Jews fight back at UCLA and then Mayor Karen Bass sends in the police

 The Democrat mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, didn’t send police onto the campus of UCLA when pro-Hamas demonstrators took over parts of it and prevented Jews from entering, just as Nazis once blocked Jewish students from the University of Vienna. A Jewish girl being beaten unconscious and hospitalized also drew no police response to the state government-owned campus.  But when non-student members of the Jewish community of Los Angeles entered the campus and began physically confronting the pro-Hamas demonstrators and videos of fights went out on internet, after two-plus hours [update: 3+ hours] of mayhem, the Mayor decided to send in the cops.

While I cannot condone outsiders coming onto a campus to fight, it needs to be stipulated that pro-Hamas outsiders were the first to enter UCLA turf, and that the non-student Jews who entered campus to fight were responding with the same tactic, to protect community members.

It is hard for me to avoid comparison to a little-remembered incident from the 1930s, when virulently antisemitic groups openly demonstrated and excoriated Jews along the same themes as the contemporary Nazis. The worst of it took place in Minneapolis, later characterized by prominent journalist Carey McWilliams as  “the capitol (sic) of anti-Semitism in the United States."

A group called the Silver Shirts, self-consciously modeled on Mussolini’s Black Shirts, held a rally and:

In Minneapolis, William Dudley Pelley organized a Silver Shirt Legion to "rescue" America from an imaginary Jewish-Communist conspiracy. In Pelley’s own words, just as "Mussolini and his Black Shirts saved Italy and as Hitler and his Brown Shirts saved Germany," he would save America from Jewish communists. Minneapolis gambling czar David Berman confronted Pelley’s Silver Shirts on behalf of the Minneapolis Jewish community.

Berman learned that Silver Shirts were mounting a rally at a nearby Elks’ Lodge. When the Nazi leader called for all the "Jew bastards" in the city to be expelled, or worse, Berman and his associates burst in to the room and started cracking heads. After ten minutes, they had emptied the hall. His suit covered in blood, Berman took the microphone and announced, "This is a warning. Anybody who says anything against Jews gets the same treatment. Only next time it will be worse." After Berman broke up two more rallies, there were no more public Silver Shirt meetings in Minneapolis.  (Via Jewish Virtual Library)

I don’t for a second believe that any of the Jewish outsiders at UCLA were gangsters. It may be a measure of our time that ordinary Americans of persecuted ethnicities taking violent measures to defend themselves has been lionized by the leftist cultural establishment when the persecuted minority was African-American. Somehow, I doubt they will grant the same indulgence to Jews. After all, does anyone think that Mayor Karen Bass would have tolerated for days Blacks being excluded from parts of UCLA’s campus by KKK activists?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/jews_fight_back_at_ucla_and_then_mayor_karen_bass_sends_in_the_police.html

Joe Biden plots to import Gaza's 'refugees'

 By Monica Showalter

Joe Biden is running for re-election and behind in the polls.

He's desperate to satisfy his 'death to America' base in places like Dearborn and at campus protests.

So now he's come up with a new sweetender to bring those voters back.

Importing Gaza "refugees," despite the war, from the Gaza side at least, being about staying in place at home and taking over Israel, too.

According to CBS News:

The Biden administration is considering bringing certain Palestinians to the U.S. as refugees, a move that would offer a permanent safe haven to some of those fleeing war-torn Gaza, according to internal federal government documents obtained by CBS News.

In recent weeks, the documents show, senior officials across several federal U.S. agencies have discussed the practicality of different options to resettle Palestinians from Gaza who have immediate family members who are American citizens or permanent residents.

One of those proposals involves using the decades-old United States Refugee Admissions Program to welcome Palestinians with U.S. ties who have managed to escape Gaza and enter neighboring Egypt, according to the inter-agency planning documents.

Top U.S. officials have also discussed getting additional Palestinians out of Gaza and processing them as refugees if they have American relatives, the documents show. The plans would require coordination with Egypt, which has so far refused to welcome large numbers of people from Gaza.

Those who pass a series of eligibility, medical and security screenings would qualify to fly to the U.S. with refugee status, which offers beneficiaries permanent residency, resettlement benefits like housing assistance and a path to American citizenship.

So fighting the war to stay in Gaza isn't quite as nice as a big, free, benefit package, and a life on the public dime over in the U.S. instead. Never mind that Hamas, which started the war with Israel, nominally did so to establish a homeland for Palestinians and screams loudly about 'forced relocation,' which plenty of people in Israel, understandably enough, would like to see done. Who needs a homeland when you've got Omrika, handed out free of charge? Maybe you can fly back and forth, paid for with U.S. funds, and fist-wave against the U.S. in both countries.

And maybe Biden should explain why the U.S., which is a prime terrorist target, is importing in people that every other Arab countries refuses to allow in? We know what the issue is there -- they don't want terrorist nesting grounds established with an imported coterie of 'refugees' from Gaza.

Because the big problem with importing Gaza refugees is how to separate them from the hate-Israel and hate-America ideology that they've been steeped in since birth.  How many of these so-called refugees danced at the monstrous massacre of Israeli civilians in their homes or dancing at a music festival on October 7? Based on the photos seen, it was thousands of them. And that's not surprising, because they also willingly elected Hamas to be their leaders.

Oh, sure, the Biden camp leaking to CBS News says that they'll be processed with "security screenings." We all know how well those go, startin with the thousands of 'refugees' Biden imported from Afghanistan, based on their willingness to push, shove, knock down and trample women, children, elderly, and sick people waiting in line, and never mind about the military translators, who got left behind. Recent revelations show that many of this bunch had no identification cards or were on terrorist watchlists. Biden let them all in and now nobody knows where they are. That's some 'screening.'

Gaza, where Hamas controls everything, will be just as bad. Just as Hamas controls all the food in the country, feeding its fat, doughy "fighters" with the 'aid' while leaving women and children to starve or serve as human shields for propaganda purposes, so it will control who gets to be a refugee.

How useful does anyone think it will be for Hamas to get a nest of operatives into the states for an encore of October 7 against the Great Satan Himself? And if not that, how useful would it be for Hamas to get a "community" of October 7 dancers, not waving their gun-guns, but electing a member of Congress to throw their weight around, much as America-hating migrants such as Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib already do? One, two, many, Omars in Congress, sounds very much like an idea Hamas could embrace.

Sure, Biden says the only ones they'll let in are those with 'ties' to the states. That doesn't screen at all for Hamas supporters, given the kind of migrants we know are already here. What's more, to import refugees legitimately, and I don't anticipate they'll follow the rules on this, CBS notes that the law is as follows:

To qualify to enter the U.S. as a refugee, applicants have to prove they are fleeing persecution based on certain factors, such as their nationality, religion or political views.

Israel is going only after Hamas and trying to spare civilian casualties, so item one, on the 'nationality' factor is out. Same with 'religion.' Item three is about 'political views.' What kind of political views are these people likely to have that engenders "persecution" from Israel? That's right, pro-Hamas views. This looks like Joe Biden's plan to 'save Hamas' more than anything else, by bringing them over here.

With the border already overrun by all comers, this importation of hostile, anti-American 'refugees' with a full free ride from Uncle Sam and a pathway to citizenship can only be a plot to import more America-haters in a bid to influence elections.

If this isn't an outrageous idea well worth fighting, what is? The lawsuits should be fast, thick and heavy on this, if there's is one thing America doesn't need, it's people who celebrate and abet terrorists of the most heinous kind.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/the_border_is_out_of_control_so_what_better_for_joe_biden_than_to_import_gaza_s_refugees_too.html

Elevated Risk Of Eye Inflammatory Disorder Following COVID-19 Vaccination: Study

 by Megan Redshaw, J.D. via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with a history of uveitis may experience a recurrence of the eye inflammatory disorder following COVID-19 vaccination, especially in the early postvaccination period.

A recently published study in JAMA Ophthalmology found that about 17 percent of nearly 474,000 vaccinated individuals with a history of uveitis experienced a recurrence within one year after vaccination.

Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye that occurs when the immune system is fighting an infection or attacks healthy tissue in the eyes. It can cause symptoms including pain, redness, and vision loss while damaging the uvea and other parts of the eye.

Researchers collected data on all individuals diagnosed with uveitis in South Korea between January 2015 and February 2021 to determine the risk of recurrence after COVID-19 vaccination. Data was retrieved from the Korean National Health Insurance Service and Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency databases. The incidence of uveitis was assessed from Feb. 26, 2021, to Dec. 31, 2022. The cases were classified according to the onset at three months, six months, and one year, the type of uveitis (anterior or nonanterior), and vaccine type.

Individuals included in the study received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, or Johnson & Johnson and did not test positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period.

Study Findings

Of the 473,934 individuals included in the study, the cumulative incidence of postvaccination uveitis was 8.6 percent at three months, 12.5 percent at six months, and 16.8 percent at one year—primarily of the anterior type, which affects the iris at the front of the eye. Moreover, the risk of uveitis reoccurrence was highest in the first 30 days after vaccination, peaked between the first and second vaccine doses, and decreased with subsequent vaccinations.

According to the researchers, the first dose of the vaccine may activate inflammatory pathways leading to initial inflammation in people who are prone to autoimmune reactions or have a history of uveitis. However, there’s a declining risk with repeated vaccination that may be due to the immune system’s adaptation to the vaccine antigen, although further studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Additionally, the risk of experiencing the condition increased among recipients of all four vaccine types, especially among those who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. These patients were more likely to experience uveitis recurrence during the early-onset period. Likewise, those who received Moderna were at a higher risk of experiencing uveitis after the first vaccination and during the early-onset period.

Notably, there were variations in the types of uveitis observed in the periods before and after vaccination. Among patients with infectious uveitis prior to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, nearly 54 percent had noninfectious uveitis after being vaccinated, whereas most of the individuals with noninfectious uveitis before vaccination had a recurrence of the same type after vaccination.

Most patients with uveitis were 60 to 79 years old, followed by those aged 40 to 59. Among those with comorbidities, high blood pressure, diabetes, and rheumatic diseases were the most common.

“Although uveitis following vaccination is rare, our findings support an increased risk after COVID-19 vaccination, particularly in the early postvaccination period,” the authors wrote. “These results emphasize the importance of vigilance and monitoring for uveitis in the context of vaccinations, including COVID-19 vaccinations, particularly in individuals with a history of uveitis.”

Other Studies of Vaccine-Associated Uveitis

Other studies have found an association between uveitis and COVID-19 vaccination, including a February 2023 study published in Ophthalmology. The study provided insights into a possible temporal association between reported vaccine-associated events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson.

Moreover, ocular adverse events have been reported following COVID-19 vaccination in addition to uveitis, including facial nerve palsy, retinal vascular occlusion, acute macular neuroretinopathy, thrombosis, and new-onset Graves’ disease.

In a June 2022 paper published in Vaccines, researchers analyzed ocular adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to provide clinicians and researchers with a broader picture of ocular side effects of COVID-19 vaccinations.

VAERS is a voluntary reporting system comanaged by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is designed to detect vaccine safety signals, although it is estimated to represent less than 1 percent of actual adverse events.

During the analysis period of December 2020 to December 2021, VAERS received 55,313 reports for ocular adverse events, 6,688 of which met the inclusion criteria. Of those reports, 2,229 were related to eyelid swelling, ocular hyperemia, and conjunctivitis, 1,785 were reports of blurred vision, and 1,322 were reports of visual impairment.

Females accounted for 74 percent of the reports, and eye conditions affected primarily individuals between the ages of 40 and 59 who had received either the Johnson & Johnson shot or Moderna’s vaccine.

Of the patients who reported ocular-related complications, 50 percent received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, 38 percent received Moderna, and 12 percent received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

Although the study’s authors said they could not determine whether the vaccines were associated with an increased risk of adverse events, their data suggests a “possible association between COVID-19 vaccines and ocular adverse events.”

“Physicians are cautioned not only to be aware of this potential problem, but to check any underlying patient conditions, and to carefully document in VAERS within a few weeks of vaccination,” they wrote.

According to current VAERS data, 734 cases of uveitis, 539 cases of eye inflammation, 2,781 cases of retina disorders, 11,641 cases of facial nerve disorders, and 3,909 reports of eyelid swelling, ocular hyperaemia, and conjunctivitis were reported following COVID-19 vaccination between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 29.

Potential associations between uveitis and other vaccinations have been reported, including influenza, human papillomavirus, and varicella zoster virus vaccines. However, these studies did not necessarily establish a causal link.

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/study-finds-elevated-risk-eye-inflammatory-disorder-following-covid-19-vaccination

Bio-Techne beats third-quarter estimates on improving demand for biotech products

 Bio-Techne on Wednesday beat third-quarter profit and revenue estimates, helped by better-than-expected demand for its cell and gene therapy products and testing and diagnostic devices.

On an adjusted basis, the company posted a profit of 48 cents per share, beating analysts' estimates of 45 cents per share, according to LSEG data.

"As expected, we experienced subsiding headwinds from de-stocking but also delivered year-over-year growth in a depressed biopharma end market," said CEO Kim Kelderman.

The company said in a conference call in February that the soft funding environment continued to impact China, which contributed to 10% of the company's total revenues in the fiscal year 2023, according to latest regulatory filings.

However, the company added it expects headwinds to be less severe going forward as inflation and interest rates appear to have stabilized in China.

The Minnesota-based company reported third-quarter revenue of $303.4 million, compared with analysts' estimates of $292.2 million.

Sales at its largest protein sciences unit were $214.6 million, a fall of 2% from a year earlier. But it still came ahead of analysts' expectations of $209.7 million.

The unit develops and manufactures biological compounds used for research and diagnostics and to develop cell and gene therapies.

Revenue from its diagnostics and genomics unit, which manufactures tools and compounds used to make therapeutics and vaccines, rose 16% to $87.5 million.

Larger peer Thermo Fisher in its post-earnings conference call said it is seeing continued improvements in biotech funding environment, partly because of a stimulus program announced by China.

Bio-Techne on Monday announced a strategic distribution agreement with Thermo Fisher where Thermo through its European arm will distribute Bio-Techne's extensive portfolio of products to laboratories and research institutions across Europe. 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bio-techne-beats-third-quarter-112941445.html

CVS Health misses on profit, revenue; slashes earnings outlook

 CVS Health missed Street estimates for its top- and bottom-lines and lowered its full-year outlook, citing higher medical costs in the insurance industry. 

CVS, which owns health insurance giant Aetna,  reported net income of $1.12 billion, or $0.88 per share, for the quarter ended March 31, compared to net income of $2.14 billion, or $1.65 per share, for the year-ago quarter. Adjusted earnings per share were $1.31, missing analysts’ estimates of $1.69 per share.

Revenue rose 3.7% to $88.44 billion, driven by growth in its health care benefits and pharmacy & consumer wellness segments, which were partially offset by a decline in the health services segment. Analyst had expected sales of $89.21 billion.

Total revenues increased 2.9% in the pharmacy & consumer wellness segment, primarily driven by increased prescription volume, including increased contributions from vaccinations, improved drug purchasing and decreased operating expenses. 

The increases were partially offset by continued pharmacy reimbursement pressure. Prescriptions filled increased 3.2%.

Revenues at the health services segment, which includes  pharmacy benefit manager Caremark, CVS' health clinics and home health services, fell 9.7% to $40.3 billion.

“The current environment does not diminish our opportunities, enthusiasm, or the long-term earnings power of our company,” stated Karen S. Lynch, president and CEO, CVS Health. “We are confident we have a pathway to address our near-term Medicare Advantage challenges. We remain committed to our strategy and believe that we have the right assets in place to deliver value to our customers, members, patients, and shareholders.”

While Medicare Advantage has been a major source of growth and profits for the insurance industry, investors have become concerned about the runaway costs associated with the plans, according to a report by CNBC. CVS is also facing challenges from the federal government’s 2025 reimbursement rates, which did not increase payments for Medicare Advantage plans as much as the industry has hoped.

CVS said it now expects 2024 adjusted earnings of at least $7 per share, down from its previous guidance of at least $8.30 per share.

https://chainstoreage.com/cvs-health-misses-profit-revenue-slashes-earnings-outlook

House Approves 'Antisemitism Awareness Act' Aimed At Cracking Down On Campus Protests

 Late in the afternoon Wednesday the House approved a bill which seeks to crackdown on antisemitism on college and university campuses following days of protests and unrest driven by pro-Palestinian activists.

The Antisemitism Awareness Act has been approved in a 320-91 vote and will now head to the Senate. But the central question is: how and by what measure will federal authorities crack down on speech deemed "antisemitic"?

Will criticism of the government of Israel be deemed antisemitic? Will highlighting alleged war crimes or human rights abuses by the IDF be considered so? Will involvement in the BDS movement be deemed anti-Jewish? Will slogans such as "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" be illegal according to federal law? Will criticizing the US $3+ billion in annual foreign aid be considered anti-Jewish? 

Already, active participation in causes boycotting Israel is 'illegal' in a number of US states (typically taking the form of prohibiting state agencies from engaging with contracts or business with companies involved in BDS).

According to an explanation of the definition of antisemitism outlined by the new House-passed bill: 

The bill would require the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism when enforcing antidiscrimination laws.

The group defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” and says “Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The organization provides a number of examples for what qualifies as antisemitism, including calling for the harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion, and accusing Jewish individuals as inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

By this measure, even theoretical historical discussion or interpretation could be considered illegal (such has long been the case in some European countries). Like with any attempt to legislate limits related to the 1st Amendment, this is certainly going to prove very slippery — especially if it gets signed into law and then comes the question of actual enforcement on the ground.

A tiny minority of Republicans are voicing fierce opposition to the bill...

Currently and historically, pro-Israel hawks who advocate for sending billions in American taxpayer dollars to Israel each year tend to accuse any and all opponents of such policies of being antisemitic. Some independent journalists say they've struggled to find blatant examples of people being targeted in antisemitic attacks for the sole reason of being Jewish. 

So if the federal government gets involved in these polemical and semantic games, where will it end? 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/house-approves-antisemitism-bill-aimed-cracking-down-campus-protests

Title IX Rules: 6 More States Sue Biden Admin Over "Radical And Illegal" Changes

by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times,

A group of six Republican state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration’s Department of Education on Tuesday over what they said were “radical and illegal” changes to Title IX rules.

The lawsuit, led by Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman and Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

In their legal filing, the GOP attorneys general argued that the department overstepped its authority when rolling out new updates to Title IX rules that expanded protections to students by incorporating gender identity into the legal text.

They further claimed the changes to the rules override state laws and will harm Tennessee students, families, and schools. The attorneys general called on the court to pause and overturn the newly expanded policy.

“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Mr. Skrmetti said in a statement.

“In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms. Federal bureaucrats have no power to rewrite laws passed by the people’s elected representatives, and I expect the courts will put a stop to this unconstitutional power grab.”

Mr. Coleman, meanwhile argued the new changes to Title IX rules would “rip away 50 years of Title IX’s protections for women and put entire generations of young girls at risk.”

“As Attorney General, it is my duty to protect the people of Kentucky. As a Dad, it is my duty to protect my daughters,” Mr. Coleman said. “Today, I do both.”

Biden Admin Unveils Changes to Rules

The Kentucky attorney general added that his office is joining the lawsuit to “lead this fight for our daughters, granddaughters, nieces, and all the women of our Commonwealth.”

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a longstanding policy designed to protect people from discrimination based on sex in schools.

Specifically, the protections prohibit sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding, either directly or indirectly, from the federal government.

However, the Department of Education last week rolled out newly updated Title IX rules that include expanded protections for LGBTQ students for the first time.

Under the updated rules, the prohibition against discrimination based on “sex” has been updated to include a prohibition against discrimination “based on sex stereotypes, sex-related characteristics (including intersex traits), pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

The new rules also dictate that any K-12 school or institution of higher education that receives any federal funding may not separate or treat individuals differently based on sex “in a manner that subjects that person to more than de minimis harm,” which Republicans say will lead to shared bathrooms, locker rooms and more.

It does, however, clarify that such separations are allowed “in the context of sex-separate living facilities and sex-separate athletic teams.”

The rules also state that all “non-confidential” school employees are required to notify a Title IX coordinator if they learn of any violations.

According to the Biden administration, the new regulations are set to take effect on Aug. 1.

President Joe Biden (R) speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, on June 30, 2023. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

‘Radical, Illegal Attempt to Rewrite the Statute’

In a statement announcing the newly updated rules, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said they “build on the legacy of Title IX by clarifying that all our nation’s students can access schools that are safe, welcoming, and respect their rights.”

“The final regulations promote educational equity and opportunity for students across the country as well as accountability and fairness while empowering and supporting students and families,” the department said.

However, the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee claim the new rules could put schools at risk of losing federal education funding, including access to free and reduced lunch programs and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) grants if they fail to abide by them.

The new rules would also require K-12 schools, colleges, and universities to “allow males identifying as females access to women’s sports, bathrooms and locker rooms,” they said.

“Under this radical and illegal attempt to rewrite the statute, if a man enters a woman’s locker room and a woman complains that makes her uncomfortable, the woman will be subject to investigation and penalties for violating the man’s civil rights,” Mr. Skrmetti said.

“Federal bureaucrats have no power to rewrite laws passed by the people’s elected representatives, and I expect the courts will put a stop to this unconstitutional power grab.”

The attorneys general of Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, and Virginia have also joined the lawsuit with Tennessee and Kentucky.

It marks the latest lawsuit against the new Title IX changes after Republican attorneys general from nine states including Alabama and Louisiana filed similar legal challenges against the newly updated protections on Monday.

The Texas attorney general also has filed a lawsuit against the expanded rules, calling them “unlawful” and claiming they mandate schools comply with a “radical gender ideology.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/title-ix-rules-6-more-states-sue-biden-admin-over-radical-and-illegal-changes