Search This Blog

Saturday, March 15, 2025

Columbia prof marches for Gaza while you fund her pseudo-science race study

 American taxpayers are subsidizing a Columbia University professor who marched in pro-Hamas demonstrations on campus.

Neuropsychologist Jennifer J. Manly participated in a human blockade to prevent administrators from dismantling the unauthorized encampments last April.

In photos taken of the event, Manly is visible wearing an orange vest and standing with fellow Columbia professors as they marched for Gaza, in front of banners reading “Demilitarize education” and “Palestine is Everywhere”; others called for financial boycott of and divestment from Israel.

Neuropsychologist Jennifer J. Manly, a Columbia University professor, participated in a human blockade to prevent administrators from dismantling the unauthorized encampments last April.

According to the National Institutes of Health and other publicly accessible databases, Manly has been named in connection with over $100 million in grants over the past 20 years.

The video player is currently playing an ad.

Much of her research is based on the so-called “social determinants of health thesis,” which posits that racism, sexism and homophobia can cause brain disease in “Black and Latinx communities” — a thesis that critics have described as pseudo-science.

Manly’s appearance at a pro-Hamas rally, coupled with her activist academic research, raises serious questions about the medical establishment, which has directed large sums of taxpayer dollars to ideologues disguised as professors and to activism disguised as science.

And it gives further grist to officials in the Trump administration, who have argued that funding cuts are necessary to disrupt the pipeline of left-wing radicals.

In photos taken of the event, Manly (at left) is visible wearing an orange vest and standing with fellow Columbia professors as they marched for Gaza.James Keivom

Manly’s work routinely advances the idea that racism causes physical illness, such as Alzheimer’s disease. She claimed in an interview last year that “we shouldn’t blame people for their lifestyle choices in terms of their brain health.”

Rather, “systems of oppression” and “discriminatory beliefs” cause black people to suffer dementia at disproportionate rates.

“Any biological differences are driven by … racism,” Manly has said, later defining racism as “the pathway through which race is ‘biologized.’ ”

Her academic work reflects these views. One paper Manley co-authored blamed “historical patterns of segregation” for higher rates of dementia among blacks. Another paper blamed “structural sexism” for declining memory, with the effect found to be stronger among black women.

Manly’s work is lavishly funded by taxpayers. Most recently, the National Institutes of Health gave her and her team nearly $700,000 to produce work linking racism to brain disease.

As part of this grant, in January 2025, Manley and colleagues published an article implying that blacks living in states with “high lynching proportions” in the past experienced higher levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a factor associated with greater risk of dementia.

The authors claimed that “racism is associated with inflammation and dementia risk” because it “cumulatively taxes the body resulting in worsening biological and cognitive health.”

Another paper concluded that “racist U.S. policies” had an “influence on cognitive health over time and dementia risk later in life.”

Psychiatrist Kurt Miceli, a critic of wokeness in science and medical director of Do No Harm, says Manly’s research demonstrates why DEI should be struck from the medical field.

Miceli regards her linking of historical lynchings with black dementia rates as “political” as opposed to scientific. He goes on to explain that the marker Manly uses to track her hypothesis of racism-invoked stress — CRP — can rapidly change and is more influenced by health factors such as obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes and high blood pressure.

Manly’s activist-driven research wasted taxpayer money, he argues. “There’s so much else that could be done [instead of] sort of focusing on an argument that … leads to calls for possibly reparations.”

Despite her politicized research and history of defending pro-Hamas activism, Manly continues to help lead a multimillion-dollar government project funded by numerous agencies that tracks brain aging.

Manly’s appearance at the rally, coupled with her activist academic research, raises serious questions about the medical establishment, according to critics.James Keivom

She also currently maintains more than $20 million in active grants to support her research at the Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center and the Taub Institute at Columbia.

The Trump administration has shown its determination to slash the National Institutes of Health’s bloated budget. It would be wise to scrutinize the work of professors like Jennifer Manly, who seem to be pursuing ideological research rather than medical science, and terminate funding for projects that don’t meet traditional scholarly standards.

The only way to restore trust in America’s research institutions is to focus on real research — not pro-Hamas radicalism or dubious racialist scholarship.

Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of “America’s Cultural Revolution.” Hannah Grossman is an investigative reporter at the Manhattan Institute.

https://nypost.com/2025/03/14/opinion/columbia-professor-marches-for-gaza-while-funded-by-your-tax-dollars/

Wyden, Sanders blocked from attempt to pass stand-alone health package

 Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) were blocked Friday from passing a package of health policies, including changes to the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) industry that was left out of December’s government spending bill. 

Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, attempted to pass the bipartisan legislation by unanimous consent. It was blocked by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who made no comments on the Senate floor as to his reasons. 

The Hill has reached out to Scott’s office. 

“We have reached a bipartisan conclusion to go forward, in a modest way, but it would have some impact in improving health care in America, and my Republican colleague objects. That’s about it,” Sanders said on the Senate floor. “Well, I hope the American people are watching. “ 

Bipartisan health leaders in mid-December agreed on a sweeping health package that included PBM reforms, extensions of Medicare telehealth flexibilities, reauthorizations of legislation to prevent pandemics and address the opioid crisis, payments to community health centers, and a rollback of Medicare physician payment cuts.  

But the overall funding bill it was attached to was torpedoed by GOP lawmakers, Elon Musk and then-President-elect Trump, who complained it was too lengthy and comprehensive.  

Wyden said he tried to pass the bill as a stand-alone because it was too important to tie it to the appropriations process, where it has fallen victim to “an unrelated disagreement.”  

“Community pharmacists are counting on this legislation. Doctors who don’t want to see a pay cut are counting on this legislation. Seniors and working families who want better care at a lower cost are counting on this legislation,” Wyden said. “This legislation is overwhelmingly bipartisan, fully paid for, and targeted at two objectives every senator should support: improving health care for Americans and cracking down on middlemen who are taking advantage of the system.”

Republicans have floated using some provisions from the package — most likely the PBM changes — to pay for some cost of their reconciliation legislation to extend President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and other priorities. 

But Democrats do not want bipartisan issues included in a partisan reconciliation bill. They have said they would overwhelmingly approve a stand-alone bill with the same PBM changes and extension of other expiring health programs, if Republicans were willing to bring it up.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5196027-wyden-sanders-health-package-pbm-blocked/

Trump is right: The World Health Organization isn’t working

 One of the first actions of the new Trump administration was to withdraw from the World Health Organization. Many public health advocates quickly raised alarm bells, citing longstanding arguments about the importance of the agency and what the U.S. stood to lose by withdrawing its membership and money.  

It is unlikely that these advocates paused to consider that leaving the WHO is exactly the disruption needed after years of reform efforts that were long on talk but short on results. One of us knows this firsthand, having worked inside the WHO at the highest levels; the other has seen this as a private-sector innovator seeking to navigate its bureaucratic maze. 

The WHO was created in 1948 with the objectives of the “attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health” and to address the spread of infectious disease outbreaks across countries. U.S. leadership at the time and through the decades since has been critical to both the science of WHO and its finances.

The U.S. currently contributes just over $1 billion and is by far the largest national donor to the WHO budget. But the issue is not money, a mere .06 percent of the U.S. government budget. The issue is the organization.

The WHO at one point in its history was the world’s true north star for infectious diseases and the promotion of health. Sadly, the organization has deteriorated, in both management effectiveness and scientific expertise, making it less efficient and more chaotic.  

During COVID, when the world needed it most, the WHO failed at many levels. Delays in declaring COVID to be an airborne virus remain an astounding uncorrected error. Meanwhile, the central bureaucratic processes of WHO and COVAX (the Geneva-based coalition launched by the WHO to “coordinate” the COVID response across agencies) often impeded rather than supported an effective response at regional and country levels.  

Even those who acknowledge its limits often state that the WHO needs U.S. support because it performs key functions in medicines and vaccines that advance American private-sector interests in health. Or they say that, absent U.S. funding, the WHO will be dominated by America’s enemies, with any chance for reform doomed as long as the U.S. remains on the outside looking in.

In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. None of WHO’s functions determine the success or failure of the American private sector. Slow processes and heavy bureaucracy in working with the private sector through WHO’s Framework for Engagement with Non-State Actors means that the agency is often a roadblock to advancing lifesaving American health products. And when it comes to America’s putative enemies, concerns about China and other adversaries have been present during years of U.S. full funding.  

WHO reform has been a theme for the last two decades for the U.S. Yet, despite recent assertions last month by WHO leadership that the organization has “reformed totally,” it continues to have serious human resources issues, and even its own reform efforts (from strengthening country offices to addressing harassment after the U.N.s largest sexual abuse scandal) remain continuing problems. 

The U.S. government does get value out of its relationship with WHO. Nonetheless, it is at far too great a price and for far too little return, at far too slow a pace. Yes, having a void in global health over time will hurt American interests, but continuing business as usual will hurt America and the world far more in the years ahead.

For those committed to serving the mission of global health, engagement rather than hand-wringing is the best strategy. What does this look like?  

First, ensure that the withdrawal announcement from WHO results in changes. The disengagement should not be binary — either fully engaged or nothing. Making this announcement matter means launching negotiations for a retooling of the global health architecture.

Important funding meetings are happening this year, not just for the WHO but for all major “global health initiatives,” including the Global Fund, which provides funding and leadership in the fight against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria and was created largely with American leadership. Leveraging the withdrawal notice period — however long it eventually is — to negotiate targeted roles for other institutions in the wake of pulling back from WHO is smart for America. 

Second, look for immediate and better solutions to prepare the U.S. for the next pandemic. Past experience with COVID-19, Ebola and mPox have taught us that relying on public organizations with time-limited funding is always going to be a losing battle. Investments and lessons learned from Operation Warp Speed have laid the foundation for smarter approaches to pandemic response, whereby private organizations can step up to sustainably serve both non-emergency global health needs and outbreak roles, with customers as the primary funding mechanism.  

Finally, work with other countries to remake a global health organization that is fit for purpose. The argument has always been that if you tore WHO down and started over, it would end up looking like it does today. This is not true. An organization that has strong regional offices, with an efficient, small central leadership and a focused mandate, would address both budget and mismanagement issues and set the organization up for succeeding at a narrower set of achievable, measurable, targeted goals. 

Clearly, the abrupt halt to U.S. involvement in WHO has caused considerable immediate uncertainty for both global health programs and the many millions of patients around the world who benefit from U.S. financial, medicinal and scientific support. But it can also signal a new opportunity to fix at last what is broken and failing in global health. 

Edward Kelley is the former director of service delivery and safety at the World Health Organization and head of Global Heath for Apiject Systems, an injection technology company. Jay Walker is chairman of Apiject and founder of over 60 companies, including priceline.com, and the tenth most patented living inventor. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/5194855-us-withdrawal-world-health-organization/

We don’t need the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — we have courts

 President Trump is in the process of all but shutting down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He has even dropped several cases filed by the CFPB under former President Joe Biden’s watch. The agency aims to protect consumers from fraudulent practices in the financial industry.

Many are asking: If the CFPB goes out of business, who will be there to help consumers? The answer is one million lawyers. CFPB has been around for less than 15 years. Consumers were not helpless before then. We do not need more government agencies to police the marketplace — we have the plaintiffs’ bar.

I realize plaintiffs’ attorneys gets a bad rap in many circles. But the truth is, we need someone to police the marketplace. Private lawyers are a much better option than yet another government agency.

Take a look at one of the headline cases that Trump dropped: an action against Capital One for allegedly engaging in billions of dollars of tricky practices with its high-yield savings accounts.

The CFPB filed its case only days before Trump took office. But the private bar sued Capital One for the same thing almost two years ago. Seven different class actions against it are currently consolidated in a federal court in Virginia. The CFPB’s lawsuit was just a me-too lawsuit. Capital One is not off the hook without it.

Indeed, consumers are in better hands now. The data show that when private lawyers and the government pursue the same wrongdoers, the private bar gets more. This is about simple incentives: plaintiffs’ lawyers work on contingency and only get paid if they win. Government bureaucrats get paid no matter what they do.

Private lawyers also do not get captured by politics and special interests the way the government does. Yes, most plaintiffs’ lawyers are Democrats, but the profit motive keeps them pure. They will sue whoever is liable. They don’t look the other way because of campaign contributions or the revolving door between industry and government. These are the exact same reasons the private sector tends to do a better job at most things than the public sector does.

Far from a shortcoming, relying on the private bar to police the marketplace is one of the secrets to our success in America. In Europe and other advanced economies, you have to get permission from the government before you do things. In America, we mostly let you do what you want to do, then sue you later if you mess up. We ask for forgiveness, not permission. Our approach has led to a more nimble, innovative, and, ultimately, wealthier economy.

It is true that private lawyers sometimes go too far. Nothing is perfect and there are ways to tighten up our system. It is also true that private lawyers can’t do everything. If the remedy needed is not pecuniary, or the pecuniary remedy is small and can’t be bundled into something like a class action, it will be hard to find a private lawyer to represent you. Maybe we need the government to step in some such cases.

But the good news is we already have plenty of government — 50 state attorneys general, ready, willing, and able to go after these bad guys. We don’t need a CFPB in addition to that.

Brian Fitzpatrick is the Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise and Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School. He is the author of “The Conservative Case for Class Actions” (University of Chicago Press, 2019). He was a law clerk to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and a special counsel to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

https://thehill.com/opinion/5195681-trump-drops-cfpb-cases/

Illegals Working for Congress?

 


In a sympathetic article titled “AOC Campaign Aide Self-Deports to Colombia,” interviewed Diego De La Vega, a thirty-one-year-old illegal alien (with an illegal alien wife). He complains that he spent twenty-three years “in the shadows” but, notably, felt emboldened enough to accept an invitation to see President Trump deliver the 2018 SOTU (State of the Union) as a guest of (now former) Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). The article even features a nice picture of him in the gallery.

The article tells us he’d been here in America since the age of seven when his parents let him overstay his visa. That was, as a minor, obviously not his choice. However, every day since he was eighteen he made a choice to remain illegally, until Obama’s DACA, which conferred quasi-“legal” status upon him. His wife, however, did not avail herself of the DACA program (for reasons unstated in the article). Though he and his wife have now left the country, there are lingering questions about the propriety, if not the legality, of his job for a sitting congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

It was his work for the non-profit Make the Road NY which got the congresswoman’s attention. Make the Road NY is devoted to aiding and abetting illegal immigration, and De la Vega was very, very good at his job. He says matter-of-factly and with a sense of absolute entitlement, that he “became politically active (and) he helped secure a $2.1 billion fund (yes, billion with a “b”) that provided $15,000 relief checks to undocumented workers excluded from federal pandemic aid.”

That’s some serious scratch.

Pandemic relief checks to Americans were quite literally a fraction of that. Yes, it appears to have come from New York State’s budget, but we all know how this works: states fund illegals then go straight to the federal government for reimbursement, so any reasonable person from the other forty-nine states could easily conclude it wasn’t New York’s largesse; it was ours… our money.

(And amazingly, the second they ran out of it, they went right back to the State to ask for three billion more! Given that Make the Road NY spends fully half of its roughly thirty million dollar a year budget on salary for it’s own staff, brazen is the order of the day for these “do-gooders.”)

The article goes on to say that “his work did not go unnoticed. Within a year, he was hired by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s reelection campaign…”

Oh, I’m sure she “noticed.” Two billion dollars has a way of attracting attention.

But back to the question at hand: what, pray tell, is an illegal doing working for a sitting congressperson?

“‘Diego is amazing,’ said AOC on Wednesday in a brief hallway interview, adding: ‘We love him.’ However, De La Vega's aspirations to work on Capitol Hill were stymied by House rules barring DACA recipients from serving as aides in Congress.”

Note that the article states De La Vega was hired for AOC’s reelection campaign. She was a sitting congressperson at the time of his hiring. So… DACA-recipients are prohibited from working for congresspeople on Capitol Hill, but not from working for a sitting congressperson as long as it’s outside the Capitol Complex? Okay… 

“Deputy communications director” was De La Vega’s official job title for AOC’s reelection campaign for which he reportedly made $80,000/yr -- which means he had to have given his legal ID to her payroll administrator to get his salary. From what this writer has been able to ascertain, DACA-conferred identification (driver’s licenses, passports) are indistinguishable from those given to native-born Americans so it appears to be somewhat of an honor system. No one would know he wasn’t native born unless he told them. We don’t know the backstory as to why he never went to work for her on the Hill. One presumes it’s because it was just too flagrantly illegal, not that that stops most of these cretins but at least here, it appears to be the case.

Still, the potential for illegality just rolls like a river here. Quite apart from the troubling matter of him (likely) still having his DACA-conferred Social Security card (Obama was handing out Social Security cards like candy) and his (presumably) DACA-conferred American passport sitting in a sock drawer somewhere in Bogota (imagine the black market value of that down there), then there’s the matter of De la Vega harboring an illegal. He harbored one here (his wife) and AOC harbored him!

How is any of this in any way legal?

DACA was 100% done by fiat, and though its veneer is to confer “legal” status upon recipients, there is still no actual law behind it. A very good argument could -- and should -- be made that multiple laws were broken here.

Our elected leaders should be held to a higher standard, not lower. We don’t have teams of aides, assistants, lawyers, staff, etc. to advise us on our every move. These people do, and if they aid or abet illegal immigration then they should be made an example of. If they can lawfare thirty-four felonies on Trump out of nothingsurely we can make a righteous use of black letter law to hold those who ask for our trust to a trustworthy standard.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/03/illegals_working_for_congress.html

Dem violence and manhood

 


The Democrat/socialist/communist (D/s/c) Party is playing with fire and they’re too deranged and dimwitted to realize it burns everyone. Take the case of Vice President J.D. Vance and his three-year-old daughter: 

Graphic: X Screenshot

Certainly, Vance had Secret Service protection, so his daughter and he weren’t in obvious physical danger, and Vance, taking advantage of that relative safety, treated the “protestors” with the civility they denied him. But he’s absolutely right: they were s**t people. Did their parents not teach them one doesn’t terrorize little children? Were they raised by wolves, or the modern equivalent, terrorists? Or were they sufficiently intelligent to realize they were protected by the Secret Service and Vance’s position? Did they understand many a Normal American father would have done them real violence for threatening his daughter, and no jury, perhaps not even in a blue state, would have convicted him?

And what of violence directed at Tesla dealerships and privately owned Teslas? “Protestors” can’t easily get at Elon Musk, who has the best personal security money can buy, so they engage in economic terrorism. One idiot managed to set himself ablaze  and ran, flaming, away. There’s a metaphor in that somewhere. And there’s this:

One doesn’t see Normal Americans, the much-maligned MAGA right, doing that sort of thing. They understand the potential for violence is part of every man, but the mark of manhood is keeping it under voluntary control. Interestingly, it is often D/s/c women who are most cruel and violent. Perhaps they know their men are pajama boys and are making up the difference? Or perhaps it’s cultural as in this from Kipling:  

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,

And the women come out to cut up what remains, 

Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains 

An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

And consider this from Rick Wilson, whose bio tells us: 

Rick Wilson is a renowned political strategist, infamous ad-maker, writer, speaker, and political commentator. In December 2019 Rick co-founded the Lincoln Project, a political action committee whose goal is to hold accountable those who would violate their oaths to the Constitution and would place their loyalty to others before their loyalty to the American people and democracy.

Graphic: X Screenshot

Wilson means “our democracy,” a tyranny of the majority, and his thinly veiled language refers to Donald Trump and anyone supporting him.

And there is the intimidation, destruction of property and violence done on behalf of the Syrian Hamas agitator, Mahmoud Khalil. Khalil, representative of Hamas, terrorists that would gladly kill every American, has been an organizer behind violent antisemitic “direct action” at Columbia and elsewhere. He was recently taken into custody for deportation, a legitimate power of an American administration finally exercising it on behalf of America. Khalil is not an American citizen, and America is finally demanding, as the law allows, guests in our country show some manners. 

The “protests” on his behalf have become increasing strident and violent as in the occupation of Trump Tower which resulted—finally—in about 100 arrests. As usual with such matters, whether NYC prosecutors will bother to prosecute or judges will bother to convict is another matter. This, however, which not too long ago would have been though absurd, no longer is:

Graphic: X Screenshot

Perhaps the self-imagined elite “protestors” of our self-imagined elite universities are sufficiently smart to understand that sort of direct action would likely see them dead or imprisoned for life, but might they not simply resort to drive by murders of Jews until their demands are met, a course of action somewhat less likely to result in imprisonment or death? If they haven’t thought of that, rest assured people like Khalil are there to put the thought into their empty heads.

While Normal Americans understand that violence unleashed on a societal scale can’t be easily put back in the bottle, D/s/c don’t. Caught up in the adrenaline rush of “direct action,” they’re learning in the second Trump Administration there might be consequences. They might even be expelled from the universities whose classes they don’t bother to attend, so busy are they building a better world through trespassing, arson, destruction of property and intimidation of innocents.

They, and the D/s/c politicians who think they control them, believe political violence is like an amplifier potentiometer. It can be dialed up to 10, down to 6 and back to 0 at will and with no consequences. Normal Americans, people who simply want to be left alone to raise their families and go about their daily business—yes, they actually go to work and produce, or they’re fired—keep that potential for violence tightly under control. For them, there are no potentiometers. They’re at zero or “kill them all”--a second civil war.

The danger D/s/c “protestors” represent is just that real. With the current reemergence of the rule of law, the danger of civil war may be reduced, but those funding and inciting those “protests” never cease wanting one.

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/03/dem_violence_and_manhood.html

CNN wants you to know that Biden did not strand the astronauts Musk is rescuing

 


Now that Elon Musk is on Trump’s team and the latest two-minute hate (and vandalism) target, he must not be allowed to look heroic in the media. But the spectacle of his SpaceX stepping up to rescue the astronauts who have been left in orbit at the International Space Station for months longer than planned is awfully compelling and—face it—downright epic. It takes no imagination whatsoever to foresee how the media would play up a successful rescue if Musk had happened to be a loyal Democrat. 

The fact that Musk is doing what gigantic defense contractor Boeing was incapable of accomplishing—and the fact that his DOGE team is simultaneously uncovering unimaginable levels of waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending -- makes the mission even more toxic in the eyes of the media division of the Democrat party. The truth reinforces the notion that the business-as-usual in the federal government has amounted to a gigantic waste accomplishing much less than private companies can deliver at far lower cost.

But the most politically devastating aspect of the rescue for Democrats is that Musk says he offered to rescue the lost in space crew during the Biden presidency, but was refused, he believes, for political reasons, since he was already vocally and financially supporting the Trump presidential campaign:

Undoing the disaster that a feckless Democrat president, especially one who was incapable of the job but was nonetheless foisted on the electorate so that his hidden puppet masters could wield presidential authority via the autopen, makes the party look even worse than it already does. Thus, the narrative must be shaped into a more benign form. Just the kind of job CNN specializes in. Thus, we get:

NASA’s Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore — the two astronauts who launched on Boeing Starliner’s first crewed test flight and have been in low-Earth orbit since June — want to set the record straight: They aren’t stranded on the International Space Station, and they weren’t abandoned.

The duo made the remarks in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Thursday when asked about claims from President Donald Trump and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk that the astronauts were left high and dry by the prior administration.

“That’s been the rhetoric. That’s been the narrative from day one: stranded, abandoned, stuck — and I get it. We both get it,” Wilmore said. “But that is, again, not what our human spaceflight program is about. We don’t feel abandoned, we don’t feel stuck, we don’t feel stranded.”

Of course, they are not about to diss their employer and their colleagues who, right now, are working diligently on their rescue. They are talking about their own feelings, because the facts are inarguable. Biden and Boeing couldn’t rescue them, and even though a rescue mission was on offer from Musk, Biden refused it. If Biden had accomplished his plan to be re-elected, how would they have been rescued?

I’d call that stranded. 

This attempt to diminish the rescue is as pathetic as CNN’s ratings. The SpaceX drama underway has every element of a heroic saga, the stuff of Greek mythology but with a high-tech gloss. This is an epic story.

Please pray for the success of the mission, especially because we know that there are sick, twisted people who desperately want it to fail, so as to be able to demonize Musk and Trump—the same kind of people who vandalize Tesla cars, showrooms, and charging stations, after years of insisting that electric cars were going to save the planet. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/03/cnn_wants_you_to_know_that_biden_did_not_strand_the_astronauts_musk_is_rescuing.html