#grass root donor | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dragoneyes618 · 4 months

Text

In a pivotal Congressional hearing last week that examined rampant anti-Semitism in some of the nation’s Ivy League universities, the presidents of Harvard, MIT and University of Pennsylvania shocked the world when they refused to affirm that calls for genocide of Jews in their respective institutions violate their schools’ code of conduct.

It was a profound moment of reckoning not only for the leaders of these elite institutions but for a society that looks to them as beacons of leadership. The hearing tore aside the veil masking spiraling anti-Semitic bigotry within these universities and the complicity of its leaders in allowing it to fester.

At the House Committee on Education hearing, Republicans showed footage of fierce anti-Israel protests at their schools, many of which included virulent hate speech toward Jews and calls for genocide.

Yet the Ivy League presidents being questioned appeared to inhabit their own bubble, disconnected from the alarming footage. They seemed to expect their defense of obscene Jew-hatred as protected “free speech” would win approval, if not in the halls of Congress then with grass-roots Americans.

Instead, “support for the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and M.I.T. eroded quickly,” wrote the New York Times, “after they seemed to evade what seemed like a rather simple question: Would they discipline students calling for the genocide of Jews?”

Their responses “drew incredulous responses,” the Times article said, as a chorus of influential voices condemned the presidents’ failure to unequivocally denounce calls for the murder of Jews and to outlaw such conduct.

‘One Down, Two to Go’

As calls mounted for the resignation of the school presidents, including from alumni, members of Congress and billionaire donors who announced they were withdrawing their gifts, president Liz Magill of UPenn walked back her congressional testimony saying she hadn’t been “properly focusing.” The next day she announced that she was stepping down.

“One down, two to go,” commented Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-NY, who has led demands for accountability on the part of the three university administrators for their lack of “moral clarity and leadership.”

“This is only the very beginning of addressing the pervasive rot of antisemitism that has destroyed the most ‘prestigious’ higher education institutions in America,” said Stefanik. “This forced resignation of the president of UPenn is the bare minimum of what is required. These universities can anticipate a comprehensive Congressional investigation of all facets of their institutions’ perpetration of antisemitism. This includes administrative, faculty, funding, and overall leadership and governance.”

“Harvard and MIT, do the right thing. The world is watching,” she added.

Following the hearing, Rep. Stefanik announced that the House Education and Workforce Committee is “launching an official congressional investigation with the full force of subpoena power” into the three universities, among others.”

In addition, Stefanik led 73 members of Congress, from both the Republican and Democratic parties, in drafting a scathing letter to the boards of the three universities under investigation.

“I am proud to lead a bipartisan letter with Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-FL, and 72 of our colleagues to the members of the Governing Boards of Harvard, MIT, and Penn demanding that their presidents be removed after this week’s Education and Workforce Committee hearing,” Stefanik wrote.

“Testimony provided by presidents of your institutions showed a complete absence of moral clarity, and illuminated the double standards and dehumanization of the Jewish communities that your university presidents enabled,” the letter to the governing boards said.

“The leadership of top universities plays a pivotal role in shaping the moral compass of our future leaders,” the letter went on. “It is critically important that such leadership reflects a clear commitment to combating antisemitism, along with all forms of hate speech and bigotry.”

“Given this moment of crisis,” the letter said, “we demand that your boards immediately remove each of these presidents from their positions and that you provide an actionable plan to ensure that Jewish and Israeli students, teachers and faculty are safe on your campuses.”

Talk But No Action

The hearing, “Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism,” began as both Republican and Democratic members of the House grilled the three female presidents, demanding to know how each has addressed the spike in antisemitism since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack.

“Today, each of you will have a chance to answer, to atone for the many specific instances of vitriolic, hate-filled antisemitism on your respective campuses that have denied students the safe learning environment,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), chairwoman for the House Education Committee, told them in her opening statement.

Far from acknowledging that anti-Semitism had surged out of control under their watch, each president staunchly defended her record, proudly pointing to various measures she had taken to increase campus security and open investigations into anti-Semitic episodes.

Noticeably absent from these self-congratulatory remarks was any mention of actual penalties or disciplinary procedures meted out to students or faculty proven to have engaged in egregious anti-Semitic harassment. When questioned about what disciplinary measures are being employed, the presidents refused to answer.

Representative Elise Stefanik, R.-NY, zoned in on this glaring disconnect by repeatedly asking the presidents if calling for the genocide of Jews violated the code of conduct at their schools, and would they discipline a student engaged in this conduct?

Moral Imperatives Vanish When It’s About Anti-Semitism

All three danced around the question, throwing out legalistic catchphrases to avoid a direct answer. When finally cornered, the presidents insisted that everything depends on “context.” In other words, calls for violence against Jews are not inherently wrong or against school policy.

The following segment of the dialogue captures this shocking stance that sparked an intense backlash.

Rep Stefanik: President Magill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?”

UPenn President Liz Magill: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.

Rep. Stefanik: I am asking whether specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?”

Magill: If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment, yes.”

Stefanik: “Conduct” meaning committing the act of genocide?

Magill: It is a context-dependent question, congresswoman.”

Stefanik responded with shock.

“That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is dependent on the context? It’s not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes for,” Stefanik said. She then threw the question at Harvard president Claudine Gay.

Stefanik: And Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no?”

Gay: “It can be, depending on the context.”

Stefanik: Genocide that is targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals? I will ask you one more time. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no?”

Gay: “Again, it depends on the context.”

“It does not depend on the context,” Stefanik shot back. “The answer is yes, and this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.”

Intense Backlash Against College Presidents

Stefanik, the fourth-ranking House Republican, was not the only one outraged by the moral obtuseness on display in the presidents’ responses. Their refusal to condemn calls for the murder of Jews drew fire from alumni, university donors, elected officials and influential commentators from across the political spectrum.

On a deeper level, the presidents’ response threw light on a corrosive atmosphere prevalent in leading universities today where time-honored moral and ethical principles have been eviscerated by woke and left-wing ideology.

Those immersed in this sea of indoctrination appear out of sync with the rest of the world. This might explain the bizarre disconnect in the exchanges between the Ivy League presidents and the members of congress at the hearing.

“It’s unbelievable that this needs to be said: Calls for genocide are monstrous and antithetical to everything we represent as a country,” White House spokesman Andrew Bates said. “Any statements that advocate for the systematic murder of Jews are dangerous and revolting — and we should all stand firmly against them, on the side of human dignity and the most basic values that unite us as Americans.”

“After this week’s pathetic and morally bankrupt testimony by university presidents when answering my questions, the Education and Workforce Committee is launching an official congressional investigation with the full force of subpoena power into Penn, MIT, Harvard, and others,” Rep. Elise Stefanik said in a statement.

“We will use our full congressional authority to hold these schools accountable for their failure on the global stage.”

Republican presidential candidate and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley posted the video of the interactions at the hearing online, saying such remarks by the college presidents “will end or we’ll pull their tax-exempt status.”

“Calling for genocide of Jews is no different than calling for genocide of any other ethnic, racial, or religious group. The equivocation from these college presidents is disgusting,” Haley said.

Private equity billionaire Marc Rowan wrote a message to UPenn trustees saying he heard from hundreds of alumni, parents and leaders who were shocked by the hearing. “The University is suffering tremendous reputational damage,” Rowan wrote in the message, obtained by CNN. “How much damage to our reputation are we willing to accept?”

‘The Three Behaved Like Hostile Witnesses’

Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman called for the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania to “resign in disgrace,” citing disgust with their testimony.

“Throughout the hearing, the three behaved like hostile witnesses,” Ackman wrote in an online post, “exhibiting a profound disdain for the Congress with their smiles and smirks, and their outright refusal to answer basic questions with a yes or no answer.”

Ackman, a Harvard graduate who has been a vocal critic of how universities have addressed antisemitism, posted a clip from the exchange at the hearing where the university leaders were asked about calls for the genocide of Jews.

“They must all resign in disgrace. If a CEO of one of our companies gave a similar answer, he or she would be toast within the hour,” Ackman said. “The answers they gave reflect the profound moral bankruptcy of Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth.”

“Why has anti-Semitism exploded on campus and around the world? Because of leaders like Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth who believe genocide depends on the context,” Ackman said.

The criticism of the university leaders was so strong that president Gay of Harvard and Magill of UPenn felt compelled to issue new statements attempting to “clarify” the testimony. These revamped assertions contradicted their earlier statements that threats of anti-Semitic violence did not automatically qualify as harassment.

In a brazen about face, Magill now termed calls for genocide “vile,” and vowed to hold perpetrators to account.

Gay made similar contrite retractions, saying she was “sad” that her words “had caused pain,” and affecting distress that critics were confusing her support for “the right to free expression with the idea that Harvard would condone calls for violence against Jewish students.”

Bomb Threats; Hillel and Chabad Houses Vandalized

Despite the illusions the Ivy League presidents tried to project of their administrations managing the anti-Semitic outbreaks on their campus, many Jewish students say they feel threatened daily, not just by fellow students but by faculty and staff as well, the Free Beacon reported.

“As a student, despite what my university says, I do not feel safe,” said University of Pennsylvania senior Eyal Yakoby. “Let me be clear: I do not feel safe.”

Yakoby described several incidents on campus since Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks. They included “a bomb threat against Hillel; a swastika spray-painted on the Hillel building; the Chabad house vandalized; a professor posting an armed wing of Hamas’s logo on Facebook, a Jewish student accosted with hostility; and ‘Jews are Nazis’ etched adjacent to Penn’s Jewish fraternity house.”

He also referenced a Dec. 3 protest that saw participants vandalize school property with graffiti calling for an “intifada,” and chant in Arabic, “From water to water, Palestine will be Arab.”

Harvard Law School student Jonathan Frieden described the fear gripping many Jewish students. “I talk to my Jewish friends on campus every day,” he said. “They tell me how afraid they are to go to class. They share hate messages they are receiving from other students on social media, including comparing Jews to Nazis. And they ask each other for safety advice because of the lack of effective communication from the university.”

Frieden described an incident where pro-Palestinian protesters swarmed a law school building he was inside while they chanted slogans including “from the river to the sea” and “globalize the intifada.” He witnessed Jewish students take off their yarmulkes and one student hide underneath a desk, he said.

All four students also castigated their administrations, alleging that they failed to do anything meaningful to tackle the anti-Semitic climate on campus.

New Trend: Jewish High School Grads Abandon Ivy League Plans

An article in National Review, a conservative magazine, discusses a new trend among Jewish high school graduates in the wake of the anti-Semitism crisis on college campuses: a growing disenchantment with the Ivy League image.

Fueled by the specter of pervasive anti-Semitism and hostility in these schools, bright Jewish students are rethinking their Ivy League aspirations and turning to smaller, less prestigious colleges.

To take a few examples from one Ivy League school, since October 7, “Columbia has become a byword in American Jewish circles for rampant antisemitism,” the article noted. “In the past two months, an Israeli student was assaulted on campus, and people have screamed profanities at religious Jewish students.”

In another example, reports in an online paper noted that an Israeli student at Columbia, introducing himself on the first day of class, was targeted with an anti-Israel slur by a professor who asked him, “So you must know a lot about settler colonialism. How do you feel about that?”

Another academic reportedly observed to a Jewish student, “It’s such a shame that your people survived just in order to perpetuate genocide.”

Columbia’s apathy in the face of corrosive anti-Semitism has driven donors away, prompting the administration to do serious damage control to prove their concern for Jewish students’ safety, the National Review article noted. In early November, the school suspended Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a rabid pro-Palestinian group, for “threatening rhetoric and intimidation.”

Columbia graduate Anna Feldman told NR that even before October 7, she always felt she was walking around on “eggshells whenever the topic was Jewish people or Israel. I always felt like I couldn’t say what I had to say about Israel or the Middle East in general.”

She noted that the much publicized episodes of anti-Semitism at Columbia after Oct. 7 were nothing new to her. They were part of the university’s everyday landscape, driven by left-wing philosophies that target Israel—and Jews by association—as a source of evil.

Feldman said she refrained from writing essays touching on the Middle East out of fear of being branded a pro-Israel bigot or “pro-colonialism.” Conversations she’s had with Jewish students stuck in classes with professors justifying the Hamas massacres, are deeply unnerving.

“Thank G-d I’m no longer on campus,” Feldman reflected to the interviewer. “I don’t think I’d be able to sit in the same room with someone who wants me dead.”

American Colleges Unmasked

Columbia, Harvard University, and the University of Pennsylvania are all under investigation by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights over complaints that their administrations have not adequately responded to rising antisemitism.

“The furor over antisemitism on campus is a rare and welcome example of accountability at American universities. But it won’t amount to much if the only result is the resignation of a couple of university presidents,” asserted a WSJ op-ed.

“The great benefit of last week’s performance by three elite-school presidents before Congress is that it tore the mask off the intellectual and political corruption of much of the American academy,” the article said.

“The world was appalled by the equivocation of the academic leaders when asked if advocating genocide against Jews violated their codes of conduct. But the episode merely revealed the value system that has become endemic at too many prestigious schools.”

*****

‘Deafening Silence’ Evokes Silent Complicity in Nazi Era

Last week’s explosive congressional hearing occurred just after an equally electrifying press conference, where House Republicans hosted Jewish students from many of the universities that have seen an alarming rise in antisemitism, The Hill reported.

“In 2023 at NYU, I hear calls to ‘gas the Jews,’ and I am told that ‘Hitler was right,’” Bella Ingber, a junior at NYU, told those in attendance.

“Since Oct. 7,” Ingber said, “the anti-Semitism I’ve experienced on campus is reminiscent of the Jew-hatred I’ve heard about from my grandparents, Holocaust survivors who experienced first-hand the deafening silence of their neighbors in Poland and Germany when the Nazis first rose to power.”

“70 percent of MIT Jewish students polled, feel forced to hide their identities and perspectives,” MIT graduate student Talia Kahn told the lawmakers. “This is not just harassment. This is our lives on the line,” added Kahn, who is also president of the MIT Israel Alliance.

She said she felt “immersed in an extremely toxic anti-Semitic atmosphere,” at MIT. “I was forced to leave my study group for my doctoral exams halfway through the semester because my group members told me that the people at the Nova music festival deserved to die because they were partying on stolen land.”

In an interview with Free Beacon, Talia Kahn shared that the school’s interfaith chaplain publicly threatened Jewish students; that DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) staff claimed Israel has no right to exist; and that faculty told students that if they are scared, they should “just go back to Israel.”

#antisemitism #jews #jumblr #antisemitism on campus #harvard #mit #columbia #university of pennsylvania

22 notes · View notes

wastrelwoods · 8 months

Note

X! (the headcanon question. not the hellsite)

CLASSICALLY misplaced my draft for this answer sorry. oh god. i hate to think about x the website what horrors

X - It's ten o'clock at night - do you know where your fave is at?

Hannibal : Mingling in the lobby of an art show while sipping politely at a too-sweet flute of champagne. Prosaic small talk with collectors and donors and colleagues from surgery days. Veiled insinuations for his own amusement which nobody is clever enough to catch. Some agreement on the subpar quality of the champagne, an invitation to a wine tasting to smooth over his dissatisfied palette. A brief glimpse of Bedelia du Maurier across the room, draped in white like a caryatid come to life. A quick nod of acknowledgement and a wide berth to preserve personal and professional boundaries. Strangely isolated in the midst of the throng of people, even with a smile on his lips.

The crispness of the night air on the short walk back to the parking garage. More brief glimpses of the sky through the bare limbs of trees and the square edges of buildings. The muted shine of stars. Wondering idly if northern mockingbirds can be heard singing in the trees somewhere further out of the city.

Will : Wolf Trap. Letting the dogs out for a last run through the backyard. Barefoot and shivering on the porch, keeping an eye out for Max and Buster in case they find the branch they were both scrapping over earlier. Patting down his pockets idly, watching branches move in the wind and imagining the whole wood is creeping up to encroach on the house. Roots stretching out toward him with hungry, grasping tendrils. Something moving in the dark between the trees. If he steps down a little more, plants his feet in the sparse grass, he can almost see the shine of its eyes reflect the porch light.

Whistling sharply to call the dogs in, one and then another and then a bounding cacophony of furry limbs. Winston bringing up the rear. Shutting the door and bolting it, patting his pockets down with a little more purpose and then sighing when he sees the tylenol bottle still sitting on the desk surrounded by scraps of bone and feather and string. Shaking one pill out and swallowing it dry as a howl echoes in the distance.

[headcanons to sound off every hour ask game] <- cleared out my askbox now btw so. pleading emoji. you can send more. or just send your OWN headcanons I would take that. I used to do that a LOT when asks culture was big

#well. its just fic #AND? sometimes that happens #pigeon post #nbc hannibal

10 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 4 months

Text

The mutiny took hold on Mackinac Island.

The Michigan Republican Party’s revered two-day policy and politics gathering, the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference, was an utter mess.

Attendance had plummeted. Top-tier presidential candidates skipped the September event, and some speakers didn’t show. Guests were baffled by a scoring system that rated their ideology on a scale, from a true conservative to a so-called RINO, or Republican in name only.

And the state party, already deeply in debt, had taken out a $110,000 loan to pay the keynote speaker, Jim Caviezel, an actor who has built an ardent following among the far right after starring in a hit movie this summer about child sex trafficking. The loan came from a trust tied to the wife of the party’s executive director, according to party records.

For some Michigan Republicans, it was the final straw for a chaotic state party leadership that has been plagued by mounting financial problems, lackluster fund-raising, secretive meetings and persistent infighting. Blame has centered on the fiery chairwoman, Kristina Karamo, who skyrocketed to the top of the state party through a combative brand of election denialism but has failed to make good on her promises for new fund-raising sources and armies of activists.

This month, the internal dissension has erupted into an attempt to oust Ms. Karamo, which, if successful, would be the first removal of a leader of the Michigan Republican Party in decades. Nearly 40 members of the Michigan Republican Party’s state committee called for a meeting in late December to explore forcing out Ms. Karamo. Just before Christmas, Malinda Pego, Ms. Karamo’s running mate for state party chair and the co-chair of the committee, signed onto that effort, in an ominous sign for the embattled chairwoman. And on Thursday, eight of the 13 Republican congressional district party chairs asked Ms. Karamo to resign in a joint letter, pleading with her to “put an end to the chaos” by stepping down.

But that meeting has now been delayed, with no definite date on the calendar. Ms. Karamo has vowed to fight back, railing against the effort as illegitimate.

The pitched battle for control of the state party in a pre-eminent presidential battleground is the most extreme example of conflicts brewing in state Republican parties across the country. Once dominated largely by moneyed establishment donors and their allies, many state parties have been taken over by grass-roots Republican activists energized by former President Donald J. Trump and his broadsides against the legitimacy of elections.

These activists, now holding positions of state and local power, have elevated others who share their views, prioritizing election denialism over experience and credentials.

The result has been fund-raising problems and division. The Republican Party of Arizona spent much of this year in debt.

The Republican Party of Georgia has had similar difficulties, mostly caused by legal fees related to efforts to subvert the 2020 election. The state’s governor, Brian Kemp, a rare G.O.P. leader to buck Mr. Trump, had been forced to form his own political apparatus outside the state party for his re-election campaign in 2022. The leaders of the party in both states have aligned themselves with the election-denial movement.

Veterans of Republican politics say that state parties play vital roles in winning elections, acting as a clearinghouse for distributing large donations from national groups unfamiliar with local terrain and offering discounts on expensive campaign costs like mail. They help identify potential candidates and winnable races. They are a font of the kinds of activists and volunteers critical to powering statewide campaigns. And they raise money.

All of that is at risk in places like Michigan.

“It takes people doing the shoe-leather kind of things in campaigns on top of the money, and that’s where I think that Michigan is going to be hampered,” said Jeff Timmer, a former executive director of the Michigan Republican Party. “You can’t replace everything with money. Some things still take people on top of it, and they can’t buy mercenaries to do that.”

That could have a significant impact in Michigan, where recent polling has shown Mr. Trump with only a slim lead over President Biden and where, in 2022, a Democratic wave swept over the state.

But before the state Republican Party can help try to flip the state red, it must clear out its debt, which stood around $620,000 as of early December, according to bank records released in a report by state Republicans targeting Ms. Karamo. The party will have to raise money on its own simply to pay down its ledger.

The precarious finances have left national Republicans uneasy about giving money to the state party for election-related activity, worrying that it would simply be put toward the debt, according to two people familiar with the Republican National Committee’s deliberations.

Republican state legislators are growing frustrated.

“The Michigan Republican Party is on the verge of imploding; I have more money in my campaign account than the state party has in its,” State Representative Mark Tisdel said at a town-hall meeting in December. “Sooner or later, the creditors are going to come calling.”

Ms. Karamo did not respond to requests for comment, but she released a letter two days before Christmas proclaiming that “we will not be deterred” and denouncing the “infighting.”

“These deceptive and underhanded endeavors endanger the Michigan G.O.P.’s drive toward victory in 2024,” she wrote. “They also disrupt the determination of the Republican men and women who are working tirelessly to win the spiritual war being fought on a cultural battlefield.”

Daniel Hartman, a lawyer for the Michigan Republican Party, described the effort to remove Ms. Karamo as “about approximately 15 agitators,” adding that “another 15 people out of 120 are committee members who have been opposing the administration from Day 1.”

The party’s rules, he added, do not allow for the removal of any officer unless 50 percent of the state party’s delegates sign a petition requesting a vote and 75 percent of the state committee votes to remove the officer.

The Republican National Committee declined to answer questions about the Michigan G.O.P.

With major donors fleeing, Ms. Karamo pitched a new direction for the state party: trying to persuade nearly 500,000 small-business owners in Michigan, who she claimed were right-leaning, to contribute $10 to $50 every month. After a “60-day infrastructure ramp-up time,” she projected that the party would raise as much as $60 million annually.

It did not.

By July, the party had less than $150,000 in the bank. Under siege, the state party leadership began to hold meetings in private. A meeting that month devolved into a fistfight that broke a county chairman’s dentures and left him with stress fractures in his spine, The Detroit News reported.

Ms. Karamo soon began expelling dissident party officials. Vice chairs began complaining in the news media that they felt sidelined. Two members of the budget committee resigned out of fear of liability, according to the report compiled by anti-Karamo Republicans. And she dissolved the party’s conflict-resolution committee.

The tumultuous Mackinac gathering left Michigan Republicans even more alienated.

“They scored us as being solid Republican — a one, two, three or a four — and a number four being a RINO,” said Pete Hoekstra, a former ambassador to the Netherlands during the Trump administration and a former Republican congressman from Michigan. “We’re supposed to be building a party, not dividing a party into our own categories.”

By November, Ms. Karamo was trying to sell the party’s former headquarters, a building blocks from the State Capitol in Lansing that had been paid for by two wealthy donors. Ms. Karamo and the state party do not own the building; it is owned by a trust controlled by former state party chairs.

Ms. Karamo had vacated the headquarters months earlier, arguing that its maintenance fees were an unnecessary cost. When she left, Ms. Karamo allowed the electricity to be shut off, which released the building’s electronic locks and left it open to the public, according to the report from Republicans opposed to the chairwoman.

The report’s main author, Warren Carpenter, is a local Republican leader and a former Karamo ally. With the help of a former state attorney general, he compiled the 140-page document, titled “The Failed Leadership of the Karamo Administration.”. The New York Times obtained a copy of the report.

The report details favors by Ms. Karamo to political allies, such as paying nearly $90,000 to a business run by the man who nominated her as chairwoman; sloppy bookkeeping; and the party’s mounting debt.

Soon, prominent county chairs were urging Ms. Karamo’s removal.

Mark Forton, the chair of the Macomb County Republican Party, who had been a key force in Ms. Karamo’s rise, called in late November for “a complete change in leadership” in a letter to the state committee that was obtained by The Times.

In early December, Vance Patrick, the chair of the Oakland County Republican Party, the largest county party organization in the state, encouraged her removal, citing “a new controversy every week, distracting from the important business of organizing the party to win elections.”

Mr. Carpenter said in an interview that he had enough votes to oust Ms. Karamo, but that he and like-minded Republicans were proceeding cautiously out of a belief that she might sue.

At the same time, anti-Karamo Republicans are looking for a new leader. One person floated is Mr. Hoekstra, who said that he was not considering such a move “until there’s an opening,” but that he had indicated a “clear willingness over the last few months to help the party out.”

“To win in Michigan, you need Republicans, you need independents, and you have to draw Democrats,” he said, pointing to Mr. Trump’s coalition in 2016, when he won the state by about 10,000 votes. “We need everybody to feel welcome into the party.”

Many of Ms. Karamo’s former allies, meanwhile, feel disillusioned.

“Ladies and gentlemen, there is no way that we can observe the happenings of the last nine months and defend this administration by using comments like ‘inexperience,’ or ‘incompetence,’” Mr. Forton wrote in his November letter. “Simply put, we have been had.”

5 notes · View notes

johnmarzka · 2 months

Text

US Military Academy West Point’s Historic Michie Stadium

A centerpiece of the United States Military Academy (USMA) West Point, Michie Stadium opened its doors to the public on October 4, 1924, with a resounding 17-0 victory over St. Louis University. Over the past 99 seasons, the Army has had an exceptional 364-170-7 record playing on its home turf. The Sporting News and Sports Illustrated list the stadium as among the top collegiate fields nationwide.

The Army's rising prominence in national competition was the impetus for building the stadium in a meadow next to Lusk Reservoir, beside historic Fort Putnam. The football program was already 35 years old, launched in 1890 through the efforts of then-student Dennis Mahan Michie (USMA Class of 1893). Michie organized West Point’s first foray into football competition and managed and coached the team.

The original Michie Stadium had a seating capacity of 16,000, with space for 5,000 additional temporary seats. The first major upgrade occurred in the 1930s, with the stadium gaining lighting and a press box. In 1962, the east stands were built, and an upper deck was erected on top of the west stands seven years later. A west upper deck opened in 2003, boosting stadium capacity to its current 38,000.

Also, in 2003, the $7 million Hoffman Press Box was completed, providing media members with state-of-the-art booths for TV and radio broadcasts. The Kimsey Athletic Center was inaugurated that same year beyond the south end zone. This $40 million facility comprises training facilities, coaches offices, locker rooms, equipment, and meeting rooms. It also houses the Kenna Hall of Army Sports, displaying artifacts and photos from West Point’s illustrious athletics history.

Over the years, the playing field has been another major area of change and improvement. In 1977, natural grass was replaced with AstroTurf. This saved on maintenance expenses and allowed extended practice throughout the autumn months, as various squads could now use the facility without ruining the turf. In 1984, SuperTurf was introduced, and in 1992, AstroTurf 8 supplanted that highly engineered material. AstroPlay, installed in 2003, was the first to offer players the appearance and cushioning qualities of natural grass. In 2008, the next-generation FieldTurf was established for the first time.

In 2023, turf technology took another quantum leap by installing FieldTurf Vertex Core. The material has an accommodating 2.5-inch thickness and an innovative 10mm Amorim 400 Shock Pad that cushions falls and reduces wear and tear on the limbs. It’s the same material used by several other teams, including the NFL Carolina Panthers, the University of Alabama, and Oregon State.

Despite these improvements, the stadium is still an aging edifice that reflects the structural limitations of engineering a century ago. The recently launched Michie Stadium Preservation Project (MSPP) represents an effort envisioned as being completely donor-funded. It will encompass a modernization of the east stands section and a full retrofit of stadium operations and systems.

At the same time, it seeks to preserve the stadium’s architectural heritage and ensure that the panoramic views remain intact. The result will be a stadium true to its roots as a transformative element of the USMA West Point while offering the structural soundness and amenities that today’s fans and players require.

#John Marzka

1 note · View note

krishnayangaurakshala · 3 months

Text

Embracing Tradition: The Significance of Shradh and Gaumata Seva

Shradh, also known as Pitru Paksha, is a sacred Hindu ritual that honors departed souls and plays a crucial role in the religious and cultural traditions of India. It is a time when families come together to remember and pay homage to their ancestors. One unique aspect of this ritual is the emphasis on Gaumata Seva, the service to the divine cow, as a way to benefit the departed souls.

Gaumata Seva - An Integral Part of Shradh: In Hinduism, it is believed that 33 crore devatas reside in Gaumata, the divine cow. Serving Gaumata is considered a powerful and pure act that connects us with our ancestors. Whatever is offered to Gaumata is believed to reach the pitras (departed souls), bringing them happiness and satisfaction. This practice is seen as a way to help the departed souls progress in their journey to the other world.

Tirth Shradh & Tarpan: Performing Shradh and tarpan on the banks of Maa Ganga is a common practice during Pitru Paksha. This ritual is believed to elevate the departed soul to higher lokas (spiritual realms). The serene and spiritually charged environment of the Ganga is thought to enhance the effectiveness of the ceremony.

Yagya & Pooja for Pitra: For those whose family members passed away more than a year ago, a detailed Yagya and pooja can be performed. This special ceremony is dedicated to bringing happiness and peace to the departed soul, following Vedic rituals.

Godaan - A Powerful Act of Donation: Godaan, or the donation of a cow, is considered one of the most powerful and pure acts a person can perform in their lifetime. This act helps in absolving sins, removing obstacles, and elevating the deceased soul to heaven. Additionally, it is believed to eliminate pitra dosh, providing spiritual benefits to the donor.

Bhandara for 11 Saints/Brahmins: Conducting a bhandara, a communal feast, for 11 saints or Vedic Brahmins is another way to bring peace and happiness to the departed soul. This act of charity is seen as a selfless offering for the well-being of the ancestors.

Feed Gaugrass - Nourishing Gaumata: As a part of Gaumata Seva, feeding Gaugrass in the form of green grass, wheat bran, and jaggery to desi mother cows is highly revered. This act not only contributes to the well-being of Gaumata but is believed to contribute to the salvation of the departed souls.

Conclusion: Shradh and Gaumata Seva hold deep significance in Hindu traditions, providing a way for families to honor their ancestors and ensure the well-being of departed souls. By embracing these rituals, individuals connect with the spiritual heritage of India, fostering a sense of continuity and reverence for their roots.

#shraadh #vedic rituals #yagya #gaudaan #nonprofit #animal welfare

0 notes

ainews · 5 months

Text

Catalogs have become an important tool in the fight for grass-roots change. Unlike radio or TV advertising, which can be prohibitively expensive for grassroots campaigns, catalogs are a cost effective, yet highly visible method of getting the message to the masses.

Catalogs allow organizations to reach a large audience with a relatively small investment. A well-designed catalog can be produced quickly and easily, usually for under a few thousand dollars. It’s a great way to reach potential supporters without large-scale printing and direct mail costs. Plus, when done properly, catalogs can be extremely professional and showcase your content and message.

Catalogs also offer a great way to make a personal connection. Unlike television or radio spots, catalogs give people time to read the copy and look at the photos, all while feeling the tangible connection of holding the catalog in their hands. People generally like to have physical things that they can keep and use as resources. Plus, catalogs don’t require a large media buy like radio or television advertising.

Organizations can also use catalogs to host a variety of content. From feature stories to photos to newsletter-style updates, catalogs offer a great way to tell a story and build an audience around it. As more and more people look to the internet for news and information, physical catalogs create a tangible connection that people can take with them and interact with away from the computer.

Catalogs are also extremely useful for fundraising. By including nonprofit donation-request slips, organizations can easily solicit donations inside the catalog. Catalogs offer the convenience of having all the information needed to make a donation at the donor’s fingertips. Plus, the donation slip can be easily returned with no postage necessary.

Catalogs will continue to be an important tool in the fight for grass-roots change. They’re cost effective, easily accessible, and highly visible, making them an essential resource for any organization looking to make powerful inroads.

#ai generated #fake news

0 notes

scottguy · 7 months

Text

Warning! This is a mega donor funded 3rd party pretending to be "grass roots" to split the Democratic vote.

If they were truly grass roots, they'd be happy to show their books.

Don't get fooled! They are NOT what they pretend to be.

A vote for No Labels is a vote for FASCISM to win Congress and the next presidential election.

#no labels #fake grass roots party #astro turf

0 notes

nbmsports · 9 months

Text

Fundraising Deadline for 2024 Presidential Campaigns Arrives: What to Watch

The financial landscape of the 2024 presidential race — the contest’s haves and have-nots, their momentum and desperation — will come into sharper focus on Saturday, the deadline for campaigns to file their latest reports to the Federal Election Commission.The filings, which detail fund-raising and spending from April 1 through June, will show which campaigns brought in the most hard dollars, or money raised under federal limits that is used to pay for staff, travel, events and advertising. Senate campaigns must also file by the end of Saturday, which means an early glimpse at incumbents’ fund-raising in potentially vulnerable seats.Crucially, the records will reveal which candidates are struggling to draw donor interest. For example, former Vice President Mike Pence raised just $1.2 million, two aides said on Friday, a strikingly low figure that could signal a difficult road ahead.The reports will also give a sense of small-dollar support, and which donors are maxing out their contributions to which candidates. And they will show how campaigns are spending their money, which ones have plenty of cash on hand and which ones are in danger of running dry.“The F.E.C. reports are the M.R.I. scan of a campaign,” said Mike Murphy, a veteran Republican strategist. “It’s the next-best thing to breaking into the headquarters and checking the files.”But the picture will not be complete. For one thing, super PACs, which can raise unlimited money and play an outsize role in supporting presidential candidates, do not have to file reports on their fund-raising and spending until the end of the month.The total number of donors to each campaign will not be provided in the filings, either. That figure is a vital measure for Republicans, because the party is requiring presidential candidates to have at least 40,000 unique donors to take part in the first primary debate on Aug. 23.Saturday will also be the first detailed look at President Biden’s war chest as he slowly ramps up his re-election campaign. His campaign said on Friday that along with the Democratic National Committee and a joint fund-raising committee, it had raised more than $72 million combined for the second quarter.In the same period in 2019, former President Donald J. Trump and his allies raised a total of $105 million — $54 million for Mr. Trump and his committees, and $51 million for the Republican National Committee. In 2011, former President Barack Obama raised $47 million for his campaign and $38 million for the Democratic National Committee.Saturday will also show the money taken in by candidates in competitive Senate races in West Virginia, Arizona, Montana, Nevada and Ohio, among other places.The filings for presidential candidates are pored over by competitors, who want to “get a sense of how they are applying their resources, which will give them a clue to strategies,” Mr. Murphy said. Candidates might look at how much their rivals are spending on ads and polling, for example.“The most important number is cash on hand, minus debt,” Mr. Murphy said. “You see how much financial firepower they actually have.”Several Republican presidential campaigns have previewed their fund-raising ahead of the release. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida raised $20 million in the second quarter, his campaign said this month. But the filing on Saturday will show what percentage of that amount came from contributions below $200, which is instructive to assessing the strength of his grass-roots support.Mr. Trump raised more than $35 million in the second quarter, his campaign said. That number, however, is hard to compare with Mr. DeSantis’s because Mr. Trump has raised money through a joint fund-raising committee, which allows him to solicit contributions above the $3,300 individual limit and then transfer funds to his campaign and to his leadership political action committee.Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, is raising money into a joint fund-raising committee, which transfers funds to her campaign and to a leadership PAC.Ms. Haley’s three committees together took in $7.3 million in contributions in the second quarter, according to filings shared with The New York Times, of which the campaign itself accounted for $4.3 million.Mr. Murphy singled out Ms. Haley as a candidate whose total earnings appeared modest, but whose cash on hand had increased from the first quarter of the year — to $9.3 million from $7.9 million across the three committees. “It shows a heartbeat,” he said. Her filings also suggest that her campaign is running a lean operation, with minimal staff, economical travel and no television ads.The Republican National Committee’s donor threshold for the first debate has shifted the calculus of many campaigns and PACs, which must focus not only on raising money but also on attracting a sufficient number of individual donors. So far, the candidates who say they have met that threshold are Mr. Trump, Mr. DeSantis, Ms. Haley, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.On Wednesday, Mr. Scott’s campaign said he had raised $6.1 million in the second quarter. Mr. Scott entered the race in May with a head start: He had $22 million in hard dollars in his Senate campaign. His presidential campaign said it had $21 million remaining at the end of the quarter.Another Republican candidate, the wealthy entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, has not released a preview of his fund-raising numbers, but he has said he will spend $100 million of his own money on his bid. Mr. Christie, similarly, has not released his numbers.On Friday, the campaign of Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota, a wealthy former software engineer, filed its quarterly report, showing that he had raised $1.5 million in contributions and that he had lent $10 million to his campaign. He had $3.6 million in cash on hand at the end of the month.The campaign of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmental lawyer who is challenging Mr. Biden for the Democratic nomination, also filed its report Friday, showing more than $6.3 million in contributions and $4.5 million in cash on hand at the end of June.Terry Sullivan, a Republican strategist who ran Senator Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign, said it would be telling which candidates broadcast their total donor numbers.Another thing to watch is the “burn rate” of each campaign, Mr. Sullivan said — what candidates are spending as a share of what they have taken in, and how much they have left in the bank.Campaign accounts are vital to candidates because, unlike PACs, the funds are controlled by the campaign. Also unlike PACs, campaigns are protected by federal law that guarantees political candidates the lowest possible rate for broadcast advertising.Mr. Sullivan said that television advertising was no longer as important as so-called earned media exposure, through events, viral moments and debates. But those often cost money, too: Even on a tight budget, candidates can easily spend a quarter-million dollars a day holding events on the trail, he said.“Nobody stops running for president because they think their ideas are no longer good enough, or they’re not qualified,” Mr. Sullivan said. “People stop running for president for one reason, and one reason only: It’s because they run out of money.”With Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Trump and Mr. Scott in the top tier of candidates with the most cash available and Ms. Haley in the next level down, it remains to be seen who will join her in the modest but viable middle.Republican political observers will watch closely for the filing by former Vice President Mike Pence, who has not announced his fund-raising figures.He is disliked by many Republican voters and trails far behind Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis in national polls — yet he consistently shows up in third, above Ms. Haley and Mr. Scott, and is making an aggressive play for religious conservatives on seemingly friendly terrain in Iowa. How he performs financially could offer a clue to the lasting strength of his campaign.Reid J. Epstein and Maggie Haberman contributed reporting. Source link Read the full article

0 notes

whats-in-a-sentence · 1 year

Text

To absorb sufficient amounts of iron from the soil solution, roots have developed several mechanisms that increase iron stability and thus its availability (Figure 13.18). (...) In addition, plasma membranes in roots contain an enzyme, called iron-chelate reductase, that reduces ferric iron (Fe³+) to the ferrous (Fe²+) form, with cytosolic acid NADH or NADPH serving as the electron donor (see Figure 13.18A). (...) Under iron deficiency, grass roots release more siderophores into the soil and increase the capacity of their Fe³+-siderophore transport system (see Figure 13.18B).

"Plant Physiology and Development" int'l 6e - Taiz, L., Zeiger, E., Møller, I.M., Murphy, A.

0 notes

thesheel · 2 years

Text

The red fort of Georgia has not been conquered in one day by Democrats; it took years of struggle and hard work from many sections of society, especially Black women of Georgia. The Black women of Georgia invested their days and nights in strengthening the Democratic roots in Georgia. There are several deserving stories of these women who dedicated their routines to win Georgia for the Democrats. To win the right to vote for every Georgian, they worked tirelessly to make sure that the people of Georgia could vote in the general elections as well as in the runoffs. This is the beauty of democracy, where hard work pays off no matter what the condition is. Republicans held Georgia since 1992 through various techniques of voter suppression and voter fraud, and Democrats shattered the Republicans ranks in Georgia in 2020 with a combination of strategies. Stacey Abrams and the other women showed intent and realized this strategy of voter suppression during her governor's race and decided to curb it. One after the other, women joined her group as they all gathered to end the Republican regime. How did Georgia turn blue due to these Black women of Georgia in the 2020 elections and the runoff elections? What are the contributions of these women to voter registration? Let's have a look. Black Women of Georgia Who Conquered the State The work in Georgia was initiated decades before President-elect Joe Biden flipped the state. In this regard, the most prominent name is Stacey Abrams, but following her, other Black women have been working to make this dream come true. Felicia Davis: A Women of Crisis Felicia Davis hoped to flip Georgia during the dark times. She worked to organize and create political awareness in the masses of Clayton County. She even paid teenagers, who worked with her in distributing literature and running awareness campaigns. In Georgia, the majority of the Black population is Democrats, most of whom are African-Americans. The real problem in Georgia for Democrats was to create awareness among the people about their voting rights and protect them. For decades, Black women like Davis have been asking the Democratic Party to invest in Georgia, but they always saw it as an unconquerable fortress. Despite this, these women from the African-American community carried on their work, registered new voters, created awareness, and engaged themselves in a long-term political battle. Nse Ufot: A Wall against Voter Suppression Nse Ufot leads the New Georgia Project and has been engaged in efforts to increase voter turnout in Georgia. She believes that the Democratic leaders who are praising the Democratic win in Georgia are not aware of the hard work these Black women have been doing for decades. Groups like the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have been leading efforts against voter suppression of Black women in Georgia. Today, just because of them, Georgia is a blue state. Deborah Scott: The Organizer of Voters Deborah Scott, the founder of the Georgia Stand Up project, started the group in 2004 to focus on grass-roots organization of voters in Georgia. She had no help from the Democratic Party or any other donors, yet she managed to keep going to win essential seats for Democrats. Helen Butler: A Women to Pull Voters out of Their Homes Another name worth discussing is Helen Butler, who has been working to increase voter turnout of African-Americans, Latinos, Asian- Americans, and college students. Butler is the executive director of the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda. This group has been engaged in looking after African-American communities and creating political awareness among them. Finally, everyone knows the name of Stacey Abrams now, as she was the main figure of the struggle. Many experts believe that the nomination of Kamala Harris for the vice president was the turning point for Georgi

a. It motivated the Black women who have been working on the political agenda, as they saw hope in Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. Georgia: A Hard Nut Finally Cracked Democrats gave up on southern states, so this historic win of Joe Biden in Georgia was a surprise to many. The State of Georgia has been a center of voter suppression in the United States. Many African-Americans in the state recognize themselves as Democrats, but still, they were unable to vote due to voter suppression tactics used by the Republican administration of the state. Activists, some of whom are already mentioned above, have been running campaigns to curb voter suppression in Georgia, and recent victories are the fruit of the tree that they have been taking care of. According to exit polls, 92 percent of the Black female voters voted for President-elect Joe Biden in the presidential election. This would have been even below 50 percent if Stacey Abrams and Black female leaders had not run their campaigns supporting Biden. According to the Pew research center, the state of Georgia has witnessed an increase of five percent in its population of people of color since 2000. Similarly, the Latino population grew by three percent. Meanwhile, the state lost ten percent of its eligible white voters. LaTosha Brown, the founder of the Atlanta-based Black Voters Matter Fund, believes that the voter turnout of Georgia in the presidential election and the Senate runoff elections would never have been possible without the work done by Black women and other advocacy groups. Despite so much hard work done by these Black women of Georgia, their efforts were not recognized by the top leadership of Democrats, which is an alarming sign, as these unsung heroes of Georgia deserve applause where nobody else does.

0 notes

leanpick · 2 years

Text

Opinion | Fed Up With Democratic Emails? You’re Not the Only One.

Donald Trump seemed to usher in a new era of Democratic grass-roots engagement. More than four million people marched in the streets the day after his inauguration. Several thousand chapters of Indivisible, one of the biggest new “Resistance” organizations, sprung up, covering every congressional district. On the Democratic fund-raising platform ActBlue, the number of donors more than quadrupled…

View On WordPress

0 notes

ladygreytea76 · 3 years

Photo

ID: A tweet by Obsidian @patiencezelanaga: I think about this quote by @sarahkendzior a lot and especially today. Quote: What will they do next? Think of the worst thing they can do. Doesn’t matter if it’s legal. Doesn’t matter if it’s moral. Doesn’t matter if there’s no precedent. Doesn’t matter if they get caught, as long as they don’t get punished. Why will they do it? Because they can. End quote. Tweet October 27th, 2020, 2:24 am. End ID.

#sarah kendzior #side note #on twitter this quote counts as sensitive material #up is down and down is up #i'm sure we wouldn't be in such a bad state if dems #did their damn job #or if they weren't beholden to the same donor class rather #reasons which local and state organisations on a grass-roots level are vital

34 notes · View notes

wherelibertydwells · 2 years

Text

More than any other group, it is White Coat that has elevated the cause of stopping these horrific government experimentations on dogs and puppies into the mainstream political conversation. And numerous media outlets — led by The Washington Post — have spent years publishing flattering profiles on this group and its innovative bipartisan strategies.

Now everything has changed. The government official who oversees the agencies conducting most of these gruesome experiments has become a liberal icon and one of the most sacred and protected figures in modern American political history: Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and President Biden's Chief Medical Advisor. Many of the most horrific experiments, including the ones on dogs and puppies now in the news as a result of White Coat's activism, are conducted by agencies under Fauci's command and are funded by budgets he controls.

In other words, White Coat's activism, which had long generated bipartisan support and favorable media coverage, now reflects poorly on Dr. Fauci. And as a result, The Washington Post has decided to amass a team of reporters to attack the group — the same one the paper repeatedly praised prior to the COVID pandemic — in order to falsely smear it as a right-wing extremist group motivated not by a genuine concern for the welfare of animals or wasteful government spending, but rather due to a partisan desire, based in MAGA ideology, to attack Fauci. In emails sent last week to the group, Post reporter Beth Reinhard advised them that she wanted “to talk about White Coat Waste and the #beaglegate campaign.” She specifically asked for a wide range of financial documents relating to the group's funding — far beyond what non-profit advocacy groups typically disclose. “May I request your 2020 filing with the IRS,” Reinhard first inquired. White Coat quickly provided that. On October 30, White Coat Vice President Justin Goodman provided even more financial documents — “attached are the Schedule Bs. I’ve also attached a breakdown of our funding sources from 2017-Q3 2021,” he wrote in an email to Reinhard — yet nothing satisfied her, because nothing in these documents was remotely incriminating or helpful to the narrative they were trying to concoct about the group's real, secret agenda. After White Coat voluntarily provided more and more detailed documentation about its finances, it became obvious what fictitious storyline The Post was attempting to manufacture: that this is a far-right group that is funded by "dark money” from big MAGA donors, motivated by a hatred of science and Dr. Fauci. But in trying to manufacture this false tale, The Post encountered a rather significant obstacle: White Coat is funded almost entirely by small donors, grass-roots citizens who use the group's website to make donations. Once The Post was repeatedly thwarted in its efforts to concoct the lie that the group is MAGA-funded, Reinhard continued to insist that there must be hidden right-wing funding sources, and even began demanding that White Coat take some sort of bizarre vow never to accept right-wing or "pro-Trump" funding sources in the future. Documents provided by White Coat both to me and The Post demonstrated that the group's average donation in 2020 was $30.47, obtained by 81,805 individual donations (that includes all donations, including from groups). The group took no PPP bailout funds, and received, in its words, “$0 gifts from conservative aligned groups ever.” Even more disturbing was the telephone call which Goodman had on Monday with Reinhard and another Post reporter, Yasmeen Abutaleb, assigned to the health and COVID beat. During that call, Abutaleb in particular repeatedly demanded to know whether White Coat was concerned that the activism they were doing on these dog experimentation programs could end up harming Dr. Fauci's reputation and thus make him less able to manage the COVID crisis. They even suggested that by encouraging people to call the NIH telephone lines to protest this experimentation, they might be making it difficult for people with questions about COVID to get through. The obvious premise of the entire conversation was one completely antithetical to the journalistic ethos: it is immoral to do anything that reflects negatively on Dr. Fauci now, no matter how true or warranted it might be, because his importance is too great to risk undermining him. After speaking with the two Post reporters, Goodman told me that “it’s clear based on my conversations with them that rather than investigating the horrific puppy experimentation being funded with our tax dollars by Anthony Fauci — about which they have asked virtually nothing — they are instead interested in attempting to discredit our organization and #BeagleGate campaign in order to run defense for Fauci.” More at the link.

96 notes · View notes