When most people hear the name Bill Gates, the first thing that comes to mind is his work at Microsoft, or his climate change and vaccine initiatives. But it’s his investment in a different field that’s now turning heads: Agriculture.
Last year, it was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/05/bill-gates-climate-crisis-farmland">revealed</a> that Bill Gates had become the single largest farmland owner in America. While quietly amassing more American farmland than any other person on Earth, Gates has also positioned himself as one of the leading voices for “synthetic meat” and other meat alternatives — claiming they’re imperative in the fight against climate change. 
Here’s the story of what Bill Gates is doing with all that farmland, and how he’s waging a war on meat to line his own pockets — all under the guise of climate activism. 
<h4>All The Land Money Can Buy</h4>
As of last year, Bill Gates owned roughly a quarter million acres of U.S. farmland — nearly the size of Hong Kong. There are 70,000 acres in Louisiana for corn, cotton, and rice and 20,000 acres in Nebraska for soybeans. One of his potato farms is so big you can literally see it from <a href="https://www.republicworld.com/business-news/international-business/bill-gates-farmland-growing-potatoes-for-mcdonalds-fries-is-visible-from-space-report.html">space</a>. Gates’ farmland stretches across 19 states — from North Carolina to Michigan to California — and is <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/07/bill-gates-now-americas-biggest-farmer-does-want-land/">valued</a> at nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars. 
For years, Gates and his ex-wife Melinda used a series of shell companies to <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/now/bill-gates-uses-farmland-investment-211220333.html">hide</a> their land purchases. 
In 2018, for example, a company called Angelina Agriculture purchased approximately $171 million worth of farmland in Washington state. On the surface, Angelina was a small company based in a Louisiana town with 462 people. It had two employees. But according to <a href="https://landreport.com/2021/01/farmer-bill/">records</a>, the business was actually under the umbrella of a group called Cascade Investment — a private investment firm controlled by Bill Gates. 
Gates is no stranger to agriculture; in the past, his foundation <a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/our-work/programs/global-growth-and-opportunity/agricultural-development">invested</a> tens of millions of dollars into GMO technology. Those transactions included a $27.6 million investment in <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/gates-foundation-ties-with-monsanto-under-fire-from-activists/">Monsanto</a> — the agricultural company that would later be forced to pay out over $11 billion in settlements after it was <a href="https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/roundup-mdl-judge-question-10-billion-settlement-proposal.html">found</a> that some of its products caused cancer. 
But Gates’ transition from simply investing in farming technology to becoming the leading owner of farmland itself is even more noteworthy when coupled with his shifting stance on meat.
<h4>The New War On Meat</h4>
As Gates was amassing swaths of farmland, the billionaire also emerged as one of the world’s most prominent and vociferous voices for synthetic meat and other plant-based alternatives. According to him, the transition away from meat must take place swiftly in order to save the planet from climate change. 
“All rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef,” Gates said during a <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/14/1018296/bill-gates-climate-change-beef-trees-microsoft/">conversation</a> with MIT’s Technology Review.
It’s so important, he says, that government coercion could be necessary to catalyze the shift. “You can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand,” he added bluntly. 
In a separate interview with CBS, Gates <a href="https://twitter.com/backtolife_2022/status/1362441129615110152?s=20&amp;t=VXFm2o5qYEEtbeymh9s30w">elaborated</a>: “Unless we can make the cow zero emission, which I’m not sure we can, we do need to get rid of those emissions. It’s not gonna happen overnight. The scale-up and the innovation still required there is quite large.”
If it were up to Bill Gates, the world would abandon meat for synthetic and plant-based alternatives.
But how do you make synthetic meat? And what goes into plant-based alternatives?
Well, it just so happens that “plant-based” meat is typically created with a variety of lentils, potatoes, pea proteins, soy and wheat — all things grown on farmland owned by Gates. Over the last five years, Gates has also <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-VCDB-17877">invested</a> tens of millions of dollars into leading plant-based meat companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods. 
He is also among the single largest investors in “synthetic” or lab-grown meat, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/23/bill-gates-and-richard-branson-bet-on-lab-grown-meat-startup.html">pouring</a> tens of millions more into companies like Memphis Meats.
<h4>Shifting The Narrative</h4>
At the moment, the biggest problem standing in the way of a meatless world is the question of how exactly you get people to leave meat behind. And thanks to Gates, we now have an answer to that question: You convince the world that eliminating meat is necessary for fighting climate change. 
While Gates initially <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/23/bill-gates-and-richard-branson-bet-on-lab-grown-meat-startup.html">argued</a> that the shift away from traditional meat was imperative due to population growth, his new message centers on environmental activism. 
Over the last five years, climate activists — with Gates at the forefront — increasingly began <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6z8BqsHQl0">claiming</a> the meat industry posed an existential threat to the planet, and that our reliance on cows for food was accelerating climate change. 
Waging a war on meat was necessary to save the environment. 
In 2019, for example, Gates <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/bill-gates-warns-of-the-dangers-of-cow-farts-and-the-world-should-take-his-words-seriously/articleshow/67962704.cms">wrote</a> in his annual letter to friends and followers that the world must cut back on meat because cows “give off methane when they belch and pass gas. (A personal surprise for me: I never thought I’d be writing seriously about bovine flatulence.)”
More recently, in his 2021 book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” Gates <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/14/1018296/bill-gates-climate-change-beef-trees-microsoft/">elaborated</a> on the supposed threat posed by cows and their dangerous emissions. 
Despite the fact that beef cattle account for just 2% of America’s <a href="https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable">emissions</a>, they’ve found themselves in the crosshairs of the climate-change movement. “Replace cows with environmentally friendly alternatives” has become the prevailing narrative for a growing number of activists, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/431119-ocasio-cortez-explains-farting-cows-comment-weve-got-to-address-factory/">including</a> members of Congress. 
But are the proposed alternatives — specifically synthetic meat — actually better for the environment? 
Based on existing research, no. 
In 2019, the University of Oxford conducted a <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00005/full">study</a> measuring the environmental impact of lab-grown meat as opposed to traditional cattle and found that real meat was actually better for the environment. In their words, “We conclude that cultured meat is not prima facie climatically superior to cattle.” 
As Marco Springmann, senior environmental researcher at the University of Oxford <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/19/lab-grown-meat-could-exacerbate-climate-change-scientists-say.html">puts it</a>, “Lab meat doesn’t solve anything from an environmental perspective, since the energy emissions are so high.” 
It turns out, giant labs trying to “grow” meat take up quite a bit of energy.
Robb Wolf, a former Research Biochemist and author who has worked with the Navy’s Special Warfare Resiliency Program, agrees. “It is an outright lie that these plant-based alternatives are better for the environment, or are going to reduce carbon footprint or carbon emissions,” he told The Daily Wire.
“This is a key piece that kinda gets missed in this whole story — that tissue needs to be fed. And the stuff that needs to be fed … has to come from somewhere. It doesn’t just magically grow in a vat.”
<h4>The Scientific Community Gets On Board</h4>
Despite the apparent lack of evidence that these alternatives are better for the environment than meat, the scientific community has largely joined in on the anti-meat crusade. 
In addition to their stern warnings regarding meat’s supposed culpability in climate change, a growing faction of scientists has also begun declaring that meat is unhealthy not just for the environment, but for our bodies as well. 
According to Wolf, once the war on meat became intertwined with fighting climate change, those in the medical and scientific communities felt pressure to join in, and scientists began touting the supposed benefits of a meat-free diet.
Despite overwhelming evidence that it’s nearly impossible to replicate the nutritional characteristics of meat, the narrative began changing. And even though study after study has shown that meatless diets are far more likely to lead to <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants">nutrient deficiencies</a>, they have become all the rage in the scientific community.
Wolf further asserts, “It is well established in the literature that [meatless diets] tend to have pretty significant nutrient deficiencies… But the American Dietetic Association and the American Medical Association have made statements that vegan and vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the human life cycle. And there’s absolutely no data to support that — this is a completely non-evidence-based claim.”
<h4>Follow The Money</h4>
Despite the fact that diets with regular meat intake result in <a href="https://www.ceu.ox.ac.uk/news/results-show-higher-fracture-risks-for-vegans-vegetarians-and-pescatarians-than-meat-eaters">higher</a> bone density and energy levels as well as <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4529719/">better</a> muscle tone, brain health, etc., meat was suddenly deemed not just dangerous to the climate, but dangerous to our health. 
Take the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) report, for example. The GBD is the authoritative study on worldwide health each year and influences food policy in nations across the globe. 
In 2017, the <a href="https://www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/policy_report/2019/GBD_2017_Booklet.pdf">report</a> claimed that 25,000 deaths globally could be attributed to the consumption of red meat, and that meat was the least important of 15 “dietary risk factors.”
Just two years later, the same <a href="https://www.healthdata.org/gbd/2019">report</a> claimed that red meat consumption was responsible for the deaths of 896,000 people and was now ranked fifth out of the 15 dietary risk factors. 
According to the GBD, red meat killed 36 times more people in 2019 than in 2017. 
The supposed findings were so stunning that six scientists at UC Davis conducted their own <a href="https://clear.ucdavis.edu/blog/death-red-meat-unsubstantiated">assessment</a>, finding that the GBD report was “woefully absent” of any “cold, hard facts.”
The UC Davis scientists, including world-renowned physician Alice V. Stanton, <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00311-7/fulltext?rss=yes">concluded</a> that, “These findings of additional causal relationships for red meat are not in agreement with other recently conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses.” 
In other words, the world’s most important study on health and dietary policy completely contradicted the established literature on the topic. 
How did meat suddenly become so deadly, so quickly? What happened in those two years? Could it have anything to do with the new playbook for climate change?
Or could it have anything to do with who funds the GBD report, and others like it?
In 2017, the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) — the coordinating center for the GBD report — <a href="https://www.washington.edu/news/2017/01/25/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-boosts-vital-work-of-the-uws-institute-for-health-metrics-and-evaluation/">announced</a> that it had received a $279 million gift from The Gates Foundation. 
<a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2017/01/ihme-announcement">According</a> to the University, they and The Gates Foundation, “share a vision — a world where all people can achieve their full potential — and through our partnerships we will improve the health and well-being of people here and around the globe.”
As the Gates Foundation puts it, “The funding will sustain IHME’s efforts as the coordinating center for the Global Burden of Disease project.”

Gates

Who’s Really Behind The War On Meat? How Bill Gates Is Quietly Transforming America’s Food Industry From Within

Bill Gates

Readers Pass

Following the devastating attacks on Pearl Harbor, which left over 2,400 U.S. service members dead and nearly 20 warships damaged or destroyed, millions of Americans entered into a state of <a href="https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/07/14/The-nation-was-gripped-by-hysteria-and-fear-when/2681363931200/">mass hysteria and fear</a>.
Immediately after the ambush, as the United States declared war on Japan, Americans began preparing for what many feared was another imminent attack. On December 9, 1941, two days after Pearl Harbor, stock prices tumbled after unsubstantiated reports of an impending invasion set off a panic in New York City. Soon, blackouts were ordered up and down the West Coast in an attempt to conceal population centers from invading forces, and concern only grew as Secretary of War Henry Stimson warned that U.S. cities should be prepared for “occasional blows” from the enemy. 
One of those blows took place on February 23, 1942, when a Japanese submarine attacked an oil refinery off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, marking the first time the mainland United States had been bombed during the war. Though the incident resulted in little damage — missing gasoline reserves and inflicting only minor damage on piers and oil wells — it further heightened the fear of a widespread attack on the mainland. 
Just days later, Los Angeles found itself under attack. On the evening of February 24, an <a href="http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/aaf2.html">alert</a> that an attack on the city “could be expected within the next ten hours” was issued. By the early morning hours of February 25, radar began tracking what appeared to be approaching enemy aircraft off the coast. 
As air-raid sirens sounded throughout the city, soldiers on the ground rushed to their battle stations and searchlights began scanning the sky. Over the course of the next 15 minutes, reports flooded in from individuals claiming they’d seen aircraft in the sky, including one artillery colonel who relayed that he could see “about 25 planes at 12,000 feet.” 
Around 3 a.m., after the Coastal Artillery Guard reported seeing a balloon carrying a red flare was observed over Santa Monica, the sky lit up with thousands of anti-aircraft and .50 caliber machine gun rounds.
While some present that night said they saw nothing but shrapnel and smoke, others claimed to have seen bombs raining down from above and called in reports of paratroopers dropping from enemy planes flying in formation. Some accused their neighbors of signaling enemy aircraft and, as a result, roughly 20 Japanese-Americans were <a href="https://www.laalmanac.com/history/hi07s.php">arrested</a> for supposedly aiding the enemy. 
When the shooting finally ended an hour after it started and the dust cleared, the military and civilians alike realized something was wrong. Though five people were <a href="https://www.history.com/news/world-war-iis-bizarre-battle-of-los-angeles">reportedly</a> left dead, they had succumbed to heart attacks or traffic accidents, not enemy fire. And despite reports of downed aircraft in the streets of downtown Los Angeles, when the sun came up, the only damage appeared to be from friendly fire and anti-aircraft shrapnel that had blown out windows and pelted the roofs of buildings. 
As the Army’s Western Defense Command <a href="https://www.history.com/news/world-war-iis-bizarre-battle-of-los-angeles">put it</a>, “Although reports were conflicting and every effort is being made to ascertain the facts, it is clear that no bombs were dropped and no planes were shot down.”
While Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox said hours after the incident “the whole raid was a false alarm and could be attributed to jittery nerves,” Secretary of War Henry Stimson had a very different message. He <a href="https://www.history.com/news/world-war-iis-bizarre-battle-of-los-angeles">said</a> that enemy planes had flown over the city, and even theorized that they could have been commercial aircraft “operated by enemy agents” in an attempt to test the U.S. preparedness and simultaneously strike fear into the hearts of the public. 
While Stimson later walked back those claims, and the Japanese military <a href="https://cal170.library.ca.gov/february-24-1942-the-battle-of-los-angeles-2/">said</a> after the war they had no aircraft in the area at the time, many still swore they’d seen something in the sky that night. 
A New York Times editorial published shortly after claimed that thousands of Californians had seen “a big floating object resembling a balloon.” And according to a 1983 Office of Air Force History <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090325191904/http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/aaf_wwii-v1.pdf">report</a>, those witnesses may have been right. 
“A careful study of the evidence suggests that meteorological balloons — known to have been released over Los Angeles — may well have caused the initial alarm,” the Air Force report said. 
But that hasn’t stopped a slew of theories from emerging in the decades that followed, including that the real culprit was <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/2017/02/19/ufos-or-no-battle-of-los-angeles-nears-75th-anniversary/">extraterrestrial</a>. 
While the true story may never be known, the people living in Los Angeles in February of 1942 will never forget the greatest battle that never happened. 
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Battle

The Attack On Los Angeles: The Greatest WWII Battle That Never Happened

History

At this point, the United States is more than two years into what we were told would be “two weeks to slow the spread.” Life has never been the same since those fateful days in March 2020, when workplaces, schools, and every facet of public life shut their doors at the demand of the government in the name of keeping us safe.
For a few days, it was kind of fun — we got to sleep in a bit and had an excuse to stay at home and watch Netflix. Everyone who wanted an excuse to skip going to the gym now had the best reason ever: they were literally forbidden from doing so. However, forced solitude quickly became old, and people started to get antsy. After all, it’s not natural to be locked up in a cage, with the majority of human interaction coming through Zoom calls.
But beyond slowing down our economy and pace of life, the lockdowns did something else. They wreaked havoc on the public’s mental health. 
As the world begins to finally open back up, we’re starting to get a picture of just how dangerous, and in many cases, deadly, lockdowns really were. While we were all affected by government restrictions, there was one group of Americans hurt more than any other: Young people. 
While there were definitely early warning signs pointing to the impact of lockdowns on children over the past two years, we now know just how devastating they were. For example, one batch of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/as-many-schools-remain-closed-suicide-related-er-visits-rise-by-51-among-teenage-girls">data</a> released from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — the main federal entity that charted America’s approach to lockdowns — revealed that the number of emergency room visits for suspected suicide attempts rose by 51% from February 21-March 21, 2021 among girls age 12-17 compared to the same stretch of time in 2019. This increase came in the aftermath of strict lockdowns and an overall increase in the number of emergency room visits connected to mental health reasons in 2020.
It only got worse from there. Just weeks ago, the CDC unveiled its <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/su/su7103a3.htm#:~:text=More%20than%20one%20in%20three,12%20months%20before%20the%20survey.">first national study</a> on the mental health status of high schoolers related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the results were absolutely devastating. 
For starters, 37% of high school students reported poor mental health, and 44% reported a persistent feeling of sadness or hopelessness. One CDC official even <a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/teen-mental-health-in-the-pandemic-cdc-data-echo-a-cry-for-help">admitted</a> that “these data echo a cry for help.” 
One major reason for the decline in children’s mental health was that, after being sent home from school, they were often going back to dark environments. Many of their parents had lost their jobs, and countless families were struggling to make ends meet, and as a result, home environments became less stable than usual, and the impact on students was enormous. The study found that 55% of high schoolers reported emotional abuse from their parents, including getting sworn at, insulted, or otherwise put down. A total of 11% even experienced physical abuse, including hitting, beating, or kicking.
Back in April 2020, the National Sexual Assault Hotline revealed a 22% increase in monthly calls from people under 18, with half of all incoming calls coming from minors — a first in the entity’s history. Of those young people who <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/28/847251985/child-sexual-abuse-reports-are-on-the-rise-amid-lockdown-orders">contacted</a> the hotline in March of 2020, 67% identified the perpetrator as a family member, and 79% said they were currently living with that perpetrator. In large part due to forced lockdowns, there was nowhere for these children and adolescents to go in order to get away from their abusers. This story echoed all over the world, from Asia to South America; India’s Childline service, for example, <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/coronavirus-lockdown-govt-helpline-receives-92000-calls-on-child-abuse-and-violence-in-11-days/article31287468.ece">received</a> more than 92,000 calls in 11 days, while in Bolivia, more than four dozen cases of violence against children were <a href="https://news.trust.org/item/20200416192122-dd6k5/">reported</a> each day since the lockdowns began.
So what was the true, underlying cause of this mess? According to the CDC, one significant problem was a lack of “school connectedness” — that sense of “being cared for, supported, and belonging at school.” By double-digit margins, children who felt connected to adults and peers at school were less likely to report sadness or hopelessness, to consider suicide, or to actually attempt suicide, but the CDC also noted that only 47% of youth said they felt close to people at school during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is certainly difficult to feel connected at school when the government won’t allow you to actually go to school.
We can also now ask the question of not just what, but who was the true, underlying cause of this mess? As it turns out, the answer is oftentimes the CDC, itself.
In March 2020, the CDC began <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/guidance-for-schools-h.pdf">recommending</a> that schools work with local health officials to determine COVID-19 risk, even suggesting that “extended school dismissals” may be in the cards when high rates of community spread were observed. This was definitely an understandable recommendation to make early on in the pandemic, as the world was still trying to figure out how dangerous COVID-19 actually was.
But within several months after COVID-19 arrived in the United States, however, it was abundantly <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/05/covid-19-kids/611728/">clear</a> that the disease primarily impacts older adults and those with underlying health issues. Our reporters noted in June of 2020 that the COVID-19 death rate for children in New York City — at that point the American epicenter for the disease — was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fatality-rate-plunges-as-cdc-director-says-covid-cases-likely-10x-higher">zero</a> per 100,000, after CDC officials remarked that the actual number of positive COVID-19 cases in the U.S. was probably much higher than the official, reported number of confirmed cases.
Recognizing this reality, a few Western nations kept their schools open without a hitch. Sweden, for example, continued in-person instruction as much as possible, <a href="https://www.skolinspektionen.se/beslut-rapporter-statistik/publikationer/ovriga-publikationer/2020/utbildning-under-paverkan-av-coronapandemin---grundskola/">complemented</a> by distance learning technology when teachers had to miss class due to COVID-19 exposure. Throughout the entire pandemic, Sweden reported a mere 23 COVID-19 <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/">deaths</a> for children among nearly 500,000 <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107905/number-of-coronavirus-cases-in-sweden-by-age-groups/">cases</a>. That’s 0.0046%.
Did the CDC adjust their policies based on these observations? No. In fact, more often than not, it seemed that they made decisions based on political expediency, not “the science.”
Emails between the American Federation of Teachers — the nation’s second-largest teachers union — and the CDC <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-nations-second-largest-teachers-union-influenced-cdc-on-school-reopening-guidelines-delayed-return-to-classrooms">showed</a> that the union lobbied to keep schools shuttered and according to The New York Post “even suggested language for the federal agency’s school-reopening guidance” released in February 2021. The AFT spent almost $20 million to elect Democrats in the 2020 election cycle, and their investment definitely paid dividends through their bought-and-paid-for allies in the Biden administration. When confronted by the media, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/white-house-defends-cdc-consulting-teachers-union-over-school-reopening-guidelines">claimed</a> that “it’s actually longstanding best practice for the CDC to engage with organizations, groups that are going to be impacted by guidance and recommendations issued by the agency.”
More recently, a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-administration-gave-teachers-union-unprecedented-access-to-shape-national-covid-19-guidelines-report-says">report</a> from the Republicans House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis found that the Biden administration’s CDC had a “cozy relationship” with the AFT on COVID-19 guidelines. In one instance recorded in the report, AFT senior director of health issues Kelly Trautner emailed CDC Director Rochelle Walensky requesting a line be added to upcoming guidance not yet released to the public. Walensky forwarded the line to CDC Center for Preparedness and Response Director Dr. Henry Walke, and it was included in the guidance.
The CDC had the nerve to say that “schools, families, and communities” need to step up and protect children from the fallout of CDC decisions. “What will it take for our schools and communities to help youth withstand the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond?” asked one CDC administrator.
It seems that a good place to start is by not trusting the CDC to decide what’s best for children. Maybe that role should’ve stayed with “schools, families, and communities” in the first place.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Has The CDC Been Truthful About The Mental Health Impact Of Lockdowns?

COVID-19

The Harry Potter series is one of the biggest franchises in the world. There’s a good chance you’ve probably either read the books, seen the movies, played the video games, or even visited Hogwarts in “real life”. In fact, with over 500 million copies sold, the Harry Potter franchise is the best-selling fiction book series in history. But if there’s one thing we know, in 2022, nothing is safe or sacred from the Left. And no one learned that harder than the famed writer of the beloved series, J.K. Rowling.
Originally, perhaps no one was more surprised by the franchise’s popularity than the author herself. Rowling’s early life as an author didn’t reap much success; while writing the first Harry Potter book, The Sorcerer’s Stone, she <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/the-rags-to-riches-story-of-jk-rowling-2015-5">lived</a> off government welfare in a tiny apartment in London. When sent to publishers in 1995, Rowling’s work was widely rejected, until one small publisher <a href="https://www.historic365.com/article/1997-06-26">picked up</a> her book in 1997. Almost overnight, her books were a colossal success. 
Over the years that followed, Rowling was almost as active politically as she was artistically. She became well known for her Leftist views, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/sep/20/labourconference.jkrowling">donated</a> millions to Britain’s Labour Party and spoke regularly about the role that government should play in expanding welfare and other traditionally liberal policies. She became vocal about being a self-proclaimed feminist, LGBT advocate, and regularly spoke out about “systemic racism”. You can probably guess how she feels about Trump. She has <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/284125-jk-rowling-trump-fascist-in-all-but-name/">referred</a> to him as a fascist, a bigot, a giant orange egg, even as the main antagonist of her book series, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/jk-rowling-donald-trump-voldemort/index.html">Voldemort </a>himself (or as the characters refer to him — he who’s name shall not be spoken). Conversely, she <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/788932873671811072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">praised</a> Hillary Clinton during the election as “a highly intelligent, experienced woman” and spent the entirety of Trump’s presidency decrying his every move, wishing for a “Clinton” or “Obama” in the White House. 
Her political views have certainly carried over to her books. Rowling has been infamous for retroactively changing certain parts of the Harry Potter books months or even years after they were published. Apparently, Dumbledore was <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/01/entertainment/jk-rowling-dumbledore-gay/index.html">gay</a> this entire time – how could we have missed that? And Hermione? She was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/jun/05/harry-potter-jk--rowling-black-hermione">actually</a> black, despite virtually no reference to her skin color or race in the books. Thankfully, according to Rowling, you won’t have to worry about tuition fees at Hogwarts – <a href="https://time.com/3963231/j-k-rowling-hogwarts-harry-potter/">because</a> the Ministry of Magic is happy to pay off your student loans for you. It sounds like Rowling’s reworked wizarding world was actually quite the progressive paradise. 
So why then, if Rowling is such a die-hard Leftist, would the Left try and cancel her? It would seem obvious that they would want someone with such influence on their side, but remember; to be a true Leftist you can’t commit halfway; it’s all or nothing. If you do not fully commit – if you’re even missing 1% of the Leftist ideology in your playbook – then not only are you not with the Left, but actively against it. And J.K. Rowling made the unforgivable mistake of disagreeing with the Left on one of their most hallowed issues: transgenderism.
In December of 2019, Rowling took to Twitter to <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/j-k-rowling-under-fire-for-defending-researcher-fired-for-transphobic-tweet-sex-is-real/">support</a> a researcher who had been recently fired for “transphobic” comments. Well, that’s the word the media is using; in reality, the researcher had opposed legislation that would allow people to choose their gender legally without undergoing a medical procedure. Rowling expressed disdain over the firing while trying to appeal to the Left in the process, but it was futile. The second she showed even an ounce of disapproval to the Left – especially to the trans community – she became a target. At the time, the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD “heroically” condemned Rowling’s hateful, “anti-science” tweet, and have since <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/glaad-responds-tweets-jk-rowling-is-no-excuse-targeting-trans-people-1297412/">accused</a> her of “distorting the facts.”
But where you might expect her to cower before the mob — like so many before her — Rowling refused. She didn’t apologize for the tweet. In fact, she doubled down on her statements in June 2020 when devex.com released a <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313?lang=en">headline</a> titled “Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate”. Rowling was not a fan of the headline. &#8220;&#8216;People who menstruate?&#8217; You mean, a human female? A woman?&#8221; Shortly after, she tweeted that pretending sex and gender are fluid will lead to the erasure of women; she expressed dispirit with the trans community, a community she said she had allied herself with for decades. In the same tweet thread, she said she respects “every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them” but that she wasn’t willing to conceive the truth fully. She took to her website to describe the “toxicity” she was receiving from the LGBT community, wishing only to be left alone. 
Of course, that wasn’t going to stop the Left from showing up at Rowling’s door with pitchforks. Fans and the media alike were outraged. Many were pressing people to stop reading Rowling’s comments altogether to avoid the “far-right language” and “pure hate”. The media began running headlines bashing Rowling over her remarks while conveniently leaving out that she agrees with the other 99% of their views. 
The stars of the Harry Potter movies were quick to virtue signal from their ivory towers as well. Daniel Radcliffe, a man who&#8217;s amassed a fortune thanks to Rowling&#8217;s creative endeavors, bravely proclaimed “transgender women are women” and apologized to the poor souls who felt their book reading experience was “tarnished”. Emma Watson, likewise a household name thanks to Rowling, told her trans followers that she respects them and sees them before issuing a #PRIDE2020 hashtag. Eddie Redmayne, who plays the main protagonist in the spinoff Fantastic Beats franchise, wanted to make it “absolutely clear where he stands”, which is that Rowling is wrong, and trans women are women, trans men are men – you get the idea. 
Warner Bro’s jumped on the dogpile too. In July of 2020, they released a <a href="https://deadline.com/2020/06/warner-bros-responds-to-j-k-rowling-comments-resolves-to-confront-difficult-societal-issues-1202956215/">statement</a> promising that diversity and inclusion had never been more important to them, and gave the usual talking points about “fostering empathy and advocating understanding”. 
But Rowling never backed down. She never apologized for her statements. She still today talks about protecting real women&#8217;s rights and drawing the line between trans women and women. 
It’s fairly ironic that Rowling, by any standard, is a Leftist. Most of her tweets read like they were written by DNC operatives, and she still regularly advocates for Democrats and against Republicans. But this isn’t enough for the Left. 
No matter how far Left you are — or have been your entire professional career — intersectionality demands total adherence to the whims of the outrage mob. 
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Rowling

From Leftist Icon To Pariah: The Journey Of J.K. Rowling

Entertainment

JK Rowling

The federal government&#8217;s criminal investigation into Joe Biden&#8217;s son, Hunter, is reportedly gaining steam. As prosecutors begin seeking key grand jury testimony, new information appears to indicate the president himself may be linked to his son’s scheme. 
Background
In 2018, the Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden that centered on potential money laundering, tax fraud, the violation of foreign lobbying laws and more. 
At the center of the investigation was whether Hunter used his father’s position in the U.S. government over the last decade to secure millions of dollars in fraudulent overseas business deals. Evidence appears to show Hunter flaunted access to his father as a means of securing meetings and permits.
Now, the growing question for investigators and the general public is whether President Biden himself was in on this, or at the very least, aware of it. 
President Biden’s Potential Involvement
Indirectly, it appears Joe Biden’s position did play a role in helping his son secure deals. For example, when he was vice president, Joe Biden took Hunter with him on a trip to Asia on Air Force Two which included a stop in Shanghai where Hunter was attempting to open a private equity firm. Just ten days after that visit, Hunter secured a highly sought-after Chinese business license that allowed him to set up a fund there — something notoriously difficult for U.S. businessmen to secure. 
Then in 2014, despite having no experience in the energy sector, Hunter infamously scored a million dollar a year gig with a Ukrainian energy company. At the time, Vice President Biden was in charge of America’s Ukraine policy. 
The President has so far denied that either of those deals had anything to do with him, but new evidence seems to implicate him in some other stories as well.
 For example, one text message that was confirmed to be authentic last week shows Hunter in 2019 complaining that he had to give “half his salary” to his father. 
Peter Schweizer, the author of Red Handed, told The Daily Wire the implications are potentially criminal. 
“Hunter Biden was getting money from these overseas deals. He was paying some of his father&#8217;s monthly bills, but. He was also paying for things like renovations on his father&#8217;s home in Delaware, et cetera. That&#8217;s patently illegal in the United States.”
“Politicians can&#8217;t be subsidized by family members. And the fact that the money came from overseas of course means that, uh, that has further implications,” he added.
The DOJ investigation is also reportedly looking into a 2017 email that showed one of Hunter Biden’s business partners outlining the proposed distribution for equity in the aforementioned Chinese company, saying “10 held by H for the big guy.” 
That email got the attention of the grand jury investigating Hunter, and reportedly led them to ask at least one confidential witness to reveal the identity of “the big guy.”
The President’s Response
While the President has done his best to avoid talking about the matter, his staff has routinely adamantly denied that he had anything to do with the alleged scheme, and in past weeks, they’ve begun to further distance themselves from Hunter Biden.
Ron Klain, the current White House Chief of Staff, says the President was “confident that his son didn’t break the law.” He went on to <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-22-white-house-chief-staff-ron/story?id=83832024">call</a> them “private matters” that “don’t involve the President” and “certainly are something that no one at the White House is involved in.”
But according to a new <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ron-klain-solicited-money-hunter-biden-emails-vp-residence">report</a> from Fox News, Klain himself has previously asked Hunter Biden for money. In 2012, Klain reportedly emailed Hunter asking for help raising $20,000 for the Vice President’s Residence Foundation, a group that furnishes the Vice President’s residence. Klain reportedly told Hunter that he wanted to “keep it low key” to prevent “bad pr.” 
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

World Food Program USA’s Annual McGovern-Dole Leadership Award Ceremony

The Criminal Investigation Into Hunter Biden Is Heating Up: Here’s What You Need To Know

Hunter Biden

Investigation

Joe Biden

Ukraine

Members of congress are elected to serve the American people — at least, that’s their job description. But it would seem that many of our elected officials use their positions, and the information their offices afford them, to wield the power of the stock market in their favor — profiting heavily by beating the American people to the punch on the best stock market trades. 
In America today, some of the most successful and prodigious inside traders are walking the halls of Congress. 
Just last year, Congress looked very much like a Wall Street trading desk. 113 congress members, and their families, made an estimated $355 million worth of stock trades at home and abroad. And more often than not, their portfolios swelled with each trade. 
When looking at the trading history of our elected officials, there seem to be two possibilities: either our politicians are brilliant traders with a prescient understanding of the stock market&#8230; or they&#8217;re trading on inside information unavailable to the public. 
Here are just a few examples of some trades that would seem to imply the latter. 
On March 19, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/pelosi-husband-bought-microsoft-shares-options">bought</a> up to $3 million in Microsoft stock. It just so happens that 12 days later, Microsoft announced they’d secured a $22 billion contract with the U.S. military. And wouldn’t you know it, that $3 million purchase reaped massive dividends? According to Nasdaq, she’s now up <a href="https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/an-overview-of-congressional-trading-in-2021">160</a>% on that purchase. 
On October 22, Representative Kathy Manning, a Democrat from North Carolina, bought up to $30,000 worth of Lockheed Martin Stock. Two weeks later, it was announced that Lockheed had secured a $10 billion deal with the military to modernize the F-22, and Lockheed&#8217;s stock soared. The American people are supposed to believe that her position on the House Committee On Foreign Affairs, which is often in the know on such deals, had nothing to do with the decision to make that trade. 
In <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-members-are-trading-defense-stocks-while-shaping-military-policy-2021-12">June</a>, Senator Tommy Tuberville, a Republican from Alabama, sold up to $15,000 in Microsoft stocks. It just so happens that two weeks later, Microsoft’s $10 billion contract with the Department of Defense was canceled and their price plummeted. Again, the American people are to simply believe that he got lucky and pulled out right before the stock fell. (His spot on the Senate Armed Services Committee may have helped make him even luckier.) House Republican Pat Fallon also happened to sell up to $250,000 in Microsoft stock right before that billion dollar contract fell through. Fallon, I might add, sits on the House subcommittee that oversees&#8230; Defense software contracts.
Representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California, bought up to $15,000 in Lucid electric vehicle stock, right before she co-sponsored a bill offering tax credits for… electric vehicles. And wouldn’t you know it, since then that stock has gone up 71%?
Either our politicians are brilliant economic minds with an uncanny ability to predict market outcomes and sell at just the right time. Or, they’re profiting off of information that’s available to them, but not us ordinary people. 
All of those, shall we say unusual trades, have gotten the attention of the general public, and now as outrage is building, so too are the calls for new legislation to ban members from trading individual stocks. 
Now you might be saying, aren’t there already laws on the books to prevent members from inside trading? Yes, technically. 
The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (or STOCK Act), was passed overwhelmingly in 2012 to deter any member of congress from stock trading with insider knowledge. And what is the penalty for violating the STOCK Act, you might ask? Essentially, a whopping $200 fine.
The STOCK Act technically <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-s-lawmakers-traded-an-estimated-355-million-of-stock-last-year-these-were-the-biggest-buyers-and-sellers-11643639354">requires</a> members to file disclosures and detail financial transactions over $1,000. Members have a 45-day grace period to report transactions involving stocks or other securities to the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Those who are late to report are supposed to pay a late fee of $200 the first time, with fines increasing if their tardiness continues.
But that hasn’t exactly deterred members from the practice. In fact, 57 <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9">members</a> and 182 senior-level <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-staff-violated-stock-act-conflicts-of-interest-possible-2021-12">staffers </a>on both sides of the aisle recently <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9">violated</a> the law, offering excuses ranging from ignorance to clerical errors. 
Former <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-penalties-consequences-2021-12">staffers</a> say there’s virtually no enforcement of the STOCK Act, and no public records currently track who is guilty of a violation and who paid the fines. There’s been no confirmation of non-public records of the sort either. So basically, it’s an honor system where members are expected to self-report. 
An honor system is hardly the way to police a group of people in a profession known for corruption and self-enrichment at the expense of average people.
The lack of transparency surrounding who faces consequences for violations leaves the public almost completely in the dark and renders the STOCK Act a mere virtue signal. 
Three in four voters <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/news/588630-76-percent-of-voters-support-banning-lawmakers-from-trading-stocks-poll">agree</a> that members of Congress should be banned from trading individual stocks while in office, and as a result, multiple bills have been introduced in the House and Senate, though they differ in levels of punishment and specifics on who should be restricted. 
One of the stricter bills was introduced in January by Senators Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and includes the legislators’ spouses and dependent children in the restrictions. All must put their stocks and investment assets into a blind trust managed by a neutral party while in office. The <a href="https://www.ossoff.senate.gov/press-releases/sens-ossoff-kelly-introduce-bill-banning-stock-trading-by-members-of-congress/">punishment</a> for those in violation of the act would be a fine equal to the amount of the member’s entire salary.
Republican Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has introduced a similar bill called the Banning Insider Trading In Congress Act, which would have largely the same effect. 
So why is this pressure building now, when the problem clearly goes back years? One potential reason for the fresh fury is senators who were widely criticized for dumping millions in stocks before the COVID pandemic sunk the stock market.
High-profile investigations of Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), then chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and former Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA), whose husband is the chair of the New York Stock Exchange, and former Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) for trades timed a little too well during the advent of the pandemic have sparked new calls for legislation. In early 2020, while Americans were losing their jobs and businesses, some senators were <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/3/20/21188144/senators-dumping-stock-as-market-tanks">raking in millions</a> from the stock market, leaving a bad taste in the mouths of their constituents. 
Burr’s sudden stock <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/3/20/21188144/senators-dumping-stock-as-market-tanks">sell-off</a> came February 13 in 33 separate transactions to the tune of up to $1.7 million, just days before the market tumbled. This followed Burr publicly expressing confidence in the U.S.’ pandemic response. He tweeted on March 20 that he relied solely on “public news reports” to guide his decision to sell. Burr was also one of three senators who voted against the STOCK Act in 2012 when there was an abundance of evidence that members of Congress were profiting from insider trading through the early 2000s — something quite difficult to prove.
Loeffler’s sell-offs, worth up to $3.1 million, began January 24, the same day the Senate Health Committee, of which she was a member, gave an all-member briefing on COVID. She tweeted on March 19 that she doesn’t make investment decisions for her portfolio and wasn’t aware of the sell-off until two weeks after.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Jim Inhofe also reported large trades around the same time, though they also deny it was related to COVID. Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, sold up to $750,000 worth of stocks, crediting it to a “continuing divestiture plan.” Feinstein, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, reported stock sell-offs in the millions, which she said were done by her husband. 
Nearly 75 lawmakers bought or sold stocks in COVID-19 <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/lawmakers-bought-sold-covid-19-related-stocks-during-pandemic-2021-12">vaccine manufacturers</a> Moderna, Johnson &amp; Johnson and Pfizer during the early weeks of the pandemic. Fifteen lawmakers responsible for shaping U.S. defense policy actively invest in <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-members-are-trading-defense-stocks-while-shaping-military-policy-2021-12">military contractors</a>. More than a dozen Democrats concerned with climate change invest in <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-democrats-with-fossil-fuel-stocks-investments-2021-12">fossil fuel companies</a>. Sixteen members have stock in <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-tobacco-stocks-philip-morris-altria-vaping-cigarettes-2021-12">tobacco companies</a>, some of whom publicly fight smoking.
The evidence seems ample and apparent. Those elected to serve the American people are using inside information to beat the public on stock market trades. It’s an inherently unfair scheme, and amounts to no less than insider trading. It’s time Congress puts the trust of the American people before lining their own pockets.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Trading Ban

Here’s How Members Of Congress Use Inside Information To Make Millions On The Stock Market

Congress

Stock Market

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enters its second month, consumers already burdened by record inflation rates could soon see yet another spike in the cost of essential goods — this time groceries in particular. 
Before the war, Russia led the world in wheat exports, earning billions each year while supplying nearly a fifth of the world’s grain. Ukraine, too, was a leading exporter, exporting more grain than all but four nations. However, as the bloody conflict continues, the two nations — which together account for a quarter of the world’s wheat exports — have begun keeping the product for themselves. 
Ukraine announced recently they’ll be stockpiling wheat as part of their ongoing war effort, while Russia has cut off wheat exports to ex-Soviet bloc countries, among others, to “protect the domestic food market in the face of external constraints,” according to the country’s Prime Minister. 
With roughly 25% of the global wheat supply essentially disappearing over the course of a month, prices on the remaining wheat have skyrocketed, and that’s bad news for consumers. 
Over the past month, the grain market has seen such volatility that many farmers — despite having a product suddenly in short supply — are struggling to find buyers due to near-unprecedented spikes in the futures market of the commodity. 
&nbsp; <iframe loading="lazy" frameborder="0" height="200" scrolling="no" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=BENT3791732835&#038;start=308" width="100%"></iframe>
Brad Schaeffer, a commodities trader, explained the seemingly counterintuitive phenomena to The Daily Wire, noting that “It would seem good for [farmers], right? Because if you have something that’s gone up, in this case wheat… in theory they should do quite well. But they have to be able to offload it, and right now, that’s been the difficulty.” 
As Schaeffer notes, the up and down nature of the price of grain has left many buyers wary of purchasing a good that could lose half its value by the time they attain it, and in turn, many farmers have been left with an expensive product in short supply that they can’t seem to sell.  
In addition to wheat, fertilizer prices have also seen more than their fair share of volatility as the war in Ukraine disrupts supply chains and alters demand. 
Russia, which supplies roughly ten percent of all fertilizer for American farmers, no longer allows such exports to the United States. As a result, some farmers have reported paying four or five times more for fertilizer this year than the last. 
That spike will inevitably impact other products, according to Joel Griffith of the Heritage Foundation. “When you see Russia or Ukraine constrict the exports of fertilizer, that&#8217;s going to drive up prices on production across the globe. And we&#8217;re already seeing big increases in food. This is going to have an increase, not just on the price of wheat, but if we don&#8217;t have the fertilizer to the same quantities, it&#8217;s going to drive the price of corn, for instance, and a lot of our beef… So this is going to have a ripple effect throughout the entirety of our food supply.”
That means more bad news for consumers already frustrated with more expensive — and smaller — products. 
Many food companies have attempted to address the rising cost of production by offering smaller portions without smaller prices, seemingly employing the strategy that a dollar price tag increase is less noticeable than a five percent size reduction. 
For example, Gatorade re-designed its 32-ounce bottles, supposedly to be “more aerodynamic.” But that new bottle now contains 4 fewer ounces, for the same price as the larger one. 
A small bag of Doritos now contains about 5 fewer chips than before after the company quietly shrunk the bags from 9.7 to 9.2 ounces each.
Schaeffer, who has been a trader since 1991, put it simply. “I’ve never seen anything like this.”
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

A Grocery Store As U.S. Inflation Rises

Food Prices Are About To Get Even More Exorbitant

Inflation

Last week, Florida passed House Bill 1557, AKA the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. You heard that right. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his Republican counterparts in the State House have officially made it illegal for teachers and students to say the word “gay” in public schools. Soon, Florida’s prisons will be flooded not just with infamous “Florida men,” but also with anyone dares to utter the word “gay.” 
Or at least, that’s the story the mainstream media — and the Biden <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSlYLrTcnXQ">administration</a> — is telling. 
But what the media fails to mention is that the bill leaves out one very important word: Gay. It doesn’t say a single thing about the word “gay,” and it hardly threatens anyone who uses that word. Despite the Left’s breathless proclamations about the supposed horrors of HB 1557, the truth is far simpler.
In reality, the bill is “an act relating to parental rights in education.” While many on the Left think parents <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCBcJC8bIq8">shouldn’t</a> have much of a say in what’s being taught in their kids’ classrooms, Republicans in Florida feel otherwise. 
In response to the woke gender ideology that’s flooding America’s public schools, they’re siding with parents who are rightly concerned about the agenda being pushed on kids as young as 5 years old. Thanks to remote learning bringing the classroom to parent’s living rooms, we now know, and many teachers freely <a href="https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/groomer-teachers-gender-theory-ideology/">admit</a>, that starting in preschool, many kids are having explicit sexual lesson plans full of leftist ideologies pushed on them.
Put simply, this bill wants to temper the ability of any K-3 teacher, woke or not, to push sexual content on kids, regardless of which side they fall on when it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity issues.
If you actually read the <a href="https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557">bill</a>, which most media outlets and social media influencers clearly didn’t, it says “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate.” So, if you think 5 year olds really need to take time away from learning to read so they can hear about transgenderism and the endless number of gender identities they can choose from, this bill is sure to upset you. Because it won’t allow that. 
The parental rights bill will instead reinforce the “fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children,” an archaic concept to many these days. The bill also prohibits schools from impeding “a parent from accessing certain records” regarding the schools curriculum and their child’s health, and will prevent schools from encouraging a student to withhold information from their parents regarding their gender identity or other sensitive topics. 
In other words, teachers will no longer be allowed to tell 8 year olds to keep secrets from their parents about their sexual orientation or mental health. 
And it will require schools to notify parents “if there is a change in the student’s services or monitoring related to the students mental, emotional, or physical well-being.”
Critics of the bill say schools should be withholding certain information from parents because it could keep the student safe if their parents are violent. And the bill addresses that, saying it “does not prohibit a school district from adopting procedures that permit school personnel to withhold such information from a parent if a reasonably prudent person would believe that disclosure would result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect.”
It bears repeating that despite the media parroting the leftist created term “Don’t Say Gay,” to describe the bill, nowhere in the legislation is that word even used. Though the word “parent” is used 32 times. 
The legislation zeroes in on parental notification and parental awareness of what children are being taught or exposed to in school. It serves as a rebuttal against the progressive worldview, which says that children are more the property of the state than human beings cared for by their own parents.
One would think that spelling out a parent’s rights, and not teaching five-year-old children about sex would be simple enough ideas to get behind. Florida’s lawmakers thought so, at least. The state’s Senate approved the bill 22 to 17, and the House <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/florida-house-passes-dont-say-gay-bill-rcna17532">approved</a> it 69 to 47. 
But the legislation was immediately hit with a tidal wave of progressive propaganda. If you read mainstream media outlets and their reporting on the bill, you’ll see the same phrase “Don’t Say Gay” — repeated <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/08/us/dont-say-gay-gen-z-resistance-florida-cec/index.html">over</a>, and <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/08/florida-senate-approves-dont-say-gay-bill-00015120">over</a>, and <a href="https://apnews.com/article/dont-say-gay-bill-passes-florida-legislature-b173917e985833963e45a8d0464a4399">over</a> <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-governor-desantis-defends-dont-say-gay-bill/">again</a>. 
President Biden himself <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/i-have-your-back-biden-blasts-hateful-florida-bill-that-would-ban-discussion-of-sexual-orientation-or-gender-identity-in-elementary-schools">came</a> out to condemn the bill, telling the LGBTQI+ community that he has their back. The White House called it an attempt by conservatives to make growing up “harder for young people,” while the Department of Education <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/education-department-threatens-florida-over-hateful-school-lgbtq-bill">warned</a> Florida that “schools receiving federal funding must follow federal civil rights law.”
Activists are playing the same tune. Florida Democrats <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/florida-democrats-chant-gay-to-protest-a-bill-that-doesnt-ban-anybody-from-saying-gay">traipsed</a> through their state capitol building shouting “Gay! Gay! Gay!” in response to the legislation. Florida students followed suit — staging massive <a href="https://twitter.com/equalityfl/status/1500934342499000323">walkouts</a> and echoing chants of “<a href="https://twitter.com/equalityfl/status/1500932407259807745">We Say Gay</a>.”
A cursory scroll of social media or primetime cable networks might leave one wondering how such a deeply unpopular bill could gain any support, let alone enough support to become law. 
But rather than opposing the measure as codified homophobic drivel, the vast majority of Americans actually support the key functions of the legislation. According to an exclusive Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-poll-over-60-of-americans-back-floridas-limits-on-k-3-lessons-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity">poll</a> of 1,000 Americans, “64% support the Florida bill’s ban on classroom instructions on sexual orientation and gender identity in grades K-3.”
Another 79% said parents should be the ones initiating conversations with their children regarding sexual education, while just 19% said parents should not be entitled to information regarding their child’s sexual identity or gender identity at school. 
The majority of Americans know what the Florida state legislature knows: That there is nothing evil or prudish or hateful about not wanting to have woke sexual worldviews forced on five year olds.
There’s nothing wrong with questioning what your children are learning about deeply controversial ideas. The real question is why so many are pushing so hard to share those ideas with young children. 
Ask yourself who the evil ones are in this equation. 
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Florida

What’s Actually In Florida’s So-Called ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill?

LGBTQ

Ron DeSantis

On June 12, 2021, Terrance McKinney stepped into the cage to make his debut on the world’s biggest fighting stage, the UFC. 
Seven seconds later, the fight was <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQjkdVfVFOQ">over</a>.
A swift 1-2 combination from the newcomer left his opponent unconscious, and fight fans worldwide buzzing. It was the fastest knockout in UFC lightweight history, and earned McKinney instant recognition as one of the sport’s fastest rising stars. 
To the outsider, McKinney, a Spokane native, seemed like a star making his coming out party, a man long destined for greatness. 
But according to McKinney, there was a time not long ago when that life — and life itself — were far from a guarantee. 
Seven years earlier, McKinney was the one lying unconscious, not the victim of a punch in the Octagon, but of a life of drug abuse and addiction — a life that should have led to his demise. 
In 2014, McKinney, already struggling with drug addiction, went through an experience that changed him forever. After a night of drinking, Mckinney overdosed on drugs and fell out of a window, a horrific experience that he recalled in a conversation with The Daily Wire. 
“I’m already drinking, I end up taking acid and shrooms, and I’m tripping hard, and these demons come out of nowhere, and I’m trying to pray and I’m speaking a whole different language. So I started praying in my head and then I stood up and I said ‘I’m not afraid of you guys,’ and tried to walk, and then, my whole body shut down.”
It was at that moment that McKinney said he felt helpless as he tumbled to the ground.
“I had to watch myself fall through a window. There was nothing I could do, my whole body just shut down, I fell forward into the window, I couldn’t stop it.”
McKinney was knocked unconscious by the fall and awoke to find himself “gushing blood,” with police attempting to help him. “We’ve gotta get a medic for you, alright. Nobody wants to hurt you,” first responders can be heard saying in disturbing bodycam footage of the incident. 
But in his drug-induced state, Mckinney became frantic and began trying to fight the officers responding to the scene. After tasing him multiple times, police were able to subdue McKinney and load him into an ambulance, strapped down to a gurney. 
Then, McKinney’s heart stopped. 
After paramedics worked frantically to revive him, it stopped again. 
<div id="attachment_347451" style="width: 914px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-347451" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-347451 size-full" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Screen-Shot-2022-02-24-at-2.46.45-PM.png" alt="" width="904" height="569" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/02/Screen-Shot-2022-02-24-at-2.46.45-PM.png 904w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/02/Screen-Shot-2022-02-24-at-2.46.45-PM-300x189.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/02/Screen-Shot-2022-02-24-at-2.46.45-PM-768x483.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 904px) 100vw, 904px" />Bodycam footage shows McKinney as police found him.</div>
Though he doesn’t remember dying — or fighting the police officers — Mckinney says he does remember waking up in the hospital, handcuffed to his bed, thinking that while he had survived, his life was still essentially over. “I injured four cops and thought it was over. Thought I was going to get four or five years in jail.”
Instead, McKinney was left with 240 hours of community service and the wakeup call of a lifetime. 
“I had to really think about what I was doing. People think this stuff is fun right now, but what happens if you’re dead? If I died that day, would I have been happy with what I accomplished? I don’t want to be that person to die. I don’t want to be that person that died because of drugs. That’s not the legacy I want to leave. That just humbled me and made me get right.”
From there, McKinney committed himself to recovery, even going back a year later to meet with the police who he’d fought, apologizing in person and thanking them for “giving me a second chance at life.”
Though it was a long road to redemption, McKinney credits his relationship with his mother and with God for bringing him through the adversity. 
“God brought peace for me. There were times I was in dark places and He brought me through it.”
Of his mother, McKinney says she was “the one who guided me. She was my best friend, my leader. She always held me accountable … she was just that person to keep me in a straight line when I was going off the road or was on the wrong path.”
Looking back, McKinney now sees all too well the anguish he caused his greatest earthly role model, and now, he uses it for motivation.
“I just wanna make my mom proud. I did things to my mom’s heart that put her through a lot of stress and trauma. She already went through so much growing up, so I feel like I owe this to her. I owe this to my family, I gotta right that wrong.”
Now, McKinney, ahead of his Feb. 26th <a href="https://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-february-26-2022">fight</a> against Fares Ziam, has a new perspective.
Far from viewing himself as a professional fighter and nothing more, McKinney wants to be an example for those who’ve also been saddled by addiction. “It’s not about just being a UFC champ and fighting. I’m here to help people heal. Not just through me fighting, but through my work. Not just on the mat, but outside. Talking to the people who feel lost and alone. All it takes is just one person to reach out and show that you care.”
His struggle has brought purpose. “People will talk to me about their story. I just know, this is what God called me to do, who He called me to be. There’s a bigger picture for this.”
And he has advice for those still struggling. “Trust your support team and don’t think about yourself. At the end of the day, take a deep look at your family, they’re sad, they’re wanting what’s best for you. Let that sit on your heart, use it as fuel to get better.”
“Just remember, it’s never too late to right your wrongs.”

McKinney

‘God Brought Me Peace’: From Fighting Drug Addiction And Death, To Fighting In The UFC

Sports

Correction: A previous version of this article, based on an incorrect report, stated that Special Counsel John Durham used the word &#8220;infiltrate&#8221; to describe the actions. The filing used the word &#8220;exploited.&#8221; The headline has been changed.  Furthermore, the language on exploited servers has been changed to reflect the specific language of the indictment, which says exploited internet data, not exploited servers.
Throughout his presidency, Donald Trump consistently claimed that his campaign — and administration — had been illegally spied on by Hillary Clinton operatives and nefarious government agents seeking to paint a picture of collusion between his campaign and Russia.
Despite assurances from the media and Democrat leadership that such claims were a work of fiction, it now appears that President Trump was right all along.
According to new evidence from the Department of Justice as part of a bombshell court filing from Special Counsel John Durham, operatives linked to Hillary Clinton&#8217;s failed presidential campaign &#8220;exploited&#8221; Internet data &#8220;pertaining to&#8221; Trump Tower and the Executive Office of the President in an effort to establish a “narrative” linking President Donald Trump to Russia.
Here’s everything we know so far about the latest developments in the case.
The Clinton Lawyer At The Heart Of The Scandal
Back in 2016, a lawyer named Michael Sussman met with the FBI to present evidence of a “covert communications channel” between Donald Trump’s campaign and a Kremlin-linked Russian bank. During the meeting, Sussman claimed he was not was presenting the evidence on behalf of a client.
However, we now know, according to a 2021 indictment against him, that Sussman was representing two clients at the time — and one of them happened to be Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Because of that claim, Sussman has now been charged with lying to a federal agent. The indictment also notes that Sussman acted &#8220;on behalf of at least two specific clients,” namely “the Hillary Clinton Campaign.”
According to Special Counsel Durham, Sussman had been working with cyber researchers and employees from multiple internet companies, including an influential tech executive, to compile the supposed evidence. 
“Tech Executive #1”
According to Durham, the information Sussman presented to the FBI as “evidence” of collusion was gathered largely with the help of an influential tech insider known initially as “Tech Executive #1” in federal documents. The executive, later identified as Rodney Joffe of the tech company Neustar, allegedly played a crucial role in exploiting the Internet data.
According to Durham, he “exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,&#8221; and “also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data” as part of a government contract.
The Special Counsel also alleges that Joffe “tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish &#8216;an inference&#8217; and &#8216;narrative&#8217; tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” in hopes of “pleasing certain VIPs,” including the Clinton campaign.
Perhaps most shockingly, Joffe and his accomplices allegedly exploited domain name system data &#8220;pertaining to&#8221; Trump Tower, Trump’s private residence, and even the Executive Office of the President.
As Durham alleges, Joffe’s company had an existing contract with the Executive Office of the President where the company &#8220;had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement,&#8221; which was then &#8220;exploited&#8221; with &#8220;the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.”
The supposed information found on the Executive Office of the President servers was then allegedly shared with Clinton’s lawyer Sussman, who then presented it to a separate government intelligence agency in 2017. But according to federal investigators, they found “no support for these allegations” which claimed Russian collusion.
The ‘Evidence’ Against Trump
Joffe and his ‘researchers’ had access to DNS (domain name system) data &#8220;pertaining to&#8221; Trump Tower, and later the Executive Office of the President, meaning they could determine the websites that certain phones and computers within the network were accessing.
Joffe and his team allegedly combed through this data and cherry-picked instances of users on the network accessing Russian websites or other content, and passed it onto Sussman, who in turn took it to U.S. intelligence agencies as “proof” of collusion with Russia. Among other pieces of “evidence” was the claim that “Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.”
However, according to Durham, not only did this data provide “no support for these allegations” of Russian collusion, much of it was totally irrelevant to President Trump and his campaign. Sussman, though claiming to be presenting evidence against Trump, allegedly did not mention that comprehensive DNS data &#8220;involving the EOP&#8221; relating to &#8220;Russian Phone Provider-1&#8221; spanned all the way back to 2014 — meaning Obama staffers could also be guilty of supposed “Russian collusion.”
Trump Responds
Not surprisingly, President Trump responded strongly to the newest revelations from Special Counsel Durham. 
He issued a statement the day after the latest revelations, saying they provide “indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia.&#8221;
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Clinton

‘This Is Bigger Than Watergate’: Everything We Know About The Durham Filing On ‘Exploited’ Internet Data

Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton

With November upon us, the eyes of the nation have turned to Virginia, where a contentious gubernatorial campaign between Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Glenn Youngkin will finally be settled. 
The race, widely considered a referendum on the performance of President Biden one year into his first term, was considered a sure-fire victory for Democrats just months ago. But a late surge by Youngkin has polls showing a dead heat in the days before final votes are cast. 
Here’s everything you need to know about this year’s most important statewide election.
Who Is Glenn Youngkin?
Youngkin has never run for public office, spending his last 25 years working in accounting and finance after receiving his MBA from Harvard University. Most notably, Youngkin served as President and COO of The Carlyle Group, a prominent private equity firm in Washington. 
After defeating a crowded primary field for the Republican nomination, Youngkin received the endorsement of former President Trump, former Vice President Mike Pence, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and a slew of other Republican leaders. Though he has not publicly campaigned with Mr. Trump, Youngkin has said the former President “represents so much of why I’m running.&#8221;
Who Is Terry McAuliffe?
McAuliffe is the former governor of Virginia and a longtime Democratic Party operative. He served as co-chairman of President Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign and more recently as chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. From 2001 to 2005, McAuliffe served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
In 2014, McAuliffe secured the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Virginia after running unopposed. He then defeated Republican Ken Cuccinelli and served as Governor of Virginia from 2014 to 2018. More recently, McAuliffe was employed by Hunton Andrews Kurth, a controversial law firm that’s come <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-mcauliffe-linked-law-firm-fighting-virginia-student-who-said-she-was-gang-raped">under fire</a> for fighting on behalf of public school districts against alleged victims of sexual assault.
Virginia Going Red?
Throughout 2021, most national media outlets wrote off the Virginia gubernatorial race as an easy win for Democrats. Given the commonwealth’s recent electoral history, it’s easy to see why. 
Virginia hasn’t gone Red in a presidential election since 2004, and it hasn’t elected a Republican Governor since 2009.
<blockquote>Virginia Presidential Election Results
2020: 54.1% Biden — 44.0% Trump
2016: 49.7% Clinton — 44.4% Trump
2012: 51.2% Obama — 47.3% Romney
2008: 52.6% Obama — 46.3% McCain
2004: 45.5% Kerry — 53.7% Bush</blockquote>
The Latest Polls
Throughout the Spring and Summer of 2021, polling consistently showed Terry McAuliffe with a sizable lead over Youngkin. From July to September, every single poll listed in Real Clear Politics’ election database showed McAuliffe ahead, usually by 4 to 8 points. 
For much of the campaign, McAuliffe — thanks in large part to his previous role as Virginia’s governor — enjoyed widespread name recognition and a fundraising advantage over his relatively unknown counterpart. 
But as summer came to a close, Youngkin began to gain steam and by October was in a statistical tie with McAuliffe in numerous polls. Three polls conducted a week before election day showed Youngkin with a lead. 
<blockquote>Trafalgar Group: Youngkin 49, McAuliffe 47
Fox 5 DC/Insider Advantage: Youngkin 47, McAuliffe 45
Fox News: Youngkin 53, McAuliffe 45</blockquote>
Leading Issues
The shift in momentum from McAuliffe to Youngkin began in September and appears to have corresponded with a renewed focus on education and COVID lockdowns among the electorate. In one Washington Post-Schar School poll, 24% of Virginians said education was their number one priority, up nine points from the same poll a month earlier. 
Among those who listed education as their top priority, Youngkin held a nine point advantage. In September, it was McAuliffe who held a 33 point lead amongst those voters.
While Youngkin has vowed to “not allow COVID lockdowns to ever occur in Virginia again,” and loosen mask requirements in schools, McAuliffe has supported mask requirements for students and promised to “urge all school divisions to require vaccines for their personnel,” if elected.
A turning point in the race came in late September, when McAuliffe — responding to a question about whether parents should be notified if their children are reading sexually explicit content — said “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” 
He went on to add, “I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decision.” 
The comments stood in stark contrast to Youngkin, who has promised to ban Critical Race Theory in classrooms and allow parents increased access to school curricula.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Candidates Participate In Final Debate For Virginia’s Gubernatorial Race

The Biggest Race Of The Year: Everything You Need To Know About The Virginia Gubernatorial Election

Glenn Youngkin

Terry McAuliffe

Apparently, the vast majority of black people in America are now white supremacists &#8230; according to the standards of the Left, that is. 
This month, as Republicans in Georgia passed sweeping voter ID laws aimed at bolstering election integrity, Democrats resorted to their favorite tactic when confronted with a policy they don’t like: crying white supremacy. 
In this case, prominent figures on the Left united to push forth a particularly disgusting narrative — that voter ID requirements are tantamount to Jim Crow laws.
Despite the ahistorical nature of these claims — and the fact that there are still millions of black Americans who actually lived under these racist Democratic Party mandates in the segregation-era South — everyone from Stacey Abrams, to Joe Biden, to Elizabeth Warren lined up to fight what <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-new-jim-crow-leftists-compare-georgias-election-integrity-bill-to-racist-segregation-laws">they called</a> “the new Jim Crow.”
Biden, in his first press conference as President, even went as far as <a href="https://www.faithwire.com/2021/03/25/gop-makes-jim-crow-look-like-jim-eagle-bidens-first-press-conference-draws-sharp-reaction/">saying</a> Georgia’s new voter ID law “makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle,” whatever that means.
So what was the reaction from black Americans — the very people supposedly doomed to suffer oppression under this new era of codified racism? 
Far from fear, or anger, according to a new Rasmussen <a href="https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/march_2021/75_support_voter_id_laws">poll</a>, the reaction was support. Overwhelming support. 
Nearly 70% of black people living in America support laws that require prospective voters to provide an ID, such as a driver’s license, before being allowed to cast their ballot. 
It turns out that the vast majority of black people in America — the very individuals Joe Biden assures us are victims of racism under voter ID laws — think it’s perfectly reasonable to require some form of proof that you are who you say you are before voting. 
Such a finding would cause rational individuals to immediately refrain from furthering the narrative that voter ID laws are symptoms of systemic white supremacy, but we’re not dealing with rational folks here. 
The Left’s messaging is reliant not on rational facts, but on fear and virtue signaling. They want to scare away anyone who might oppose them with accusations of racism, and they are more than content to ignore the desires of those they claim will be victimized in doing so. 
Sadly, the black community has once again fallen victim to the Left’s “soft bigotry of low expectations.”
What could be more patronizing than having a 78 year old white man imply that by virtue of your black skin, you are somehow less capable of carrying an ID? There’s a message being sent there, and it isn’t one of empowerment. 
It’s a message that says, “Your community supports voter ID laws? Well, you must not understand the situation, and you certainly must be missing the racism you’re being subjected to.”  
The Left is right about one thing: racism is running rampant in the conversation surrounding voter ID laws. But it’s not coming from the side they think it is. 
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/yet-again-the-democrats-fall-back-on-their-racist-soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations">Yet Again, The Democrats Fall Back On Their Racist ‘Soft Bigotry Of Low Expectations’</a>
Cabot Phillips is Managing Editor of The Daily Wire’s Readers Pass. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/cabot_phillips">@cabot_phillips</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu

Cabot Phillips