China has billions, or tens of billions, of dollars and treasury bonds from the enormous trade deficits. It's hard to believe an NIH grant of a measly $3.7 million enabled research the China military wanted to do. Money was not a factor in the collaboration, at least not the grant money.

More than likely, what the Chinese really wanted was the US expertise in genetic manipulation. The grant was a cover for transfer of technology. What was the motivation for the US collaborators? You could probably get some insight on this matter by asking Joe Biden or Eric Swawell.


More than 500 federally funded scientists are under investigation for being compromised by China and other foreign powers, the National Institutes of Health revealed Thursday.

For @nongrata1313

Think. China has tens of billions of US dollars. They don't need a few measly million to fund research they want to do. Something else is going on. They may have wanted US technical expertise. They may have wanted to make Fauci their man. But, it's nuts to say if Fauci hadn't gotten them a grant, they wouldn't have done the research.


The rabbi who is neighbors to Mark and Patricia McCloskey speaks out: 'They are bullies'

It's going over the top to be making all the anti-Semitic gross comments because the complainer is a rabbi. I'll break it down rationally, though.

As some commenters noted, there is no relationship between whether the McCloskeys are good or bad neighbors, and their right to protect their property. They had the right to defend themselves, even if they committed actions we don't like, like killing thousands of bees.

Sounds to me like there was already bad blood between the synagogue and the McCloskeys. We only got one side of the story. We have to take the Rabbi's word that the McCloskeys just one day killed all the bees a few inches beyond their property line. In any case, since it was legal, it has no bearing on the present situation.

But then again, the Rabbi seemed to think that because there was a dispute about the bees and the property line and the McCloskeys legally killed the bees, that there is some bearing on the right of the McCloskeys to defend themselves. Two entirely different issues. Why should the Rabbi consider that story as relevant to McCloskeys saying they should be able to protect themselves?

I generally follow stories of female rabbis with great interest. I have not heard of one who was not far, far left. Traditional (Orthodox) Judaism rejects the idea of female rabbis, so they are a purely a construct of liberal (translate leftist, non-traditional) Judaism. Orthodox Jews tend to support Trump while Reform (liberal) Jews have a voting pattern closer to blacks.


Ultimately, the Han Chinese have a point. A large, cohesive, dissident Muslim identity group is going to cause nothing but trouble. The Chinese reacted in their usual totalitarian, unimaginative way, and treats the Uyghurs as a slave population. They'd all be better off if China simply allowed the Uyghur provinces to secede and develop their own countries and economies. Trade, travel and military relations could be handled by negotiations between countries. I doubt the Uyghurs would like that economically, but the Chinese have a legitimate interest in ensuring the compatibility of its citizens when a viable option exists for those with other loyalties.


John Cornyn is running for Texas Senator in 2020. I want to see his position on the Trump impeachment and on immigration, legal and illegal, before supporting him. Also, does he support continuing useless wars for the US, like Syria, Niger and the like?


This is so much malarkey. Marie may or may not have been raped from the police perspective, but she was a pathological liar who told a different story every time they interviewed her, and told yet other versions to her friends, none of them the same. This is indeed a "metoo" narrative, where the woman must be believed regardless of the number of lies in her story. Kind of like believing Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford who, incidentally, was also a serial liar.

As far as the original rape victim, Marie, they never would have been able to get a conviction on her story. No evidence, no witnesses, and multiple, contradictory versions of her rape. It may be necessary to accept that fact that serial liars may, in fact, not get justice on the few incidents that might be real.


Alabama Republicans are urging lawmakers to remove U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. from Congress after a series of controversial statements.

The southern states of the Confederacy adhered to the original meaning of the Constitution, meaning a federation of free and mostly independent states. One primary feature of the Constitution was that it was the states that chose their own representatives. Now, the Alabama legislature is kneeling to the creed of big government, asking the Congress to expel a member the Alabama cucks don't like. Hey! Be men, and deal with an obnoxious Muslim, rather than selling your heritage for porriage.


An emotional Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib on Monday held back tears during a news conference as she and Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar condemned Israel’s recent decision to impose restrictions on visiting the country, with the Democrats calling for Congress to get involved.

It is kind of weird she goes into tears at the prospect of not getting her own way...or maybe not so weird after all.


The Union for Reform Judaism leads the largest Jewish movement in North America. We provide vision and voice to build strong communities that, together, transform the way people connect to Judaism and change the world.

I feel sorry for Israel, having to be lectured by the likes of Rabbi Rick Jacobs.


I think Stephan Plainview makes a near-fatal mistake. He confounds Google tampering with its search results as censorship. This type of sloppy language, and sloppy thinking, will open the door to real censorship; that is, government regulation and shutdown of actual content on the web.

Limitations on content can run a gamut: 1) A site openly refusing to carry certain information or opinions. 2) A site damaging people with different opinions by shutting down accounts and losing subscribers with no notice. 3) A site deciding to bend on one direction and asking accounts with a different slant to find another home; 4) A site refusing to carry links to certain sites, often associated with a point of view.

By trying to bring in government to regulate 4) you will invariably get 1), where the government actually dictates content.

When PayPal and YouTube suddenly shut down accounts, causing subscribers to lose customer lists and actual content, it should be actionable under anti-Trust, restraint of trade and implied contract law.

But trying to force Google or YouTube to carry content they don't wish to is rent-seeking behavior that will not have a happy ending. Of course, the section 230 exemption from libel should be withheld from partisan sites or services.