It Takes a Village?

Posted on by
Reply

One is trying to come for the children of Idaho (among other places).

School districts throughout Idaho have been adopting policies to keep parents in the dark about their children’s gender identity and sexual orientation at the instruction of the Idaho School Boards Association (ISBA), according to school district policies and email correspondence obtained through FOIA requests by Parents Defending Education, which were shared with Fox News Digital.
Policies adopted on “Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation” in the Buhl, Challis, Marsh Valley, Middleton, and Wilder school districts say an employee could be demoted or even fired for violating a student’s confidentiality on LGBTQ issues.

The village will raise our children; all we parents are for is getting children for village use.

No, it doesn’t take a village to use raise our children. It takes parents, ideally, two of them, to raise our children, and it takes parents to bring our children to the moral and religious state that John Adams so rightly said our republic desperately needs for survival.

Some Wuhan Virus Statistics

Posted on by
Reply

…from the JAMA Network, measured in the 12 months from August 2021. First, some mortality rates for children:

  • 3 per 100 000 for those younger than 1 year [with their unformed immune systems]
  • 6 per 100 000 for those aged 1 to 4 years
  • 4 per 100 000 for those aged 5 to 9 years
  • 5 per 100 000 for those aged 10 to 14 years

This works out to a mortality rate of around 0.5 per 100,000 for children 14 years old and younger. For 15-19 year olds—the remaining category of “children”—the mortality rate was 1.8 per 100,000.

The leading causes of death among children in 2019, pre-Virus, included these, and their rates, which were changed, if at all, only by the rate of lockdown and school closure:

  • perinatal conditions (12.7 per 100 000)
  • unintentional injuries (9.1 per 100 000)
  • congenital malformations or deformations (6.5 per 100 000)

The Virus represented only 2% of all the causes of child deaths in the report’s period.  In contrast, the mortality rate from the Virus for all Virus cases—which includes adults—was 109 per 100,000 population.

The risk to children from side effects of the various Wuhan Virus vaccines is very small, even as some of those side effects can be quite severe. The risk to children from going unvaccinated is just as small, if not smaller. That makes the risk to children from vaccine side effects not worth the gain in mitigating mortality from an “unprotected” infection. Furthermore, since the vaccines introduce parts of the Virus particles into the body to stimulate an immune reaction and antibody construction, that would seem to make the vaccines especially risky for those babies, who have no effective immune system to be stimulated and so cannot counteract even the partial Virus particles.

Who’s the Racist?

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego claimed, in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, that those of us who want a secure southern border are racist.

Claiming this [that the border is not closed] continues a false, racist narrative….

Congressman Wesley Hunt (R, TX), an American who happens to be black, demurred.

I’ve been a Black minority in this country for a very long time. But this is actually not about race. This is actually an issue of public safety.
And if I call this an invasion, sir, I’m not a racist. I can assure you I’m not racist. What I can assure you is that I want to make sure that fentanyl doesn’t indiscriminately kill any race, religion, color, or creed. Fentanyl doesn’t care where you’re from. Fentanyl doesn’t care about race. Fentanyl kills indiscriminately.
…
And as somebody that wants to make sure that we do attack racist issues when they do occur, we can’t be the boy who cried wolf and blame racism all the time.

A County Judge making up a racist beef where he knows full well that none exists. Who’s the racists here?

Aiding an Enemy Nation

Posted on by
Reply

In the present case, it’s technically legal, but it’s strictly wrong.

The People’s Republic of China is a global leader in the development of artificial intelligence, and it’s on the way to becoming the global leader. AI has a number of uses of which the PRC is taking advantage, including surveillance of citizens and fighting battles and entire wars.

Despite this threat to our nation’s security, American businesses and investors have comprised more than 40% of the 400 international investments in PRC AI, and those 400 investments were 17% of total international investment in PRC AI.

Here, per the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University, are the top 10 American investors in PRC AI—companies that put their lucre acquisition ahead of our nation’s security:

The CSET has reported further that

Collectively, observed transactions involving US investors totaled $40.2 billion invested into 251 Chinese AI companies, which accounts for 37 percent of the $110 billion raised by all Chinese AI companies.

And [emphasis added]

such financial activity, commercial linkages, and the tacit expertise that transfers from US-based funders to target companies in China’s booming AI ecosystem carry implications that extend beyond the business sector. Earlier stage VC investments in particular can provide intangible benefits beyond capital, including mentorship and coaching, name recognition, and networking opportunities. As such, US outbound investment in Chinese technology, and particularly AI, merits additional attention and tracking.

This comes after Google, for instance, infamously refused to continue a contract with the US’ Department of Defense to develop battlefield-capable artificial intelligence packages while continuing actively to support the PRC’s citizen-surveillance and military AI development. Alphabet’s subsequent words and actions concerning its now wholly owned subsidiary now being willing to work with DoD do nothing to mitigate, much less correct, that infamy.

Taliban and CPC—Peas in a Pod

Posted on by
Reply

That similarity facilitates the People’s Republic of China’s government and Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers hooking up. With President Joe Biden’s (D) decision to cut and run from Afghanistan 17 months ago, the Communist Party of China and the rest of the government of the PRC have been moving into Afghanistan with enthusiasm, and the Taliban has been opening up to them with increasing enthusiasm.

The PRC is committing genocide against Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang province, having already locked away in concentration camps more than a million of them and “reeducating” a million more in the CPC’s effort to erase Uighur Muslim culture.

The Taliban, on the other hand, are moving with zeal to punish Afghan-domiciled Muslims, locking away Muslim women in their own homes, keeping them carefully ignorant, and allowing them out in public only if they’re fully covered and accompanied by family male supervisors. This assault is accompanied by Taliban efforts to limit the ability of Muslim groups to cross the border into Xinjiang and work to liberate the Uighurs—albeit many of those groups being al Qaeda terrorists or supporters.

This alignment has facilitated the PRC-Taliban agreement for the PRC to drill for oil in Afghanistan’s north, an arrangement worth $540 million. The PRC’s Belt and Road Initiative has routes that pass through Afghanistan, directly connecting the PRC with Iran.

PRC exploitation of Afghanistan’s vast rare earth resources, for lucrative fees to the Taliban, won’t be far behind.

It’s almost like they’re friends with benefits.