The Cult of the National Health Service

How the tribalistic mentality around Britain’s healthcare has led to everyone worse off.


A month ago The Guardian ran a story exposing the fact that British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak received private healthcare. Sunak faced online backlash for resorting to the market instead of relying on the UK’s National Health Service (NHS).

To an outsider, it may seem ridiculous that the British public is so vexed over such a personal decision. It’s his money after all. What next? Is there going to be an inquiry on whether he prefers McDonalds or KFC?

However, this story was used by the British left to score political points about out of touch Sunak is with the British public because of his wealth. The National Health Service has developed a cult following in British politics and has even been dubbed as “the closest thing to a state religion.” This is why it is seen as politically scandalous that the prime minister does not depend on the NHS.

For example, Dr. John Puntis, co-chair of the campaign group Keep Our NHS Public said on the topic: “It should be no surprise that Rishi Sunak has private medical care arrangements; this will be the norm for many of the rich and powerful … those making decisions about vital public services are often least likely to use them, which of course reinforces their ideological animosity.”

While it is true that out of touch politicians shouldn’t decide on healthcare, Dr. Puntis and other NHS fanatics prescribe the wrong antidote. The issue is not that Rishi Sunak has a choice over his healthcare. The problem is that he has the power to limit other people’s choices on their healthcare.

In the UK, the National Health Service has a near monopoly on healthcare and the vast majority of the country rely on it. The standard excuse—that the NHS is performing badly because it is underfunded—does not hold up. The NHS has received a large increase in funding every year: by 2023 Britons will be spending £175 billion on the NHS which will be a 50% real term spending increase since 2009.

However, despite this increase in funding, the NHS is still failing those who are forced by the state to depend on it. Over 7 million people are on NHS waiting lists and over 30,000 patients have to wait over 12 hours in emergency rooms each month. A recent story by The Daily Mail reported that a 93-year-old woman was left lying on the floor for 25 hours after suffering a hip fracture. When the NHS is failing people so drastically, is it any wonder that those who can afford to choose to receive healthcare elsewhere?

If those in the cult of the NHS really care about providing quality service for those who need it, they should advocate for more choice in healthcare rather than force people to pay for a service that does not serve them. Even for the most vulnerable, what’s the point of the NHS being free at the point of use when the endless waiting lists mean that no one can use it?

The shaming of Rishi Sunak for using private healthcare is a fine example of how socialists want to make the rich suffer even if that results in the poor suffering as well. To quote the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher: “So long as the gap is smaller, they’d rather have the poor poorer.”

AUTHOR

Jess Gill

Jess Gill is a fellow with FEE’s Henry Hazlitt Project for Educational Journalism. A resident of Manchester in the United Kingdom, she is the host and director of Reasoned UK where she makes daily videos on British politics from a libertarian perspective. She is also the social media strategist of Ladies of Liberty Alliance (LOLA).  Follow her on TikTokTwitterInstagram, and Substack.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Only 4% of Students in South Bronx School Can Do Math

The highest taxes in the nation ….These leftists are killing us.

”Last year, only 4% of PS 333 students taking the state math tests passed, and 10% passed the state reading tests.”

And data shows that only 37.9% of all New York school students were proficient in math —

Principal Victoria Najera branded ‘cruel’ after posting test scores to embarrass low achievers

By Susan Edelman, The NY Post, January 7, 2023:

A South Bronx elementary principal who publicly posted student test scores in the school lobby to shame low-achievers into improving was “unprofessional and arguably cruel,” an investigation found.

Victoria Najera, principal of PS 333, the Longwood Academy of Discovery, also held an assembly to announce a trip to Cirque du Soleil for the highest-scoring kids – calling each winner by name.

Struggling students excluded from the trip were crushed. One boy sobbed so hard he gasped for breath and a girl scrawled on paper that she wanted to kill herself, teachers recalled.

Beyond “cruel,” Najera’s actions “may also have violated the Chancellor’s Regulations as well as other state and federal safeguards” against releasing students’ records, the Special Commissioner of Investigation for city schools concluded in a Jan. 18 report to Chancellor David Banks and released to The Post.

Special Commissioner Anastasia Coleman recommended that the DOE “take appropriate action” with Najera, who is still the school’s principal.

Najera explained to investigators that during the 2019-2020 school year, she started “goal setting” for all students, and displaying their “progression” throughout the year, the SCI reports. Najera said she intended to “motivate” and give students “incentives” to improve.

A staffer told SCI that Najera believed students “needed to be embarrassed” to do better.

Last year, only 4% of PS 333 students taking the state math tests passed, and 10% passed the state reading tests.

A Change.org petition titled Save our District 8 Public School has garnered 242 signatures so far.

“Najera uses intimidation and bullying to instill fear and create a hostile work environment for children, parents, and teachers,” it states.

Read more.

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Aides Find 2ND SECRET BATCH of Classified Documents—IN BIDEN’S GARAGE

UPDATE: Here Are the Names of 10 Other Democrats Getting Roped Up in Biden’s Classified File Scandal


Where Is The FBI Raid Of Joe Biden?

This is the very thing they accused President Trump of. Without evidence, without probable cause, weaponized FBI/DoJ raided his Trump’s home in some sort of fishing expedition and found nothing.

Two tiered justice.

It looks like the Democrat elite (who are really running the country) are throwing Biden away. They have other plans for 2024.

In the same week news broke that Joe Biden had taken classified government documents from his time as vice president in the Obama administration to a private Penn Biden Center office, another story Wednesday reported that those weren’t the only sensitive documents Biden took with him in an alleged violation of the Presidential Records Act (Townhall). NBC: Aides to President Joe Biden have discovered at least one additional batch of classified documents in a location separate from the Washington office he used after leaving the Obama administration, according to a person familiar with the matter. Biden told reporters Tuesday that he was “surprised” by the discovery, and that he didn’t know what was in the documents (NBC). Katie Pavlich: If Biden “doesn’t know” what’s in the documents, how does he know there wasn’t other classified information in his unsecured office (Twitter)?

Techno Fog writes:

Today, counsel to President Biden revealed that classified documents were found in Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware residence.

This is the second batch of classified materials that were taken by Biden in 2017 – the first being those found at the Penn-Biden Center. Here’s the relevant part of the statement of Richard Sauber, Special Counsel to President Biden (highlights are ours):

“Following the discovery of government documents at the Penn Biden Center in November 2022, and coordinating closely with the Department of Justice, the President’s lawyers have searched the President’s Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, residence – the other locations where files from his Vice-Presidential office might have been shipped in the course of the 2017 transition. The lawyers completed that review last night.

During the review, lawyers discovered among personal and political papers a small number of additional Obama-Biden records with classified markings. All but one of these documents were found in a storage space in the President’s Wilmington residence garage. One document consisting of one page was discovered among stored materials in an adjacent room. No documents were found in the Rehoboth Beach residence.”

This statement follows reporting that Attorney General Merrick Garland has assigned the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, John Lausch, Jr., “to review” these documents. The FBI is “also involved in the U.S. Attorney’s inquiry.” Lausch is a hold-over from the Trump Administration, one of the few U.S. attorneys not forced to resign during the transfer of power. In the past, he reportedly helped the DOJ speed up the processing of documents “in response to a House Judiciary Committee subpoena that related to the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.”

What should we make of these latest developments?

First, Biden’s attorneys are conducting these searches of Biden’s residences to show the DOJ that their cooperation is full and transparent. These are steps done to avoid the potential for any type of subpoena. Biden is convincing his own Justice Department that a search will not be necessary. Attorney General Garland will undoubtedly agree.

Second, there’s been some speculation that this is part of an effort to throw Biden under the bus. Not seeing it. There’s bigger issues where Biden is more vulnerable, namely corruption.

Third, to state the obvious – yes, there is a double standard. Yes, the Biden DOJ subjects Trump to standards that Biden himself can’t maintain. Yes, Biden’s homes won’t be raided. Yes, there won’t be inaccurate leaks from Biden DOJ about what Biden’s classified documents contained. In other words, yes, it will be business as usual.

Fourth, why release this information now? To get ahead of the story and control how it’s released. From the Administration’s perspective, better to disclose the discovery of classified documents on their own – with their own spin – rather than be subject to anonymous leaks they can’t control. Thus, they put out the written statement and give Biden something to read:

Biden aides discover second batch of classified docs at another location

Classified documents were also found at Biden’s private office located at the Penn Biden Center in November.

By Adam Sabes , David Spunt , Jake Gibson | Fox News

Biden aides find second batch of classified documents at separate location

Classified documents were also previously found at Biden’s private office located at the Penn Biden Center.

President Biden aides have found at least one more batch of classified documents located at a location other than the Penn Biden Center office in Washington, D.C., that he used in the years after he was vice president during the Obama administration, Fox News has confirmed.

A source told NBC News, which first reported the development, that aides to Biden have been searching for additional documents that contained classified material in other locations that may have been used by the president.

The development comes after a separate batch of classified documents were recovered from Biden’s private office located at the Penn Biden Center in November……

AUTHOR

RELATED TWEETS:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Random Caller Tells Radio Host He Once Personally Covered Up A ‘Mortifying’ Biden Security Breach

Lawyers find additional classified documents in Biden’s Wilmington garage

Doocy Asks Jean-Pierre How Biden Could Be ‘That Irresponsible’ With Classified Documents

Here Are the Names of 10 Other Democrats Getting Roped Up in Biden’s Classified File Scandal

U.S. Attorney Reviewing Classified Documents from Biden Vice Presidency, Same ‘Crime’ That Launched Trump Mar-a-Lago Raid

Here’s What Classified Documents Discovered In President Biden’s Private Office Covered

BREAKING: House Intelligence Leader Makes Huge Move In Response To Biden Document Scandal

Election Interference: Biden Covered Up His Classified Documents Scandal Until After Midterms

Joe Biden’s Classified Documents Alibi Changes from Not Knowing to Securely ‘Locked’ in Residence

White House: Biden ‘Inadvertently Misplaced’ Classified Documents in Three Different Locations, ‘Surprised They Were Found’

White House: Classified documents found at Biden’s home in Wilmington, Delaware

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Muslim Brotherhood Blasphemy Cops on a Minnesota Campus

A Latina art teacher, a Shiite painting of Mohammed, and tolerance theocracy.


The decision by Hamline University to purge a minority art teacher for showing a Shiite painting of Mohammed has traveled from the outskirts of a few blogs, and a student paper of the small private college in St. Paul, to art sites, a PEN condemnation and finally the New York Times.

Erika Lopez Prater, an adjunct at Hamline, showed a Persian painting of Mohammed to her class. Aram Wedatalla, a president of the Muslim Student Association, objected. The MSA rallied to denounce her, along with its advisor, Nur Mood: the college’s Assistant Director of Social Justice Programs. The Latina professor was dumped and condemned as an Islamophobe. Jaylani Hussein, CAIR-Minnesota’s director came in to hold a session on Islamophobia. The MSA and CAIR have both been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

When a religion professor pointed out that Muslims have different views on paintings of Mohammed, Hussein described such Muslims as “extremists” and argued that,  “You can teach a whole class about why Hitler was good.”

The New York Times then describes how “Ms. Baker, the department head, and Dr. Everett, the administrator, separately walked up to the religion professor, put their hands on his shoulders and said this was not the time to raise these concerns”.

After years of ridiculing warnings that an alliance with Islamists would require them to enforce sharia law, liberals did just that at Hamline University. And this time their targets weren’t white men, but a minority woman and Shiite Muslim paintings.

Minnesota liberals have embraced diversity. And sometimes diversity requires purging a Latina academic trying to teach students about Islamic art because she used works from the Shiite side of the spectrum, rather than the Sunni one that the Muslim Brotherhood belongs to.

One of the paintings comes from Rashid al-Dīn: a Jewish man who converted to Shiite Islam. His motives like those of the vast majority of converts was to avoid persecution and get ahead. The painting, like most Islamic pictoral art, is objectively terrible and could be improved on by a moderately talented six-year-old. The only reason Islamic art is ever taught is for diversity.

Islam was quickly tossed into everything after September 11 as a show of tolerance. Muslims, formerly obscure, became ground zero for diversity. A market for Islamic art heated up. Despite hard strictures against religion in the workplace, corporations and government offices felt the need to virtue signal with a show of support for Muslims. That meant posters with women wearing hijab and a lot of Koranic calligraphy in places that would never display a Bible.

Many Muslims were not happy to see Islamic scriptures displayed in ‘filthy’ places. Muslim groups had previously accused everything from a Nike sneaker to an ice cream swirl, and any set of curves, of blasphemously containing Allah’s name. They were enraged to see it being offered up for tattoos or hanging in the bathroom of a urologist’s office.

Islamists were never interested in “diversity”. What they wanted was for everyone to respect Islamic laws. In the name of tolerance, liberals became theocrats and Islamists used the grammar of diversity to eliminate any diversity. Confronted with objections, Hamline’s Islamists resorted to equating Shiite pictures of Mohammed with Hitler or the ‘N-word’.

Liberals, who accepted the premise that tolerance requires theocracy, are unable to navigate the issue. The New York Times interviewed a Persian Shiite professor at Duke who explained that he loves and shows pictures of Mohammed all the time. Yet the entire article never uses the terms, “Sunni” or “Shiite” or suggests that there are sectarian differences at work.. After having taken it on themselves to impose Islamic theocracy, they are reluctant to adjudicate it.

And yet, unlike Mohammed cartoons, what happened at Hamline University shows that the intersectional enforcement of Islamic theocracy alongside Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ and Planned Parenthood requires more than just banning criticism of Mohammed, but even suppressing other Islamic doctrines in favor of the supremacy of Sunni Islamists.

Anything else is a hate crime.

Hamline University’s social justice administration purged a Latina art teacher because she dared to show works from the Shiite canon which offended Sunnis linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Liberals found it very easy to support Islamic supremacism when it was a matter of banning conservative protesters from burning the Koran or mentioning that Mohammed was a child molester. But that was just the camel’s nose creeping into the tent. The rest of the camel requires that America be reordered thoroughly in line with Islamic law in every possible detail.

While liberals see a distinction between a defaced Koran, a Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Mohammed and a Shiite painting of Mohammed, to the Muslim Brotherhood there is no difference. And the Democrat political establishment and the leftist cultural affiliates that surrendered to the Brotherhood’s front groups have to decide where to draw the line.

Islam has been in a state of perpetual civil war for most of its existence. Muslim civil wars have killed far more people in the last decade than all our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And we’ve imported that civil war into America.

That’s not just idle talk or conspiracy theories. The worst series of Muslim murders in America were carried out by an Afghan Sunni targeting Afghan Shiites in Albuquerque. Importing Islam doesn’t just mean machete attacks in Times Square, it also meant three teens who were arrested in November for plotting to kill everyone in a Shiite mosque in Chicago.

The leftists who got into bed with Sunni Islamists thought that all they had to do was make Americans defer to Islamic theocracy, but getting schoolchildren to visit mosques or convincing our leaders to ban criticism of Islam was the easy part. The hard part is doing what the Muslims themselves were never able to do for any real length of time: maintain a unified theocracy.

Hamline University had a lot more Sunnis than Shiites. Its Islamic student organization is the MSA. And the leadership found it expedient to accept Sunni Islamic theocracy and denounce Shiite depictions of Mohammed. Nationally, liberals are less comfortable with that bargain. PEN has denounced Hamline and the New York Times awkwardly suggests it’s a complex issue.

It’s complex, but not in a way that the media or their party are willing to discuss or accept.

Islamists repeatedly tell us that there is “only one Islam”. What they really mean is that there’s only one Islam that they will accept. Sunnis, with their superior numbers and Muslim Brotherhood organizations financed by oil money, dominate. And it is now our job to help them enforce that “one Islam” in America. Sharia means that we are their religious police.

Intersectionality has outsourced the enforcement of Islamic theocracy to social justice groups, campus administrators, corporations, government offices and all the woke institutions.

Wokeness is sharia. That is the awkward reality playing out at Hamline which brought in its first black president, who denounced academic freedom for permitting the display of Mohammed art, where Islamists were appointed to administer social justice, and now faces a liberal backlash.

But the backlash carefully avoids the central issues, especially the conflation of theocracy with tolerance, which is at the heart of the post 9/11 dirty deal that liberals made with Islamists.

Until they’re ready to rethink that deal, they’ll have to enforce Islamic law in America.

AUTHOR

RELATED VIDEO: This Week In Jihad with David Wood and Robert Spencer

RELATED ARTICLES:

Times Square Jihad Terrorist Recited Qur’an Verses to Prep for Attack

Hamas-linked CAIR gets allegedly racist boot removed from sale at Walmart

US Navy intercepts fishing boat smuggling over 2,000 AK-47 rifles from Iran to Shi’ite jihadis in Yemen

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Two Of The Abortion Industry’s Biggest Myths Exposed

Much of what you think you know about who has abortions is wrong.


Apart from some radical outliers, most folks with pro-choice views regard abortion as a necessary evil. Apart from moral considerations, it’s evil because for the mother it’s gut-wrenching, risky and stigmatized. But it’s necessary because there are so many of these women.

It’s a curious fact, but despite the intensity of the debate over abortion in the United States, not much is known about women who have abortions. Public policy is shaped by assumptions supported by many poignant anecdotes, but not by much rigorous data.

For instance, last year the New York Times asked “who gets abortions in America?” That’s a big question for a country of 330 million, but two of its answers stand out.

First, America’s newspaper of record states that: “Six in 10 women who have abortions are already mothers, and half of them have two or more children”.

Second, “25 percent of women will have an abortion by the end of their childbearing years”.

This is a fair summary of the conventional wisdom. Most women who have abortions are mothers and a huge proportion of women will have an abortion at some point in their lives. Since the numbers are so huge and the procedure is so common, abortion is clearly a necessary evil.

Questioning the narrative

But what if the conventional wisdom is not true?

In 2021 several scholars, mostly associated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life think tank, studied Medicaid data on women who had abortions between 1999 and 2014. Their analysis, with the formidable title of “Estimating the Period Prevalence of Mothers Who Have Abortions: A Population Based Study of Inclusive Pregnancy Outcomes”, was published in the journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology.

They examined numbers representing 15 years of the reproductive histories of 4,884,101 women with 7,799,784 “pregnancy outcomes” — meaning births, abortions, miscarriages, and “unknown”.

What they found differed radically from the media consensus. Why? One reason is that they relied on Medicaid data. Most statistics cited in the media are based on surveys of women’s intentions or memories, rather than what actually happened. But the Medicaid data represents real confirmed events. “No survey data comes close in terms of face validity or granularity,” the lead author of the Charlotte Lozier Institute study, James Studnicki, told MercatorNet in an email.

So, are most abortion patients really mothers, as the New York Times says? The media frequently makes claims like “the typical abortion patient is a mother.” But this is not what the Medicaid data showed. Here are the marquee results:

  • Women who had live births but no abortions represented 74.2% of the study population and accounted for 87.6% of total births. In other words, three-quarters of women who become pregnant never have an abortion.
  • Only 5.7% of the study population had both births and abortions; these women have 7.2% of total births. This shoots down the notion that “the typical abortion patient is a mother.”
  • Women who have only abortions but no births constitute 6.6% of the study population, but they are 53.5% of women with abortions and have 51.5% of all abortions.

Let that sink in.

This is an astounding figure. If it is correct, there are women who have abortion after abortion after abortion. Some must be having as many as 10 or a dozen. Even a diehard supporter of abortion must surely concede that a dozen abortions could be damaging to a woman’s mental and even physical health.

Are these women being abused by boyfriends or pimps? Are they suffering from mental health disorders? Why aren’t abortion rights activists campaigning to rescue these women? They are not an insignificant statistical sliver. If the Medicaid data is right, they accounted for half of America’s abortions.

Public policy on abortion in the United States may be seriously misguided. When it is government funded, only small percentage of women “benefit”. But some of those have so many abortions that that they clearly need social or psychological help, not the phone number of a Planned Parenthood clinic.

Normalizing abortion

What about the normalization of abortion – the often-cited figure that one woman in four will eventually have one? This is a meme which is based on a 2017 study published in the American Journal of Public Health. It was written by researchers from the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights think tank, and based on data from the period between 2008 and 2014. Their surveys found that “nearly one in four women in the United States (23.7%) will have an abortion by age 45.”

That’s not what the Medicaid data showed.

After crunching the data, it appeared that only 12.3% of women have ever had an abortion, including both those with and without children. The authors admit that the two figures are not directly comparable, but they point out that “this number is half the estimate of the often-reported lifetime abortion incidence (24%), also derived from projections based on survey data.”

Yes, the Medicaid database has limitations. The authors acknowledge this. Amongst them is the fact that it tends to capture the experience of low-income women. Higher-income women who pay out of pocket are invisible.

But this also means that abortion is not as “necessary” for low-income women as abortion activists would have us think. Three-quarters of them are unlikely ever to have an abortion. In fact, the authors say flatly that “abortion among low-income women with children is exceedingly uncommon, if not rare.”

The picture painted by the media – that abortion ought to be legal, safe and accessible – normalizes this choice. It happens to everyone; it’s part of life; mothers need them to take better care of the kids they already have.

But it’s false.

This study ought to ring alarm bells across America. If it is true, much of what Americans have believed about women’s need for abortion crumbles.

Most recent developments

Unfortunately, recent moves by the US Food and Drug Administration to make medication abortion, the so-called abortion pill, available in pharmacies will change the abortion landscape in unpredictable ways. Even though mifepristone and misoprostol are potent drugs, it will become harder to track their use if they are dispensed through tele-medicine.

Chemical abortion is an “existential threat to abortion science”, Dr Studnicki told MercatorNet. It currently accounts for more than half of all abortions in the United States. “Unless we develop a national registry of pregnancy outcomes which can be linked to other datasets (health services, death registration, etc), soon we will literally have no idea how many induced abortions are occurring nor will we be able to track their adverse outcomes.”

“At that point,” he warns, “the abortion industry will be able to create its own narrative, unchallenged by objective, data-driven science.”

AUTHOR

Michael Cook

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet. He lives in Sydney, Australia. More by Michael Cook

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Peace—A Dictatorial And Deceptive Word

By its reticence to engage in a decisive offensive against its despotic adversaries, Israel is continually backing away from conflicts that it can win, while risking backing itself into a conflict that it cannot.


If you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. —Winston S. Churchill, in “The Gathering Storm“.

…the proposition that democracies are generally at peace with each other is [so] strongly supported… [it] has led some scholars to claim that this finding is probably the closest thing that we have to a law in international politics—Profs. Zeev Maoz & Bruce Russett, in International Interactions, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1992,  pp. 245-6.

Events of the last year—such as the hastily concocted agreement by the recently ousted Lapid government (read “arrangement”) with Lebanon over the maritime boundary with Israel, allegedly to avert war; and the injudicious attempt to resurrect the two-state formula as a means of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—have once again stoked the discussion over the fabric of the relationship between the Jewish state and its still-belligerent Arab antagonists.

Antithetical types of “peace

Inevitably, this focuses attention on the notion of “peace”, its feasibility, its durability, and its elemental components.

To adequately contend with this question, it is crucial to realize that the word “peace” is one that is decidedly both dictatorial and deceptive.

It is “dictatorial” because, just as one cannot declare opposition to a dictator, one cannot oppose peace—certainly not if one wishes access to “polite company“. Indeed, much like a dictator, “peace” commands support from all

However, “peace” is also a “deceptive” word, because the same five letters can be used to describe two completely different—indeed, antithetical—political configurations.

On the one hand, peace can mean “mutual harmony” between parties; on the other, it can mean the “absence of violence maintained by deterrence”.

Vastly different sets of conditions make for the feasibility of these distinctly different kinds of peace.

In a political system comprised of democratically governed states–-such as in Western Europe or North America—with open borders, free exchange of ideas, and largely unhindered movement of people, mutual harmony is a feasible kind of peace.

However, in a political system comprised mainly of dictatorial regimes—as in the Arab and much of the wider Muslim world—such unregulated flows of ideas, funds, and people are clearly not the case—and are largely incompatible with the unchallenged rule of the incumbent dictator.

Deterrence vs harmony

Now in conditions of “mutual harmony”, peace (i.e. the absence of violence) is the natural equilibrium state of affairs, and when disputes arise, there will be a strong tendency for the system to revert to its former non-violent stability.

However, in the alternative case, where non-violence is sustained only by adequate deterrence, this is not true. Indeed, if deterrence wanes, violence between the parties will result. There will be no tendency to restore stability and the system will descend into belligerent conflict.

Clearly then, for peace-making/maintenance to be successful, it is imperative to correctly diagnose what political realities prevail. After all, if the conditions are those, in which only a “peace of deterrence” is feasible, adopting a peace-making/peace-maintaining policy, designed to attain a “peace of mutual harmony”, will not succeed.

Quite the opposite! It will make war more probable —by one side making conciliatory gestures that are likely to undermine its perceived deterrence.

This duality in the typology of “peace” is reflected in a related divergence in the structure of conflictual situations. Accordingly, there exist two archetypal and antithetical contexts of conflict: In the first, a policy of compromise and concession may well be appropriate in advancing a resolution; while in the second, such a course would be disastrously inappropriate.

Sign of goodwill…or weakness

So, on the one hand, a protagonist in a conflict may make an initial concession and the opposing protagonist may understand that this concession was made as a sign of goodwill—and therefore feels obliged to make a reciprocal concession.

Thus, via a process of concessions and counter-concessions, matters converge into some kind of consensual resolution.

However, there is another, equally feasible, situation, in which a protagonist is tempted into making an initial concession, but the opposing side sees this not as a sign of goodwill, but as a sign of weakness. Therefore, rather than inducing a process of reciprocal concessions, the initial concession induces demands for further and more far-reaching concessions. So, instead of converging toward some consensual resolution, the interaction diverges into a coercive or violent response.

Clearly, even the most pliable protagonist will, at some stage, reach the limit of the concessions that can be made. Accordingly, when such a limit is reached, he will find himself in a far weaker position than he was in, prior to his proffered concession(s).

“If you will not fight…”

For over a decade, I have warned repeatedly that, by its innate reticence to engage in a decisive large-scale offensive against its despotic adversaries, Israel is continually backing away from conflicts that it can win, while risking backing itself into a conflict that it cannot win—or win only at ruinous cost  See for example here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

This danger was eloquently described by Winston Churchill in the first volume of his seminal series on WWII: “…if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.”

The futility of compromise

In the perennial conflict with its Arab neighbors, attempts at compromise by Israel have proven not only futile but counterproductive. Despite a series of gut-wrenching concessions, peace seems further away than ever. Every concession made was not followed by an offer of a counter-concession but by demands for further and more far-reaching concessions. Clearly, the only kind of peace that is feasible in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict is a peace of deterrence – not a peace of mutual harmony. Indeed, it is a peace that concessions and compromises serve only to undermine.

Unless the Jews convey the unequivocal message that any challenge to their political independence and national sovereignty will be met with overwhelming lethal force, they will increasingly be the victims of such force at the hands of their Arab adversaries.

©Dr. Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.

Follow the Money, All the Way to Beijing

New details emerged about the House Oversight Committee’s new investigation into the Biden family’s business dealings for possible corruption.  The Committee chair James Comer asked the Treasury Department to produce bank Suspicious Activity Reports on Hunter Biden, James Biden, Biden family associates, and related companies.  Comer explained the purpose of the investigation this way: “For years, the Biden family peddled influence and access around the world for profit, often at the expense of our nation’s interests.  The American people must know the extent of Joe Biden’s involvement in his family’s shady business deals and if these deals threaten national security and his decision-making as president.”  One subject under investigation is whether Joe Biden lied about not being involved in family member business.  At the end of the investigation, we should know for a fact whether or not there really was ‘ten percent for the Big Guy’.

We also learned yesterday that the University of Pennsylvania – which housed the Penn Biden Center where classified documents were found and which received $47.7 million from China in the years Joe Biden was associated with it – was part of the successful effort to end President Trump’s China Initiative.  The Initiative was a successful FBI and Justice Department program to root out Chinese influence and espionage at U.S. institutions of higher learning.  Penn faculty signed a letter criticizing the program for – get this – ‘racial profiling’ – and begged the feds to keep the Chinese gravy train rolling.

Wait, the swamp gets deeper.  Lobbyists for TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance visited the White House eight times between July 2021 and August 2022, White House visitor logs show.  Biden reversed Trump’s ban on TikTok operating in the U.S. in June of 2021.  Technically, it is unknown whether the lobbyists went to the White House on TikTok business or for other clients.  Two lobbyists clammed up when asked for comment and another denied the visits were on behalf of TikTok, but plenty of other things have happened recently that raise concerns about U.S. officials giving away the store to China, perhaps for personal gain.

A program started by President Bill Clinton placed Chinese military scientists in U.S. military research centers.  The crown jewels of our military biodefense program are in Ft. Detrick Maryland where Chinese scientists are employed to this day without scrutiny of their ties to the Chinese military.  What’s up with that?

Then we have the Biden administration approving Chinese purchases of land near U.S. air force bases.  National security experts warn such proximity could allow China to conduct espionage, disrupt military communications, and sabotage military operations.  The latest purchase approved by the Biden administration is in North Dakota, but another worrisome purchase is in Texas.  There was legislation in the last Congress to stop the practice, but it didn’t go anywhere.  Swamp rats strike again.

American hypersonic missile technology is ending up in the hands of the Chinese military, through straw purchases by nominally private Chinese companies in a scheme designed to evade U.S. export controls.  This includes technology based on Pentagon research grants funded by U.S. taxpayers.   I’m tempted to ask how stupid we can be, but I just read a thriller where a similar straw purchase involving a lobbyist put weaponry in the hands of jihadis in the Middle East.  [Jack Carr True Believer]

So the right question to ask in all these situations – missile technology, land sales, Chinese scientists inside the wire, TikTok getting to operate in the U.S. again, American universities on the Chinese dole, Hunter Biden’s Chinese business deals – is one I find myself asking more and more these days:  Who benefits?  Who is getting paid, under the table or otherwise?  Who is willing to sell out their country for a few renminbi?  Before the Republican investigation ends, I hope we found out just how much ‘ten percent for the Big Guy’ ended up being.  Hillary Clinton sold her office for $100 million, it is widely believed, so Joe Biden has some catching up to do.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s Classified Documents Scandal: The China Connection

BLM — Made In China

National Security Adviser Blames China for Swift Spread of Wuhan Coronavirus

VIDEO: Survivor of Mao’s Communist China warns against Critical Race Theory

16-Year-Old Basketball Player Suffers Stroke While in School, Kindergarten Student in Ohio Dies Suddenly

Devastating.

Where are the Covid vaccine daily death numbers? Remember the 24/7 on-screen Covid death numbers (that were wildly inflated)?  Or vax status of victims. Remember when you HAD to declare your vaccine — ‘papers, please!’ Now it’s a secret?

A country that sacrifices it’s young is finished. Dead, dead, dead.

16-Year-Old Basketball Player Suffers Stroke While in School

By: Jim Hoft,  TPG, January2023:

On Tuesday night, a 16-year-old Odessa-Montour girls’ hoops standout suffered a stroke while in school.

Keyonna Garrison, an Odessa-Montour junior, had a stroke on January 5 and was hospitalized at Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester after being treated at Guthrie Corning Hospital, Star Gazette reported.

According to a fundraising campaign created to help the family with medical expenses, Garrison had a blocked vertebral artery, causing her to have a stroke.

She had been in the intensive care unit (ICU) for quite some time, but after undergoing numerous tests and treatments, she was finally removed.

“Keyonna is still undergoing neurological tests to find a path forward and to repair the issue as well as physical therapy to recover motor skills. She is on the road to recovery but it will be a long and emotional journey,” an entry in the fundraising campaign reads.

Star Gazette reported:

Keyonna, 16, was discharged from Strong on Tuesday night, coach Gavich said. Her Grizzlies teammates fell by a 54-34 score to Edison earlier in the evening in Elmira Heights to drop to 6-4.

Before the national anthem, those in the gym responded to a request from Edison athletic director/dean of students Mike Bennett with an extended ovation in support of Garrison. Gavich said later Garrison received encouraging news Tuesday when she learned surgery won’t be required to repair a damaged blood vessel.

As of late Tuesday night, the GoFundMe for Keyonna had raised more than $14,000. Edison’s girls basketball program presented a donation envelope to Gavich.

“They’re still hopeful for a full recovery and she’s back playing sports as a senior,” Gavich said. “That’s as good as we can hope for.”

Garrison became ill during gym class Thursday morning. Gina Gavich, Greg’s daughter, noticed her on the gymnasium floor and thought Garrison possibly twisted an ankle. She told her father and Greg immediately went to check on her. He received no response from Garrison as nurses treated her.

Keep reading.

Kindergarten Student in Ohio Dies Suddenly

By Cullen Linebarger, TPG, January 11, 2023:

Tragedy struck the community of Huron, Ohio Sunday when a young child died unexpectedly. Shawnee Elementary School announced the death of Evelyn Bauer, a kindergarten student attending the school.

In a release to the parents announces the horrible news, Huron Superintendent Dr. James Tatman expressed his condolences to the family. He also encouraged them “to be extra attentive to their child to pay attention to changes in attitude, sleep, eating, etc.”

Here is the story from Cleveland 19 News:

“Evelyn Bauer, a Kindergarten student at Shawnee Elementary School, passed away unexpectedly Sunday, according to a release sent to Huron Schools families Monday.”

“In the message from Huron Superintendent Dr. James Tatman, faculty and staff of Huron City Schools expressed their sympathies and condolences to her family, friends, and classmates.”

“Counsellors were made available to students and staff Monday, according to the release, and on-going support will be available.”

“Death at any time can cause many different feelings and have a profound effect on students. It is important for you to talk with your child about their feelings of grief, even if it is difficult,” Dr. Tatman said. “The best way to help is to listen and be reassuring.” “Realize that people move in and out of the grief process. Encourage them to celebrate life to support recovery.”

“He encouraged parents to be extra attentive to their child, and to pay attention to changes in attitude, sleep, eating, etc.”

“Concerned parents are encouraged to contact their child’s counsellor, or seek outside professional counseling.”

“It is our hope that we can work together to meet the needs of our students throughout this difficult time,” Tatman said.”

“Evelyn’s cause of death has not been released at this time.”

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

BBC Sued for Setting Up Global Network of ‘News’ Liars and Corporate Censors

There is conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact. This is proof of an active, terrible conspiracy against freedom loving people. The media is the enemy of the people. Their goal was to “stamp them out and choke” the independent sites (like Geller Report) by denying them platforms on the social media sites.

Watch:

RFK Jr. Group Sues ‘Trusted News’ Outlets–Including BBC, AP, Reuters and WaPo–Over Alleged Antitrust, First Amendment Violations

By Debra Heine, American Greatness, January 10, 2023

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced Tuesday night that he and several other plaintiffs had filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against several major news organizations, accusing them of antitrust and constitutional violations.

During a live interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, Kennedy, chairman and chief litigation counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said the

lawsuit against several major news organizations, accusing them of antitrust and constitutional violations.

During a live interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, Kennedy, chairman and chief litigation counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said the lawsuit targets the Trusted News Initiative (TNI), a self-described “industry partnership” launched by several of the world’s largest news outlets—including the BBC, The Associated Press (AP), Reuters, The Washington Post, Google Microsoft, Facebook, and Twitter—in March of 2020.  The lawsuit argues that the TNI was launched, in part, because the corporate media organizations believed that smaller independent news outlets were threatening their business models.

On Tucker Carlson Tonight, Kennedy stressed that a TNI “misinformation” label does not necessarily mean that an outlet is reporting false information.

He told Carlson that the TNI had two purposes. “One was to suppress and censor any information—whether true or not—that departed from official government orthodoxies and government proclamations,” he explained, adding: “I think probably the more motivating purpose of the cartel was revealed in one of the memos we have obtained from the BBC—which is to destroy their rivals in the independent media.”

Kennedy said that the BBC, a British government-owned news network, “orchestrated the secret anti-competitive collaboration” with the other news outlets.

He told Carlson the BBC essentially told the other groups “although we are ostensibly all rivals and competitors with each other, the existential threat to all of our business models comes from thousands of independent news sites who are now not only providing all this content that people are reading, but they are now diminishing trust in our organizations.”

As evidence of this allegation, the lawsuit includes the March 2022 statement by Jamie Angus, then-senior news controller for BBC News.

 

The BBC, Kennedy said, also told its TNI partners that they could “stamp them out and choke” the independent sites by denying them platforms on the social media sites.

“The viral movement of news stories is critical for the business models of those smaller news providers,” Kennedy explained.

“What they said is, anybody who departs from the trusted news, which is the official government narratives of WHO, CDC, the White House, Anthony Fauci, and NIH, we will make sure to identify them, and to make sure they are not given a platform.”

He added; “This has nothing to do with whether the statements were inaccurate. They use the word misinformation—and they acknowledge this throughout—as a euphemism for any statement that departs from official government orthodoxy.”

That’s the point right there, Carlson commented. “They were censoring things that were true, and that’s when you cross into criminal propaganda in my opinion.”

According to the complaint, “TNI members have deemed the following to be ‘misinformation’ that could not be published on the world’s dominant Internet platforms: (A) reporting that COVID may have originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China; (B) reporting that the COVID vaccines do not prevent infection; (C) reporting that vaccinated persons can transmit COVID to others; and (D) reporting that compromising emails and videos were found on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden.”

“All of the above was and is either true or, at a minimum, well within the ambit of legitimate reporting,” the lawsuit points out.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: TWITTER FILES: Pfizer Pressured Twitter to Censor Tweets

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

On The May 2023 Ballot: Oregon Counties To Vote To SECEDE From Oregon and Join ‘Greater Idaho’

This is getting interesting. The movement proposes to add fifteen conservative rural Oregon counties to Idaho to escape the left-wing madness.

Wallowa County Clerk announces Greater Idaho is on the ballot

The Wallowa County Clerk notified the Greater Idaho movement today that it has submitted enough valid signatures to force its ballot initiative onto the May 2023 Wallowa County ballot.  She awarded the initiative a measure number: 32-007.

So far, eleven eastern Oregon counties have voted for the movement’s ballot measures. The movement proposes to add fifteen conservative rural counties to Idaho by convincing the state legislatures of Oregon and Idaho to move their common state line. The purpose of the initiatives is to show state legislators that voters want them to begin talks with Idaho to move the border, according to the movement’s website greateridaho.org .

Matt McCaw, the movement’s spokesman, said “eastern Oregon is mostly ranchland, and Portland is not. It doesn’t make sense for these two cultures to be dictating policy to each other. Portland voters forced a gun control measure on the whole state, although eastern Oregon voters almost defeated it. And then an eastern Oregon judge blocked it. His injunction might stand for a couple years while he decides the case.  If Oregon had let Grant and Harney counties go when they requested to join Idaho, then their judge wouldn’t have blocked an Oregon measure.”

McCaw called on the new President of the Oregon Senate, Rob Wagner, to allow a hearing on their bill in January. The bill, SJM 2, invites Idaho to begin talks with Oregon on the potential of moving the border. A January 2022 SurveyUSA poll showed that 68% of northwestern Oregon voters thought that the Oregon Legislature should hold hearings on the idea, and only 20% were opposed.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

SECESSION: Oregon Counties Will Vote To Secede From Oregon This November And Join “GREATER IDAHO”

Rural Oregon counties vote to discuss seceding from state to join ‘Greater Idaho’ to escape oppressive Democrat rule

Oregon Counties Vote to Secede Into Idaho To Escape Democrat Violence and Lawlessness

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Released More Illegals in Three Months Than the Entire Population of Montana

It’s a bloody invasion and yet not one legacy media outlet has covered it. On the contrary, they are militantly covering for it.

The country is in the throes of a totalitarian coup and half the country is too dumb, too apathetic, or too misinformed to care or worse – in support of greatest self inflicted wound in human history.

Biden Released More Illegals in Three Months Than the Entire Population of Montana

Even blue cities have been overloaded.

Biden made his ritual visit to an El Paso scrubbed of illegal aliens and a detention center scrubbed of detainees. The entire Potemkin village setup was meant to kick off Biden’s plan to get rid of Title 42 and ram open the border all the way to flood the nation with illegal aliens even more than it already is.

How bad is it now?

“Using even a very conservative estimate of unknown got aways, Biden has released or allowed more illegals into the United States in the last 100 days than the whole population of Montana. An entire storied American state now exceeded by just 3+ months of foreign lawbreakers,” Stephen Miller tweeted.

That’s the massive rate of demographic change underway. And it’s entirely intentional.

Even blue cities have been overloaded and are begging for help. But the bigger plan is to eliminate red states entirely.

The Biden regime claims that they can’t do anything about it. Sure, they can’t.

Biden’s visit was scheduled at a time when border crossings had already dropped drastically in El Paso.

They control the trafficking and they control the border.

Read more.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

RONNA MCDANIEL: I Went To The Southern Border. Here’s What Joe Biden Won’t Tell You

House Republican Files Articles of Impeachment Against DHS Sec. Mayorkas In Wake of Border Invasion

Numbers Don’t Lie: America’s Border Crisis Is Biden-Made

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Introducing Hakeem Jeffries and His Uncle Leonard

The media, and therefore most of us, have recently been fixated on the new Speaker of the House, the Republican from California, Kevin McCarthy, and the fifteen votes that had to be taken among the Republicans before he won the support of enough recalcitrant conservatives to be elected as Speaker. Now that particular hurly-burly’s done, and that breathless contretemps is over, a little more attention can be given to the head of the House Democratic Caucus, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, and his uncle Leonard Jeffries, about whom Hakeem Jeffries has said, quite understandably, little – except to clearly distance himself from his brain-addled relative. “Doctor” Leonard Jeffries has for decades been spouting conspiracy theories about Hollywood Jews; along with his antisemitic hate he promotes anti-white theories. Let’s lay out the case against the unseemly Leonard Jeffries before returning to his admirable nephew. More on Uncle Leonard can be found here: “Why Hasn’t Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Repudiated the Jew Hating Rhetoric Espoused by Uncle Leonard Jeffries?,” Elder of Ziyon, January 9, 2023:

According to an extensive report entitled “Dr. Jeffries & the Anti-Semitic Branch of the Afrocentrism Movement” by Kenneth S. Stern, during a July 20, 1991 speech at the Empire State Black Arts and Cultural Festival in Albany, New York, Dr. Leonard Jeffries, the chairman of the African-American Studies department at City College [forced to resign his chairmanship in 1992], claimed, among other things, that there is an anti-black “conspiracy, planned and plotted and programmed out of Hollywood,” by “people called Greenberg and Weisberg and Trigliani and what not. It’s not being anti-Semitic to mention who developed Hollywood. Their names are there. MGM , Metro Goldwyn Mayer. Adolph Zukor. Fox. Russian Jewry had a particular control over the movies, and their financial partners, the Mafia, put together a system of destruction of black people.”

How did Hollywood become a “system of destruction of black people”? Hollywood was one of the first places to give black Americans a chance to succeed. Last I looked, a great many black people have made out quite well in Hollywood, piling up hundreds of millions of dollars apiece. Here’s a list of just a few of those actors, and their fortunes:

  1. 1. Tyler Perry: $700 million.
  2. Bill Cosby – estimated worth $450M.
  3. Will Smith – $370 million.
  4. Morgan Freeman – $300 million.
  5. Samuel L Jackson – $280 million.
  6. Denzel Washington – $220 million.
  7. Eddie Murphy — $200 million.
  8. Ice Cube – $190 million.

Hollywood, like the sports industry, is one of the places where African-Americans have managed to thrive. Leonard Jeffries is way off base in accusing Hollywood of “destroying black people.” And when Leonard Jeffries mentions the Mafia as the financial partner of Jews in Hollywood, he’s confusing the movie business with Las Vegas, where there was indeed a connection, when the city was just getting started as a gambling resort, between Jewish gangsters such as Bugsy Siegel and the Mafia. Finally, one wants to ask the demented Leonard Jeffries, who the hell is “TriglianI”?

The report written by Stern also indicated that prior to his July 20, 1991 speech, CCNY professor Leonard Jeffries was already known for his teaching that blacks are racially superior to whites because blacks, whom he calls “sun people,” have more melanin in their skin than whites, whom he calls “ice people.” (Even though Jeffries is generally believed to be the inventor of this theory, it was actually founded by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing who, according to the Amsterdam News, contended that “white racism and aggression are the result of the lack of melanin. This genetic deficiency, the lack of color, compels while people to be hostile to people of color.”)

Leonard Jeffries is not just an Antisemite; he is also a black supremacist, with a cockamamie theory about the “sun people” (richly endowed with melanin), who are in all ways superior to the “ice people” (whose lack of melanin makes them aggressive racists).

Let’s put Leonard Jeffries aside, preferably out of sight. It’s his nephew whom we should care about. Hakeem Jefferies has said he does not agree with, will have no truck with, his uncle’s bizarre “theories.” Should we believe him? I do, and here’s why:

“Jeffries has consistently and forcefully spoken out against antisemitism throughout his career,” the congressman’s office told Just the News. “His on the record comments made to the Wall Street Journal speak for themselves.”

Hakeem Jeffries has been steadfast, ever since being elected to the House in 2012, in offering words of support for Israel, as when he wrote in reply to an Amnesty report denouncing Israel as an “apartheid state”: “Israel is a democracy. It is not an apartheid state. Any conclusion to the contrary is demonstrably false, dangerous and designed to isolate Israel in one of the toughest neighborhoods in the world. The special relationship between the United States and Israel is anchored in our shared democratic values and geopolitical interests. I strongly support that special relationship, and look forward to redoubling efforts in the region to bring about a lasting two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel living side by side in peace and prosperity with a self-governed and demilitarized Palestinian state.”

Some of this might be seen as pro-Israel boilerplate – “two-state solution,” “a safe and secure Israel living side-by-side in peace and prosperity” with a “self-governed” Palestinian state. But it is not without feeling. Despite its being a prefabricated paragraph, passed out by pro-Israel lobbyists, it’s still welcome, especially coming from someone who is thought of as a “progressive” Democrat, but who has nothing to do with the likes of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. One is particularly pleased by Jeffries’ mention of a “demilitarized” Palestinian state, something that these statements of support often fail to include, even though from Israeli’s point of view, demilitarization of that future state, should it ever come about, is absolutely essential.

Jeffries has also warned about the rise in antisemitism. In May 2021, he tweeted that “the dramatic rise of antisemitic attacks in NYC and throughout the country is deeply disturbing and unacceptable. Any and all perpetrators must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We will crush intolerance whenever and wherever it is found.” He recently wrote to the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. that “Despite the Ukrainian government’s efforts to battle racial intolerance, use of xenophobic language that endorses Nazi ideology by the fourth largest political party in the Ukraine, Svoboda, continues to be disconcerting. It is critical that top governmental leaders and officials recognize the dangers of working with this extremist group that was founded on and promotes antisemitism.”

Jeffries opposed a bill introduced last year by another Democrat, the far-left and anti-Israel Betty McCollum, to ensure that the nearly $3.3 billion in annual American aid to Israel not be used, as she outrageously phrased it, to “illegally annex Palestinian land, to demolish Arab homes and forcibly remove Palestinians, or to detain children in Israel’s labyrinthian military judicial system.” The bill got nowhere.

He has spoken out repeatedly against the BDS movement.

He has been endorsed by both AIPAC and the Democratic Majority for Israel. The latter group hailed Jeffries’ election, saying he “has always been a strong and effective fighter for the Democratic agenda and a staunch supporter of the critical relationship between the United States and Israel.”

As the next House Democratic Leader, and the first Black person to lead either party in either chamber of Congress, he’ll continue to be a consensus builder and lead Democrats in addressing the most pressing issues facing our country,” the center-left DMFI group said in a statement. “A frequent traveler to Israel, Leader Jeffries has often remarked that Israel ‘lives in a tough neighborhood.’ He has worked tirelessly to make sure that, in this tough neighborhood, Israel has the tools to defend itself, by itself.”

An AIPAC spokesman said that the group congratulated Jeffries on his election.

Representative Jeffries is a stalwart supporter of the US-Israel relationship and we look forward to working with him to further strengthen the alliance between the two democracies,” he said.

That’s all good. There are those who are now trying to sow doubts about Hakeem Jeffries by trying to suggest that he hasn’t sufficiently distanced himself from his infamous uncle. But he has. How many times need he reassure us? And every time he denounces BDS, or those who malignantly call Israel an “apartheid state,” every time he denounces, with feeling, antisemitism, whether at home or in the Svoboda Party in Ukraine, every time he calls for a “demilitarized” Palestinian state (and does not urge Israel to return to the “1967 lines” which is a deceptive way of calling for Israel’s return to the now-indefensible 1949 armistice lines) he reconfirms our faith that he means what he says.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

China Increased Its Donations to the Biden Center 400% with $50M in Donations After Biden Announced his Campaign

Jihadi Who Murdered Eight People in NYC Was In the U.S. on a Diversity Visa

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Insurrection of General Milley

“Okay, I get it, it’s illegal, it’s wrong.”


“The riots over the summer, you know, I could make a case that those riots were riots organic to an aggrieved community that perceived that they had various injustices throughout their life,” General Mark A Milley told the J6 Committee. “It was sheer, unmitigated anger that expressed itself in the form of mass violence and rioting. And, okay, I get it, it’s illegal, it’s wrong.”

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had previously justified the study of “white rage”, went on to defend the riots and the double standard at the heart of the J6 Committee.

“I don’t think the intent of those riots was to overturn the United States Government and to destroy the Constitution of the United States of America,” he argued.

The mobs assaulting police officers, burning flags, attacking federal buildings in sieges, like the one in Portland, reminiscent of Fort Sumter, and calling for the destruction of America under the guidance of an organization of “trained Marxists” demonstrated that it was an insurrection.

And Gen. Milley’s testimony showed that he sympathized with the insurrectionists.

An account had described Milley pointing to a bust of Lincoln during the Black Lives Matter riots and telling Trump, “That guy had an insurrection. What we have, Mr. President, is a protest.”

The J6 testimony provided an opportunity to dig into Milley’s definition of an insurrection.

On the one hand, Gen. Milley conceded that, “All the President has to do is walk outside the White House and yell three times, you know, ‘Insurrectionists, disperse.’ And he just has to yell it, right? And then he can do it, according to the law of 1807 or whatever year it was, right?”

But Gen. Milley along with other woke brass did everything possible to dissuade Trump from doing so. Using a report assembled by his subordinates, he argued that an insurrection should have “significant national security implications”, which he claims that massive nationwide riots that included attacks on federal buildings and the White House somehow did not.

There, as so often, Gen. Milley contradicted himself, mentioning that, “I don’t want to go into anything classified, but there were other countries exploiting some of this stuff.”

A mass insurrection by Marxists, black nationalist secessionists and other domestic terror groups exploited by enemy nations is the definition of a national security threat. Gen. Milley knows this because Russian plans during the Cold War had included such scenarios.

Using his report, Gen. Milley contended that, “fifteen hundred people rioting in three or four cities of America at a moment in time” did not qualify as an insurrection, but somehow J6 did.

Gen. Milley’s definition of an insurrection involves scope and scale, but there’s no metric under which the Black Lives Matter riots at their peak were smaller in scope than J6.

And yet, Milley cheerfully told the J6 Committee that he began taking a step that he doesn’t appear to have taken during the BLM riots, that “immediately following the 6th, I knew the significance, and I asked my staff, freeze all your records, collate them, get them collected up.”

Why did records involving a riot need to be classified?

“The document — I classified the document at the beginning of this process by telling my staff to gather up all the documents, freeze-frame everything, notes, everything and, you know, classify it. And we actually classified it at a pretty high level, and we put it on JWICS, the top secret stuff. It’s not that the substance is classified. It was I wanted to make sure that this stuff was only going to go people who appropriately needed to see it, like yourselves,” Gen. Milley admitted.

On his own initiative, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had classified documents involving a political incident, not because of any innate need, but to make sure that only the politically correct would gain access to them.

What’s in those documents? Whatever is there is meant ‘for leftist eyes only’.

Throughout his testimony, Gen. Milley insisted that he was only a public servant.

“I cannot issue orders in my name. That’s illegal,” he told the J6 Committee, describing his position as an.”advisory role, not in the chain of command, but, yes, in the chain of communication And that applies to everything, by the way. I know the Speaker Pelosi call and some other things came under a variety of criticism, but that’s all part of the role of the Chairman, is to be part of the chain of communication, not part of the chain of command.”

Gen. Milley was asked about the call involving Trump, during which Pelosi said, “‘You know he’s crazy, don’t you,’and she is reported to have said, General Milley, that you agreed with her.”

In his response, Gen. Milley appeared to confirm that he did so.

While the China phone call has been widely reported, Gen. Milley apparently placed “50 or 60” other phone calls to the Russians, the French, the Japanese and even the Islamic terror state of Qatar which is an ally of Iran and a key backer of the Muslim Brotherhood, to convey “stability”.

That is a very long chain of communication.

Gen. Milley claims to be deeply concerned about the Constitution and civilian control of the military, yet he repeatedly undermined the president, cabinet members and other civilian appointees for his own political agendas. Under the guise of being a good advisor, he initiated processes, like the political classification of materials, the double standard on riots or the phone calls that usurped the constitutional authority of the executive branch. And he’s still at it.

While belligerent in congressional hearings toward Republicans, Gen. Milley was pathetically eager to help along the J6 Committee right down to selectively classifying documents for political reasons. He decries the politicization of the military, yet everything he’s done has been to further shift the military leftward. His only resistance to leftist political pressure came when he tried to dissuade Rep. Schiff from proposals to recall and court martial General Flynn.

“I’ve become a lightning rod for the politicization of the military. And I am constantly strung out as an individual and also with Secretary Austin and others, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Sergeant Major of the Army. There’s a whole bunch of us that have been,” Gen. Milley complained.

Secretary of Defense Austin is a political appointee. Chief of Naval Operations Michael Gilday has been among the most aggressive in pushing racism and hatred for this country.

“Some of it is comments that I made in testimony about critical race theory and white rage,” Gen. Milley conceded. “Months of this constant drumbeat that is very damaging, in my view, personally, to the health of the Republic, because there is a deliberate attempt, in my view, to smear the general officer corps and the leaders of the military and to politicize the military… and I think that’s something that we need to avoid.”

Gen. Milley once again gets it backward. Military leaders like him have the obligation not to politicize the military. Civilians have a right to be critical of military leadership: especially when it stakes out political territory and takes sides.

Instead of acting to restore an apolitical military, Gen. Milley continues to help the Biden administration further politicize it while blaming retired officers and other critics of his actions.

“When 137 generals recently signed a letter that Secretary Austin and I are, you know, the worst thing since sliced bread and we’re lower than, you know, whale stuff and we should be court-martialed and treason and all that kind of stuff, all former retired flag officers — I will say, none of them were four-stars, though; we had a couple three-stars — that’s politicization,” he objected.

Retired officers are not politicizing the military when they express their opinions. Gen. Milley is politicizing the military when he states that, “if generals are out there writing editorials about politics, I think that’s an issue. If you want to be involved in politics as a general officer, retired general officer, or a retired commissioned officer, you ought to run for office.”

On Gen. Milley’s watch, active duty personnel have repeatedly been allowed to express leftist and even anti-American views, to clash with civilians on social media and berate journalists, even while any hint of criticism of the Biden administration has led to court martials.

Just compare the respective fates of Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller and Maj. Gen. Patrick Donahoe.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Milley has used his position to, at worst, conduct and, at best, sign off on an insurrection that threatens the constitutional order he swore an oath to protect. The insurrection is cloaked in bureaucratic shenanigans like the selective classification, in providing misleading advice, using double standards and initiating treasonous actions.

Any serious investigation of the crimes committed in 2020 needs to begin with Gen. Milley.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: New Israeli Government Bans PLO Flags, Transfers Terror Cash to Terror Victims

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Killing Newborn Babies

In June of 2018, the body of a little baby was discovered floating in the ocean near an inlet in South Florida. One sheriff told NBC News that he had thought he had seen it all, but this corpse really tugged at his heart.

And now, more than 4 years later, through DNA technology, authorities have been able to isolate the mother. She’s been arrested and faces first-degree murder charges. So sad.

How could this type of thing take place in “the land of the free”? I believe that it’s not hard to draw the link between abortion and this type of story which is being repeated over and over. After 63 million abortions where it’s supposedly okay to kill the baby inside the womb, why does it suddenly become wrong to kill the baby outside of it?

Look at these tragic headlines in lifenews.com:

  • Woman Abandoned Her Newborn Baby Outside in Freezing Cold, Lied to the Police About Baby’s Location
  • Woman Stabs Her 3-Month-Old Baby, Puts Him in Plastic Bag, Throws Him in Dumpster
  • Couple Used Poison to Kill Their Viable Unborn Baby, Then Dumped the Baby’s Body

One of the key writers who covers these and other abortion-related stories is Micaiah Bilger who pens articles for lifenews.com.

I asked her to comment on these frequent tragedies. She told me, “The shock never weakens when I hear about another case of infanticide. It’s difficult to imagine how any mother could kill her child, born or unborn, but even more so after seeing her newborn child for the first time. How can a mother hold her precious baby and then throw the child in a garbage bag or abandon it in the cold?”

As to the link between abortion and these cases, Bilger adds, “I suppose after so many years of it being ‘normal’ to kill a child before birth, it’s not surprising that children outside the womb are being devalued, too.”

What should be trumpeted throughout our culture is this: There are safe harbor or safe haven laws that exist in one form or another in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia.

Within a short time of delivering a baby, often 30 days, a mother can bring a baby over to a local fire department or police department or hospital and drop the child off—no questions asked, no charges filed.

For example, here is what the Sunshine State says about its safe harbor law on its website: “Florida’s Safe Baby Law allows mothers and/or fathers, or whoever is in possession of an unharmed newborn approximately 7 days old or less, to leave them in the ‘arms’ of an employee at any Hospital or staffed 24/7 Fire Rescue Station, or Emergency Medical Station. No questions asked, totally anonymous, free from fear of prosecution.”

How much more humane to let the baby live and be placed in the arms of those who can bring the child to a safe future.

The Supreme Court even referred to these laws in their Dobbs v. Jackson decision from last June, overturning  Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion decision of January 22, 1973.

Dobbs noted: “…States have increasingly adopted ‘safe haven’ laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously; and…a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home.”

I also asked Eric J. Scheidler, the executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, based in the Chicago area, for a comment on these laws. He told me, “Many women know nothing about this option, and as a result, newborn babies are abandoned and even murdered. We must do more to publicize this important way to save babies’ lives.”

America’s two founding documents have important bearing on the subject of abortion. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. The first right enumerated is the “right to life.”

The founders didn’t grant this right. They simply acknowledged it and spelled it out in our founding documents.

The Constitution begins, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [emphasis added] Our posterity includes the promise for those yet unborn.

One could only wish that the mother in South Florida who apparently drowned her newborn had instead brought the child to a “safe haven.”  After a half-century of the abortion ethic, we have lost a lot of ground in cherishing the “right to life.” Raising awareness of these nationwide safe haven laws is a step in the right direction.

©Jerry Newcombe, D.Min. All rights reserved.

Mike Rowe Calls Out Adults Over Child Sex Changes: Kids Aren’t Saying ‘Remove My Genitals’

TV host Mike Rowe spoke out during an episode of his podcast released Tuesday, criticizing parents who push transgender medicine on their children.

Rowe made the comments while interviewing The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh about his documentary “What Is A Woman.” As the two discussed the documentary on Rowe’s podcast “The Way I Heard It,” the topic turned to children, consent and the movement supporting irreversible gender reassignment surgeries, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors.

“You’re talking about sterilizing kids way before they could ever hope to have kids of their own in adulthood,” Walsh told Rowe, describing the impact of taking puberty-blocking drugs like Lupron, which is typically prescribed to sex offenders to chemically castrate them.

Rowe went on to ask Walsh where the push for transgender surgeries and medications for kids is really coming from, and there are stricter age requirements for drivers licenses and alcohol. “Is it Big Pharma, is it money, is it academia, is it our healthcare system? It feels like an alliance of sorts,” Rowe commented.

Walsh claimed that a combination of peer pressure, counter-culture and the normal discomfort of adolescence contribute toward the increase in the number of trans-identifying youth, but that younger children are often led into it by adults who exploit their innocence.

Rowe agreed, saying that young children are not saying “give me some Lupron, cut off my genitals” unprompted.

The full episode is available on Rowe’s website.

AUTHOR

KAY SMYTHE

News and commentary writer.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Republican Indiana Rep. Lorissa Sweet Unveils Bill Banning Child Sex Changes

Community Ousts School Board Members For Backing Policy To Hide Kids’ Gender Transitions

Jimmy Kimmel Stand-In Thinks It’s Funny When Grown Men Dress In Women’s Lingerie For Children

Harvard University Offers Class On Transgender Medicine For ‘Infants To Older Adults’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.