$50 MILLION AWARDED A STARBUCKS CUSTOMER FOR SPILLED HOT DRINK..WILL THE INSANITY OF SUCH JURY AWARDS EVER STOP?

Jury Awarded L.A. Man $50 Million After He Was Injured by Spilled Tea at Starbucks Drive-Through

A Los Angeles man who suffered what his lawyers describe as “life-altering” burns when he spilled a piping hot tea in his lap at a Starbucks has been awarded a venti-sized judgment of $50 million.

Michael Garcia, a delivery driver, had claimed that Starbucks was negligent because the tea was not adequately secured in the tray when he accepted it into his vehicle during a visit back in 2020.

The injuries were pretty extensive. Upon pulling the tray into his car, the tea spilled, and Garcia suffered severe burns and permanent genital damage. Lawyers indicate that the brutal injuries included third-degree burns and PTSD.

Security camera footage of the handoff from the barista to Garcia in his car shows that the order was in his hands exclusively before the drink spilled. Shortly thereafter, the man was clearly in a lot of agony.

A California jury has awarded $50 million to Michael Garcia, a delivery driver who suffered severe burns from a Starbucks coffee spill at a drive-thru. Garcia’s lawsuit claimed the lid was not properly secured, causing significant injuries. Starbucks denies wrongdoing and plans… pic.twitter.com/SCWU1lNLKT

There is no downplaying the severity of Garcia’s injuries. He underwent skin grafts and other procedures on his genitals, according to the Associated Press.

The question became who was at fault for the accident – the barista for not securing the drink or the man for spilling it. The jury clearly sided with Garcia in this case. They deliberated for just 40 minutes before awarding the massive judgment.

“It’s a reasonable verdict. It’s justified. This injury changed Michael’s life, it was gross negligence,” Garcia’s trial attorney, Nicholas Rowley, said following his client’s win.

Starbucks initially tried to settle with the man for $3 million before the trial. As the case progressed, they upped the offer to a staggering $30 million. However, as part of the agreement, Garcia insisted they also apologize to him, change their policies, and issue a memo to employees to double-check the cups before handing them out.

Starbucks would not agree to those terms and subsequently cost themselves another $20 million. They aren’t happy with the jury’s decision.

“We sympathize with Mr. Garcia, but we disagree with the jury’s decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages awarded to be excessive,” a statement from Starbucks reads. “We plan to appeal. We have always been committed to the highest safety standards in our stores, including the handling of hot drinks.”

The case is reminiscent of one involving McDonald’s in the ’90s. Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman at the time, sued McDonald’s after suffering third-degree burns from spilling a scalding hot coffee on her lap.

In an almost identical scenario, Liebeck required skin grafts and extensive medical treatment for her injuries. One main difference is that the woman had been trying to add cream and sugar to the coffee by attempting to pry the lid off the cup.

She initially sought $20,000 to cover medical expenses, but after McDonald’s offered only $800, she brought them to court. A jury awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was a mind-numbing sum at the time.

Similar incident in 1992. Coming around again…..

The “original” hot coffee lawsuit against McDonalds. ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/WcU3jsZ9Js

This isn’t the first time Starbucks got hit with a multi-million judgment. Shannon Phillips, a former Starbucks regional manager, won a $25.6 million verdict after a federal jury in New Jersey found that she was wrongfully terminated because she was white.

Phillips sued the coffee giant when she was fired shortly after the 2018 arrests of two black men at a Philadelphia Starbucks she oversaw. The lawsuit alleged that Starbucks scapegoated Phillips to appease public outrage.

$9 TRILLION WASTED ON STUPID RENEWABLE UNATTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PRODUCTION AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!

Despite $9 trillion spent on net zero goals, fossil fuels to remain dominant energy source: report

Modern prosperity is tied to certain industrial products, including chemicals, steel, cement, food and paper, according to the J.P. Morgan report. Approximately 80% of the energy inputs for these products is fossil fuels.

While the legacy media often reports that the world is rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, a new report from J.P. Morgan shows that narrative is simply not correct. Since 2010, $9 trillion has been spent globally on wind, solar, electric vehicles energy storage, electrification and power grids, but despite this expensive effort — mostly at taxpayer expense — the share of final energy consumption by carbon-free energy sources is advancing by approximately a scant 0.3% to 0.6% per year.

Michael Cembalest, Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy for J.P. Morgan, explains in “Heliocentrism,” the 15th annual energy paper by the investment firm, that the reason fossil fuels remain the dominant source of energy is that modern prosperity is tied to certain kinds of industrial products, including chemicals, steel, cement, food and paper. Approximately 80% of the energy inputs for these products are fossil fuels. JPMorgan Chase is the world’s fifth largest bank by total assets, with $3.9 trillion as of 2023.

“As things stand now, modern prosperity is highly reliant on fossil fuels,” Cembalest said in a podcast on the report. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., retired professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, estimates on his “The Honest Broker” Substack that at the current pace, the world will not be carbon free until sometime after the year 2200.

Solar accounts for 2% of total final energy

Cembalest notes that solar capacity, both utility scale and rooftop, is exploding and represents two-thirds of new generation capacity. It will reach about 75% of all new generation capacity for the rest of the decade.

“There’s a lot of people that are so focused on the growth in solar power that they believe that solar power, typically bolted on with some energy storage, can represent the dominant share of where we get our energy from,” Cembalest said.

Solar accounts for approximately 6% of global electricity generation. However, electricity is only about 33% of the total energy people consume, according to the paper, and by some estimates it’s only about 20%. Translating all that solar power to a share of final energy consumption, which includes all forms of energy, solar is only 2% of total final energy and will grow to 4% to 5% by the end of the decade.

“While that’s impressive growth from a low base, we obviously need to be more focused on the other 95% of where we’re going to get our final energy consumption from and rather than just the solar on its own,” Cembalest said.

Heliocentric

This misperception about the energy transition is why Cembalest, he explained, chose the “Heliocentric” title, referring to the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth, as opposed to the other way around. While completely accurate, the concept was resisted for centuries as opponents and even the Holy Roman Church insisted the science was settled. It was not until the mid-1500‘s that the theory was generally adopted.

“While we should be trying to decarbonize as much as we possibly can, we have to be realistic about the pace at which this can be done,” Cembalest said.

He disputed other predictions of a rapid industrial transition to renewable energy. He said such transitions can happen, and as an example, he pointed to the transition from open hearth furnaces to basic oxygen furnaces in steel production that began in the 1960s and 1970s and took 20 years to complete. That new technology, Cembalest explained, reduced steel production times to 10% of what they were, which allowed for a reduction in 80% to 90% of energy costs.

“When you have a transition that can pay for itself, like this, it can happen rapidly, but that’s not the case with the transition [to non-carbon energy] that we’re experiencing now,” he said.

Transmission and brownouts

Cembalest noted other impediments in the transition to non-carbon energy sources. These include the cost and time it takes to build transmission lines. Electrification, which seeks to transition away from gas-powered appliances to those powered by electricity, runs up against the fact that natural gas is much cheaper than electricity. Cembalest said this is true globally and not just in the U.S.

He also noted that as the U.S. has increased its share of renewables on the grid, reserve buffers, which is the amount of electricity generation required to meet demand during peak times, have been shrinking. “We’re getting more and more close to the point where we might have some kind of brownout situation,” he said.

The findings of the Morgan report are in line with the latest edition of the Energy Institute’s “Statistical Review of World Energy,” which found that coal, natural gas and oil remained the dominant source of energy in 2023, and coal consumption and production hit record highs.

While renewables are seeing growth, these analyses show that like it or not, fossil fuels are going to be with us for many decades to come.

$27 BILLION FRAUD AND FRAUD AND BIDEN LIES AND DECEPTION ABOUT MADE UP GRANTS TO CRONIES IN LAST DAYS OF BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, SOMEBODY HAS TO GO TO JAIL

A New Beltway Mystery: Follow the Biden EPA Money

by James Varney, RealClearInvestigations

When the Biden administration announced $27 billion in environmental grants last April, it set the clock ticking on a predicament: how to get the unprecedented sums for the President’s envisioned NetZero future out the door before the fiscal year ended on Sept. 30?

The task was complicated by the fact most of the money – $20 billion – would go to just eight nonprofits that, like the Environmental Protection Agency itself, had never handled such gargantuan grants.

In hindsight, it’s easy to suspect that corners were cut, or laws were broken, or, at the very least, extraordinary measures were taken.

Those possibilities are clearly on the mind of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin as he tries to unravel what happened to Inflation Reduction Act spending that the Biden White House’s Office of Management and Budget and the EPA decided to expedite before the November election – an effort that included moving the roughly $20 billion to a private institution, Citibank, away from oversight of the Treasury Department.

On Wednesday, Zeldin moved to terminate the arrangements as the enriched nonprofits have filed lawsuits looking to protect their grants. The battle has thrust into the spotlight what had been a rather quiet attempt by the Biden administration to spend the $27 billion.

The money was put into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a new entity born in 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act, which Democrats pushed through Congress without any Republican support.

“This bold investment will not only deploy clean energy and combat the climate crisis but also improve health outcomes, lower energy costs, and create high-quality jobs for Americans,” Biden’s EPA declared when seeking applications for the grants, “all while strengthening our country’s economic competitiveness and ensuring energy security.”

The grants, unveiled April 4, 2024, came with its built-in deadline to push the money out just months away. So a political deal was struck between the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and EPA, current agency officials told RealClearInvestigations. As a hedge against future administration attempts to curb the program, the deal classified the now-suspect $20 billion in a novel way making it hard to track.

Zeldin has asked the EPA’s inspector general and the Department of Justice to investigate the unorthodox arrangement.

“I think it will be an uphill battle to recover the money, but it’s impressive to see Trump and Zeldin running with it,” said Daren Bakst of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has labeled the Greenhouse Gas money “slush funds.”

“Even if you look past the entities that receive the money, or how they figured out how to get the money to them, this is a setup that is prone to corruption, abuse and cronyism regardless of party,” Bakst said. “The whole thing looks questionable.”

The process began before the April 4 announcement. In December 2022, Jahi Wise, an executive with the Coalition for Green Capital, joined EPA as a senior adviser. In July 2023, the EPA published a request for proposals from applicants to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

The fund was broken into three parts. The two largest, the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA), received huge sums, totaling $20 billion. Notably, as RCI reported last October, grants went to nonprofits that had paltry assets, had been granted their nonprofit status only the month before, or had people associated with them that had previously served various federal or state Democratic administrations. For example, the Coalition for Green Capital, Wise’s former outfit, was awarded $5.1 billion.

Three weeks later, an arrangement was made between OMB and EPA in which the money was designated “non-exchange” rather than “exchange” – a first for EPA funds, according to current officials. That label allowed for the money to be moved to recipients in lump funds rather than parceled out over the length of the deals with the nonprofits, which in most cases were slated to run until 2029, 2030, or later, records show. It also called for an outside financial institution to manage the money, in part because the agency had zero experience in handling grants of this size.

Although the language in the Inflation Reduction Act dealing with the Greenhouse Gas funds does not use “shall,” the word Congress usually employs to indicate that something is required, the law did impose a deadline of Sept. 30 – the end of the fiscal year – EPA officials and legal experts agree.

On June 27, as the EPA was making its deals with the nonprofits, Biden had his disastrous debate with Donald Trump, and on July 21 Biden ended his re-election campaign and threw his support to then-Vice President Kamala Harris. The Greenhouse Gas fund money remained unobligated at that point, according to EPA officials.

The deals were finally completed and the National Clean Investment Fund and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator money was obligated to the nonprofits on Aug. 16, according to a timeline provided to RCI. That left $7 billion, the portion that comprised the third component of the fund, Solar For All.

At that point, the $20 billion, though obligated, remained with the Treasury, officials said. A memorandum of understanding between EPA and the Treasury Department on moving the mountain of cash was not signed until Sept. 6.

Two weeks later, the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee held a hearing to learn more about EPA funding oversight, calling the agency’s inspector general Sean O’Donnell to testify. O’Donnell made clear he had never seen the maneuvers the EPA was making with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and said neither he nor his staff would be able to stay on top of it.

“I can’t say enough about how complex this system will be,” O’Donnell testified. “It’s like they created an investment bank. It’s fantastically complex. I think it’s unusual.”

Yet it was not until Nov. 12, three working days after Trump beat Harris in the 2024 election, that the EPA began talks with Citibank about taking control of the $20 billion, Trump administration officials told RCI. During those negotiations, on Dec. 5, Project Veritas released an undercover video of an EPA official laughing about what he considered an extraordinary process, likening it to “throwing gold bars off the deck of the Titanic.”

The Citibank arrangement effectively removing direct EPA oversight, and with interest on the $20 billion going to the grant recipients, was signed on Dec. 27, agency officials told RCI. The deal thus represents a carve-out for the two aspects of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that accounted for the $20 billion; the $7 billion comprising Solar For All remains with Treasury. The Trump administration has frozen that money, although some of it has already been distributed, according to federal records.

Critics of the spending said the timeline smacks of shady politics.

Steve Milloy, a skeptic of apocalyptic global warming, said he has received a government grant and his experience was profoundly different than the one enjoyed by Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund winners. His process was an uncomfortable one that lasted 10 months, he said.

“They crawled up my ass, and that was for a small grant,” he said.

The contrast is striking, in his opinion.

I’ve never seen anything like this,” he said. “It is fishy … I think they thought they would win reelection and panicked when they lost. It seems like all of this is being done without due diligence or accountability.”

‘Tip of the Iceberg’

Picking up on the “gold bars off the deck of the Titanic” video, Zeldin cited the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund as a dubious operation during his confirmation hearing Jan. 17, and he has been outspoken against it since becoming administrator. On March 2, he wrote to the EPA inspector general, urging him to look into the deals.

“These examples are the tip of the iceberg and suggest a deeply entrenched pattern of political favoritism, lack of qualifications, and other possibly unlawful allocation of taxpayer funds,” he wrote. “Disturbingly, these cases likely represent only a fraction of broader issues.”

Beyond questions about the money, questions also remain about the work it is meant to pay for, according to Zeldin and other EPA officials. None of the recipient nonprofits contacted by RCI, including the Climate United Fund, which got the biggest award of $7 billion, responded to requests for comment.

One stipulation of the Greenhouse Gas funds was that winners attract $7 of private investment for every $1 in federal money. The EPA told RCI that recipients submitted detailed plans in their applications, but could not say if that included specific financing arrangements. Former EPA Special Adviser Zealan Hoover told RCI last year that the goal was to create a market for these green banks through the size of the grants.

While it remains early in the process, it does not appear the groups will be able to hit that target. The Appalachian Community Credit Corporation, for instance, is supposed to get $500 million through the CCIA. On its website, however, it says it will use the money to create a $1.6 billion loan pool, which would be an investment ratio little better than 3-to-1.

The Virginia-based corporation did not respond to requests for comment.

It remains unclear how much money remains in the Citibank accounts and how successful Zeldin may be in recovering the money. Citibank declined comment.

‘The Whole Thing Seems Incestuous’

Some outside observers believe there are mechanisms to claw back the funds. An EPA official told RCI there is boilerplate language in agency contracts that allows “termination for a change in agency priorities,” and Milloy said federal agencies terminate contracts “all the time.”

In this particular case, while it does appear Zeldin could claw back money, the EPA may be legally bound to simply give it to another private financial institution rather than return it to the Treasury, said David Super, professor of law and economics at Georgetown University Law Center.

In addition, Super said, there is that deadline of Sept. 30, 2024.

“There, as here, there was both an appropriation and a deadline for getting the money out the door,” Super said, citing a 1975 Supreme Court ruling. “Any competent lawyer would have told EPA that, unless it wanted to go through the procedures of the Impoundment Control Act, it would be an unlawful impoundment of funds if it failed to spend all the money – and, if it was going to do that, it had to do so by September 30, 2024.”

Other groups that received enormous grants also did not respond to RCI’s questions or requests for comment, including the Climate United Fund, which got the single biggest award: $7 billion up front for an arrangement that is supposed to last through June 2029, federal records show.

Climate United Fund has announced spending $311 million of its grant, all of it on three projects last October and November. The largest of those was $250 million to buy electric trucks, according to the group’s website.

Previously, RCI reported on ties between some of the nonprofits’ key figures and the Biden or Obama administrations, and more of those have come to light since Zeldin pushed the issue into the spotlight last month. Many outlets have zeroed in on failed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who was lead counsel for a group known as Rewiring America. That group, in turn, is one of the main components of a new group known as Power Forward Communities, an outfit with listed assets of $100 that obtained its tax-exempt status last March, just weeks before it was named the winner of a $2 billion grant.

Trump mentioned Abrams and the EPA award in his congressional speech last week, and liberal “fact check” groups sprang to action to label his comment false because the money did not go directly to Abrams. Abrams acknowledged being a part of Rewiring America, however, and said the group bought energy-efficient appliances for people in Georgia.

Power Forward Communities, which did not respond to multiple requests for comment, lists scores of other partners. One of those, the Green Door Initiative in Michigan, is led by Donele Wilkins, whom Biden appointed as a member of his Environmental Justice Advisory Council last June. In other cases, Power Forward Communities is partnered with groups that also have other public revenue streams, such as the Nevada Clean Energy Fund, which is funded also by the Nevada governor’s office and has received nearly $850,000 of its separate $155.7 million grant via Solar For All.

Similar ties have surfaced between the Biden administration and the Coalition for Green Capital.

“The whole thing seems incestuous,” said Bakst of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “When you see these short deadlines it really makes everything questionable, because when you rush something like this there will almost certainly be problems with it.”

This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

BLACK LIVES MATTER IS A SCAM AND THE DEMOCRATS FELL FOR IT

“They Bought Mansions”: Rap Star Spills the Beans, Says Black Lives Matter Is “Literally a Scam”

By Joe Kovacs, WND • Mar. 12, 2025

(WND)—A rapper is singing a politically incorrect tune as he says Black Lives Matter is “literally a scam.” The singer is Lil Yachty who made the comment during an appearance on a cooking show with Quenlin Blackwell.

During the pair’s kitchen discussion, Blackwell asked Lil Yachty: “You spent $100,000 on a trip to Disney once. How much have you spent on charitable causes this year?”

“It’s just blurry, I’ve been doing so much,” the rapper said. “BLM?” asked Blackwell.

“BLM is a scam,” the rapper said matter of factly. “BLM was, it was literally a scam. They had bought mansions. You probably wouldn’t know anything about it because you don’t care about black people.”

Blackwell responded as she caressed her arms: “I do care about black people. Look at my chocolate. You’re mad.”“It’s a disguise,” the rapper quipped.

Rapper Lil Yachty says Black Lives Matter was a scam during a cooking show with Quenlin Blackwell.

Blackwell: “How much have you spent on charitable causes this year… BLM?”

Yachty: “BLM is a scam… BLM was literally a scam. They had bought mansions.”

Fact check:… pic.twitter.com/q6bosUkGOz

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 11, 2025

“I think I’m literally the most pro-black person in this room,” she added.

“Because you have an all-white staff?” the singer asked.

“They’re not white. They’re P.O.C. [persons of color],” Blackwell replied.

Just this week, Black Lives Matter Plaza near the White House in Washington, D.C., was being dismantled by the city after the local government agreed to retire it due to federal funding threats from Congress.

Right now: work crews just North of the White House to dismantle Black Lives Matter Plaza 4.5 years since receiving this designation by DC local government.

IN 2021, Patrice Cullors, co-founder of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, departed from her role as the organization’s executive director amid reports of enriching herself.

Cullors “decried what she called a smear campaign from a far-right group, but said neither that nor recent criticism from other black organizers influenced her departure,” the AP reported.

BLM Global Network had previously offered a vigorous defense for Cullors in April 2021 after reports revealed she had purchased four homes across the country for a total of $3.2 million since 2016.

Patrisse Cullors is the Executive Director of Black Lives Matter Global NetworkFoundation (BLMGNF). She serves in this role in a volunteer capacity and does not receive a salary or benefits. pic.twitter.com/w43HJOdg2f

MRNA INJECTIONS OF VACCINES A FRAUD AND HIDDEN FACTS

Mass Murder by Injection: Dr. Makis Exposes the mRNA Turbo Cancer Scandal and Canada’s Cover-Up

Over the last few years, the National Citizen’s Inquiry (NCI) has traversed Canada, gathering sworn testimony from experts and victims alike on the disastrous consequences of COVID-19 measures, with a particular emphasis on the experimental mRNA injections. One of the most harrowing testimonies came from Canadian oncologist Dr. William Makis, who has been at the forefront of exposing the unprecedented rise in aggressive cancers following mass inoculation campaigns. His findings have led to relentless persecution by Canadian authorities, including the Alberta government, which is now seeking a jail term against him for his defiant stance against these gene therapy injections.

The Explosion of ‘Turbo Cancer’ Among the Young

Dr. Makis, a specialist in nuclear medicine and oncology, laid out a damning case against the continued administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, particularly in children. Through meticulous analysis of data from Canada’s adverse event reporting system, the World Health Organization’s VigiAccess, and the U.S. VAERS database, he revealed a horrifying trend—cancers developing at an unprecedented rate and with unparalleled aggression in vaccinated individuals, including children as young as six months old.’

The Grim Statistics:

Over 3 million Canadian children have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose.
Canada officially reports 488 post-vaccine deaths but dismisses them without proper investigation.
The WHO database, in contrast, reports over 200,000 serious adverse events in children following vaccination.
In Australia, a smaller but similarly vaccinated country, at least nine child deaths were attributed to the vaccine.
The U.S. VAERS system records 538 child deaths post-mRNA vaccination, with disturbing patterns of “turbo cancers”.
Turbo cancers appear within weeks or months of vaccination, affecting organs like the heart, brain, lymph nodes, and bone marrow at an alarming rate.

Cover-Ups and Statistical Manipulation

Dr. Makis highlighted how the Canadian government systematically underreports vaccine injuries and deaths, using vague classifications such as “indeterminate” or “unrelated” to dismiss fatal adverse events. Further, deaths occurring within 14 days of vaccination are counted as unvaccinated, further skewing the data to mask the true dangers of these injections.

The Political Suppression of Medical Truth

Beyond the medical catastrophe, Dr. Makis exposed the ruthless political persecution of doctors who dared to challenge the COVID-19 narrative. He himself has faced years of legal battles, financial strangulation, and professional exile.

How Canada Silences Dissenting Doctors:

Over 3 million Canadian children have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose.
Canada officially reports 488 post-vaccine deaths but dismisses them without proper investigation.
The WHO database, in contrast, reports over 200,000 serious adverse events in children following vaccination.
In Australia, a smaller but similarly vaccinated country, at least nine child deaths were attributed to the vaccine.
The U.S. VAERS system records 538 child deaths post-mRNA vaccination, with disturbing patterns of “turbo cancers”.
Turbo cancers appear within weeks or months of vaccination, affecting organs like the heart, brain, lymph nodes, and bone marrow at an alarming rate.

Dr. Makis’ income sources, including Twitter and GiveSendGo, have been systematically blocked or raided, leaving him financially crippled for standing by his medical oath.. Furthermore, the Alberta government is seeking a jail term for Makis‘ speaking his medical truth.

The Q&A Session: Critical Insights Into Vaccine-Induced Cancers and Alternative Treatments

In a moment of defiance which is fully representative of Dr. Makis’ struggle against the new Canadian medical tyranny and censorship, Dr. Makis was able to discuss potential treatments for what he calls “mRNA-induced turbo cancers”. He urged patients to seek repurposed drugs, particularly ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and mebendazole or Fenbendazole, which have shown promise in slowing or reversing some of these cancers.

Disturbing Trends in Post-Vaccine Cancer Cases:

Lymphoma is the most common vaccine-induced cancer, followed by aggressive brain tumors, colon cancer in children, and soft-tissue sarcomas.
Cancers are now presenting at younger ages and at more advanced stages than ever before.
Conventional treatments are failing, as these vaccine-driven cancers resist chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy.
The spike protein is found in every cancerous cell in patients who received the mRNA vaccine.

The Call to Action: Halt the Injections, Demand Accountability

Dr. Makis issued an urgent plea to halt the administration of COVID-19 vaccines, especially in children and pregnant women. He called for:

Immediate removal of mRNA injections from all childhood vaccination schedules.
A national investigation into vaccine injuries and deaths, including pathological autopsies on suspected victims.
A complete overhaul of Canada’s adverse event reporting system, which is currently a fraudulent tool of suppression.
Legal and financial support for persecuted doctors who refuse to compromise their medical ethics.

A Medical and Political Scandal of Unprecedented Proportions

Dr. Makis’ testimony at the NCI on March 8, 2025, is a damning indictment of the Canadian government’s reckless complicity in one of the greatest medical scandals of all time. His words resonate as both a dire warning and a call to action—to expose the truth, protect our children, and hold those responsible accountable.

The question remains: Will Canada wake up before more lives are destroyed?

PATTERSON NEW JERSEY BECOMES FIRST AMERICAN MUSLIM CITY SHOWING OFF PALESTINIAN FLAGS AND SHARIA LAW!

New Jersey’s First Islamic City: Muslim Politicians Seize Power in Paterson, Declare It ‘The Capital of Palestine in America,’ Raise Islamic Flags, and Advance Sharia (Video)

“Because of our unity, we have three Muslim council members sitting on the council at the same time. And because of our unity, one of our brothers, who was the councilman of the Sixth Ward, is now representing us in the 35th legislative district.” — Councilman Shahin Khalique

A shocking transformation is unfolding in Paterson, New Jersey, where local officials are rapidly reshaping the city into an Islamic stronghold. Once a beacon of American industry and blue-collar resilience, Paterson has become a case study in how unchecked Islamic immigration, demographic shifts, and political pandering can erode a city’s original identity.

Islamic Officials, Islamic Agenda

Muslim elected leaders with deep ties to radical Islamic organizations are prioritizing Islamic identity over American values, steering Paterson away from its historical roots. Every policy change, symbolic gesture, and political appointment moves the city closer to becoming an Islamic enclave.

Hilal Lighting Ceremony: A Symbol of Islamic Dominance

The latest development? The Hilal Lighting Ceremony, a city-endorsed event marking Ramadan, held in the heart of “Little Palestine”—Palestine Way. This was no mere religious event but a thinly veiled political rally for Palestinian nationalism.

Officially renamed in 2022, Palestine Way cements Paterson’s transformation into a de facto Palestinian enclave, complete with flags, street signs, and businesses mirroring the very nations many residents supposedly fled. The area is home to an estimated 15,000 Arabs, dominated by Palestinian presence. Main Street, now a mile-and-a-half-long strip lined with Palestinian flags, Arabic signs, and halal restaurants, is more than cultural representation—it is a territorial claim.

Political Overreach Disguised as Religious Celebration

This pro-Palestine event was spearheaded by left-wing Mayor Andre Sayegh, Islamic Councilmen Shahin Khalique, MD Forid Uddin, and Ibrahim Omar, and Islamic Deputy Mayor Raed Odeah—leaders who have made catering to Islamic interests a defining feature of their governance. The event’s oversized crescent moon, publicly displayed for 30 days, is not about Ramadan—it is a symbol of Islamic political dominance in America.

Their governance raises critical questions: Are these officials serving the public interest, or are they using their positions to build an Islamic parallel society?

Radical Sponsors Pushing an Islamic Agenda

The event was backed by many groups with concerning histories:

Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) – A mosque known for radical sermons. Imam Baker Assaf has acknowledged that Islamic law prescribes throwing homosexuals off roofs but claims they refrain from doing so in America because it is not an Islamic country. Imam Mohamed Hassaballa has called Christians ‘idolaters’ and spoken about Muslims ‘overtaking disbelievers.’ Hamas-linked CAIR official Ayman Aishat has used the mosque to solicit donations while demonizing U.S. politicians and defending pro-Palestinian activism.
Omar Ibn Al-Khattab Mosque – A religious institution with previous ties to controversy.
Palestinian American Community Center (PACC) – An activist group lobbying for radical pro-Palestinian policies in Paterson.
National Arab American Medical Association (NAAMA) – While presented as a professional medical organization, NAAMA has engaged in advocacy efforts that extend beyond healthcare, aligning itself with pro-Palestinian political movements and using its platform to promote activism that favors Islamic and Palestinian interests over American policies.
Palestinian American Community Center (PACC): this group is not simply a cultural or social organization—it is a political entity pushing a radical pro-Palestinian/Hamas agenda while operating within the United States. It has actively lobbied for pro-Palestinian policies, organized radical demonstrations, and served as a platform for dangerous anti-Israel and anti-Jewish activism.

These are not merely cultural or religious organizations; they are activist entities leveraging their influence to solidify Paterson as an Islamic enclave and normalize political Islam in America.

Mayor Sayegh’s Speech: Boasting About Islam’s Stronghold in Paterson

With these organizations steering Paterson’s transformation, their influence is echoed in the words of the city’s leadership. During the event, Mayor Sayegh made shocking declarations:

“Paterson is the capital of Palestine in the United States of America.”

“Paterson is the fourth holiest city in the world, Jerusalem, Mecca, Medina, and then Paterson.”

Sayegh further boasted about policies catering to Islamic governance, including school closures for Eid, halal food in public schools, the Adhan (Islamic call to prayer) broadcast in the city, and the use of City Hall for Ramadan events:

“Patterson embraces and appreciates Islam so much so that we are one of the few cities in the country where children are afforded a day off for both Eid holidays… where children in schools can have halal food in their cafeterias… where the Adhan, the call to prayer, can be heard in the city. And I also would like to state that since taking office, we opened up the doors of City Hall for the first time in Paterson’s history to have a community Iftar to break fast in Paterson.”

These are not mere words; they signal an explicit effort to reshape Paterson’s identity from an American city to a Palestinian-Islamic hub. Furthermore, he boasted how Paterson has

Pushing the Palestinian Agenda Under the Guise of Ramadan

Paterson’s elected officials allowed Islamic radical Rania Mustafa, the executive director of the controversial Palestinian American Community Center, to use the event’s platform to push anti-Israel rhetoric and promote the antisemitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS), which wants to destroy the Israeli economy with Nazi-like boycott efforts.

Economic boycotts of Israel (BDS movement)
Political activism against U.S. policies supporting Israel
Mobilizing the Muslim community (ummah) for elections to push pro-Palestinian candidates

Mustafa announced during her speech that the PACC released a controversial advocacy guide to help the “community” take action during Ramadan. Below is some of the radical pro-Palestinian action items allowed to be promoted at the government-backed event:

Renaming Main Street: Palestine Way and the Nakba Propaganda

Beyond political activism and economic pressure campaigns, the Palestinian agenda is also being cemented into Paterson’s very infrastructure.

In 2022, Councilman Alaa Abdelaziz, the city’s first Palestinian-American council member, successfully pushed to rename Main Street to Palestine Way, a symbolic declaration of allegiance to a foreign entity. This renaming was deliberately timed for May 15, the so-called “Nakba” day, a propaganda effort designed to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist.

The Nakba narrative falsely portrays Israel as an aggressor, ignoring the historical reality that Arab leaders rejected peace and launched a war of annihilation against Israel in 1948. Abdelaziz and his allies push this falsehood to rewrite history and foster anti-Israel sentiment.

Public Spaces Turned into Islamic Spaces

This Ramadan lighting ceremony is just one step in a broader agenda to institutionalize Islam in Paterson’s public life. Democrat officials, including Mayor Sayegh, have repeatedly used government spaces to promote Islamic events:

Hosting Muslim Heritage Month at City Hall, furthering Islamic influence in governance.

Each year, the city hosts Palestine Week, during which Palestinian flags are raised on government buildings and displayed throughout the city. At this annual event, crowds chant the genocidal slogan, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a call for the complete destruction of Israel. This chant explicitly rejects Israel’s right to exist. Shockingly, this event is officially sponsored by Paterson city officials. Furthermore, the controversial Mayor Sayegh declared, “Paterson is the capital of Palestine in the United States, where we proudly raise the Palestinian flag, where we have proudly renamed Main Street Palestine Way, and where we celebrate Palestine Day on Palestine Way.”

Organizing Palestinian heritage celebrations, where speakers openly voiced their radical anti-Israel sentiments.

The city now boasts Muslim officials like Serene Tamey, Paterson’s first hijab-wearing Palestinian-American police officer, and Hon. Abdulmageid (John) Abdelhadi, the first Palestinian-American chief judge in the U.S.—appointments that further cement Islamic governance in Paterson.

The Bigger Picture: Islamization of American Towns

What is happening in Paterson is not an isolated case but part of a nationwide pattern, where Islamic enclaves increasingly exert influence over local governance and public spaces.

This is happening across America, as Muslim-majority enclaves push for Islamic governance, increased mosque influence, and the erasure of existing American traditions. What happens when other towns follow Paterson’s example? How long before Islamic law takes precedence over American law in these areas?

Time to Wake Up

This is not about religious freedom. This is a calculated effort to Islamize American towns, one street and one elected position at a time. The Hilal Lighting Ceremony is just another step toward ensuring Islam is not just accepted but becomes the dominant cultural and political force.

Paterson is a warning for every American town and city. The question is no longer if this will happen elsewhere—it’s where next? How many more communities must fall before we acknowledge the pattern?

If this can happen in Paterson, it can happen anywhere. The time to act is now. America’s future depends on it.

45 OF THE WORLDS MOST DANGEROUS CITIES, MEMPHIS USA IS THE WORST IN AMERICA, THANKS DEMOCRATS!

45 of World’s 50 Most Murderous Cities in Western Hemisphere

by Allan Wall | Border Hawk March 8th, 2025 2:00 PM

We have plenty of homegrown criminals in the U.S. Why risk bringing in more?

45 of World’s 50 Most Murderous Cities in Western Hemisphere

Border crossings are way down, illegals are being detained and deported. For that we can be thankful.

But we should not be complacent.

Just as Biden reversed Trump 45’s policies, so could a later administration reverse Trump 47’s policies. In politics, nothing is permanent.

So, we need to demand politicians protect and expand on this agenda.

We also need to apply pressure to the Trump administration on the matter of legal immigration, which should be greatly reduced.

Frankly, President Trump is weak on that issue.

The “Gold Card” visa Trump crowed about in his recent speech to Congress would sell citizenship for $5 million. No thanks, Mr. President.

We need an immigration shutdown, as we did a century ago.

There are plenty of good economic, cultural, and civic arguments against mass immigration.

Another one pertains to public safety.

It’s true that the U.S. has many homegrown criminals. Why would we want to bring in more?

There is plenty of crime in our Western Hemisphere.

The Consejo Ciudadano para la Seguridad Pública y la Justicia Penal (Citizen Council for Public Security and Penal Justice) is a Mexican NGO that does excellent research on a variety of issues.

Each year, it releases a list of the world’s 50 most violent cities.

The list does not include cities located in war zones.

To qualify for the list, a city or metropolitan area must have at least 300,000 inhabitants.

Calculations are based on the rate of homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.

This year’s list was just published, and 45 of the 50 most violent cities on the planet are in the Western Hemisphere. The other five are in South Africa.

Taking the top spot is the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince, with 4263 homicides, which was 139.31 per 100,000 inhabitants. In last year’s report, Port-au-Prince was the third most violent city, with a homicide rate of 117.24 per 100,000.

In second place on this year’s list was the metropolitan area of Colima, Mexico, in the state of Colima on the Mexican Pacific coast. Its 2024 homicide rate was 126.95 per 100,000.

This was actually a slight improvement over the previous year, in which Colima was #1 on the homicide list, at 140.32 per 100,000. That’s no consolation for families of the 416 slain in a metro of 327,687.

Colima was followed on the list by four more Mexican cities: #3 Acapulco, #4 Manzanillo, #5 Tijuana (across the border from San Diego), and #6 Ciudad Obregon.

Overall, Mexico had a whopping 20 cities on the list. That’s up from 16 in last year’s report.

Of the top 10 most violent cities on the new list, seven are in Mexico.

Other countries on the list are Brazil with eight cities, Colombia with six cities, Ecuador with three cities, and Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago with one apiece.

That all adds up to 45. Which leaves five more cities in the Western Hemisphere. Where are those five cities located?

In the United States of America.

The most violent U.S. city was Memphis, Tennessee, which was #25 on the list.

Think about it – that means Memphis is more violent than all but 24 cities in the world.

Memphis had 297 homicides in 2024. With a population of 618,639, that gives it a homicide rate of 48.01 per 100,000 inhabitants.

That was an improvement over 2023, in which Memphis was #14, with a homicide rate of 69.66 per 100,000. Once again, that’s no consolation for the families of those who died.

The other U.S. cities on the list were #40 Baltimore, Maryland, (35.56 per 100,000), #45 New Orleans, Louisiana, (34.05 per 100,000), #46 Detroit, Michigan, (32.06 per 100,000), and #48 Cleveland, Ohio, (30.33).

Yes, we have plenty of homegrown criminals in the U.S.

Why risk bringing in more?

GM WASTES MONEY ON SELF DRIVING GAMBIT, WOKE CEO MARY BARRA (TIME TO RETIRE MARY!) IS BIG LOSER OF STOCKHOLDER MONEY

GM Completes Cruise Acquisition, Cuts 1,000 Jobs

General Motors finalized the acquisition of its Cruise subsidiary and laid off half of the self-driving vehicle firm’s workforce, or about 1,000 jobs. The move comes about two months after GM revealed it would stop funding Cruise’s robotaxi development, citing the resources required to scale a competitive robotaxi market.

Reassigned to Super Cruise Development

The Detroit Free Press reported that the job cuts impacted various administrative positions, though a GM spokesperson did not provide further details. The company plans to retain approximately 80% of the technical and engineering teams and reassign the remaining employees to work on the Super Cruise-assisted driving system and related technologies.

Enabling Hands-Free Driving

The Super Cruise platform, available in 20 vehicle models, enables hands-free driving on 750,000 miles of North American roads, according to GM. The automaker said it hopes to expand the technology to urban surface streets as it develops personal autonomous vehicles.

Never Made Money

GM has invested $10 billion in Cruise since 2016 and recently estimated it would reach $50 billion in annual revenue by 2030. However, the aftermath of a 2023 accident involving a Cruise vehicle and a pedestrian led to slower growth. The Free Press reported that the startup never turned a profit and ultimately cost GM nearly $2 billion per year to operate.

EMPLOYEE HIRING SHOULD ALWAYS BE ON MERIT, NOT THE CRAZY ALLOCATION OF GENDERS AND COLORS

A hiring approach that maximizes talent and rewards performance is the antidote to bias.

The Economics of DEI and Merit

DEI is dying. MEI is the new corporate rage. Standing for “merit, excellence, and intelligence”— in contrast to “diversity, equity, and inclusion”— MEI involves hiring solely on merit, without consideration of demographic factors. Labor economists have preached the gospel of meritocracy for decades. It’s refreshing to see it become fashionable.

Companies that broaden their talent searches and eliminate biases in hiring can make efficient employment decisions. As Glenn Loury and I once demonstrated mathematically, meritocratic policies maximize productivity and insure against bias. When the right people are placed in the right jobs, and people with talent are appropriately rewarded for developing their skills, the economy runs more efficiently.

In 2020, I co-founded Sigma Squared to help businesses supercharge meritocracy. The idea is simple: Any company that is maximizing talent, by definition, has no bias. If there is bias, then moving toward meritocracy will rid the company of that bias and increase productivity at the same time.

In our work with corporations across America, we’ve seen relatively small disparities in hiring and compensation for women or minorities. Black and female employees make about 5% less than whites and men after accounting for basic differences such as their education, experience, job level and performance. These disparities are primarily the result of lower starting salaries, which tend to persist over time because they form the foundation of future pay raises. When we run the data through a series of more than 200 statistical tests, the results demonstrate that these disparities aren’t driven by bias.

Racial disparities in promotions are more severe, with black and Asian employees facing about a 20% penalty on average even after accounting for the same potential differences across workers. The penalty seems largely driven by employers not giving black or Asian employees the same credit they give whites for high performance and tenure—a clear form of statistical bias. This is costly both for the workers who lose the chance at better jobs, and for companies that fail to promote the right candidates into the right roles. Nicholas Bloom and

John Van Reenen showed that differences in management quality can lead to company performance differences of 20% to 30%. If one key managerial role contributes a modest share of that overall effect, its underperformance could likely cost the firm 1% to 3% of annual revenue.

I’ve worked with household-name brands to measure meritocracy in their talent processes. Laissez-faire doesn’t get it done. Corporations have to make it happen.

The average company has 18 areas in which changes to its hiring, compensation, performance-evaluation or promotion processes would yield significantly more meritocracy and diversity, as well as significantly better business outcomes. But 25% of the time, CEOs don’t want to take these steps. Instead they revert to box-checking exercises, like gathering employees to talk about their feelings or mandating useless training. The other 75% of the time, we provide them tools for making data-driven talent decisions. Artificial intelligence and machine learning can estimate applicants’ likely performance or attrition before they are ever hired. These modern methods can identify future leaders, optimize shifts and schedules, and help companies estimate, using their own data, what type of applicants thrive in their specific company culture. We call this the “success phenotype.”

Some say that diversity in and of itself is good for business. Consulting firms and activists have advised that adding women and minorities to a company, especially its board, will magically cause profits to grow. Credible research has always shown this was wishful thinking.

Frequently cited McKinsey studies have found a strong link between firms’ earnings and the racial and ethnic diversity of their executives. The consulting firm doesn’t make its data public, but in 2024 business researchers Jeremiah Green and John R.M. Hand were unable to replicate the results with data from S& P 500 companies. In 2020, Robin J. Ely and David A. Thomas further debunked the “add diversity and stir” approach in Harvard Business Review: “We know of no evidence to suggest that replacing, say, two or three white male directors with people from underrepresented groups is likely to enhance the profits of a Fortune 500 company.”

The available research focuses overwhelmingly on correlations between diversity and performance, rather than causation. Another Harvard Business Review article notes a link between businesses’ DEI rankings and various measures of their dynamism and culture, which in turn are linked to performance. But the authors concede that causation is “difficult to prove.” If the most successful businesses also face the most pressure to improve DEI metrics, it’s plausible that increased profits may cause diversity efforts, not the other way around.

Emphasizing meritocracy offers an opportunity to bring rigor, transparency, and cutting-edge data analytics to all talent decisions, unlocking the untapped potential of the vast data companies already collect. Companies embracing meritocracy will have to take seriously the need to find hidden talent and eliminate bias from their hiring processes.

A company isn’t at its talent frontier if it’s passing over qualified candidates—no matter the reason. You don’t need a business degree to see that solving this problem will drive profits and give meritocracy focused companies a competitive edge over those stuck staring at statistical snapshots or clinging to outdated, box-checking DEI practices. Companies are right to step back from those outdated approaches. Every American corporation must do the hard work of putting the right people in the right jobs, without letting bias get in the way. A serious commitment to MEI is a step in that direction.

DIVERSITY EQUITY AND INCLUSION…IS A BIG SCAM AND ENDING FINALLY

The DIE Scam: How America’s Corporations and Universities Were Duped by the Biggest Con of the Century

By Willow Tohi, Natural News • Mar. 5, 2025

The Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) movement emerged in the aftermath of the 2020 George Floyd protests, initially as a well-intentioned effort to address systemic inequalities. However, it quickly transformed into a bureaucratic initiative aimed at embedding social justice programs into the fabric of universities and corporations.
George Floyd was a LIFE-LOMG CRIMINAL.
Fueled by psychological manipulation, ideological extremism and the threat of violence, DEI programs spread across institutions. This led to the creation of a bloated bureaucracy that enforced ideological conformity and promoted divisive rhetoric, often pitting individuals against each other based on identity markers.
By 2024, the flaws in DEI became evident, with major corporations like Ford, Walmart and John Deere rolling back their DEI commitments due to legal and political pressures. A growing number of employees and students criticized DEI for fostering division and mediocrity, leading to a widespread backlash against the movement.
As DEI retreats, proponents are rebranding their ideology with terms like “inclusive excellence” and “belonging.” However, critics argue that the underlying ideology remains unchanged, and the movement’s advocates are likely to adapt and continue promoting their agenda under new labels.
The collapse of DEI has prompted a shift towards merit-driven frameworks that emphasize objective criteria and measurable outcomes. This includes structured hiring practices, transparent promotion policies and collaborative decision-making processes, which are seen as more effective and less divisive than the top-down mandates of DEI.

)—The Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) movement, once heralded as a moral and business imperative, has been exposed as one of the most elaborate cons of the 21st century. What began as a well-intentioned effort to address systemic inequalities quickly devolved into a bureaucratic hustle, enriching thousands of ideological hustlers while sowing division and mediocrity across academia and corporate America. Now, as DEI collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, it’s time to reflect on how this con took root—and why its demise is a victory for common sense and meritocracy.

The rise of the DEI con

The DEI movement gained traction in the wake of the 2020 George Floyd protests, which sparked a national conversation about race and inequality. But as Stanley K. Ridgley, author of DEI Exposed: How the Biggest Con of the Century Almost Toppled Higher Education, explains, DEI was never about genuine diversity or inclusion. Instead, it was a “bureaucratic initiative designed to anchor a new raft of social justice programs as an inescapable presence on the campus.”

Ridgley recounts how DEI metastasized across universities and corporations, fueled by a combination of psychological manipulation, ideological extremism and the threat of violence. “It was violence and the threat of violence that opened the door for this effervescence of DEI,” he writes. College administrations, fearing the chaos of 2020’s summer riots, capitulated to the demands of activists, allowing DEI to embed itself deeply into institutional structures.

The lunacy of “apparatchiks and supernumeraries” who peddled racialist pseudoscience and enforced ideological conformity. DEI training sessions became notorious for their divisive rhetoric, pitting employees and students against one another based on race, gender and other identity markers. As Ridgley bluntly puts it, “It was weird and alien and hateful at its core.”

The backlash begins

By 2024, the cracks in the DEI façade were impossible to ignore. Major corporations like Ford, Walmart and John Deere began rolling back their DEI commitments, citing mounting legal and political pressures. A Fox News poll conducted in early 2025 found that 45% of voters believed it was “extremely” or “very” important for President Donald Trump to focus on ending DEI programs.

The backlash wasn’t just political—it was personal. Employees and students who had long endured the mediocrity and divisiveness of DEI initiatives finally began speaking out. Psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert, who has seen the harmful effects of DEI in his practice, told Fox Business, “The trend over the last few years has been to make DEI programs into political commissars, to go after people who have different viewpoints, and they end up, in many ways, sowing more division in the institution that they’re supposed to help.”

Even DEI advocates like Naomi Wheeless acknowledged the role of political pressure in the movement’s decline. “It is that [Trump] is a president with a well-documented history of vindictiveness,” she said. “He creates a sense of fear and the feeling that whether we want to or not, we better fall in line.”

The con story lives on

As DEI retreats, its proponents are already scrambling to rebrand. Terms like “inclusive excellence” and “belonging” are emerging as replacements for the now-toxic DEI acronym. But as Ridgley warns, the underlying ideology remains the same. “The Con Story will morph and adapt,” he writes. “Buzzwords will change, new slogans will be coined, but the underlying ideology will remain the same as it always has.”

This isn’t the first time America has fallen for a con story. From the pseudoscience of Karl Marx to the utopian promises of radical activists, history is littered with examples of ideologies that duped the credulous. Ridgley draws a chilling parallel between the DEI movement and the case of Luigi Mangione, a 26-year-old who murdered a man in New York City in 2024, driven by extremist ideology. “Persons who cheer the killer Luigi Mangione for his assassination of Brian Thompson also fully support DEI’s personnel, programs, policies and enforcement mechanisms on the college campuses,” Ridgley asserts.

A return to meritocracy

The collapse of DEI is a reminder that meritocracy and fairness are not just ideals—they are essential to a functioning society. As corporations and universities abandon DEI, many are turning to evidence-based, merit-driven frameworks that emphasize objective criteria and measurable outcomes. Structured hiring practices, transparent promotion policies and collaborative decision-making processes are proving to be more effective—and less divisive—than the top-down mandates of DEI.

The death of DEI is a victory for common sense, but the fight is far from over. As Ridgley warns, the con artists behind DEI will not go quietly. They will rebrand, relabel and repackage their ideology in an attempt to deceive a new generation of marks. But for now, America can breathe a sigh of relief that one of the biggest cons of the century has finally been exposed.

The lesson is clear: Ideological extremism and bureaucratic bloat have no place in our institutions. It’s time to return to the principles that made America great—individual merit, equal opportunity and the pursuit of excellence. DEI may be over, but the work of rebuilding trust and integrity in our ins