Kylie @FandomHisna

"Do women need men?" 🔊 ... 🤣

🚨 BREAKING 🚨 GRAYSCALE HAS TRANSFERRED 9000 BTC TO COINBASE.

Harvard president’s corrections do not address her clearest instances of plagiarism, including as a student in the 1990s | CNN Business cnn.com/2023/12/20/bus…

The period from around the mid 1990s through to the mid 2020s will be remembered as yet another mania in human history where ideology caused major institutions to hire staff and select students on the basis of racism instead of merit. DEI is dying and I'm here for it.

Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ @christopherrufo

3 years ago

This is incredible: In her dissertation, Claudine Gay plagiarized the language of her acknowledgment from the acknowledgment of another scholar, without citing the source. She couldn't even say "thank you" without plagiarizing the language.

694 3K 14K 4.1M 636

Finally, the @Harvard faculty are speaking up. Tenure was supposed to protect faculty so they could speak the truth. Unfortunately, cancelling, shaming, and the inevitable accusation of being a racist have prevented faculty from speaking the truth. Kudos to Harvard Law Professor Mark Ramseyer for his bravery. Perhaps he will inspire others.

Carole Hooven @hoovlet

3 years ago

Eloquent and heartbreaking. From Harvard Law Professor Mark Ramseyer's email to a Harvard list (with permission). I came for my PhD in '99, he came as a prof in '98. We were each publicly attacked for our views in '21. "Harvard is a vastly less tolerant place than it was when I

565 3K 16K 4.6M 1K

Cop gives a man a fair fight on the street

Starship Super Heavy Booster to the launch pad

I don’t always with @VivekGRamaswamy, but he is spot on here. Worth a couple of minutes of your time.

James Jinnette @james_jinnette1

3 years ago

At the #CNNTownhall last night, @VivekGRamaswamy gave the perfect answer when asked about his strategy to promote DEI in the public and private sectors “Let it (diversity) not be the goal, but a byproduct of actually selecting the best person for the job”

323 2K 9K 3.5M 919

What kind of society simply tolerates this behavior?

I prefer to live in a country where Christian men tear down statues of Satan instead of tolerating true evil

ATTENTION TO ALL PARENTS WHO NEED TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT SANTA 🎅 Son: "Dad, I think I'm old enough now. Is there a Santa Claus?." Dad: "Ok, I agree that your old enough. But before I tell you, I have a question for you. You see, the “truth” is a dangerous gift. Once you know something, you can't unknow it. Once you know the truth about Santa Claus, you will never again understand and relate to him as you do now. So my question is: Are you sure you want to know?" Brief pause... Son: "Yes, I want to know" Dad: "Ok, I'll tell you: Yes there is a Santa Claus" Son: "Really?" Dad: Yes, really, but he's not an old man with a beard in a red suit. That's just what we tell kids. You see, kids are too young to understand the true nature of Santa Claus, so we explain it to them in a way that they can understand. The truth about Santa Claus is that he's not a person at all; he's an idea. Think of all those presents Santa gave you over the years. I actually bought those myself. I watched you open them. And did it bother me that you didn't thank me? Of course not! In fact it gave me great pleasure. You see, Santa Claus is THE IDEA OF GIVING FOR THE SAKE OF GIVING, without thought of thanks or acknowledgement. When I saw that woman collapse on the subway last week and called for help, I knew that she'd never know that it was me that summoned the ambulance. I was being Santa Claus when I did that." Son: "Oh." Dad: "So now that you know, you're part of it. You have to be Santa Claus too now. That means you can never tell a young kid the secret, and you have to help us select Santa presents for them, and most important, you have to look for opportunities to help people. Got it?" Help each other this Christmas🎄🎅 and...be kind ❤ From: LoneRangerTX santasurfing.locals.com/post/4946305/g…

Join us as we journey to the stars! Chinese scientists have detected a new fast radio burst (FRB) from elsewhere in the universe with the help of the world's largest radio telescope. Follow us!

THE SUPREME COURT HAS JUST GRANTED MY JAN 6 CASE TODAY!!! All of the Deep State Prosecutors that ruined HUNDREDS OF J6ers LIVES are on FULL MELTDOWN MODE!! The 1512 Obstruction of Congress Charge (20 year max felony that 327 January 6ers & Donald Trump have been POLITICALLY charged with will be argued by me & my legal team in SCOTUS very soon!! Stay tuned & see what God is going to do!! A day of DOUBLE rejoicing as well - Patrick Byrne (Overstock.com CEO) has just pledged $500,000 to the January 6 Legal Fund if we can get my GiveSendGo to $500,000 by Sunday night! Only $230,000 to go --> J6Legal.org Please donate!! --> J6Legal.org

An update on @MIT Chairman Gorenberg and his wife's non-profit, Parity.org. This evening an email was forwarded to me from a friend who is an MIT alum which was intended to clarify MIT's involvement in Parity.org. The forwarded email said the following: "I read the recent posting by Bill Ackman on “MIT’s” donations to parity.org as indicated by the MIT 990PF. The entirety of those donations were directed by Mark through the donor advised fund Mark created at MIT using his personal financial resources. Other than the noted donations, MIT does not have a financial relationship with Parity.org nor has MIT invested in it. giving.mit.edu/donor-advised-… I think the record should be set straight." I am writing this post to set the record straight with the benefit of this new information. I was incorrect in my original post that the source of the funding was the MIT Corporation. Rather, the funds that have been used to support Mr. Gorenberg's wife's non-profit, Parity.org, were not from MIT's endowment or its corporate resources. This was also confirmed in a Forbes article which appeared earlier today: forbes.com/sites/brianbus… in which the reporter writes: "MIT told Forbes the donation to Parity.Org came directly from Gorenberg through a donor advised fund." It turns out that in 2018, MIT formed its own donor advised fund, the MIT DAF. Mr. Gorenberg and his wife are named in the press release for the MIT DAF's launch: technologyreview.com/2018/08/22/140… Donor Advised Funds DAF are 501(c)(3) entities that allow donors to contribute cash and/or appreciated securities and obtain an immediate tax deduction. The funds are invested by the DAF and grow tax free until the donor elects to make a donation. The donor retains the right to advise the DAF as to where the ultimate donations are made, subject to some important caveats. From the IRS website: irs.gov/charities-non-…: "Generally, a donor advised fund is a separately identified fund or account that is maintained and operated by a section 501(c)(3) organization, which is called a sponsoring organization. Each account is composed of contributions made by individual donors. Once the donor makes the contribution, the organization has legal control over it. However, the donor, or the donor's representative, retains advisory privileges with respect to the distribution of funds and the investment of assets in the account." There are, however, important caveats according to the IRS irs.gov/charities-non-…: "The IRS is aware of a number of organizations that appeared to have abused the basic concepts underlying donor-advised funds. These organizations, promoted as donor-advised funds, appear to be established for the purpose of generating questionable charitable deductions, and providing impermissible economic benefits to donors and their families (including tax-sheltered investment income for the donors) and management fees for promoters." In this case, the Chairman of MIT made a donation to the MIT DAF, which in turn funneled the money to Parity.org, the Founder, CEO, and CFO of which is his wife, and where Gorenberg serves as treasurer. DAFs are only permitted to give to legitimate charities that don't afford a personal benefit to the individual or family of the individual who donated to the DAF. Parity.org received IRS approval to be a public charity, a community trust, in 2017. Had Mr. Gorenberg made his donation directly to Parity.org instead of via the MIT DAF, Parity.org would not have been able to sustain its status as a public charity because Mr. Gorenberg is Parity.org's only donor. Public charities are required to have diversified donor bases, i.e., they must raise at least one-third of their funding from the general public. Why is Parity.org's status as a public charity important to Mr. Gorenberg? The answer is that the amount of the deduction one can receive for a gift of cash to a public charity is double -- a 60% rather than a 30% deduction -- what you can deduct in a gift to a private foundation. You can also offset a substantially greater amount of your adjustable gross income when giving to a public charity, 50% of AGI, rather than 30% in a gift to a private foundation. DAFs are required to do careful due diligence on the charities they give to. They must make sure that the non-profit serves a legitimate charitable purpose, and that no personal benefit is being received by the donor to the DAF who directed the donation to the non-profit. According to the MIT DAF website, the donor recommended grants "will be reviewed by the MIT Distribution Committee." I could not find any information about the Distribution Committee or its membership on MIT's website. It does not appear that the MIT Distribution Committee did proper due diligence on Parity.org, and/or received adequate disclosure. Alternatively, the MIT DAF made special exceptions for Chairman Gorenberg in donating to Parity.org. As I explained in yesterday evening's post, Parity.org has only one full-time employee, Mr. Gorenberg's wife; it has never raised funds from anyone other than DAFs affiliated with Mr. Gorenberg; and it has never generated any revenues from its various DEI products and services. As importantly, it is not clear what charitable purpose Parity.org serves. The IRS is particularly concerned about the abuse of DAFs, and therefore imposes severe penalties for abusive transactions: "Examinations of these arrangements may result in the following Service actions in appropriate cases: disallow deductions for charitable contributions under Internal Revenue Code section 170 for payments to the fund; impose section 4966 excise taxes on sponsoring organizations and managers of donor-advised funds; impose section 4958 excise taxes on donors or managers of donor advised funds; and/or (d) deny or revoke the charity's 501(c)(3) exemption." In other words, if the IRS found that the MIT DAF improperly donated to Parity.org: (1) the MIT DAF could lose its tax exemption, (2) the DAF and the MIT Corporation, as sponsor and manager of the DAF, could become subject to excise taxes, and (3) the deductions Mr. Gorenberg took in connection with the donations to the MIT DAF could be disallowed, and he could incur severe excise tax penalties. As a general matter, the tax rules do not allow you to do indirectly what you are not permitted to do directly, and that is what appears to have happened here. As MIT told Forbes: "the donation to Parity.Org came directly from Gorenberg through a donor advised fund." [Emphasis added.] Even MIT's understanding which it shared with Forbes is consistent with the facts which emerged upon my examination of these transactions. The MIT DAF was used as a conduit for Chairman Gorenberg to make a donation to his wife's charity that he could not have made directly. This enabled him to receive twice as large a tax deduction, 60% vs. 30%, and to shelter a greater percentage of his adjusted gross income, up to 50% of AGI versus 30%. So the facts are not exactly as I understood them when I learned of them yesterday, but the substance is just as bad. MIT's reputation and the tax status of the MIT DAF have been put at serious risk by its Chairman who received a inappropriate personal benefit by using the DAF to achieve substantial tax benefits for himself. And the MIT DAF is at risk of losing its tax exempt status and incurring severe excise tax penalties as a result. Why would the MIT DAF make a donation to a questionable charity that was affiliated with its Chairman? The MIT DAF Distribution Committee was either very sloppy, and/or it received inadequate disclosure about Parity.org, or the Chairman used his apparent authority to cause the MIT DAF to consummate a transaction that would not have been approved in the ordinary course. The funds went to a non-profit which promotes DEI ideology, which I have come to learn is not in society's best interests. As a recent donor to MIT, and one, who up until very recently, was considering substantial additional donations to MIT (To that end, Ed Boyden of MIT's MediaLab made a very impressive presentation on neuroscience at our @PershingSqFdn board meeting just this week), I find all of the above very disturbing.

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 SEC Chair Gary Gensler says they are taking a new look at Spot #Bitcoin ETF's based upon court rulings.

In the name of diversity, we’ve completely sacrificed true diversity of thought. In the name of inclusion, we’ve created an exclusionary culture where certain views just aren’t welcome.

After listening to Tucker for 2 hours last night on the X live, I am only more certain that he would make an excellent Vice President and frankly I hope he considers running for the top job someday too Not that there was much doubt, but this guy is the real deal

A voter tonight in Iowa asked about my Hindu faith. I answered honestly.

Optimus

I will giveaway all the profit I make from this bitcoin short to 10 people. Just like retweet and make sure you are following me: