Uncategorized

‘Fastest Girl in Connecticut’ Sues State to Keep Males From Competing in Female Sports

A high school track star in Connecticut is suing her state for allowing biological males to compete against her, which she says caused her to unfairly lose.
Self-dubbed the “fastest girl in Connecticut,” Chelsea Mitchell, who’s now 20, told the New York Post she and three other girls are suing the Connecticut Association of Schools and the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference in efforts to overturn policies allowing transgenders to compete against biological females.

“At the end of the day, this is just about fairness,” Mitchell said, adding, “This is about biology.”

Chelsea Mitchell is suing Connecticut after losing state track title to two male athletes, and urges other female athletes across the US to do the same. https://t.co/8IxZZpGp5C
— ♀️Jennifer Gingrich ✡️ (@fem_mb) June 1, 2023

“I wanted to give voice to my story and help other girls out there so that they wouldn’t have to experience this,” she said.

Get HALF-OFF Ultimate Fish Oil to improve your supplement routine & experience the world-renowned powerhouse formula!

The Post explains Mitchell “lost more than 20 races over the course of her high school career” in no small part due to competing against transgenders.Take part in the ultimate win-win deals on the web by checking out our store now!
Mitchell says after breaking two school records she felt she was on the right track to becoming a great runner, that is until she competed against boys pretending to be girls.
The Post has more details:

Chelsea realized her potential as a runner when she broke two school records in her first meet as a freshman at Canton High School in 2016.
“Since then I just kept going with it and got better and better,” she recalled. “Track is really just about hitting those long-term goals that you’ve set for yourself.”
For her, those goals were winning a state championship and going to college for track.
But in her first statewide competition, she was forced to compete against a transgender athlete — something she said she “had never really heard of” until it happened to her.
In that race, the trans competitor bumped her out of qualifying for the next round of competition.
“It was just obvious to everyone there that they had a huge advantage. Everyone could see it,” Mitchell said.

After that, Mitchell said she recalled races being dominated by two trans runners who invariably won races and pushed other girls out of qualifying positions.

By her sophomore year, she says, there were two transgender athletes regularly blowing biologically female track stars out of the water.
Mitchell raced against them in all four years of high school and in every major race she competed in.
“Just two athletes took so many opportunities away from biological females,” Mitchell told The Post. “Even though there were only two of them, they took 15 state championships away from other girls — and there were 85 girls that were directly impacted from them being in the races.”

Mitchell recalled it was hard to cope with the unfair losses, saying, “Having to lose four of them, time after time, and trying to pick yourself up and go back to the starting line again and again was really hard because you knew each time that there was no hope to win.”
As a junior she anonymously submitted a Title IX complaint to the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference fearing that revealing her identity could ruin her chances at getting into college.

Female athletes are rising up to protect women’s sports before radical ideology destroys it permanently. https://t.co/r89OOwnTUu
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) June 1, 2023

However, by 2020 she along with fellow female athletes Selina Soule, 19, and Alanna Smith, 19, eventually sued the state to rescind the policy and “protect women’s sports.”
Mitchell’s case, which will be re-heard by New York City’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals after a previous court ruled against it, seeks among other things to “restore their record and the credit that they rightfully worked hard to earn,” according to her attorney Matt Sharp.

Chelsea Mitchell, a track and field athlete who is suing the state of Connecticut for forcing her to compete against biological males in high school 👇 pic.twitter.com/vC0kMYv0mB
— NUSfeed (@Nusfeed_News) May 30, 2023

Looking back, Mitchell says it’s incredible high school female athletes are still fighting the same battle, but that it’s getting easier because more girls are starting to speak out.
“We were the first girls to speak out about this issue, but now there are so many more girls speaking out about their own experiences and standing up with us… The more of us there are, the easier it gets,” she said. […]

Uncategorized

The Economics of Lockdown Panics

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo famously defended draconian restrictions and economic damage if measures saved “just one life.” President Trump’s first take on covid was to compare it to a seasonal flu. In a similar vein, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson planned herd immunity as his government’s response. Both leaders flipped and went for lockdowns when their advisors presented them with doomer models. The lockdowns gravely damaged their respective nations which have still not recovered. 
We can not know their minds, but assuming that it was entirely a political calculus, the fear of being held responsible for any number of avoidable deaths – even one – outweighs the cost of destroying 25-40 percent of small businesses, many careers, years of educational opportunities, and mental health of young people. 

Do we value human life to the extent that we place no limit on the costs that we would bear to save one? What is that cost? Setting aside whether the measures saved any lives at all, is saving one life worth a torrent of horrendous costs imposed on many people? How can we know? Economist Thomas Sowell observed “there are no solutions, only trade-offs.” Economics can help us understand that this absolutist way of thinking is not conducive to human life. 
Ignoring Indirect Effects
Journalist Henry Hazlitt is the author of the classic work Economics in One Lesson. The work consists of 25 chapters that reinforce a single lesson. What is the “one lesson?” It is that the greatest economic fallacy is “overlooking secondary consequences.” Advocates of an economic policy base their support on its direct and most obvious effects. 

According to Hazlitt, there is a “persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be on only on that special group but on all groups.” But indirect effects may be harmful, at least as great in magnitude, but more difficult to understand. Counting the benefits while disregarding the unseen costs creates the illusion of a free lunch. 

Our fan-favorite Turbo Force Plus is now 25% off! See for yourself the delicious one-of-a-kind energy boost infowarriors CRAVE!
Look sharp by wearing exclusive gear found only at our store.

Not every single one of the things that keeps us alive and thriving are economic goods – but a good many of them are. At an individual level, money gives you access to food, shelter, heat, air conditioning, clothing, medical care, and whatever services you need in any area of life. A wealthy society will have quality infrastructure such as roads, the power grid, cellular networks, and emergency services. The more advanced economies have a skilled labor force consisting of people who can build, install products, and repair things that break. 
The single factor that enables us to address all risks, harms, and misfortune in life is wealth. Wealthier societies can afford to build more stable buildings that will withstand earthquakes and extreme weather; better pipelines to move oil and gas; redundant power generation capacity; dams and aqueducts to move water; more inventory of food and medical supplies. 
Many people have pointed out that lives are not saved absolutely by any medical or public health measures. Because we will all die at some point, only years of a life can be saved by avoidance of an early death. The more forms of wealth and opportunities to be productive that exist in a society, the better that its members are able to sustain and extend their lives. The covid panic measures were alleged to save lives by isolating us from each other. However, they had the effect of isolating many people from productive work as well. 

Had life continued more or less normally, with those most at risk isolating or taking precautions, then younger and healthier members of society could have continued with productive work. This would have resulted in them having more freedom and more wealth. 
This would have put the well in a better position to help the weak and the ill. Suppose that, instead of general lockdowns, public health officials had created a sort of volunteer job-matching board where the quarantined or the ill could ask for whatever form of help they needed, such as someone to run an errand for them or cut their lawn, and the well members of society could have volunteered to help as needed? 
Planners told us that essential work continued and only “non-essential” work was paused. But it is not so simple to split economic activities into two buckets. Say’s Law of Markets is the observation that any supply of a good constitutes a demand for some different kind of good. Ceasing production of half of the economy makes us all poorer. The idled “non-essential” workers are no longer able to contribute their supply to the pile. Shutting off production deprives many workers of the resources that they need to sustain their lives in myriad ways. Trying to fill the gap by printing money only created inflation.
High Time Preference
Time preference is the degree to which people prefer goods and services in the present compared to the future. Having a good in the distant future is not of equal value to having it right away. Lockdowns were undoubtedly adopted because of the high time preference of politicians. 
Everyone has a positive time preference to some extent. We all prefer to access money or other goods in the present compared to the future – to some extent. But people differ in how strong their time preference is. People with relatively lower time preferences take actions such as saving for the future, showing up for work on time, pursuing a lengthy course of education and training such as the education and training required to become a doctor, and taking care of their health. All of these require upfront costs in order to obtain the benefits years later. 
A financial instrument offering 8 percent interest would return, after one year, principal and interest of $1,080 on an initial investment of $1,000.  In the recently passed era of ultra low interest rates, a return of 8 percent per year would look pretty good – to an adult. But for a child: not so much. Experimental measurement of the rate of time preference of children has found values of several hundreds of percent per hour. 
As I pointed out in an earlier article, our finance policies of “slowing the spread” did not avoid sickness; they only pushed cases of illness into the future. Does it make sense to endure all of the intervening costs of the lockdowns when everyone who was going to get covid got it anyway? For most people, going about their life and dealing with illness when it happens would have made more sense. Delaying by two years the time when you got covid could only have been worth doing if you had very high time preference. 
In Democracy: The God that Failed, economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues that the time preference of democratic political systems is higher than that of hereditary monarchies. The king considers the consequences of his rule in terms of decades or even generations because he considers his entire realm to be a stock of capital goods. A good king wants to maintain his family lineage. He does not destroy his country because he intends to inherit the assets to the next in line of succession intact, or even appreciated in value. 
Elected representatives, on the other hand, have a term of several years. There is no guarantee that they will not lose their next election. They must accomplish all of their looting within their current term. They are incentivized to balance extracting as much wealth from the system as quickly as possible and maximizing their chances of winning the next election.
Many members of US Congress make millions of dollars on their stock portfolios while in office using their superior knowledge of how pending legislation and subsidies will impact various industries. Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, to cite one example, “raked in as much as $30 million from bets on the Big Tech firms Pelosi is responsible for regulating.”
Our lockdown response – run by politicians – is going to operate on a higher time preference than if the preferences of people with a longer time horizon and businesses, careers or educational plans were taken into account. 
“The Economy” is not a Thing
I have been reading about the history of economic thought in the past few years. I don’t know when “the economy” became a term but it was not present in the 18th century. I suspect that this came along with the British economist John Maynard Keynes, who advanced a theory of macroeconomics based on an excessive degree of aggregation. 
Economic theory for over a century has become overly fascinated with equilibrium states. While equilibrium theories tell us something about end states, they don’t tell us how we get there. Some economic theories posit that an auctioneer is involved in setting the prices of all goods before any transactions. This does not seem realistic.
In the real world, we never reach the end states described by the equilibrium theories because things change before we get there. The competitive market process pushes the direction toward an end state, but equilibrium theories tell us nothing about competition. The theory of competition is less well-developed than the theory of equilibrium. 
The economic world is a process. People are building, buying, selling, planning, and solving problems. Organizing firms and splitting them up. Opening and closing. Competition is messy. Firms bid for the same workers, build the wrong products, or have production accidents. People change jobs, ask for more pay, and try out new careers where they see more opportunity.
If there were such a thing as “the economy” then maybe it has a pause button, like a music app. Or maybe an on-off switch that we can flip in off direction for a year or two while we deal with the virus, and then flip it back on. Perhaps “the economy” has a hibernate mode, like a laptop when you close the lid. When you flip the lid open, your incomplete email is still there just as it was. 
The public health lunatics apparently did not know that there is such a thing as fixed costs. Many businesses have leases which they were required to continue to pay even if they had no revenues. They had employees that they had to either pay or lose. Inventories have a limited life. Some cities had residential rent moratoriums, which caused great economic damage to landlords; and had landlords continued to receive services while exempted from paying their costs, it would have harmed banks, construction workers, plumbers and landscapers.
Economic activity does not have a pause button. There are many critical steps that require months or years of planning and investment, that need to be synchronized in time with other steps. People work in one job to acquire experience for another job, or to save up money to buy a home and start a family. When a large range of options are blocked without warning, waste is inevitable because some plans cannot be realized. There are costs to holding inventories. Things perish. Recurring costs such as rent and insurance do not go away, even when revenues stop. 
Conclusion 
Former President of the Mises Institute Jeff Deist wrote in The New Anti-Economics: “Economics starts and ends with scarcity, an inescapable feature of human reality. Any conception of freedom from material and human constraints requires a post-economics world, either an earthly utopia or a heavenly abundance.” 
Economics alone cannot tell us if any cost is too much to “save one life.” But economic thinking can help us understand that preserving human life entails bearing costs. It requires resources and people with skills. We must provide ourselves with the means to bear those costs if we wish to continue to have the ability to preserve human life in the future. 

Alex Jones Calls for Rallies at the Border to Fight Human Trafficking […]

Uncategorized

The Fed Blew Up Another Real Estate Bubble and It’s Losing Air

In March, I warned that the commercial and investment real estate markets could be the next thing to break in this bubble economy. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal put a face on my warning.
The rampant money creation and zero percent interest rates during the COVID pandemic on top of three rounds of quantitative easing and more than a decade of artificially low interest rates in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis created all kinds of distortions and malinvestments in the economy and the financial system. It was inevitable that something would break when the Federal Reserve tried to raise interest rates in order to fight the price inflation it caused with its loose monetary policy.

Easy money is the lifeblood of the US economy and financial system. The Fed started draining that lifeblood away when it stepped in to fight the price inflation it could no longer write off as transitory. There was no way the central bank wasn’t going to break something.
The first crack in the dam was the ongoing financial crisis kicked off by the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. The Federal Reserve and the US government managed to plug that hole in the dam with a bank bailout. But there are plenty of other cracks in the dam.

For instance, the investment real estate market is under significant pressure due to rising interest rates. As a report by Yahoo Finance noted, “Big owners of property around the country were already under pressure from the Federal Reserve’s aggressive campaign to raise interest rates, which raised borrowing costs and lowered building values.”

X3 Tri-Iodine is BACK at the Infowars Store! Learn about the health benefits of iodine and the dangers of being deficient in it HERE.
1776 around the world starts when you visit our store!

It’s not unlike the housing bubble the Fed blew up in 2005 and 2006 but this time it’s concentrated on commercial real estate such as office buildings, multi-family housing complexes, and apartment buildings.
Jay Gajavell puts a human face on this problem.
Gajavell is a Texas real estate investor. According to the Wall Street Journal, his company owned $500 million-plus worth of Sunbelt apartment buildings with more than 7,000 units. He ranked as one of the biggest landlords in Houston.

Gajavelli is what is known as a syndicator. He built his real estate empire using funding from numerous small investors who wanted to get into the real estate game without all the work.
The plan was to buy apartment buildings, upgrade units, raise rents, and sell the buildings for a profit in as little as three years. But as the WSJ described it, these investors were “highly vulnerable to interest-rate increases over the past year that crushed the business model they and thousands of others in similar deals across the US had hoped would make them wealthy.”
The Wall Street Journal described the situation as a “looming investment-property disaster.”
In fact, rising interest rates have already caught up with Gajavelli. In April, his company lost four rental complexes with more than 3,000 units through foreclosure.
The Wall Street Journal explained what did Gajavelli in.

His company had taken out commercial real-estate loans that carried floating interest rates and were adjusted each month. Those types of loans in 2021 offered initial rates as low as 3.5%. Everything changed when the Federal Reserve began raising rates last year, driving up monthly loan payments. Inflation contributed to higher expenses, and Applesway couldn’t raise rents fast enough to keep pace. After bills went unpaid, company properties went into foreclosure.”

It would be one thing if this was an isolated incident, but it isn’t. There are thousands of real estate entrepreneurs like Gajavelli, and many are in a similar situation.
A law passed by Congress in 2012 helped spark the boom in real estate syndication, making it easier to market real estate investments online. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Securities and Exchange Commission filings, real estate syndicators reported raising at least $115 billion from investors between 2020 and 2022.
In the wake of the pandemic, there was a major real estate boom spurred by zero percent interest rates and billions of dollars in stimulus money that further incentivized people to invest in real estate. As housing prices exploded, rents skyrocketed as well. One property manager described it as a mania.
Now the bubble is deflating, as the WSJ describes.

Many syndicators are racing to either raise funds or sell properties before tipping into foreclosure. Most hold balloon-payment loans that require repayment when they come due this year or next. Those syndicators face large payouts at a time when getting new, more affordable property loans will be difficult. Even firms with multibillion-dollar portfolios have used syndication to buy apartment buildings that no longer make enough money to cover debt payments, bond documents show.”

While the Wall Street Journal does a great job of explaining the nuts and bolts of the syndication scheme and mentions the role of rising interest rates in popping the bubble, it completely ignores the Federal Reserve’s role in blowing up the bubble to begin with.
As I pointed out earlier, the Fed created this problem long before when it held rates artificially low for so long. It incentivized all of this borrowing and risk-taking. Everybody just assumed rates would stay low forever so they levered up and took on more and more risk.
Gajavelli probably wouldn’t have been able to build his real estate empire without Fed’s easy money policies.
Unfortunately for Gajavelli and many like him, what the Fed giveth, the Fed taketh away.
This describes the impact of Fed monetary policy on one sector. Bubbles and malinvestments are certainly present in many other sectors of the economy as well. The question is where will the next hole open up in the dam?

Alex Jones Calls for Rallies at the Border to Fight Human Trafficking […]

Uncategorized

Can We Understand AI? A Response to Jordan Peterson’s Podcast

Like snobby teenagers claim of themselves, many say that “nobody understands artificial intelligence (AI).” For example, in a recent interview between Jordan Peterson and Brian Roemmele about ChatGPT, Jordan Peterson claimed that “The system is too complex to model” and each AI system is not only incomprehensible but unique. He further claims that “some of these AI systems, they’ve [AI experts] managed to reduce what they do learn to something approximating an algorithm. . . . [but] Generally the system can’t be and isn’t simplified.”
Brian Roemmele concurred: “nobody really understands precisely what it’s doing and what is called the hidden layer. It is so many interconnections of neurons that it essentially is a black box. . . .”

The criticism isn’t confined to these two. The “interpretability problem” is an ongoing topic of research within computer science. However, on closer examination, this criticism of deep learning models is not well-founded, is ill-defined, and leads to more confusion than enlightenment. We know very well the inner workings of machine learning models, better than any other system of similar complexity, and they are not a black box.
(For the sake of this argument, I will not be addressing the fact that OpenAI has ironically not published their parameters. In that sense and in that sense alone, ChatGPT is a black box.)

It seems odd to claim that we don’t or can’t “understand” a thing we made. Surely, we can open up a model and look at the flow of information. It is very precisely defined exactly which numbers are multiplied and added to what and pushed through which nonlinearities. There isn’t a single step in the entire process that is “unpredictable” or “undefined” at the outset. Even to the extent that some models “randomly” draw from a distribution, this is both predetermined (as all computers are only pseudorandom) and understandable (which is why we can describe it as “drawing from a distribution”).

Click here to visit Banned.Video!
Look sharp by wearing exclusive gear found only at our store.

So, what do people mean when they say deep learning “can’t be understood”? It seems the term “interpretability” itself isn’t well-defined. Nobody has been able to give a rigorous definition.
Pseudoscientists like Roemmele prey on people’s misunderstanding of technical language to further their false claims. For example, he claims “nobody really understands precisely what it’s doing and what is called the hidden layer.”
But the reality is that the hidden layers are no different from any other layer. This is a technical term that means any layer that is not an input or an output layer. It has nothing to do, as Roemmele has implied, with a particular mysteriousness about it. It is no more and no less “understandable” than the input or output layers. It is “hidden” only in the sense that the end user doesn’t interact with it. However, Roemmele’s audience doesn’t understand this sleight of hand. (I doubt Roemmele himself understands this as he is not a data scientist.)

Jordan Peterson must be given more leeway, as he doesn’t claim to have knowledge on AI himself—like Roemmele has—but cites his brother-in-law, Jim Keller, as his source of information. It is impossible to know exactly what Peterson’s brother-in-law might have meant, but as filtered through Peterson, the statements on AI are false.
For example, it is nonsensical to claim “the system is too complex to model” when “the system” is the model. One might claim that atoms are too complex to understand. However, would it make any sense to claim that the Bohr model of the atom is too complex to understand? The data is the thing we don’t understand, and a model is a thing we use to understand it. The more accurate the model, the better we understand the underlying phenomena. Deep learning models are the most accurate models and so are the most understandable.
It is also nonsensical to claim that “Generally the system can’t be and isn’t simplified [to something approximating an algorithm].” Algorithms have strict definitions, and all AI falls into that category. If it can be described as a Turing machine, it is an algorithm, and that includes all AI. In fact, the vast majority of AI don’t even reach the standard of Turing completeness (the most complex a computer can theoretically be) and can be described entirely as pushdown automata (a strict subset of Turing machines).
Why might people want to claim deep learning models can’t be understood? For some statisticians, I think it is their last grip on relevance as deep neural networks slowly drive older statistical models to obsolescence. For others, the “unknowability” of it all is scary and a welcome invitation for more government intervention. We shouldn’t let AI have the same fate as nuclear power—needlessly maligned over little to no threat at all. Let’s enjoy the fruits of our labor, and that includes the massive cost reduction from using a very human-comprehensible AI.

Alex Jones Calls for Rallies at the Border to Fight Human Trafficking […]

Uncategorized

Watch: DeSantis Lashes Out at Reporter Asking Why He Didn’t Take Questions

Footage going viral online appears to show Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) exhibiting a short temper with a reporter who inquired why he didn’t take questions at a campaign event.
During a meet-and-greet with voters in New Hampshire Thursday, an AP reporter asked DeSantis, “Governor, why are you not taking questions from voters?”

After declining to take audience questions after his first New Hampshire campaign event today, Ron DeSantis lashed out at a reporter for asking him about it while he was chatting with members of the crowd individually.
Here’s the video, via @NBCNews — > pic.twitter.com/Z2WtLy0JNj
— Jonathan Allen (@jonallendc) June 1, 2023

The question evidently struck a chord with the Florida governor, prompting him to snap back, “People are coming up to me, talking to me. What are you talking about? Are you blind? Are you blind? People are coming up to me, talking to me whatever they want to talk to me about.”
President Trump appeared to pick up on DeSantis’ discourteous gesture and remarked on it during a press conference in Iowa Thursday.

Take your oral care to the next level with our fluoride-free Activated Charcoal Toothpaste that’s now available at a rate you can’t find anywhere else!Take part in the ultimate win-win deals on the web by checking out our store now!

Trump mocks desantis and other career politicians for not taking questions from the people 😂 https://t.co/6bnMGU4nat
— Alex Bruesewitz 🇺🇸 (@alexbruesewitz) June 1, 2023

The incident was panned online as evidence the governor won’t be able to handle the pressure of being president or the criticism that goes along with it.

Why is he so thin skinned? pic.twitter.com/7Y324ZYhCm

— Raheem. (@RaheemKassam) June 1, 2023

If you get rattled this easily by a reporter, you’re probably not suited to be President at this turbulent moment in historypic.twitter.com/oW0Jivwf5g
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) June 1, 2023

Ron DeSantis can’t handle the press in Iowa – he is SO rude! This is NOT what a leader does! Imagine him in a debate w Trump? pic.twitter.com/nZa1Z70497
— Emily (@Emme0703) June 1, 2023

Wow! He’s just plain RUDE!!!
While Trump is in Iowa taking questions from voters right now, Ron DeSantis gets triggered when asked why he won’t take questions from voters.
“Are you blind! Are you blind?”https://t.co/ClgyUx6nIH pic.twitter.com/RG1xZSwJ4m
— Ultra MAGA Renee 🇺🇲 (@reneeAZpatriot4) June 1, 2023

Ron DeSantis unhinged by an attendee who just wants to know why he’s o my taking pictures and not answering questions from potential voters. Oof. pic.twitter.com/9EG5pMV9VQ
— The REAL Politically Savvy (@patriot_savvy) June 1, 2023

All the personality of a burnt meatball. Ron DeSantis isn’t presidential material. pic.twitter.com/S7UL2jdMqx
— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) June 1, 2023

Others claimed DeSantis’ snippy remark to the reporter was portrayed negatively by the “corporate press.”

this is how they set up the lie
DeSantis is literally taking questions form voters, they ask “why arent you taking questions from voters”
then they can report the question creating a false impression DeSantis didnt take questions
The corporate press is evil https://t.co/t6fsrwVljo
— Tim Pool (@Timcast) June 1, 2023

DeSantis isn’t being rude in this clip.
He is being highly respectful- to the citizens who took time to meet him and ask him questions.
The ‘reporter’ was being rude by heckling them with a falsely premised question. RDS immediately shut him down.
We want leaders like this. pic.twitter.com/7VnT7Y5Sqq
— Peter Henlein (@SwissWatchGuy) June 1, 2023

Trump-supporting entrepreneur Alex Bruesewitz speculated DeSantis could be exhibiting symptoms from weight loss drug Ozempic, which lists irritability and mood swings as side effects, after many noticed he dropped a few pounds before his big presidential announcement.

I see that Rob DeSantis is taking the Joe Biden approach of not taking questions from the audience.
Makes sense. He can’t go off script. He only takes pre approved questions from friendly media outlets.
Also this could explain him being a little “snippy”? https://t.co/bA6VOp4je9 pic.twitter.com/0aujXKuWf2
— Alex Bruesewitz 🇺🇸 (@alexbruesewitz) June 1, 2023

While the incident may seem trivial, the media coverage it’s received reflects the intense scrutiny and attention to detail going into the Desantis vs. Trump grudge match.
Meanwhile, we’ll see if DeSantis’ temper can withstand the pressure as the presidential race heats up.
The globalists are increasing their attacks on Infowars and the stakes have never been higher!
If you haven’t done so, please consider donating and visit InfowarsStore.com for merch, nutraceuticals and survival gear. […]

Uncategorized

BREAKING: Biden Takes Massive Fall on Stage – Developing

President Joe Biden had his worst fall yet during a U.S. Air Force Academy graduation ceremony Thursday afternoon.Watch:

Biden falls on stage at the U.S. Air Force Academy graduation ceremony pic.twitter.com/I8batO1794
— BNO News (@BNONews) June 1, 2023

Multiple Secret Service members immediately ran to assist the president.There has yet to be a statement from the White House.

Click here to visit Banned.Video!

This story is developing… […]

Uncategorized

Now It’s Confirmed

A new study has found that far-left activism is linked to a pathological and narcissistic urge to satisfy ego rather than achieve actual social justice.Please share this video! https://youtu.be/uLFH60Qtx8g———————————————————————————————————————ALERT!In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.Get early access, exclusive content and behind the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.——————————————————————————————————————— […]

Uncategorized

Film Website IMDb Alters Rating System To Artificially Boost Disney’s Failing Little Mermaid Remake

Top film, television and video game reviewing website IMDb decided to adjust its rating system in order to address the alleged “review bombing” of Disney’s remake of The Little Mermaid.
The move came after nearly 40% of users who rated the film gave one-star scores.

After 39% of users scores rated #TheLittleMermaid one star, IMDb has introduced a weighted average score for the Disney remake. https://t.co/3pY0WYt5CY
— Variety (@Variety) June 1, 2023

A screenshot taken from the IMDb page for the movie shows a whopping 18 thousand one-star votes compared to 8.3 thousand ten-star ratings.

At the bottom of the graph, IMDb admits the film’s true unweighted score is 4.7, but the skewed score currently boasted by the new Disney movie is 7.0.

Take your oral care to the next level with our fluoride-free Activated Charcoal Toothpaste that’s now available at a rate you can’t find anywhere else!
1776 around the world starts when you visit our store!

At 7.0, The Little Mermaid has been artificially thrust to the top of the current “Most Popular Movies” on IMDb.
The website explained its reasoning for changing the rating system in a statement, writing, “Our rating mechanism has detected unusual voting activity on this title. To preserve the reliability of our rating system, an alternate weighting calculation has been applied.”
While many leftists are blaming the low scores on “racists” who are upset at The Little Mermaid‘s main character being changed from white to black, written reviews on IMDb reveal more technical criticisms of the film.

A few of the low-score reviews on the website mentioned things such as “flat acting.” “flat singing,” poorly designed “CGI characters,” and “horrific” songs as reasons they disliked the movie they were excited to watch and had paid to see.
If the altered reviews of the new film make it difficult to truly get a grip on the public’s reaction to the movie, perhaps its box office performance could reveal the pulse of the people.
Left-wing outlet Deadline claimed, “The Little Mermaid could very well break-even,” before admitting it could also result in a $20 million loss for Disney.
However, according to Breitbart, “If the movie grosses just $600 million worldwide, that is a $200 million loss, and that kind of domestic gross is still a big ‘if.’ Over its opening weekend, the remake came in below expectations. So the idea it could gross $300 to $350 million domestically seems, well, optimistic.”
With each passing day, the phrase “Get Woke And Go Broke” becomes more and more accurate.
Because Infowars relies on YOUR SUPPORT in order to continue funding the operation, we urge you to visit the Infowars Store to do your part in the battle against globalism by purchasing great products such as dietary supplements, books, t-shirts, survival gear and much more. Thanks! […]

Uncategorized

House Select Committee on CCP Opens Investigation Into DOD For Funding Hypersonic Weapons Research At University Tied To Chinese Military

The United States House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the U.S. and CCP revealed Wednesday the Department of Defense is under investigation for its connection to an American university that is sharing weapons research with a Chinese college linked to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
The PLA is the main military force of the People’s Republic of China and is known as the armed wing of China’s Communist Party.

BREAKING: Select Committee Chairman @RepGallagher launches an investigation into the @DeptofDefense.
“To put it plainly, DOD is funding advanced, hypersonic weapons-related research at an American university that actively partners with a Chinese university that performs similar… pic.twitter.com/ePLiORfeZN
— The Select Committee on the CCP (@committeeonccp) June 1, 2023

In a statement, Select Committee Chairman Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) wrote,

“To put it plainly, DOD is funding advanced, hypersonic weapons-related research at an American university that actively partners with a Chinese university that performs similar research for the PLA. We seek additional information regarding this alarming matter and the DOD’s efforts to safeguard sensitive U.S. military research.” 

Click here to visit Banned.Video!Now that you’re intellectually ahead, stay physically ahead by visiting our store.

“It is extremely concerning that $17 million in American taxpayer dollars has gone to fund advanced weapons-related research at a university that actively partners with a Chinese research institution working hand in hand with the Chinese military. It is not a secret that the CCP uses Confucius Institutes to project “soft power,” but it’s time to shed light on how the CCP also uses these institutes to build Chinese “hard power” weapons that could be used against Americans in a future conflict. I look forward to hearing promptly from DOD and Alfred University on what they are doing to ensure American research security remains intact and that American taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fuel the CCP’s military advancement.” 

Essentially, Congress wants answers as to why the DOD is spending millions in tax dollars on hypersonic weapons research at an American college that is currently partnered with a Chinese university known to be affiliated with the CHICOM military.
Gallagher’s letter called for both the DOD and Alfred University to respond and address the situation at hand, explaining the American people shouldn’t be funding the CCP’s military advancement.

The message was sent to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Alfred University President Mark Zupan Wednesday evening.
Perhaps the DOD will follow the FBI’s lead and refuse to respond to Congress in what Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) recently called a “constitutional crisis” due to the Biden administration’s refusal to obey the separation of powers.

It’s OUTRAGEOUS FBI Dir. Wray defied a subpoena from @GOPOversight.
Biden’s admin continually withholds info & ignores inquiries.
It’s a violation of Separation of Powers & a Constitutional crisis.
I fully support @RepJamesComer’s decision to hold Wray in contempt of Congress. pic.twitter.com/Mz4umhntZx
— Congressman Byron Donalds (@RepDonaldsPress) June 1, 2023

Unelected federal government employees are blatantly refusing to be overseen by the politicians put into power by We The People in what is now a totally rogue administration loyal only to the globalist cause.
Because Infowars relies on YOUR SUPPORT in order to continue funding the operation, we urge you to visit the Infowars Store to do your part in the battle against globalism by purchasing great products such as dietary supplements, books, t-shirts, survival gear and much more. Thanks! […]

Uncategorized

‘Dee-Santis’ or ‘Deh-Santis’? Trump Says Florida Gov. Can’t Get His Own Name Straight

A debate over enunciation is unfolding as questions emerge whether Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ (R) name is pronounced, “Dee-Santis,” or “Deh-Santis.”
The discussion over the precise phrasing of the GOP presidential contender’s surname was brought to the forefront Wednesday by former President Donald Trump, who dedicated a Truth Social post to the issue.

Have you heard that “Rob” DeSanctimonious wants to change his name, again. He is demanding that people call him DeeeSantis, rather than DaSantis. Actually, I like “Da” better, a nicer flow, so I am happy he is changing it. He gets very upset when people, including reporters, don’t pronounce it correctly. Therefore, he shouldn’t mind, DeSanctimonious?

Trump’s commentary seems to have prompted the media’s attention, as Axios published an article spotlighting the issue.

From Axios:

Our fan-favorite Turbo Force Plus is now 25% off! See for yourself the delicious one-of-a-kind energy boost infowarriors CRAVE!
Let Big Tech and the corporate media know they are powerless in stopping the spread of truth by visiting our store now!

Some presidential candidates struggle to nail their message. Ron DeSantis is struggling to nail his NAME. In the early days of his campaign, DeSantis has gone back and forth between pronouncing his name Dee-Santis and Deh-Santis.
Why it matters: DeSantis’ dissonance on how to say his name — for years an issue of confusion for his campaign teams — is a curiosity as many GOP leaders and donors wonder whether the Florida governor is ready for the scrutiny of a presidential campaign.

Indeed, a compilation of footage from throughout DeSantis’ political career shows him wavering between the two different pronunciations:

Ron DeSantis is so wishy-washy that he can’t even decide how to pronounce his own name. pic.twitter.com/YMJhCYNdVH
— kereD (@i__m__kered) May 25, 2023

Additionally, neither DeSantis’ campaign, nor his Never Back Down super PAC responded when pressed by Axios on the exact way to say the governor’s last name.
The Trump campaign meanwhile jumped on DeSantis’ name fluctuations telling Axios it showed how much of a fraud he is.

“Ron DeSantis is a phony who can’t decide how to pronounce his name,” Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung told Axios. “If you can’t get your name right, how can you lead a country?”

Consulted on how to say the name correctly, Seton Hall University Italian Studies Professor William Connell said the “Deh” prefix is common, but that “Dee” is odd.
“‘Day-Sahn-tees’ would be proper Italian, but sloughing it off as ‘Deh-Santis’ is common,” Connell told Axios. “But ‘Dee-Santis’ is unusual because that would be spelled ‘DiSantis’ in Italian.”
Regardless of how the name is said, Trump is clearly capitalizing on the confusion to sow doubt in the Florida governor’s ability to lead the country, let alone be able to pronounce his own name.
The globalists are increasing their attacks on Infowars and the stakes have never been higher!
If you haven’t done so, please consider donating and visit InfowarsStore.com for merch, nutraceuticals and survival gear. […]