everything. So this always is one temptation.”
“The other temptation is the energy sector. No matter how much you clean fossil fuels, they will always produce water vapor and CO2,” Mr. Lindzen explained.
CO2 is being treated as a poison and most people believe that CO2 is dangerous, the scientist continued, but they forget that CO2 is essential.
“The concentration of CO2 in your mouth is about 40,000 parts per million as opposed to 400 outside,” Mr. Lindzen said. A concentration of “5,000 is permitted on a space station.”
“It’s partly poisoned—but worse than that—it’s essential. If you could get rid of 60 percent of the CO2, we’d all be dead.”
“This is a very strange pollutant; it’s essential for plant life,” Mr. Lindzen said. “Yet, because it is the inevitable product of fossil fuel burning in the energy sector, it’s being attacked.”
Science Is Used to Advance Climate Change Policies
The IPCC produces reports on climate change that are often thousands of pages long. The institution also releases general summaries for policymakers and “iconic statements” that summarize thousands of pages in one sentence, Mr. Lindzen said.
Only the reports produced by the IPCC’s Working Group I are science, Mr. Lindzen asserted. “Everything else is written by government officials and so on, so it’s dicey.”
Working Group I is tasked with assessing the physical science of climate change, according to its website.
One of the iconic statements by IPCC asserted that it was “almost certain that most of the climate change—the warming—since 1960 was due to man,” Mr. Lindzen said, explaining that “if it were even all of it, you’re talking about a fraction of a degree.”
Yet Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) considered this conclusion “the smoking gun” and wanted to do something in response, Mr. Lindzen said.
In 2001, Working Group I published a report explaining the scientific basis of the IPCC’s third assessment of past, present, and future climate change. The report stated that the global average earth surface temperature—a combination of near-surface air temperature over land and sea surface temperature—has increased over the 20th century by 0.4 to 0.8 degrees Celsius (0.72 to 1.44 degrees Fahrenheit).
Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely attributable to human activities, in particular “to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations,” the report said.
The report also provides a projection on the global temperature increase through the end of the 21st century, relative to 1990, based on the simulation of various emissions scenarios developed by the IPCC. Across all simulated scenarios, the lowest estimated temperature increase was 1.4 degrees Celsius (2.52 degrees Fahrenheit), and the highest was 5.8 degrees Celsius (10.44 degrees Fahrenheit).
In response to the report, Mr. Lieberman and the late Mr. McCain proposed “an economy-wide cap-and-trade system” to control emissions of greenhouse gases in the country, according to a 2001 congressional record.
“Given the fact that the United States produces approximately 25 percent of the total greenhouse gases emissions, the United States has a responsibility to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases,” Mr. McCain said in the record. “American companies now face the risk of being left out of the global marketplace to buy and sell emission reductions.”
“The Earth’s average temperature can be expected to rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit during the next century,” Mr. Lieberman said in the record, citing the third assessment report. “Such a large, rapid rise in temperature will profoundly alter the Earth’s landscape in very practical terms.”
In 2003, both senators introduced the Climate Stewardship Act that would require the reduction of the emissions of six greenhouse gases and create an international system to trade emissions. The legislation did not pass through the Senate despite being reintroduced in 2005 and 2007.
An innocent statement made by scientists can be misrepresented as “catastrophic” by politicians who then provide more funding for the scientific research in that field, which neither the science community nor the U.N. would object to, Mr. Lindzen said.
The IPCC releases scientific assessment reports of climate change every six to seven years.
In 2021, Working Group I released a report presenting the scientific basis of the IPCC’s sixth assessment of climate change.
The likely range of human-induced increase in global surface temperature in 2010–2019 relative to the pre-industrial era was estimated at 0.8 to 1.3 degrees Celsius (1.44 to 2.34 degrees Fahrenheit), the report said.
‘Science Is Never Settled’
“Those who claim that science is settled want to shut off all disagreement because they do not have much to present,” Mr. Lindzen said. “Science is never settled.”
Politicians and non-scientists have often noticed that science has a certain authority with the public, and they want to co-opt it, so they bring in the term “the science,” Mr. Lindzen said. “But that isn’t what science is. … Science is a mode of inquiry,” he said.
It is always open to question; it depends on questions and on being wrong, the scientist pointed out. “When you say science cannot be wrong, you’ve choked off science.”
“Science isn’t a belief structure, it isn’t a cult, isn’t a religion.”
Today, it is almost impossible to publish a scientific paper that questions global warming, Mr. Lindzen said.
Scientific journals use referees as gatekeepers who can recommend major revisions to a paper questioning the climate narrative, the scientist explained. The revisions keep the author busy for a year, and then the paper gets rejected, he said. “Climate is one of the earliest examples of cancel culture.”
Mr. Lindzen said that he has a list of prominent scientists, such as nature lab directors, heads of weather bureaus or international organizations, who were suppressed starting from the early 1990s.
On the other hand, “the funding for climate in total went up by about a factor of 15,” creating a new community that exists only because of the climate narrative, Mr.Lindzen said. As a result, no one in the mainstream media questions it.
Biden Raises Possibility Of “American Troops Fighting Russian Troops”
President Joe Biden has raised the possibility of “American troops fighting Russian troops” in a speech urging Congress to put aside “petty, partisan, angry politics” which is holding up his multibillion-dollar aid package for Ukraine. He said that he’s willing to make “significant compromises” with Republicans but that it’s they who’ve been unwilling to back down from their “extreme” demands.
“This cannot wait,” Biden stressed in the televised remarks from the White House. “Congress needs to pass supplemental funding for Ukraine before they break for the holiday recess. Simple as that. Frankly, I think it’s stunning that we’ve gotten to this point in the first place. Republicans in Congress are willing to give Putin the greatest gift he can hope for and abandon our global leadership.”
Breaking: Biden raises the possibility of World War 3 with “American troops fighting Russian troops”. To be clear a war between two nuclear powers is guaranteed to end with nuclear war. Didn’t the Democrats insist that Trump would start World War 3? pic.twitter.com/LNYVsdSmZI
“I’m willing to make significant compromises on the border. We need to fix the broken border system. It is broken. And thus far I’ve gotten no response,” Biden pleaded. He made the speech after speaking with G7 leaders, who are reportedly alarmed that US funding to Ukraine is set to run dry in a mere three weeks.
“If we walk away, how many of our European friends are going to continue to fund and at what rates are they going to continue to fund?” he posed.
And that’s when the fear-mongering really kicked into overdrive. He went so far as to say that if Ukraine’s defense isn’t funded, this will lead to the country being steamrolled by the Russian military machine, and an emboldened Putin will then seek to gobble up more territory. Here’s what the US president said, as reported in The New York Times:
The president even raised the prospect that an emboldened Mr. Putin would pose a threat to NATO allies, requiring the United States to come to their assistance with troops on the group. “If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there,” Mr. Biden said. “It’s important to see the long run here. He’s going to keep going. He’s made their pretty clear.”
“If he keeps going and then he attacks a NATO ally” to which the United States is bound by treaty to help, “then we’ll have something that we don’t seek and that we don’t have today — American troops fighting Russian troops,” Mr. Biden said.
“Make no mistake,” he added. “Today’s vote is going to be long remembered and history’s going to judge harshly those who turn their back on freedom’s cause. We can’t let Putin win. I’ll say it again, we can’t let Putin win.”
Of course, this shaky “logic” is the opposite of reality. It is the nearly two years of ‘blank check’ spending which has only served to ever-deepen American military involvement in the war, and this is what has gotten Washington into yet another foreign quagmire.
The soon to emerge narrative will also inevitably be that these hold-out Republicans “lost” the Ukraine war, as Biden’s Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has already been saying. The MSM will also help the administration float this as a key 2024 election talking point… wait for it to be on an endless CNN/NPR loop headed into next November.
In a fiery exchange during a House Oversight Subcommittee on Health session Tuesday, NCAA swimming champion Riley Gaines countered Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., after Lee labeled testimonies opposing transgender males in women’s sports as “transphobic.”
This clash comes as the debate intensifies over the Biden administration’s proposed changes to Title IX, which would redefine sexual discrimination to encompass gender identity.
Gaines, an acclaimed swimmer and advocate for women’s sports, responded to Lee’s characterization of the testimonies with a firm stance.
“There’s a place for everybody to play sports in this country,” Gaines said, acknowledging the inclusion of transgender individuals.
Yet, she firmly asserted, “But unsafe, unfair and discriminatory practices must stop.” Gaines continued, stressing the necessity of balancing inclusion with safety and fairness in sports.
Gaines proceeded to slam Lee stating in a bold retort:
“Inclusion cannot be prioritized over safety and fairness. And ranking member Lee, if my testimony makes me ‘transphobic,’ then I believe your opening monologue makes you a misogynist.”
Lee then pounced and demanded that Gaines’ remarks be struck for “engaging in personalities” rather than the substance of the debate:
“I move to have the gentlewoman’s words taken down.”
As Jonathan Turley details, what followed was hurried consultation and presumably a few explanations for Lee on why witnesses are allowed to respond to such attacks by a member.
Lee then withdrew her demand.
Rule XVII, clause 1(b) prohibits Members from engaging in “personalities.” That is a rule cited to the Speaker or chair to bar personal attacks from other members that are deemed unparliamentary. There is no definition of what words are considered to be violative of the rule.
However, Lee was attempting to use this against a witness who was defending herself against her own personal attack. It is a dangerous extension. Members of Congress generally are protected under the “speech or debate” clause in Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution. The privilege protects legislative proceedings and generally does not apply to news releases, speeches and other public comments. This was the holding in Hutchinson v. Proxmire, when Sen. Proxmire was found to be acting outside of the clause in making media comments regarding his golden fleece award.
Members often knowingly make defamatory comments in congressional debates, but then decline to repeat those same words in public to avoid any legal accountability. I faced that tactic in representing Dr. Eric Foretich in the Elizabeth Morgan controversy. Members would say false and defamatory claims about my client on the floor, but would carefully avoid repeating those claims in interviews. My challenge to the Elizabeth Morgan Act took years before it was struck down as an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. However, we could not bring a defamation action due to members using the Speech and Debate Clause as a shield.
That would create a nightmarish combination if members are protected from actions in defaming witnesses but then can censor them when they defend themselves.
The fact that Lee’s immediate response was to censor a person who she had just attacked is telling.
After labeling Gaines a hateful bigot, Lee did not believe that she should be allowed to denounce Lee’s own comments as an attack on women.
It shows the slippery slope of censorship.
Democrats have embraced an anti-free speech agenda to silence opposing viewpoints. That desire becomes insatiable even as citizens seek to rebut personal attacks from members in a congressional hearing.
Watch the full exchange below:
This is great. After being called transphobic for saying men shouldn’t be able to compete pretending they are women @Riley_Gaines_ throws Democrats into an uproar by saying they are misogynists for making this argument. Watch them scramble: pic.twitter.com/DheMbGDXvS
The backdrop of this dispute is the Biden administration’s proposed amendment to Title IX, aimed at expanding its scope to include gender identity, which would prevent educational institutions from banning transgender athletes from competition.
Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., chairwoman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Health, expressed the gravity of this issue. McClain
“Congress must do everything it can to protect women’s sports,” she told Fox Digital News.
She further criticized the proposed changes, stating, “The Biden administration is putting women’s safety, privacy and opportunities at risk by dismantling Title IX.”
McClain is organizing a hearing, “The Importance of Protecting Female Athletics and Title IX,” where Gaines, alongside other notable figures such as Sarah Parshall Perry of the Heritage Foundation and Kim Russell, former women’s lacrosse coach at Oberlin College, will testify. This hearing aims to delve into how the Biden administration’s proposed changes could impact fairness and protection for women in sports.
Gaines, a two-time Olympic trial participant, has been a vocal opponent of the inclusion of biological male athletes in women’s sports. She previously condemned the proposed Title IX revisions in June, terming the “rewrite” of the policy as “an abomination.”
Gaines’ strong stance and remarks reflect a strong belief held by many in America for the need to uphold the original intent of Title IX, which was to ensure equitable opportunities and safety for women in sports.
Gaines is backing her position with her own funds. On Monday, Gaines responded to two biological men winning first and second place at the Illinois Cyclocross State Championships over the weekend, stating “Any woman who concedes and doesn’t compete, I will personally pay them the prize money they’re missing out on. Stop participating in the farce.”
Two men take 1st & 2nd at the Illinois State Cyclocross Championships yesterday. @usacycling has 2 categories for men and none for women
Any woman who concedes and doesn’t compete, I will personally pay them the prize money they’re missing out on. Stop participating in the farce pic.twitter.com/MbFc2av95y
This contentious issue will continue to spark debate as women battle for the integrity of women’s athletics, with figures like Gaines advocating for what they see as vital protections for female athletes.
‘Growth Scare’ Spooks Big-Tech & Black Gold As Bond Yields Plunge
Macro data continues to serially disappoint, with ADP today confirming labor market stress is starting to build…
Source: Bloomberg
Treasuries were mixed with the long-end dramatically outperforming (30Y -8bps, 2Y +2bps). On the week, only 2Y yields are higher with 5Y unch and the rest of the curve lower…
Source: Bloomberg
…pushing the yield curve flatter/more-inverted…
Source: Bloomberg
…as the bond market is starting to price in a growth scare as long-end yields tumble to their lowest since August…
Source: Bloomberg
Here are five reasons why:
Today’s November ADP report was below estimates at 103,000 and showed job cuts in manufacturing. That was in line with Tuesday’s slowing in JOLTS job openings.
Traders ramped up bets on ECB rate cuts next year after weak German factory data bolstered the view that it’ll be the first to pivot.
Walmart CEO said consumers may not be as resilient next year, even as deflation starts to show, according to a CNBC interview.
Oil is moving lower on surging oil exports and as pessimism outweighs stockpile drop.
Treasuries sliced through resistance with dealers and international real money buying in long-end Treasury futures ahead of expected money manager demand after next week’s FOMC. Fixed income option flows too remain bullish — skewed towards call structures that target 2% Fed rate by September.
Goldman reassures that “slowing but no recession, disinflation without job losses is what is being priced into the equity markets.”
‘Growthy’ Cyclical stocks remain high as macro and commodities are non-growthy…
..but ‘unprofitable tech’ continues to rally (on lower rates)…
Source: Bloomberg
…as ‘most shorted’ stocks squeezed higher and hedge fund VIP holding were weaker – punishing them twice…
Source: Bloomberg
But, the last hour saw broader selling pressure which smashed the squeeze back down to unch…
Source: Bloomberg
…and that dragged Small Caps down into the red with the rest of the US Majors today. Nasdaq and S&P were the ugliest horses in the glue factory…
The dollar strengthened against its fiat peers for the 5th time in the last 6 days (closing at 3-week highs)…
Source: Bloomberg
Bitcoin held yesterday’s gains, hovering around $44,000 all day…
Source: Bloomberg
Ethereum was lower on the day, dragging the ETH/BTC cross to its lows in June…
Source: Bloomberg
Gold inched higher (with spot prices finding support at $2020)…
Source: Bloomberg
Oil tumbled for the fifth straight day (8 of last 10 days) with WTI tumbling back below $70 for the first time since early July. Most notably, prices are back below the levels that triggered OPEC+’s big coordinated production cuts in March…
Source: Bloomberg
Finally, financial conditions continue to loosen…
Source: Bloomberg
When will The Fed be forced to intervene as ‘the market’ erases all its hard work?
“Here Comes The Cliff!”: Carson Block Shorts Blackstone Mortgage REIT As ‘Liquidity Crisis’ Risks Mount
At the Sohn Conference in London on Wednesday, Carson Block, the founder of Muddy Waters Research, warned that Blackstone’s Mortgage Trust (BXMT) is facing a “perfect macro storm.” He suggested that a crisis in commercial real estate could potentially lead to a “liquidity crisis” in the trust.
Block told attendees at Sohn that Muddy Waters is short BXMT because “borrowers will be unable to refinance and repay” the trust. He cautioned that BXMT is at “risk of a liquidity crisis” and explained, “This is not a story where bad people have done bad things, they are just unlucky.”
“Blackstone may modify the loans but it’s such a big number of loans terminating next year that will not be able to be swept under the rug,” he continued.
In a report published on the Muddy Waters’ website, the research firm outlined its reasons for taking a short position on BXMT:
Muddy Waters is short Blackstone Mortgage Trust (BXMT US). Interest rate swaps and manipulated risk ratings / loss provisions have obscured serious deterioration in BXMT’s loan book. Muddy Waters believes that starting in 2024, as an estimated $16 billion of swaps terminate, the following problems will be evident:
BXMT will likely significantly cut its dividend as soon as H2 2024. At present SOFR, we expect BXMT to cut its quarterly dividend by at least half.
We think large numbers of borrowers will be unable to refinance and repay BXMT.
BXMT is at risk of a liquidity crisis.
Even assuming rate cuts, BXMT’s losses on its $23.2 billion net book value of loans could reach ~$2.5 billion to ~$4.5 billion. BXMT’s market cap, which is currently $4.0 billion, is at risk of being completely wiped out by these losses. These losses would be in addition to BXMT’s existing loss provisions.
The report starts with, “Here Comes the Cliff!”
BXMT is a REIT that borrows money and lends to commercial mortgage borrowers.
Muddy Waters explained many CRE borrowers are underwater on their properties because values have plunged, making it impossible for some to repay BXMT. It noted, “Anticipated rate cuts would be too little, too late for many CRE borrowers.”
Muddy Waters zooms out on the CRE sector and shows the mounting stress.
Despite no signs of distress at the trust, Muddy Waters said troubled loans are being modified by extending maturities.
Turbulence appears to be arriving as early as next year.
Shares of BXMT fell 6% in the US cash session. Since pre-Covid levels, shares of the trust have been halved and near Covid lows.
In October, a Bloomberg survey of professionals found that most respondents were expecting a “severe crash” in the CRE space.
Meanwhile, the private $64 billion Blackstone Real Estate Income Trust has experienced troubles of its own, gating redemption requests for 13 consecutive months amid CRE woes.
