FLORIDA: Drunk Andrew Gillum Caught Up in Meth OD Incident

Failed Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum was reportedly involved in a suspected crystal meth overdose on early Friday at a Miami Beach hotel.

The Miami Beach Police report that officers found Gillum in a West Avenue hotel bathroom, vomiting and too inebriated to speak. Two other men, who some sources claim were naked, were also in the hotel room; one of them possibly overdosed on crystal meth, baggies of which police discovered in the room.

“I was in Miami last night for a wedding celebration when first responders were called to assist one of my friends,” Gillum said in a statement. “While I had too much to drink, I want to be clear that I have never used methamphetamines. I apologize to the people of Florida for the distraction this has caused our movement. I’m thankful to the incredible Miami Beach EMS team for their efforts. I will spend the next few weeks with my family and appreciate privacy during this time.”

Florida dodged a bullet when Republican Ron DeSantis defeated radical leftist Gillum to become Governor.


Andrew Gillum

14 Known Connections

Notably, on Gillum’s watch, the city of Tallahassee and its surrounding Leon County metro area had been plagued by the highest crime rate in Florida for each of Gillum’s four years in office up to that point. In 2017, Tallahassee experienced more murders than in any previous year in its history.

In October 2018, newly uncovered text messages and email records showed that Gillum, during an August 2016 trip to New York, had accepted a high-priced ticket to the popular Broadway show Hamilton from Mike Miller, an undercover FBI agent who was investigating government corruption connected with Tallahassee, where Gillum was mayor. Gillum responded to the release of the documents by stating, “The goal is obviously to use my candidacy as a way to reinforce, frankly, stereotypes about black men.”

To learn more about Gillum, click on the profile link here.


Search our constantly growing database of the left and its Agendas


RELATED ARTICLES:

Andrew Gillum linked to meth overdose incident in Miami hotel, police reports state

Andrew Gillum Involved in Alleged Crystal-Meth Incident in Miami Beach

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Florida Man’s Life Ruined Because of False ‘Red Flag’ Laws

Watch the below video – this is what is happening under Florida’s Red Flag Law, SB 7026. and its unconstitutional Risk Protection Orders (RPOs).  Fifty four Republican Representatives voted for this terrible law and all but 6 FL Senators did the same.

QUESTION: Have you asked the Clerk of Court from your county how many of the RPOs issued resulting in ex parte seizures without Due Process were overturned or vacated the after the seizure hearing 14 days later?

Who is being held accountable when these reports to LE of someone being a threat are found to be lies?

Steven Linne for Florida House posted the video titled “Red Flagged – SB7026” below on YouTube.

© All rights reserved.

The Two Countries with the Greatest Commitment to Democracy

The world over, commitment to democratic values is worryingly weak.


For those old enough or educated enough to remember, humanity still lives very much in the shadow of the bloody 20th century (the most murderous in human history) with its failed political ideologies and the resulting huge loss of life.  It was democracy that won out, proving much more effective at protecting human life, based as it was on Judeo-Christian values and the intrinsic worth of every person.

Yet, commitment to specific democratic values is not particularly strong according to recent research conducted by the Pew Research Centre, despite the idea of democracy remaining popular.  One wonders if people continue to have a good understanding of what our democractic values are, why they matter, and what the alternatives are.  The research, which surveyed 34 countries, found:

  • only 64% of people thought that it was very important to have freedom of speech;
  • only 64% of people thought it was very important to have freedom of the press;
  • only 54% of people thought it was very important that opposition parties be able to operate freely;
  • only 65% of people thought it was very important to have regular elections; and
  • only 68% of people thought freedom of religion was very important.

The largest shares of the public describing all nine rights and institutions tested as very important are in the United States and Hungary.  Yet, even in those two countries only a third (33%) considered all nine democratic principles to be very important.

Interestingly, freedom of religion was the top priority in all three sub-Saharan African nations in the study as well as in Turkey, Indonesia and India. However, it was the lowest priority in several more secular nations, especially in Europe, where the French, Swedes, Spanish and Dutch all rate it their lowest priority, as do Japan, South Korea and Canada.  Religious persecution is often significantly under-reported in the Western media, perhaps contributing to these differing views of its importance.

A key problem seems to be the belief that elected officials are completely out of touch with the people they presume to govern.  Across the 34 countries surveyed, 64% of people believed elected officials do not care what people like them think.  In the United States, 71% shared this view (perhaps a contributing factor to a polarising figure such as Trump unexpectedly winning the presidency).  In nearly every nation surveyed, those who think politicians don’t care about average citizens are more likely to be dissatisfied with the way democracy is functioning in their country.

It stands to reason that increasing numbers feel their views are repressed and unheard, because freedom of speech is indeed narrowing.  We are increasingly no longer trusted to hear and express a wide range of ideas, the repulsive and attractive alike, and freely make up our own informed minds about what we think, allowing the more repulsive ideas to weaken by their very expression (rather than fester and become stronger in the dark).  Instead, an elite group of people, be they politicians, academics or rich corporations with the skewed ideals of their bottom lines, decide what we are allowed to hear or even think; their reasoning often puts the protection of minority groups from harm or offence above freedom of speech, sometimes very nobly.  But the fundamental problem is, who gets to decide what ideas can be freely discussed once we decide many views will be censored?

Freedom of speech can be understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but also:

  • the right to seek information and ideas (this concerns the people who want to listen to the ideas to get to the truth of a matter);
  • the right to receive information and ideas; and
  • the right to impart information and ideas.

Quotes you have probably heard before include: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, and “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.”  For people to feel listened to in a functioning democracy, and perhaps counter-intuitively to also rid ourselves of the more extreme ideas, we need to protect the right to safely and freely debate a range of ideas.  There is no need for freedom to discuss ideas everybody likes.

No matter what the system, ultimately a just society depends on the individuals within it possessing virtue and behaving in a virtuous manner.  No human rights or constitutional documents will save us if virtue is absent from the hearts of individuals, and faith in the system and society is lost.  Our constitutional systems do not uphold themselves.

Perhaps a survey like this shows individuals need to take more time to understand democracy and its alternatives, taking into account how the various systems have worked in practice in history and their track records in upholding the dignity of people and the value of their lives.  Then, if we indeed still believe in them, we might need to be more explicit about making sure future generations understand the value of democratic principles like freedom of speech.

In which country where the press is strictly controlled, ideas are not able to debated, and opposition is suppressed would the people who answered that these values are not ‘very important’ like to live in I wonder.

COLUMN BY

Shannon Roberts

Shannon Roberts is co-editor of MercatorNet’s blog on population issues, Demography is Destiny.  While she has a background as a barrister, writing has been a life-long passion and she has contributed to a range of publications.

She has regularly written on demographic issues for almost a decade, and her writing informs both academic teaching and international debate.

Shannon balances her writing with her other passion – her family.  She has three beautiful children and lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

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

The truth about trans must be defended. It’s ridiculous to slander Australian legal academic Patrick Parkinson as ‘transphobic’

The T.C. Beirne School of Law at the University of Queensland was established by a £20,000 donation from Thomas Charles Beirne, a devout Catholic businessman and Papal Knight who was warden of the University from 1928 to 1941. The vast tract of beautiful riverside land on which the university sits in St Lucia was donated by pioneering doctor and Catholic philanthropist James O’Neil Mayne.

One wonders what these two benefactors would think of the current push by students to remove the Dean of Law, Professor Patrick Parkinson, for making “transphobic” remarks in The Australian, on February 14. Reporter Bernard Lane wrote:

University of Queensland law dean Patrick Parkinson, speaking in a personal capacity, conceded authorities would be worried and busy with the coronavirus but said the explosion in transgender-identifying teenagers, chiefly girls, was “another epidemic” — one that had “so far escaped public attention”.

“Social contagion” via online platforms — such as Tumblr, Reddit and YouTube — and peer groups is suspected to be a factor in the rapid rise of atypical teenage cases of the condition “gender dysphoria”, or distress about the conflict between the body and an inner feeling of “gender identity”.

In response to Professor Parkinson’s remarks, a petition was started at Change.org by student Jean Emmett, aka “Johnny Valkyrie”, titled “No Transphobia At University. Condemn Prof. Patrick Parkinson.” It reads:

…  Parkinson compared transgender people to the coronavirus, declaring it an “epidemic.” Previously, he has compared transgender and gender diverse people to those with eating disorders, campaigned against LGBTQIA+ adoption and has ties to Freedom For Faith and The Australian Christian Lobby

The School of Law should not be figureheaded by an individual who does not uphold discrimination, vilification and human rights protections. Further, it is highly unprofessional to breach The University of Queensland’s official policy on LGBTQIA+ people, especially when transgender and gender diverse people work and study at the institution …

We call for Prof. Patrick to cease and desist his discriminatory, vilifying behaviour or to be removed from The University of Queensland.

As of writing, the petition has garnered 432 signatures.

Emmett seems to misunderstand what Parkinson said. The professor compared the explosion of transgender-identifying teens to the coronavirus epidemic, not the teens themselves to the virus.

A social contagion of body dysmorphia

Last year, 38 members of staff at the T.C. Beirne Law School signed an open letter in support of LGBTQIA+ students after Professor Parkinson delivered a paper, “Is Gender Identity Discrimination a Religious Freedom Issue?” at the Freedom for Faith conference in Sydney. Here’s what he said:

“[A] crisis of conscience may arise from a genuine belief that it is not in the best interests of the child or young person to affirm his or her transgender identification, any more than it would be in the best interests of an adolescent girl with an eating disorder to affirm her body image as overweight.”

Parkinson is not alone in issuing these warnings. Miranda Yardley, a 52-year-old transsexual who was the first person in Britain to be sued for committing the “hate crime” of making “transphobic” remarks on Twitter, wrote:

There seems to me something uniquely cruel in telling children their bodies are wrong because they do not match the interests our culture deems appropriate for their sex. The adults who promote this lethally toxic culture should feel ashamed of themselves. Of course, they never will: they are fanatics.

Philadelphia-based clinician Lisa Marchiano wrote at Quillette:

While transgender advocates have derided the notion that the sudden surge in trans identified teens – and natal female teens in particular – could be influenced by social contagion, the idea is not so far-fetched. Bulimia was virtually unknown until the 1970s, when British psychologist Gerald Russell first described the condition in a medical journal. Author Lee Daniel Kravetz interviewed Russell for his recent book Strange ContagionAccording to Russell, “once it was described, and I take full responsibility for that with my paper, there was a common language for it. And knowledge spreads very quickly.” Scientists have been able to track bulimia’s transmission even into culturally remote enclaves following the introduction of Western media sources. It is estimated that bulimia has since affected 30 million people.

People with body integrity identity disorder claim to be “transabled”, longing for amputations of perfectly healthy limbs, or wilful blinding. Should we also affirm them in their quest to become physically disabled? What about “transracial” people?

A chilling effect

Meanwhile in the UK, University of Exeter economics professor Dr Eva Poen has been accused of transphobia by feminist and LGBT students for tweeting: “Only female people menstruate. Only female people go through menopause.”

She also tweeted in response to insurance company Aviva promoting LGBT+ inclusion in sports:

“Let’s keep female sports for FEMALE PEOPLE. Stay in your lane, Aviva. We don’t tell you how to do insurance; it would be great if you could stop telling women to give up their hard earned place in society. Women’s sport is not yours to give away.”

Adam Deloit, the 22-year-old transgender representative of the university’s LGBTQ+ society, states:

“What she is doing isn’t a debate. It’s constant harassment and discrimination. I don’t think anyone who sees her tweets can say that they are not an attack on trans people. She can try to define us out of our existence, but we are still here. The fact the university tolerates her is really frustrating.”

A spokeswoman for the university’s feminist society said:

“The university must investigate the allegations thoroughly and look at it from, if nothing else, a well-being standpoint for groups of students within that community.”

In 2018, the Bristol University student union backed proposals to ban any TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) speakers who questioned whether men who identified as women were actually women.

In 2017, 60-year-old Maria MacLachlan was beaten up at Speaker’s Corner in London’s Hyde Park by young trans-identifying men, enraged that she was about to attend a feminist talk entitled, “What is Gender”.

Why are trans activists so afraid of questions and statements which are grounded in basic biology? So much for inclusivity and a grasp on reality, not to mention common civility! Must the whole world conform to their perception? Do “trans rights” override the basic human right of free speech?

Detransitioners scarred for life

The growing trend of detransitioners speaking out about their irreversible physical and mental scars from rushed transitions should give us pause for thought. There are now rapidly-expanding groups on Reddit and Tumblr for those suffering transgender regret.

Trans-identifying Blaire White reports from Montreal:

A few years ago, there were a few detransitioners on Youtube talking about their experiences, but not many. Now, there appears to be almost as many people talking about their transition failures as there are people talking about their transition successes… Many of the teen detransitioners on Youtube cite falling into trans activist circles online as a contribution to the mistake they made.

Lisa Marchiano wrote, in an article titled “The Ranks of Gender Detransitioners Are Growing. We Need to Understand Why”:

… there is the problem of bias reinforcement. For adolescents struggling to understand themselves and their place in the world, a self-diagnosis as transgender can offer seemingly easy answers. But clinicians shouldn’t be “affirming” that sort of self-diagnosis on a no-questions-asked basis …

The detransitioners I see in my practice are all female, and they are all in their early twenties. At the time they became trans-identified, many were suffering from complex social and mental health issues. Transition often not only failed to address these issues, but at times exacerbated them or added new issues. These young women often became derailed from educational or vocational goals during their period of trans identification.

Twenty-three-year-old Keira Bell, who is now suing the Tavistock clinic in London for facilitating her sex transition, told the BBC:

“I should have been challenged on the proposals or the claims that I was making for myself… I was allowed to run with this idea that I had, almost like a fantasy, as a teenager… and it has affected me in the long run as an adult.”

The Christian Post reports that 41-year-old Marcus Fitz in California “believes it’s important that people learn about the deceptive practices at gender clinics that push cross-sex hormones and transgender surgeries, which he says have left him psychologically scarred, physically mutilated, and with a severely compromised endocrine system.”

Indeed, UnHerd reported this case of another detransitioner:

When she was 15, Livia was diagnosed with severe anorexia. “It’s so scary to realise that my anorexic thoughts were about [hating] my female body,” she tells a stunned room. “I really wish someone had been there to tell me not to get that body castrated at 21.”

Ovulation is essential for women’s health. Canadian endocrinology professor Jerilynn Prior states: “women benefit from 35 to 40 years of ovulatory cycles, not just for fertility but also to prevent osteoporosis, stroke, dementia, heart disease, and breast cancer.” What does the future hold for trans-men who have had their reproductive organs removed?

And what could happen to trans-women? The British Medical Journal published a study last year showing that men who take oestrogen to transition develop a 46-fold higher risk of breast cancer; the World Health Organization published a report in 2015 noting the measurably higher risk of cervical, ovarian, and uterine cancer faced by women who transition while retaining their genitalia.

Meanwhile, a study published in the American journal Pediatrics found that among transgender-identifying people, “the percentage of people who attempted suicide and were hospitalised in the last 12 months was DOUBLE for those who had blockers (45.5% versus 22.8%).”

Follow the money

The ABC’s Four Corners recently reported on an 11-year-old receiving puberty blockers, “one of a small but growing cohort of children around Australia seeking treatment because they don’t identify as either a boy or a girl.” She was diagnosed with gender dysphoria when she was only nine.

Writer Jennifer Bilek observed in a sobering post, “Capitalizing on the Destruction of Healthy Female Breasts”:

TomBoyX, Luna Pads, and Thinx corporations have all used the healthy breast amputations of young women in their ad campaigns, normalizing body dissociation and mutilations as self-expression, with barely any criticism in mainstream media.

At The Federalist, she unveils the billionaires funding the powerful LGBT lobby in the USA. Over at Populist Wire, Ben Kenobii published: “Meet Jennifer Pritzker: The Trans-Billionaire Big Tech Doesn’t Want You To Know About”.

Positive publicity on ABC’s Four Corners has been credited with a A$6 million grant to Australia’s most popular youth gender clinic.

Doing right by our children

Considering the well-documented physical and mental health implications of puberty blockers and sex change surgery, is it not irresponsible of our government, media and health institutions to keep advocating affirmation of gender dysphoria, particularly in vulnerable, malleable children?

Professor Parkinson is a specialist in family law and child protection. Instead of trying to quash his words, spoken from experience and a place of deep concern, we ought to act on his urgent warnings before even more youth are permanently maimed.

COLUMN BY

Mei Ling

Mei Ling is a Singapore born freelance writer and social media manager living in Queensland, Australia.


Please sign and share this petition in support of Professor Patrick Parkinson.


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

Trump Hits Democrats’ Coronavirus Bill as Stuffed With Unrelated ‘Goodies’

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he doesn’t support House Democrats’ coronavirus relief bill in its current form because it includes too many “goodies” that have nothing to do with the disease.

Although the bill addresses providing testing and masks to respond to the coronavirus, it also expands unemployment insurance and food stamps, requires the Social Security Administration to provide paid sick leave, and mandates that employers give paid permanent sick leave to their employees.

A reporter asked Trump at the White House if he supports the legislation.

“No, because there are things in there that have nothing to do with things we are talking about,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


“It’s not a way for them to get some of the goodies that they haven’t been able to get for the last 25 years,” the president said of House Democrats.

As of Thursday afternoon, there were 36 deaths in the U.S. from the new coronavirus disease, called COVID-19, with a total of 1,215 diagnosed cases across 42 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Trump delivered a prime-time address to the nation Wednesday night in which he announced a ban on travel to the U.S. from most European countries and proposed a payroll tax cut and assistance for industries and employees hit hard by the virus.

The president previously restricted travel from China, where the virus originated.

“The Families First Coronavirus Response Act is focused directly on providing support for America’s families, who must be our first priority in this emergency,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a public statement.

The spread of the coronavirus has prompted calls for more government action. The Democrats’ bill includes free coronavirus testing, paid emergency leave for up to 14 days, and more protections for health care workers who might come in contact with infected people.

“We cannot fight coronavirus effectively unless everyone in our country who needs to be tested knows they can get their test free of charge,” Pelosi said. “We cannot slow the coronavirus outbreak when workers are stuck with the terrible choice between staying home to avoid spreading illness and the paycheck their family can’t afford to lose.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., contended that the Democrats are playing politics, but said Congress should remain in session until it gets the bill right.

During the Oval Office session, Trump elaborated on why he excluded the United Kingdom from the ban on travel from Europe.

“One of the reasons [is] the U.K. basically has got the border … it has got very strong borders, and they are doing a very good job,” Trump said. “They don’t have very much infection at this point, and hopefully they keep it that way.”

Trump said life and death issues guide his decisions in dealing with coronavirus:

The question is how many people will die? I don’t want people dying. That’s what I’m all about. I made a very tough decision last night [with the European travel ban] and a very tough decision a long time ago with respect to China. I don’t want people dying, and that’s why I made these decisions.

The president said the stock market is stronger now than when he came into office and predicted it will bounce back.

“Whether it affects the stock market or not [is] very important, but it’s not important compared to life and death,” Trump said. “Frankly, the people that are professionals praised the decision. It’s something I had to do. I think you’ll see the end result is very good because of it, but it will take a period of time.”

Trump said he is “not concerned” about reports that a member of a Brazilian delegation who tested positive for COVID-19 had contact with him last weekend at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham issued a statement later, however.

“Exposures from the case are being assessed, which will dictate next steps,” Grisham said, adding:

Both the president and vice president had almost no interactions with the individual who tested positive and do not require being tested at this time.

As stated before, the White House Medical Unit and the United States Secret Service [have] been working closely with various agencies to ensure every precaution is taken to keep the first and second families and all White House staff healthy.

Kelvin Droegemeier, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, announced Thursday that he held a conference call with government science officials from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Britain on how to tackle the pandemic.

He said the officials talked about sharing more data, how artificial intelligence can be used, and data-sharing repositories.

In the Oval Office session with reporters, Trump was asked if larger quarantine zones in the United States are an option.

“It’s a possibility if somebody gets a little bit out of control, if an area gets too hot,” Trump said. “You see what they are doing in New Rochelle, which is good frankly, but it’s not enforced. It’s not very strong. But people know they are being watched. It’s a hot spot.”

A reporter asked the Irish and American leaders if they shook hands.

They replied that they hadn’t, and instead placed their own palms together in greeting, which was “sort of a weird feeling,” Trump said.

The president said that in India and Japan, where he has visited, shaking hands is less customary.

“They were ahead of the curve,” he said.

Trump acknowledged his reputation as a bit of a germaphobe before entering politics.

“I was never a big hand-shaker as you probably have heard, but once you become a politician, shaking hands is very normal,” he said.

The Irish prime minister followed by saying, “It almost feels like you’re being rude, but we just can’t afford to think like that for the next few weeks.”

COLUMN BY


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


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

Would a Victorious Joe Biden be Removed for Mental Incapacity?

The Democratic Party is now confronted with a dilemma. Its two possible presidential nominees are perhaps equally unpalatable, though for different reasons. Socialist Bernie Sanders is, the establishment believes from a practical standpoint, ideologically unfit; Joe Biden is a garrulous gaffe machine who is mentally unfit. Yet what if, contrary to popular belief, neither man ends up being the nominee? There are other possibilities.

Prior to the South Carolina primary and Super Tuesday, many were dismayed that the Democrats seemed poised to nominate an unattractive, wizened, charmless avowed socialist. Thus did the Democrat establishment throw its weight behind Biden.

Yet the ex-vice president is clearly in mental decline. I say this in no spirit of cruelty or mockery; most of us have seen an elderly person deteriorate and know it’s the saddest of events. But the reality is that what we’re witnessing this campaign season isn’t just the old gaffe-prone, tall-tale-telling, Walter Mitty-like Biden.

Aside from calling Super Tuesday “Super Thursday,” saying he was running for the “Senate,” thinking he was in Vermont when in New Hampshire and slurring and fumbling words, he also on multiple occasions couldn’t recall Barack Obama’s name. Since this is the president Biden served under for eight years, this is a bit like his forgetting the name of his wife — who, mind you, he recently confused with his sister.

Note here that Biden has had two cranial aneurysms that required surgery. Not only can these conditions cause brain damage, but Biden was told before the second procedure that he had only a 35 to 50 percent chance of emerging from it “completely normal.” Add to this that he’s now 77 years old and, well, do the math.

Of course, the Democrat establishment has to be intensely aware of Biden’s unfitness for office. Yet they’re choosing him to be President Trump’s opponent. Or are they? For there are ways to solve the Biden-Bernie (B&B) dilemma.

First, while the chances of it are now low, there could still be a brokered Democratic convention. If this happens, the delegates — under the sway of the Democrat establishment — could conceivably nominate someone other than Biden or Sanders, such as Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama.

A signal that the establishment desires this outcome could be if, after “evening things up” on Super Tuesday, it appears to ease off supporting Biden. I consider this unlikely, though. Brokered conventions are messy, and it would be difficult shaping the primary voting well enough to reliably effect such an outcome, anyway.

Now let’s discuss what’s perhaps more likely. It’s hard to imagine that Biden hasn’t undergone a neurological exam, especially with his access to the very best health care (though an elderly person can be in denial and refuse such tests). It’s also hard to imagine that such examination would find normal functioning. This can make one wonder what perhaps is being hidden — and what might be revealed when the right time comes.

When might this be? It has been said that the ex-vice president is deteriorating rapidly. If he is in even worse shape come July and party elders and those close to him (e.g., his wife) can persuade him to step aside, he could be replaced. The rules on who’d choose his replacement are clear, too: the Democratic National Committee would, via a meeting of its hundreds of members.

The DNC could then choose Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama or someone else. There are complicating factors, such as state laws governing replacing candidates on the ballot, but these could likely be “worked out.”

This solves the B&B dilemma: a DNC-aided Biden takes out Bernie, and then DNC cajoling takes out Biden. A stumbling block is that Biden would have to agree to withdraw, and he may not be amenable to this if in denial. Then again, mentally compromised people are easy to manipulate (“Sign this, Joe; it’s just a routine form!”).

If Biden does remain in the race and somehow wins the presidency — and with media bias, vote fraud and Big Tech meddling this isn’t entirely unimaginable — it’s unfathomable that he could function as commander in chief. If he didn’t voluntarily step down, he could become the first president removed under the 25th Amendment for mental incapacity.

Under this scenario, his vice presidential pick takes on unprecedented significance. (Biden himself acknowledged this in January, undermining his viability by saying that his running mate would have to be able to “immediately” replace him because he’s “an old guy.”)

In fact, we’d have to wonder: Could his VP choice be Hillary Clinton? While her ego would normally preclude her from playing second fiddle to Biden, the opportunity could be irresistible if she’s in on the scheme and knows he’ll be removed and she’ll end up top dog.

For that matter, though, Biden’s pick could be Elizabeth Warren, to try to appease the radical left wing and bolster the women’s vote; or a non-white candidate, such as Stacey Abrams or Andrew Yang (who appeals to the young).

What’s for sure is that the B&B dilemma is real, Joe Biden is unfit to be commander in chief, and the DNC knows it. If he ever did ascend to the presidency, it’s inconceivable that he’d be long for the office.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

RELATED VIDEO: Joe Biden’s ‘confused crazy rants’ should have discounted him years ago.

© All rights reserved.

Fatal Dependence

INTRODUCTION: In order to continue the Islamic war against Israel and the Jews, no libel, no matter how mythical, may be abandoned.  No matter the passage of 14 centuries, his followers are mindlessly bound to suffer Mohammed’s dream of world conquest.


Fernando Alcoforado’s dissertation, “Radicalism Palestinian not justify genocide in Gaza,” was published on Academia.com despite its numerous inaccuracies.  I am not surprised.  Whether devoid of ethics or in support of a political agenda, their published material can be fallacious and unreliable.

The writer’s title alone revisits the Palestinians’ false accusations of genocide by Israelis.  Substantial documentation produced by Doctors Without Borders has shown that massacres, as in Jenin, were staged with corpses exhumed from nearby cemeteries.   We know that UNRWA’s schools teach hate and violence against Jews and Israel, Palestinian women and children are used as human shields at rocket-launching sites, and children are used to ignite and float explosive balloons and for constructing terror tunnels  – dangerous and deadly activities.  This is not genocide, but child abuse and human sacrifice, where leadership and families weaponize their children for an interminable war.  And when the children are martyred, their parents are paid handsomely by Hamas/PA.

Alcoforado shrewdly inserted that Gaza has existed since Antiquity, insinuating that the Palestinians did likewise. Although the landmass has certainly existed since Ancient times, there was never a Palestinian state, people, government, monetary system, or culture until 1967.  After Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon attacked Israel and lost the war, those caught in the crossfire and trapped in Gaza were barred from returning to their native homelands.  They fabricated this attachment to the land, but the indigenous people of Israel are the Jews, also known as Hebrews and Israelites.

Our academic bemoans the Gazans’ suffering from a dearth of industry and a chronic water shortage.  We agree, but the reason lies firmly with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and can be characterized in one word, Dependence.   The PA receives, arguably, the highest level of aid in all the world, $540 million for 5 million people including succeeding generations, compared with, say, $113 million for Burundi’s 10 million people, or $304 million for Cameroon’s 23 million people.   Funds meant for providing enough electricity and infrastructure to run Gaza’s sewage system, water purification, construction, agriculture, healthcare delivery and essential medical supplies, are filtered through the fingers of the corrupt PA.  An unemployed population serves as the endless, expendable live ammunition in its war against Israel, but also as PA’s milch cow, so that their leadership may continue to live in grandeur.

The Jews were never tempted with dependence on others.  Notwithstanding overwhelming obstacles, Israel’s pioneers battled malaria to drain the swamps of Galilee, which then exposed the toxic peat beneath, resulting in the death of wildlife.  It took tenacity and commitment to nature and science for the Israelis to make the desert blossom again, and blossom it did.  The Arabs chose another course.

Despite its being 60% desert with a tenfold population increase since its founding, Israel has become a superpower in water management and conservation.  Their technology is now used 150+ countries, and they export $2.2 billion annually in water-related technology and water-intensive produce.  Because Israeli citizens are educated on conserving water, use desalinated sea water for drip irrigation, and treat and recycle nearly all sewage for crops, they are able to provide large amounts of water from their own supplies to Palestinians and the Kingdom of Jordan.

Surely, this could also be done in Gaza, but Palestinian leadership refuses to invest any of the massive aid to develop its own water infrastructure or repair its antiquated system, leading to enormous waste.  When Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israel damage Gaza’s pipes, Israel’s water authority makes the repairs. Israel supplies less water to Israeli communities in the disputed territories than is stipulated in the Oslo Accords and transfers the remaining quota to the Palestinians – who merely balk and bask in their victimhood, using the drought as an accusation to discredit Israel to the UN.

When Gaza was under Hamas rule, only 10 percent of the West Bank had modern plumbing in June 1967, but today 96 percent of West Bank Palestinians have clean, safe water piped to their homes in Israel.  Contrarily, Gaza’s water crisis continues because Hamas uses the international funding for its war against Israel.  If Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank as Alcoforado suggests, it would leave Israel in far more peril.  After 1400 years of violence and bloodshed, it would be insanity to believe that Muslims would live in peace based on this researcher’s recommendations.

Our scholar rues the overcrowded conditions in Gaza, one of the most populace places on the map, blaming Israelis, when their countries of origin – Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria – should have accepted their return instead of leaving them hostage.  Their cultures keep them imbued with resentment and hate, without incentive for making improvements.   Is this inevitable in overcrowded societies?

Consider Brooklyn, New York, the most populous borough, second-most populous county in the US, and a thriving hub of entrepreneurship and high technology start-up firms – a sign of happy lives with no children primed for suicide missions.  The differences are largely a matter of choice and culture.  Israel has held the honors of 5th through 11th happiest nation over the years; none of the tyrannical 57 Islamic member states even remotely qualifies for the list. Alcoforado joins the PA’s futile efforts to delegitimize Israel while the biased UN continues to fund $1.3 billion and train Palestinians to pursue legal advocacy against the one UN member, Israel.

Whether deceived or brazenly deceitful, Alcoforado states that Palestine, “a British protectorate [until 1948], began to have a growing Jewish population.”  He flouts the 3,000 years of continuous Jewish presence in Israel, one of the few ancient peoples to survive into modern times, and Judaism being among the world’s oldest living religions.  He omits the history of the Jews who bought neglected, uncultivated swampland or sand dunes from absentee Arab landowners in the mid-1800s to create agricultural colonies,  undeterred by backbreaking work and illnesses – as reported to the League of Nations in 1921.

The critic conveniently reports half-truths, asserting that the establishment of a free Jewish state resulted in growing populations of Jews only, failing to mention the Christians, Muslims, and other groups that flourished simultaneously.  Israelis developed thriving farms and urban life, industry, power plants, social institutions, universities and the Palestine Orchestra that became the Israeli Philharmonic. They restored their ancient language, Hebrew, and a rich culture.  They restored their national independence and welcomed and absorbed the successive waves of returning immigrants and refugees (many fleeing Arab countries).  Arabs in Israel appreciated the development and higher standard of living until Haj Amin al-Husseini began fomenting riots (1929),  committing massacres and rapes, beheadings, torture and mutilation.  It is fair and honest to say that Arabs live better in Israel than in any Islamic country and, when offered the choice of Israeli or Palestinian citizenship, they invariable choose the former.

Alcoforado vaguely observes, ,“There were clashes between Arabs and Jews,” but the attackers were Arabs.   Likewise, he added, “Both Israelis and Palestinians claimed this share of the land based on history, religion, and culture,” but Jewish history, religion and culture go back more than 3,000 years, whereas the Palestinians appeared in 1967, and their tenuous Islamic attachment goes back no further than the 7th century of Mohammed.  Even the Koran attests that the land was given to the Jews forever (5:21).

“You will find very clearly,” says Sheik Dr Muhammad Al-Husseini, “that the traditional commenters from the eighth and ninth century onward have uniformly interpreted the Koran to say explicitly that Eretz Yisrael has been given by God to the Jewish people as a perpetual covenant.  There is no Islamic counterclaim to the land anywhere in the traditional corpus of commentary.”   The term, “Palestinian” was an insulting term conferred by the Romans on a Roman Empire outpost to which the Judean Jews were exiled.

Today’s Palestinians have no culture inimitable to them before 1967.  Their governance was the Ottomans.  Their monetary system, established by the 1994 Paris Protocol, is tied to the rates of Jordan, the US, and Israel.  There are no discoveries of ancient artifacts to verify any but the Hebrews’ existence.  Their religion is Islam, their common language Arabic with some French.  Their own music emerged after 1948.  Their “traditional dress,” not traceable beyond 1922, may be attributed to the Arab or Bedouin.

Continually troubled by the “mass migration of Jews from various countries to Palestine,” Alcoforado excludes the context of their return to their Biblical native land and that many had been first fleeced before their expulsion from surrounding Arab countries.

On the other hand, Arab migration is a fulfillment of hegira, “departure,” the migration or journey that fulfills Mohammed’s example of “civilizational jihad.”  Mohammed migrated with intent to establish a new base of operations from which to conquer and rule; today’s jihadis do so with intent of populating and dominating new lands.  Where they cannot advance with weaponry, they can colonize and transform the society, by stealth or violence, to change the demographics, legal systems and governments of their objective – global submission to sharia and the reestablishment of a caliphate to rule accordingly.  Fifty-seven Islamic states have succumbed; Israel, Europe, and the United States are obviously on the Islamic agenda. President Obama assured us of such a fundamental transformation.

If Alcoforado sincerely believes there can be peace with Palestinians, he is gravely under informed and ill-informed.  If he speaks on behalf of the Palestinians, as his surname suggests, he has written pure deception, taqiyyah, and it should not be peddled as academic.

© All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Price of oil drops dramatically, what does it mean? Liberals link climate change to Wuhan virus?

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

GREG KOZERA

Greg Kozera is the director of marketing for Shale Crescent USA (www.shalecrescentusa.com). Greg is a professional engineer who has a lifetime of experience in the energy sector. He is also the author of the books Just the Fracks Ma’am and Learned Leadership.

TOPIC: Price of oil drops dramatically, what does it mean?

GREGORY WRIGHTSTONE

Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist with more than 35 years’ experience and was recently accepted as an expert reviewer for the — IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is also the bestselling author of “Inconvenient Facts: The Science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know.” He has presented the results of his research around the world, including India, Ireland and China. Greg is a strong proponent of the scientific process and believes that policy decisions should be driven by science, facts and data — not a political agenda.

TOPIC: Climate change LIBERALS say it will be impacted by the Coronavirus!

© All rights reserved.

ISRAEL: No! Not all votes are equal!

There is—and should be–a qualitative difference (i.e. a structural inequality) between votes cast for parties that wish to undermine the Jewish nation-state and those who wish to protect and preserve it

… the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable…This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State…Accordingly, we…hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel… The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration – From Israel’s Declaration of Independence

Why was the First Temple destroyed? Because of three things which prevailed there: idolatry, illicit sexual relations, bloodshed… But why was the Second Temple destroyed, seeing that in its time they occupied themselves with Torah, mitzvot [religious observance] and acts of charity? Because baseless hatred prevailed. This teaches you that baseless hatred is equal to the three sins of idolatry, illicit sexual relations and murder. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 9:B

The election results put us in the position of choosing which election promise to break. In this situation, removing Netanyahu is the main goal. We have no choice but to rely on the Joint List.” MK Moshe (Bogey) Yaalon, Blue & White, March 12, 2020 

It would be so nice if something would make sense for a change – Alice in Alice in Wonderland (The film)


These four excerpts encapsulate concisely, yet precisely, much of the implausible events that transpired in Israel’s political arena over the last few days—from the disturbing departure from the founding ethos of the State of Israel to the pernicious conduct of those, who allow their personal pique to undermine the very foundations of Jewish sovereignty.

A Kafkaesque aura

This Wednesday (March 11, 2020), a surreal—almost Kafkaesque—aura descended upon political realities in Israel, shrouding them in a thick swirl of bizarre fog, distorting familiar perspectives, and conjuring up outlandish spectacles, previously considered inconceivable, before our very eyes.

Incredibly, and despite fervent assurances to the contrary, official envoys from Blue & White, MKs Ofer Shelah and Avi Nissenkorn, unashamedly proceeded to engage the heads of the Joint List in an effort to cajole them into entering a coalition to oust PM Benjamin Netanyahu from office—or at least into supporting the establishment of such a coalition.

This, of course, constitutes a breathtaking abandonment of principle by Blue & White, a party headed by three former IDF chiefs-of-staff, who time and again assured the electorate that any government that their party formed would not rely in any way—neither directly nor indirectly—on the overtly anti-Zionist Joint List.

This was a pledge that appeared eminently plausible. After all, the Joint List, a motley, ad hoc political amalgam of Stalinists, Islamists and Arab ultra-nationalists, united only by an incandescent animosity towards Israel as a Jewish state, is a party, which represents the utter negation of everything the leaders of Blue & White have dedicated much of their adult life to defend.

“…would rather die than sing Ha’tikva…”

What makes this Blue &White endeavor even more perverse is the fact that, less than a year ago, prominent Joint List members repeatedly accused the heads of Blue & White of war crimes!

For example, just prior to a planned April 2019 visit by Blue & White MK Moshe (Bogey) Yaalon to the Arab city of Tamara, in the Galilee, the Ra’am-Balad alliance—today part of the Joint List—issued a harsh statement, condemning the visit: “The entry of war general [Bogey] Ya’alon to the city of Tamra and the Arab towns is dangerous, audacious, and signifies a crossing of red lines,…It is unthinkable that we will receive and shake the hand of someone who has blood on his hands…”

The statement went on to call for the cancellation of the visit: “We call to cancel the event which aims to market the party of generals involved in war crimes, and to gather in support of our nation’s [i.e. the Palestinian-Arabs’] justified struggle…”

This, of course, is an illustrative rather than an isolated example. Thus, a recent Joint List MK (2015–2019), Jamal Zahalka, brazenly declared he would “prefer…to die than to sing the Israeli anthem [Ha’Tikva],” and that the Israeli flag is “worse than a rag.” He also proclaimed that his Balad faction was not part of the Israeli left, but rather “an integral part of the Palestinian national movement”.

Declaration of Independence as Israel’s seminal Social Contract

After the outcome of the 1948 War of Independence, Israel’s Declaration of Independence laid out , in effect, the parameters of the Social Contract between Israel’s institutions of governance and its citizens—all its citizens, including its Arab citizens who elected to remain in it after Israel’s victory against the combined Arab attempt to annihilate it.

Indeed, the Declaration of Independence is the cornerstone that defines the ideological and ethical foundations upon which Israel was established and, as such, circumscribes the bounds of legitimate political dissent within it.

In this regard, it is significant that in the Declaration of Independence, the words “Jews” or “Jewish”, appear 24 times, all in reference to nation and/or nationality. By contrast, the words “equal” or “equality” appear in total twice, both times in reference to civil and social, but not national, equality.

It is thus indisputable that Israel was established as a sovereign Jewish nation-state, in which the Jews—and the Jews alone—have exclusive national rights, while all non-Jewish inhabitants have equal civil rights. (It was precisely in order to cement this fundamental and foundational precept in law by giving it legislative standing that Basic Law: Israel – the Nation State of the Jewish People was passed—belatedly—in July 2018).

Israel’s seminal Social Contract (cont.)

With regard to the question of the bounds of legitimate political dissent within Israel, there are of course a myriad of matters of legitimate political dispute. For example, these include:

Whether it should be a “cradle-to-grave” welfare state or one where the unbridled forces of the free market determine socio-economic outcomes—or what the appropriate mix of these two countervailing perspectives should be.

Or whether Israel should extend full sovereignty over all the territories beyond the pre-1967 lines or withdraw from them completely—or some hybrid blend of these diametrically opposing views.

While disputes over these issues may well be vehement, as long as they relate to ways and means to secure and develop Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, they are indeed, legitimate.

However, dissenting views begin to depart from legitimate debate when they pertain, not to how to preserve or promote Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, but to transforming it into something qualitatively different.

Thus, when one is on a soccer field, there are different tactics and styles one may adopt as long as they conform to the rules of soccer. What one cannot do is adopt methods that contravene these rules. Thus, for example, one cannot pick up the ball and run with it or tackle the opponents as if it was a rugby match. If a player objects to being precluded from using his hands and persists in violating the rules, he will be removed from the field. Indeed, he may even be removed from the team, and advised to join a rugby club where he will no longer be bound by the rules to which he objected.

Violating the “rules of the game”

Although some might find this analogy somewhat simplistic, it is in many ways both appropriate and illuminating.

Readers may recall that in my previous column, Time to bar the Joint List, I underscored the perverse paradoxical practice that prevails in Israel, whereby anti-Zionist parties are persistently permitted to participate in parliamentary elections, despite being in flagrant violation of the “rules of the game” i.e. the law setting out the conditions for such participation.

Thus, Clause 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset prohibits a person or a party from participating in Knesset elections if their “objects or actions…expressly or by implication, include one of the following:

  • negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;
  • incitement to racism;
  • support of armed struggle, by a hostile state or a terrorist organization, against the State of Israel.”

Indeed, even a cursory perusal of the official platforms both of the Joint List itself and its component factions reflect a stark rejection of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people as set out in the Declaration of Independence, as well as an equally stark violation of the letter (and spirit) of the Basic Law stipulating the conditions for participating in the national parliamentary elections.

Judicial gobbledygook no substitute for common sense

In earlier pieces, I cataloged the innate and enduring enmity shown by the Knesset members of the Arab parties comprising the Joint List towards the founding ethos of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and their unequivocal identification with Israel’s most vehement enemies—see for example here. (For additional chronicles by others, see here and here.)

Such malfeasance included, among other things: spying for Hezbollah in 2006; smuggling mobile phones to convicted terrorists in prison; consorting with leaders of enemy states; expressing support for terrorist organizations and justifying attacks against IDF personnel and civilians across the 1967 Green line.

Yet despite clear evidence that the objects and the actions of both the people and the party consistently and continually contravene the legal provisions for participation in elections, neither the Joint List nor any of its constituent factions, nor any of its recalcitrant candidates have been barred from taking part in them.

But the generals of Blue & White cannot invoke unfathomable judicial decisions to underwrite their political actions—for judicial gobbledygook is no substitute for common sense—or a sense of national responsibility.

After all, by attempting to coopt the anti-Zionist Joint List—whether actively or passively—into the formation of a governing coalition, they are in effect—inadvertently or otherwise—contributing towards legitimizing and promoting its anti-Zionist agenda—or, at minimum, aiding in facilitating it. After all, the Joint List will not lend its support to Blue & White without extracting a heavy price in terms of advancing its anti-Zionist aims, which hitherto have been—rightly—thwarted by a Zionist majority in the legislature.

Conflating two separate issues: Arab ethnicity vs Arab enmity

The brouhaha over Blue & White’s approach to the Joint List causes two separate issues to be conflated and confused.

The one relates to the voting rights of the Arab minority, the other to the nature of the parties that they can vote for.

This confusion was clearly reflected this week in an article by New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief, David Halbfinger, entitled Israel Faces a Defining Question: How Much Democracy Should Arabs Get?. In it, he asks “Are the votes of Arab citizens worth as much as those of Jews?

There is, of course, no dispute in Israel that its Arab citizens have the right to vote.

But in the context of the preceding analysis, the “worth” of their vote is not –and should not be determined by who cast them—but who they were cast for. Likewise, there also should be no dispute that there is a qualitative difference (i.e. a structural inequality) between votes cast for parties that wish to undermine and dismantle the Jewish nation-state and those who wish to protect and preserve it—however vehemently they may disagree on how that is to be done.

In this regard, Israel’s Arab citizens voted almost monolithically for the former—i.e. for the Joint List. It is thus not their ethnicity that determines attitudes to their votes, but their enmity.

The perils of personal pique & BDS (Bibi derangement syndrome)

Of course, none of this is abstruse “rocket science”. None of it is unknown to the leaders of Blue & White. And yet they persist in their seemingly obsessive effort to include the inimical Joint List in determining the fate of the Jewish nation-state—see Gantz’s latest demand to include the Joint List in the broad emergency government suggested by Netanyahu to deal with the current coronavirus crisis.

It is difficult to find any convincing explanation for this disturbing depravity on the part of Blue & White, other than that the deep-seated ad hominin opprobrium, which its leaders harbor for Netanyahu, has befuddled their judgement, warped their priorities and caused them to succumb to the dreaded BDS—the Bibi Derangement Syndrome.

© All rights reserved.

Muslim cleric: Jews more dangerous than AIDS and coronavirus, jihad is the cure [Video]

“Jews are more dangerous than AIDS, coronavirus, cholera and all the diseases of this world. If you want to be saved from these deadly diseases, we should all remember jihad.”

The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil. They are bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

Find out more of why Muslim clerics such as Ahmad Al-Shahrouri feel free to spew this paranoid hatred in The Palestinian Delusion.

“Jordanian Islamic Scholar Ahmad Al-Shahrouri: The Jews Are More Dangerous Than Coronavirus, AIDS, and Cholera; Jihad Purifies Our Bodies and Souls, Can Save People from These Diseases,” MEMRI, March 8, 2020:

Jordanian Islamic scholar Ahmad Al-Shahrouri said in a March 8 episode of his show on Yarmouk TV – a Jordanian TV channel affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood – that the Jews are more dangerous than coronavirus, AIDS, cholera, and every disease in the world. He also said that to be saved from these illnesses, one should remember the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Jihad, which he explained is a means of purification of one’s soul and body. Sheikh Al-Shahrouri added that being saved from coronavirus serves to give one the honor of liberating the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Al-Shahrouri is a professor of shari’a at Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan and serves as the imam of the university’s mosque.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Arizona: Muslim lied to FBI about aiding jihadi who attacked Garland Muhammad art exhibit and cartoon contest

U of Michigan: Jewish student is censured as “Islamophobic” for accurate pro-Israel statements, despite apologizing

Muslims attack International Women’s Day marchers in Kyrgyzstan and Turkey, as well as Pakistan

Georgetown University’s Fake Islamic Pluralism

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

Feds Streamline Immigration Fraud Reporting Procedure

NumbersUSA alerted its members last week to a new system at the USCIS for citizens to report fraud.  Thanks to reader Michael for telling me about it.

USCIS Launches New Online Form for Reporting Fraud

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has launched a new online tip form to help the public provide the agency with information about immigration fraud. The new online form, available on the USCIS public website, prompts the user for the information that the USCIS’ fraud investigators need to investigate allegations of immigration benefit fraud or abuse.

See that USCIS had previously provided e-mail addresses to report fraud, but will be phasing those out.

The new online tip form collects information related to the relevant fraud, identifies the type of benefit in question and provides space for the user to describe the alleged fraud or abuse in additional detail.

This online form streamlines fraud reporting by replacing three email boxes USCIS now uses for fraud and abuse reporting. The tip form will make the tip process more effective and efficient. Every day, well-intentioned people try to report immigration fraud or abuse to USCIS, but our USCIS’s internal procedures did not allow for a consistent and timely way to respond.

More here.

Marriage fraud, such as I reported in my previous post today, would be something you could report through this new system.  See USCIS list.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Whistleblowers Earn Millions Turning in Medicare/Medicaid Scammers

New Jersey: Woman Sentenced to Prison for Enslaving Foreign National for a Decade

Lewiston, ME: The Back Story on the Election of a CAIR-candidate for City Council

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

National Security Adviser Blames China for Swift Spread of Wuhan Coronavirus

China’s government initially “covered up” the new coronavirus and delayed global response to the disease by at least two months, White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien said Wednesday.

O’Brien’s remarks come as the communist Chinese government has tried to deny the disease’s origins in the city of Wuhan and pushed internet rumors that the United States created it.

“This virus did not originate in the United States. It originated in the Wuhan, in the Hubei province in China,” O’Brien said in an appearance at The Heritage Foundation.

“It originated some time ago. Unfortunately, rather than using best practices, this outbreak in Wuhan was covered up.”

As of early Wednesday, officials had confirmed 938 cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, across 38 states. There were a total of 29 deaths, all but a few in Washington state.

“There is a lot of open-source reporting from China, from Chinese nationals, from doctors involved [who] were either silenced or put into isolation or that sort of thing, so the report of this virus did not get out,” O’Brien said.

O’Brien, who is President Donald Trump’s top adviser on foreign affairs and national security matters, said the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could have assisted China in early containment and treatment before the outbreak. He said:

It probably cost the world community two months to respond. And in those two months, if we had those and had the cooperation of the Chinese, and a WHO team been on the ground and a CDC team—which we had offered them on the ground—I think we could have dramatically curtailed what happened in China and what is now happening across the world.

In a recent example, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian, said March 4: “Some in the media say this coronavirus is a China virus. This is extremely irresponsible and we firmly oppose that. We are still tracing the origin of the virus and there is no conclusion yet.”

Other Chinese diplomats denied the disease’s origins in China and took offense to references of “Wuhan” in describing the virus.

More than just dodging responsibility, the Chinese government reportedly has pushed propaganda that the United States created  the virus.

O’Brien spoke well of the Trump administration’s response in assembling a task force and closing off travel to the U.S. from China.

“Pandemics and epidemics are some of the greatest challenges we face as a country. I think we’ve done a good job responding to it,” O’Brien said. “But look, the way this started out in China from the outset was not right. It should have been handled differently. But we are where we are right now. We are doing our best to work with the Chinese.”

O’Brien, who replaced John Bolton in the key White House post, also spoke about reforms to the National Security Council.

He announced plans in October to streamline the 174-member staff to fewer than 120. This has prompted controversy as Trump has demonstrated distrust of some in the government bureaucracy after the impeachment battle.

“We brought the size down, but we’ve done it for the most part through attrition and holding off on hiring,” O’Brien said.

O’Brien said he was following the model of President George H.W. Bush’s national security adviser Brent Scowcroft by having a leaner staff. He also noted that he has met with his predecessors, both Republican and Democrat.

A high profile removal was Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who had testified during the House impeachment inquiry that aspects of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president were inappropriate.

Vindman, who was in charge of European affairs, was sent back to work in the Pentagon last month, causing an uproar among Democrats.

“I think that some people decided the NSC was going to be a career for them and they were going to stay there as long they could. And I think there were people who felt they knew better how to conduct the foreign policy of the United States than the elected president of the United States,” O’Brien said, without mentioning any names or specifying the impeachment inquiry.

He added:

If you’re on the president’s staff and you don’t agree with the president, and you can’t put your disagreement aside, and you can’t get on board with the president’s policy, then you’re probably better served and the country’s probably better served if you’re back at an agency doing something where you’re not trying to make policy or create policy or thwart policy or resist policy. Or you’re better off going to run for Congress or state Senate or Senate, where you can be a policymaker. …

We are there to staff the president and make sure he gets the best advice on policy possible and to make sure his policies are implemented. If you’ve got a different view of what you should be doing, the NSC is probably not the best place for you to be serving.

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CNN’s Jim Acosta Accuses Trump of ‘Xenophobia’ for Pointing Out the Wuhan Virus Started in China

3 Food Aid Steps Policymakers Can Take for Needy Hurt by Coronavirus

Trump Suspends Travel From Europe, Offers Financial Aid for Coronavirus

A Doctor Explains What You Need to Know About Coronavirus


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


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

Watch: President Trump’s Address to the Nation on the Global Wuhan Virus Outbreak

On March 11th, 2020 at 9 p.m. ET, President Donald J. Trump addressed Americans from the Oval Office about our country’s fight against the global Coronavirus outbreak.

WATCH LIVE at 9 p.m. ET: President Trump addresses the nation

On March 11th the President met with financial leaders at the White House, discussing how best to meet the needs of customers affected by the Coronavirus. Ensuring financial relief for both consumers and small businesses is a core piece of the President’s agenda.

The President also signed a memorandum today directing his Cabinet to make general-use face masks available to healthcare workers. Under President Trump’s leadership, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has also already taken bold steps to incentivize the development of vaccines, therapeutics, and other products that are needed to fight the Coronavirus outbreak and address supply concerns.

TRANSCRIPT:

As prepared for delivery by the White House, March 11, 2020

My fellow Americans: Tonight, I want to speak with you about our nation’s unprecedented response to the coronavirus outbreak that started in China and is now spreading throughout the world.

Today, the World Health Organization officially announced that this is a global pandemic.

We have been in frequent contact with our allies, and we are marshaling the full power of the federal government and the private sector to protect the American people.

This is the most aggressive and comprehensive effort to confront a foreign virus in modern history.  I am confident that by counting and continuing to take these tough measures, we will significantly reduce the threat to our citizens, and we will ultimately and expeditiously defeat this virus.

From the beginning of time, nations and people have faced unforeseen challenges, including large-scale and very dangerous health threats.  This is the way it always was and always will be.  It only matters how you respond, and we are responding with great speed and professionalism.

Our team is the best anywhere in the world.  At the very start of the outbreak, we instituted sweeping travel restrictions on China and put in place the first federally mandated quarantine in over 50 years.  We declared a public health emergency and issued the highest level of travel warning on other countries as the virus spread its horrible infection.

And taking early intense action, we have seen dramatically fewer cases of the virus in the United States than are now present in Europe.

The European Union failed to take the same precautions and restrict travel from China and other hotspots.  As a result, a large number of new clusters in the United States were seeded by travelers from Europe.

After consulting with our top government health professionals, I have decided to take several strong but necessary actions to protect the health and well-being of all Americans.

To keep new cases from entering our shores, we will be suspending all travel from Europe to the United States for the next 30 days.  The new rules will go into effect Friday at midnight.  These restrictions will be adjusted subject to conditions on the ground.

There will be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screenings, and these prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but various other things as we get approval.  Anything coming from Europe to the United States is what we are discussing.  These restrictions will also not apply to the United Kingdom.

At the same time, we are monitoring the situation in China and in South Korea.  And, as their situation improves, we will reevaluate the restrictions and warnings that are currently in place for a possible early opening.

Earlier this week, I met with the leaders of health insurance industry who have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments, extend insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing.

We are cutting massive amounts of red tape to make antiviral therapies available in record time.  These treatments will significantly reduce the impact and reach of the virus.

Additionally, last week, I signed into law an $8.3 billion funding bill to help CDC and other government agencies fight the virus and support vaccines, treatments, and distribution of medical supplies.  Testing and testing capabilities are expanding rapidly, day by day.  We are moving very quickly.

The vast majority of Americans: The risk is very, very low.  Young and healthy people can expect to recover fully and quickly if they should get the virus.  The highest risk is for elderly population with underlying health conditions.  The elderly population must be very, very careful.

In particular, we are strongly advising that nursing homes for the elderly suspend all medically unnecessary visits.  In general, older Americans should also avoid nonessential travel in crowded areas.

My administration is coordinating directly with communities with the largest outbreaks, and we have issued guidance on school closures, social distancing, and reducing large gatherings.

Smart action today will prevent the spread of the virus tomorrow.

Every community faces different risks and it is critical for you to follow the guidelines of your local officials who are working closely with our federal health experts — and they are the best.

For all Americans, it is essential that everyone take extra precautions and practice good hygiene.  Each of us has a role to play in defeating this virus.  Wash your hands, clean often-used surfaces, cover your face and mouth if you sneeze or cough, and most of all, if you are sick or not feeling well, stay home.

To ensure that working Americans impacted by the virus can stay home without fear of financial hardship, I will soon be taking emergency action, which is unprecedented, to provide financial relief.  This will be targeted for workers who are ill, quarantined, or caring for others due to coronavirus.

I will be asking Congress to take legislative action to extend this relief.

Because of the economic policies that we have put into place over the last three years, we have the greatest economy anywhere in the world, by far.

Our banks and financial institutions are fully capitalized and incredibly strong.  Our unemployment is at a historic low.  This vast economic prosperity gives us flexibility, reserves, and resources to handle any threat that comes our way.

This is not a financial crisis, this is just a temporary moment of time that we will overcome together as a nation and as a world.

However, to provide extra support for American workers, families, and businesses, tonight I am announcing the following additional actions:  I am instructing the Small Business Administration to exercise available authority to provide capital and liquidity to firms affected by the coronavirus.

Effective immediately, the SBA will begin providing economic loans in affected states and territories.  These low-interest loans will help small businesses overcome temporary economic disruptions caused by the virus.  To this end, I am asking Congress to increase funding for this program by an additional $50 billion.

Using emergency authority, I will be instructing the Treasury Department to defer tax payments, without interest or penalties, for certain individuals and businesses negatively impacted.  This action will provide more than $200 billion of additional liquidity to the economy.

Finally, I am calling on Congress to provide Americans with immediate payroll tax relief.  Hopefully they will consider this very strongly.

We are at a critical time in the fight against the virus.  We made a life-saving move with early action on China.  Now we must take the same action with Europe.  We will not delay.  I will never hesitate to take any necessary steps to protect the lives, health, and safety of the American people.  I will always put the wellbeing of America first.

If we are vigilant — and we can reduce the chance of infection, which we will — we will significantly impede the transmission of the virus.  The virus will not have a chance against us.

No nation is more prepared or more resilient than the United States.  We have the best economy, the most advanced healthcare, and the most talented doctors, scientists, and researchers anywhere in the world.

We are all in this together.  We must put politics aside, stop the partisanship, and unify together as one nation and one family.

As history has proven time and time again, Americans always rise to the challenge and overcome adversity.

Our future remains brighter than anyone can imagine.  Acting with compassion and love, we will heal the sick, care for those in need, help our fellow citizens, and emerge from this challenge stronger and more unified than ever before.

God bless you, and God bless America.  Thank you.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Watch CNN’s Don Lemon Throw A Tantrum Over John Kasich’s Refusal to Slam Trump’s Wuhan Virus Speech

Stay prepared: Follow CDC for resources and updates on the Coronavirus 

“Trump Administration Addresses ‘Community Spread’ of Coronavirus”.

A Doctor Explains What You Need to Know About Coronavirus

Trump Suspends Travel From Europe, Offers Financial Aid for Coronavirus

3 Food Aid Steps Policymakers Can Take for Needy Hurt by Coronavirus

National Security Adviser Blames China for Swift Spread of Coronavirus

With Coronavirus, the Chinese Repeat the Soviets’ Chernobyl Failure

The Difference Between East and West

I’ve been to Japan several times over the years on business and have had the privilege of seeing Japanese work habits first hand, which are noticeably different than in the United States. As a small example, the first time I visited, I noticed in addition to having Coke and Pepsi machines on a street corner, there were also beer and whiskey machines. I discovered the Japanese were not worried about the youth getting alcohol from the machines as it would cause their families to “lose face” through embarrassment. If we had such machines in this country, they would probably be emptied by our youth faster than the vendors could stock them.

Aside from this though, there are a few other differences I observed in corporate Japan:

  1. Japanese do not like to say “No” to someone as they do not want to offend the person. Instead, they tend to say, “Maybe Yes,” which, when translated, means “No.” If they nod their heads in the affirmative, it only means they understand what you are saying but they don’t necessarily agree with you. Because of this, it is not uncommon for American businessmen to fool themselves into believing they are being successful when they make a presentation in Japan. In reality, the Japanese understood the presentation but need time to digest and discuss it among themselves. If an American asks them something like, “Was I correct in this regards?” If they answer, “Maybe Yes,” the American is in trouble.
  2. I’ve been in a few large offices in Japan where I have seen young employees suddenly jump up on their desks and give a five minute speech on why he is proud of his company and what a pleasure it is to work with his coworkers. When finished, the rest of the office politely applauds before returning to their work.
  3. It is not proper for an employee to be insolent and openly criticize his superior. Knowing this may lead to pent up frustrations, some companies have small closet-sized rooms where the disgruntled employee can go into, close the door, and quietly beat an effigy of the boss with a bamboo stick. It may sound kind of silly, then again, you don’t hear of anyone going “postal” in Japan either.
  4. It is still important for the Japanese to reach a consensus on any significant decision. This process may take some time to perform, but they want to emphasize team building and inclusion of employees in the decision making process.
  5. When you join a major company in Japan it is common to first “pay your dues,” whereby you and your “class” (those who joined at the same time) are put on the same employment level and work for ten years, after which it is determined who the hard workers are and reward them with a major job promotion. If you didn’t work hard, the company won’t necessarily fire you, but your advancement in the company is arrested. Nonetheless, the emphasis here is on teamwork and creating a spirit of cooperation.

In the United States though, things are a little different:

  1. Americans are not afraid of offending anyone. So much so, that “Hell No!” (or stronger) is a natural part of our vernacular. Unlike the Japanese who digest something before speaking, Americans do not hesitate to tell you whether they agree with you or not.
  2. Rarely do you find an American employee who is steadfastly loyal to his company. Instead, it is more likely he will start an anonymous blog to bitch about his company and slander the character of the boss and his coworkers.
  3. Americans tend to vent their frustrations more publicly than the Japanese. For example, you might get attacked in the company parking lot, or someone may pull a gun out and start shooting.
  4. Instead of group decision making, Americans prefer rugged individualism whereby decisions tend to be made unilaterally as opposed to seeking the counsel of others. Consequently, employees tend to undermine any decision which is jammed down their throats.
  5. When you join a major company in the United States, you are rewarded more for individual acts as opposed to team playing. This results in a never ending game of scratching and clawing your way up the corporate hierarchy. Obviously, this approach promotes interoffice politics and cutthroat tactics as opposed to a spirit of cooperation.

Why the substantial differences? Primarily because Japan is a homogeneous culture, and the American “melting pot” is heterogeneous which includes people of all races, faiths, and beliefs.

Although the differences between east and west are noticeable, things are slowly changing in Japan, whose youth have grown up with the Internet and are starting to emulate the work habits of their counterparts in the west. In other words, instead of observing courtesy, honor and respect, Japan is slowly becoming Westernized and I fear that some time in the not too distant future “Maybe Yes” will mean nothing more than that.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also do not forget my books, “How to Run a Nonprofit” and “Tim’s Senior Moments”, both available in Printed and eBook form.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Never Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste

TRANSCRIPT

In 2008, Obama’s White House Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor Rahm Emmanuel said of the then-tanking economy, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

He meant, when something bad happens, find a way to score political points and advance your agenda even further and faster.

Well, aside from the weaponizing of the coronavirus by the Left, the same is now going on in the Church, and that’s because a vast number of the hierarchy are actually sympathetic to the Left, and in some cases, card-carrying members.

First, there’s the political idiocy. The Left is saying —we know this is shocking — that it’s all Trump’s fault. Either he didn’t do enough in the beginning, or he’s not doing enough now.

And now, since he or his supporters have dubbed it the “Wuhan Virus,” on top of all of it, they are racists. Trump got attacked for putting a Chinese travel ban in place to contain the virus. According to the Left, that makes him xenophobic. Calling it the Wuhan Virus makes him a racist.

The media-driven hysteria, which they are pushing because they think it might be a backdoor way to get to Trump, is just ridiculously over the top. The markets plunging feeds right into the Dems’ political strategy and, of course, it’s all Trump’s fault, as Joe Biden was stammering on about a couple of days ago.

What no one in the Marxist media is saying is that this is nowhere near as deadly as the H1N1 virus outbreak which killed about half a million Americans. The regular old flu kills anywhere from 40,000–100,000 Americans every year.

By the way, if there was ever a time to buy stocks it would be right now. Buy low, sell high.

However, the political Left can’t really hold a candle to what is being accomplished by what we could call the theological Left. And we are talking about the Mass hysteria —  literal Mass, as in the sacrifice of the Mass. News that all Masses in Rome were canceled throughout the remainder of Lent, which essentially just began, sent shockwaves throughout the Catholic world.

The Italian bishops conference is either canceling Masses, limiting Holy Communion or a host of other actions that have the ultimate effect of dampening the Faith. They’ve actually posted notices at local parishes that say in effect, no Masses, no adoration, no confessions, no weddings, etc.

Talk about never letting a crisis go to waste.

But when you jump the pond and land on American shores, the U.S. bishops are also making hay out of the hysteria.

And for the record, we aren’t saying ignore the virus, of course not. You should always take whatever usual and reasonable precautions you can to prevent you and your loved ones from getting sick. But too many U.S. bishops are being completely unreasonable and that’s a charitable assessment.

One could easily conclude that many are using the situation to go after Communion on the tongue. They’ve long hated it because it smacks of traditional Catholicism but they’ve been a little hamstrung in forbidding it. They’re hamstrung actually because they don’t have jurisdiction to forbid it. Only the pope can stop the practice of reception of Holy Communion on the tongue.

Hear that very clearly: No bishop can order you to not receive on the tongue, period. The Universal law of the Church says every Catholic has the right, the right — pay attention — the right — to receive on the tongue. Therefore every bishop who orders, or makes it sound like you can’t receive Our Lord on the tongue is lying and disobedient, or at the very least, totally ignorant and incompetent.

Back in 2008 and 2009, the H1N1 flu, which was also called the swine flu, broke out and killed huge numbers of people. Of course, the U.S. bishops, ever watchful for an opportunity to kill Communion on the tongue, petitioned Rome to see if Pope Benedict would end the practice. The answer they got back was a resounding no.

Now pay attention because we have attached a link to Rome’s response for you to print out and keep with you when you go to Mass. It says flat out that you always have the right to receive on the tongue, period — no exceptions. Always, always, always means always — always — even in the age of confusion which reigns supreme in Rome these days.

Again, click on the link, print out this document and keep it with you. It’s your proof that you cannot be told to receive in your hand. It’s only four sentences long. Ah, we miss the days of clarity.

And not only does it say you always have the right to receive on the tongue, it also says that it is illicit to deny Holy Communion to those who are able to receive.

And by the way, keep it with you even after the Wuhan virus scare is over, because you know that many bishops will never reinstate the practice with a public announcement that says “okay, all clear to start receiving on the tongue again.” Fat chance — it’s not going to happen.

There’s much to get into here about the topic of the manner of reception. There’s a long history to talk about — how homosexual Cdl. Joseph Bernardin of Chicago jammed through reception in the hand illicitly, over the objections of multiple bishops. We could talk about how reception from the cup was introduced to copy the Protestant revolutionaries who wanted to destroy belief in the Real Presence in the first Protestants, who were actually Catholics. The introduction of so-called eucharistic ministers was a further attempt to destroy belief in the Real Presence.

All of their plans, you have to say, have worked exceedingly well. Belief in the Real Presence is virtually nil among Catholics. Good job, bishops!

Likewise, you can tell easily that many of the bishops are using this as a way to get at traditional Catholics, because frankly, traditional Catholics are just about the only ones who do receive on the tongue and kneeling at that. The vast majority of the few Church of Nice Catholics who still go to Mass wouldn’t dream of receiving on the tongue, or kneeling. They show up late, grab their piece of bread and scoot out the door early, and then, not even every week.

So just who are the bishops talking to when they issue all these alarmist “the sky is falling” warnings? Certainly not the huge majority of the tiny percentage of Catholics who go to Mass.

And even if the Wuhan Virus was as great a lethal threat as the Marxist media is making it out to be — and the bishops are at least faking like they believe that, given how much they are canceling Holy Communion reception on the tongue — here’s a question.

Are the bishops going to cancel their semiannual meeting that will take place here in Detroit in June? (See you there, guys.) After all, those most impacted by the virus, if they catch it, are older men in somewhat poor health. You couldn’t find a more apt physical description of the U.S. hierarchy as a whole than that — old, out-of-shape, with other health problems — men. Then you’re going to cram about 400 of them into the same room for days on end. Come on, bishops.

Then you’re going to travel back to your dioceses and transmit the killer disease to your staff who will then kill off the laity in your diocese by shaking their hands. Bishops, come on, you aren’t going to limit your efforts to just the laity at Communion time right?

Laity — know your rights.

Click on that Vatican document we’ve attached, and have it with you — print it out and have it with you — every time you go to Mass. Just keep it in your back pocket. It’s almost a guarantee in the Church of Nice: One day, you’re going to need it. After all, why let a good crisis go to waste?

Correction: The CDW letter was a reply to a lay Catholic in Britain concerned about the parish’s restricting of reception of Communion on the tongue because of the swine flu scare, not the USCCB.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.