(Natural News) While Democrats and their left-wing cheerleaders in the ‘mainstream media’ shrieked for four years that Donald Trump was a traitor and an ‘asset’ to Russia, in fact, it’s Joe Biden‘s loyalties that should be questioned as well as most of those in his party when it comes to their China catering.
“The Biden administration is quietly helping American universities that host China’s Confucius Institute on their campuses circumvent a ban on receiving federal funds,” the Washington Free Beacon reported this week.
In late March, the Defense Department declared that it would issue waivers permitting schools to establish chapters of the Confucius Institute, a Chinese Communist Party-supported program that Beijing exploits to advance its influence and pilfer intellectual property from American universities.
The department’s waiver program was established as a reaction to the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which prohibits American colleges and universities from receiving federal funding if they maintain Confucius Institute chapters. According to lawmakers, the Defense Department’s actions are in defiance of federal law, the outlet noted further.
And never mind that the Chinese government shouldn’t have ‘institutes’ or anything else established on American college campuses (because you know Beijing will never allow an American equivalent on Chinese campuses).
“The Chinese Communist Party is subverting U.S. institutions and Joe Biden is sabotaging legislation to stop them,” Rep. Jim Banks (R., Ind.), a member of the House Select Committee on China, told the Washington Free Beacon. The GOP lawmaker noted further that the Biden regime has essentially “greenlit China’s espionage and malign influence operations on college campuses.”
This workaround has emerged amidst concerns from the intelligence community that American colleges have become “soft targets” for Chinese espionage. Since 2008, China has established over 100 Confucius Institutes in the United States, investing over $158 million in them. The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies have repeatedly cautioned that these institutes are “ultimately subservient to the Chinese government” and pose a significant espionage threat, the report said.
Despite these warnings, American schools have been hesitant to sever ties with their Confucius Institutes, fearing that they may miss out on the $426 million China has contributed to American higher education since 2011. This funding supports a range of research projects, with a substantial portion also coming in the form of gifts to various schools, the outlet added.
While Confucius Institutes are claimed to be designed to foster cultural exchange and language learning, lawmakers argue that they instead “limit a school’s autonomy by censuring political debate and preventing discussions on certain topics, such as Taiwan and Tibet.” These Chinese Communist Party (CCP) outposts also have “contracts with U.S. universities [that] forbid activities that violate Chinese law and require the contract remain confidential, limiting effective oversight.”
The bipartisan funding prohibition in the NDAA, scheduled to be implemented on October 1, was intended to compel American universities to terminate their ties with Confucius Institutes in order to retain their lucrative Pentagon contracts. However, the waiver program provides them with a way out and coincides with parallel efforts by higher education lobbyists to influence the Biden administration into easing reporting requirements on foreign donations, including those from China, the Free Beacon reported further.
To be granted a waiver, schools merely have to submit a letter to the Pentagon affirming that their Confucius Institutes promote “academic freedom” and “openness.” The schools are also granted flexibility to self-report to the Defense Department on any modifications that may be made to the institute’s connection with these CCP outposts, the outlet said.
In short, Biden’s Defense Department — no doubt with his approval — is moving to circumvent established law for a country that it should be preparing to defeat on future battlefields, not assisting with the propagandizing of American students.
(Natural News) Zimbabwe’s ambitious digital currency plan will need $100 million worth of gold to get off the ground, according to a member of the monetary policy committee for the country’s central bank.
In a recent interview, Persistence Gwanyanya said that the central bank has been accumulating gold reserves as part of its plan to stabilize the country’s floundering dollar. He stated: “Any amount around or less than $100 million will be able to deal with our challenge in a big way. We expect the central bank to bring a respectable quantity that can stabilize the Zimbabwe dollar and boost demand.”
The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe’s plan involves setting up a gold-backed digital currency that can serve as legal tender and help stabilize its local currency in the wake of ongoing depreciation against the U.S. dollar.
Zimbabwe has been dealing with severe economic challenges, such as currency volatility and inflation, for more than a decade. In the late 2000s, Zimbabwe experienced severe hyperinflation that saw prices double every couple of hours and led to the collapse of the local currency.
The country first adopted the American dollar as its currency in 2009 following its hyperinflation crisis. The Zimbabwean dollar was reintroduced 10 years later in hopes of reviving the nation’s struggling economy, but the government decided last year to use the American dollar again to help stem surging prices.
Last year, Zimbabwe’s Reserve Bank introduced gold coins as a form of alternative legal tender. The metal is often considered a haven in times of economic uncertainty and can also serve as a hedge against inflation, which rose to 230 percent in February in Zimbabwe.
John Mangudya, the governor of Zimbabwe’s central bank, told the Sunday Mail that the demand for foreign currency in his country is driven by the view that it is a good store of value.
“We are addressing this demand for store of value by increasing the number of gold coins in the market so that we manage that demand,” he added.
“We shall also soon be introducing digital gold tokens to ensure that those with low amounts of local currency are able to purchase the gold units so that we leave no one and no place behind.”
According to Bloomberg, the Zimbabwean currency is valued at 1,001 ZWL to $1USD. However, in practice, it is typically exchanged for 1,750 ZWL on the streets of the nation’s capital of Harare.
Digital currency use is on the rise in Africa
Economic challenges have spurred many African countries to adopt cryptocurrency, with North Africa and the Middle East now the fastest-growing regions for crypto adoption. According to Chainalysis, the region saw more than $566 billion in cryptocurrency transactions in the period from July 2021 to June 2022, which marked a rise of 40 percent over the previous year. Many central banks throughout the world have recently started developing digital currencies to increase financial inclusion.
Many Zimbabweans do not have access to formal financial services or bank accounts. This can limit their economic opportunities. However, many of them do have access to mobile phones and digital platforms, so this effort has the potential, at least in theory, to reach individuals who do not have access to traditional banks and give them a secure and convenient way of purchasing goods and services and saving or investing.
Michael Nevdarakis, senior reporter for the Defender, expounded on this in an April 25 article. He cited a report by the New York Times that named several members of the Sackler family as donors to the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM).
Dr. Raymond Sackler and his wife Beverly, both deceased, were named as contributors alongside their namesake Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation. Raymond’s late brother Arthur and his still-living wife Jillian were also named as donors.
Together, the Sacklers donated about $19 million to NASEM since 2000. A report by NASEM treasurer for the year 2021 disclosed that the said funds were invested and had grown to more than $31 million.
Until recently, however, the donations appeared to remain under the radar for both NASEM members and the general public. The Gray Lady reported that the Sackler donations became “an internal issue for the advisory group in 2019, when members of the governing council were briefed about the money.” NASEM’s governing council was reportedly “outraged,” and it “quietly removed the Sackler name” from conferences and awards the family had sponsored following internal meetings.
The Times wrote that NASEM “continued to accept funds from some members of the Sackler family, including those involved with Purdue Pharma” even as the opioid crisis continued and its impacts on American society became increasingly apparent. It added that NASEM has “kept quiet” and “largely avoided such scrutiny,” continuing to advise the federal government on matters related to opioids.
Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that more than 564,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses between 1999 and 2020. The public health agency also added that the opioid epidemic costs the U.S. economy approximately $78.5 billion every year.
Sackler family donations to institutions draw scrutiny
Nevdarakis wrote that donations given by the Sacklers to other institutions drew scrutiny and prompted action in some cases.
In one instance, Tufts University in Massachusetts released a review of possible conflicts of interest pertaining to pain research funded by Purdue Pharma. The 2019 review was made public as part of a broader relationship with the drug manufacturer, which included Purdue executives delivering lectures to university students.
The Times also mentioned that aside from Tufts, other institutions such as Brown University in Rhode Island have redirected financial donations received from the family behind Purdue Pharma. It added that the Sacklers’ money given to these institutions is now being used “to address the prevention or treatment of addiction.”
Meanwhile, an article published in the British Medical Journal said NASEM has “not disclosed that one of its presidents and members of a panel it convened to advise on prescribing opioids had recent links to the drug industry.”
The Times also pointed out that NASEM has not yet done a public review to determine if donations from the Sackler family played a role in the release of a 2011 report on opioids. Despite the report being “now largely discredited,” federal public health agencies still use it as the basis for opioid policy decisions.
Ultimately, the only thing the 2011 report influenced was aggressive opioid sales campaigns for drug firms and the approval of “at least one highly potent opioid” by the Food and Drug Administration. A 2014 investigation done by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today found that within three years of working on the report, nine of the 19 people on the panel that produced it had financial connections to opioid manufacturers.
Opioids.news has more stories about the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma.
(Natural News) A trans activist known as Tara Jay has sparked outrage and concern after posting a TikTok video in which he urged fellow trans activists and supporters to arm themselves and take action against those who wished to bar them from using facilities according to their gender preference.
The activist’s call to arms and brazen threats drew overwhelming attention, highlighting growing concern about the escalating violence by some trans activists against opposing views and dissenting voices. But despite the seriousness of the issue, only a few media outlets reported on the explicit call to arms. The Daily Mail was among the few publications that covered the story, highlighting the removal of Jay’s videos due to its graphic nature and mockery.
The lack of extensive coverage about these incidents raises questions about potential biases in media reporting. Many argue that if the situation involved a conservative activist issuing similar threats, it would likely dominate headlines and fuel public outrage.
In response to the controversy, a fact-checking website published a rebuttal titled “No evidence of growing trend of trans radicalization or terrorism, experts say.” The article sought to address claims of radicalization, but failed to acknowledge the incident involving Jay or its implications.
Critics of the article argue that comprehensive reporting and unbiased analysis are crucial when discussing such complex and sensitive issues. They emphasize the need to examine incidents objectively to better understand the impact of violence within any community.
CBS News bans staffers from using “transgender” when reporting about trans shooter
Mainstream media outlets don’t want to put transgenders in a bad light
For example, top executives at CBS News have banned staffers from using the word “transgender” when reporting about the trans shooter who killed three children and three adults at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee.
“The shooter’s gender identity has not been confirmed by CBS News,” the network’s executives insisted in a memo obtained by the New York Post. “As such, we should avoid any mention of it as it has no known relevance to the crime. Should that change, we can and will revisit.”
The network issued the order despite the fact that the police already established that the shooter, Audrey Hale, was a transgender and cited her being such as a key point in the case. The authorities determined that the attack might be connected to the Trans Day of Vengeance protest, which had been planned by a group of transgender activists.
The shooting incident and the threatening video posted by Jay have reignited the debate over transgender policies, specifically the bathroom policy that has been the center of legal battles and cultural clashes in recent years.
Supporters argue that transgender individuals should be able to use facilities that align with their gender identity, citing inclusivity and non-discrimination as key principles. On the other hand, opponents raise concerns about the potential risks to privacy, safety and the well-being of women and children.