FBI reveals name of Saudi official suspected of directing support for 9/11 jihadis

What is known about the Saudi involvement in 9/11 is detailed in The History of Jihad. But much more is not known, and the people who should be investigating, and should have investigated long ago, are clueless, compromised, or complicit.

“EXCLUSIVE: In court filing, FBI accidentally reveals name of Saudi official suspected of directing support for 9/11 hijackers,” by Michael Isikoff, Yahoo News, May 12, 2020

WASHINGTON — The FBI inadvertently revealed one of the U.S. government’s most sensitive secrets about the Sept. 11 terror attacks: the identity of a mysterious Saudi Embassy official in Washington who agents suspected had directed crucial support to two of the al-Qaida hijackers.

The disclosure came in a new declaration filed in federal court by a senior FBI official in response to a lawsuit brought by families of 9/11 victims that accuses the Saudi government of complicity in the terrorist attacks.

The declaration was filed last month but unsealed late last week. According to a spokesman for the 9/11 victims’ families, it represents a major breakthrough in the long-running case, providing for the first time an apparent confirmation that FBI agents investigating the attacks believed they had uncovered a link between the hijackers and the Saudi Embassy in Washington.

It’s unclear just how strong the evidence is against the former Saudi Embassy official — it’s been a subject of sharp dispute within the FBI for years. But the disclosure, which a senior U.S. government official confirmed was made in error, seems likely to revive questions about potential Saudi links to the 9/11 plot.

It also shines a light on the extraordinary efforts by top Trump administration officials in recent months to prevent internal documents about the issue from ever becoming public.

“This shows there is a complete government cover-up of the Saudi involvement,” said Brett Eagleson, a spokesman for the 9/11 families whose father was killed in the attacks. “It demonstrates there was a hierarchy of command that’s coming from the Saudi Embassy to the Ministry of Islamic Affairs [in Los Angeles] to the hijackers.”

Still, Eagleson acknowledged he was flabbergasted by the bureau’s slip-up in identifying the Saudi Embassy official in a public filing. Although Justice Department lawyers had last September notified lawyers for the 9/11 families of the official’s identity, they had done so under a protective order that forbade the family members from publicly disclosing it.

Now, the bureau itself has named the Saudi official. “This is a giant screwup,” Eagleson said….

In a portion describing the material sought by lawyers for the 9/11 families, Sanborn refers to a partially declassified 2012 FBI report about an investigation into possible links between the al-Qaida terrorists and Saudi government officials. That probe, the existence of which has only become public in the past few years, initially focused on two individuals: Fahad al-Thumairy, a Saudi Islamic Affairs official and radical cleric who served as the imam of the King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles and Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi government agent who assisted two terrorists, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who participated in the hijacking of the American Airlines plane that flew into the Pentagon, killing 125.

After the two hijackers flew to Los Angeles on Jan. 15, 2000, al-Bayoumi found them an apartment, lent them money and set them up with bank accounts.

A redacted copy of a three-and-a-half page October 2012 FBI “update” about the investigation stated that FBI agents had uncovered “evidence” that Thumairy and Bayoumi had been “tasked” to assist the hijackers by yet another individual whose name was blacked out, prompting lawyers for the families to refer to this person as “the third man” in what they argue is a Saudi-orchestrated conspiracy.

Describing the request by lawyers for the 9/11 families to depose that individual under oath, Sanborn’s declaration says in one instance that it involves “any and all records referring to or relating to Jarrah.”

The reference is to Mussaed Ahmed al-Jarrah, a mid-level Saudi Foreign Ministry official who was assigned to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., in 1999 and 2000. His duties apparently included overseeing the activities of Ministry of Islamic Affairs employees at Saudi-funded mosques and Islamic centers within the United States.

Relatively little is known about Jarrah, but according to former embassy employees, he reported to the Saudi ambassador in the United States (at the time Prince Bandar), and that he was later reassigned to the Saudi missions in Malaysia and Morocco, where he is believed to have served as recently as last year.

Jarrah has been on the radar screen of the lawyers for the 9/11 families for some time and is among nine current or former Saudi officials who they suspect have important information about the case and have sought to either question them or get access to FBI documents that mention them.

The families have also tapped former agents to help investigate the activities of the potential witnesses, including Jarrah.

Jarrah “was responsible for the placement of Ministry of Islamic Affairs employees known as guides and propagators posted to the United States, including Fahad Al Thumairy,” according to a separate declaration by Catherine Hunt, a former FBI agent based in Los Angeles who has been assisting the families in the case.

Hunt conducted her own investigation into the support provided to the hijackers in Southern California. “The FBI believed that al-Jarrah was ‘supporting’ and ‘maintaining’ al-Thumairy during the 9/11 investigation,” she said in her declaration….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim cleric: “Jews should be treated according to Allah’s decree about them, ‘Kill them wherever you find them’”

No one talks about Hindu children brutalized by Muslims in India

India: Govt asks Twitter to remove tweet saying “the terrorist definitely has a religion, in most cases it’s Islam”

Ramadan in Afghanistan: Muslims murder two babies and 11 mothers and nurses in jihad attack on hospital

“Palestinian” Muslim murders Israeli soldier by striking him in the head with a heavy rock

Palestinian Authority song: “Palestine is etched on the heart of the fetus, a proud Martyr in his mother’s womb”

UK: Three Muslim rape gang members still in the town where they abused girls, two years after being ordered deported

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

PODCAST: The First Thing We Do, Let’s Kill All The Bean Counters

Nope, its not the lawyers; its the “bean counters” that are ruining business. Let me give you an example, I know of a large machine-tool operation in the Midwest who used to be heralded for producing quality products. To this end, the company established an in-house school who taught their machinists how to build products, not just any old way, the company’s way. The school was led by the senior craftsmen of the business who took pride in their workmanship and passed this on to the new employees. When an employee graduated from the school, a machinist not only knew his job, but took pride in his work and became loyal to the company due to its reputation. Even if an employee dropped out and went elsewhere, he would always recommend his former company’s products because he knew they were built with quality. This school went on for a number of years and became a part of the corporate culture. However, in the 1980’s the company hired a team of MBA’s to look over their operations and make recommendations for improvement. You must remember, this was a time when cost cutting was the norm. After looking over the financial statements of the business, the management consultants concluded the school represented a costly overhead and convinced the company to close it down.

Shortly after the school’s closure, the company started to experience a drop in morale, absenteeism and tardiness began to rise, and craftsmanship began to deteriorate. Product quality dropped significantly and the company began to lose customers, so much so, they eventually sold off their machine-tool operations and went into a totally new line of business. Keep in mind, prior to this the company was a leader in the machine-tool industry and generated substantial profits from it.

Obviously this story isn’t unique as we have witnessed several such changes in the corporate landscape during the 1980’s and 1990’s. The point is, the bean counters have taken charge of business which has triggered sweeping changes in how we deal with our customers, our vendors, and our employees.

LOSING THE PERSONAL TOUCH

Under the bean counter approach to business, numbers are all that matter. Of course, paying attention to the bottom-line is always important, but this should not result in a callous way of operating a business. To me, studying the numbers is analogous to watching the dials and gauges of a machine. It is like watching the speedometer of an automobile, but if I observe an emergency vehicle approaching or see a drunk driver nearby, I am going to ignore the gauge and do what is proper. I am going to make a human decision and do what is best for my passengers and myself, as well as the other surrounding vehicles. If I only did what the dials and gauges told me, I would probably harm others.

The bean counter approach to business represents a very mechanical way of operating. Let me give you an illustration. I have a friend here in Florida who is the state sales manager for a home health business (a lucrative business for a retirement state like Florida). The company was recently purchased and a new management team put into place run by bean counters. After studying sales figures, management found a salesman who wasn’t making his quota and, consequently, instructed my friend to terminate his employment. My friend knew the salesman in question and realized he was experiencing some personal problems. After considerable discussion with corporate management, he convinced them to let him (the Sales Manager) work with the salesman a while longer to see if he could help him. He pointed out to management, the alternative was to start the laborious and costly process of recruiting and teaching a replacement. Management acquiesced and granted the salesman a stay of execution. Over the next few weeks, the Sales Manager was able to work with the salesman, helped him overcome his personal problems and rebuilt his confidence. Since then, the salesman has gotten back on track and has been exceeding quota ever since.

Bean counters do not understand or appreciate the true business of a company. They make knee-jerk reactions based strictly on numbers, not on human intuition or social interaction. It is no small wonder the corporate world has become dehumanizing. I know of a medium sized semiconductor business in the Southeast who also experienced a similar phenomenon. The company was founded by a man with little formal education, but a lot of “street smarts.” He took a hands-on approach to the startup of the company which grew in leaps and bounds. As the company settled into maturity, the founder began to slow down and brought in a new management team to take over the reins. His new management team had some pretty slick business school credentials but, inevitably, they were nothing more than bean counters. Under their watch, corporate growth was arrested and the company’s stock diminished radically. Today, a company that was at one time a robust and thriving business with loyal customers and dedicated employees is a mere shadow of its old self.

Conducting business is more about our interpersonal relations with customers, vendors and employees, than it is about watching dials and gauges. As the famed W. Edwards Deming once said:

“Profit in business comes from repeat customers, customers that boast about your project or service, and that bring friends with them.”

Keep in mind, Deming understood the need for statistical analysis and watching the bottom-line, but he also realized they were nothing more than the dials and gauges of the business.

CONCLUSION

Under the bean counter approach we have lost the personal touch for conducting business. Companies have become cold and calculating, certainly not the types of businesses we want to work for or with. Always remember that bean counters believe conducting business is simply manipulating numbers, not in building products or servicing customers. Yet, for some unfathomable reason, we have put them on a pedestal and expect them to competently guide our companies, but the only thing I see them guiding is our foreign competitors who take over our market share.

To paraphrase William Shakespeare, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the bean counters.”

“Business is about people, not just numbers.” – Bryce’s Law

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also, I have a NEW book, “Before You Vote: Know How Your Government Works”, What American youth should know about government, available in Printed, PDF and eBook form. DON’T FORGET GRADUATION DAY. This is the perfect gift!

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

12 Urgent Actions to Reopen America and Prevent an Economic Depression

The steps we take to reopen America safely will determine whether the United States has to contend with an economic depression—regardless of whether COVID-19 is suppressed in the next several months or the next year.

How we build on those steps will not just be critical in restarting the American economy, but also could help to increase the soundness of the economy coming out of this crisis.

The Heritage Foundation’s National Coronavirus Recovery Commission has put forward 179 recommendations for governors, local leaders, federal officials, and the private sector on the steps necessary to reopen America.


When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here>>>.

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 >>


The full report from the commission takes a comprehensive approach to combating this crisis and includes many facets of the challenge we face.  It reflects a strong belief that saving lives and saving livelihoods are inextricably connected.

But as we talk specifically about getting America back to work, here are 12 of the most urgent actions that policymakers should take to prevent an economic depression.

1. Allow businesses in counties with low incidence of COVID-19 to reopen. Just five states—New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, and California—account for 54% of all of the confirmed COVID-19 cases in the U.S. and 61% of all related deaths. Most counties (80%) have had less than five deaths related to the new coronavirus.

2. Use stay-at-home orders sparingly and only where necessary. Better, more targeted approaches should focus on infection hot spots, isolate the sick from work, and protect the more vulnerable (those who are elderly, in nursing homes, or have preexisting conditions).

3. Establish a national portal with accessible data on the spread of the coronavirus as well as the modeling used to support decisions made by governments at all levels. Access to information is absolutely critical for governments, medical professionals, businesses, and individuals to make the best decisions on how best to respond. Specifically, the availability of this information will reinforce consistency in standards that can be carried out locally and helps physicians. More access to information  also will help to eliminate uncertainty about the virus that hurts the confidence of businesses and consumers.

4. Immediately allow all medical offices to reopen. Many states shut down health care services considered “nonessential” to prepare for projected massive surges in patients infected by the coronavirus. This government-created impediment has hindered the ability of medical professionals to meet Americans’ ongoing health care needs, and many medical workers are being unnecessarily furloughed. Amid an unprecedented health crisis, over 1 million health care workers face unemployment.

5. Review all regulations that have been waived or modified in response to COVID-19 and consider permanent changes. Such a clear statement by President Donald Trump to executive agencies would provide more long-term confidence and stability for businesses by ensuring regulatory regimes work in good times and bad, facilitate innovation and market advancement, and still protect health and safety.

6. Expand liability protections with a safe harbor for businesses and workers that follow guidance by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in good faith. A safe harbor by Congress would provide much-needed confidence and stability that encourages business owners to reopen.

7. Liberalize future Paycheck Protection Program loans to broaden eligible expenditures, extend the relevant period, and limit the loans to businesses that were hit hard. Businesses that were forced to shut down must rehire and retrain employees, secure inventory, reestablish vendor relationships, and settle balances. Congress should broaden what can be paid for and forgiven with new PPP loans for businesses that suffered a substantial decline in gross revenues because of the coronavirus.

8. Reduce small-business tax liability with a “physical presence” standard. Every small business that sells online, no matter where physically located, is subject to the more than 10,000 different taxing jurisdictions around the country—each with its own tax rates and rules. This burdensome, complex requirement threatens to bankrupt many small retailers and prohibit others from retooling to ship new products. Congress should protect vulnerable retailers by codifying a physical presence test for tax collection.

9. Make legislative and regulatory changes to expand access to capital for small businesses. Entrepreneurs will drive recovery by reopening existing businesses and taking on new risks to fill new needs in the post-crisis world. Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission should remove barriers for small businesses to access peer-to-peer lending, credit unions, and investment finders. By simplifying exemptions and disclosure frameworks, and working to simplify regulations, small public companies will find it easier to recover and grow.

10. Incentivize research and development and infrastructure investments with permanent full expensing. Starting in 2022, research and development expenses and new spending on machinery and tools no longer will be fully deductible, discouraging innovation and investment. R&D spending is critical as the private sector develops new remedies and reorganizes to meet the needs of a post-coronavirus recovery.

11. Honor and enforce contractual insurance obligations. The virus has caused extensive property damage, and many businesses aren’t getting the business interruption coverage for which they contracted. Insurance coverage should be honored to the fullest extent agreed upon in the individual terms of contract, which should be enforced fully by the courts if necessary or resolved through legal arbitration.

12. Eliminate all tariffs imposed since 2018. Trade freedom is vital to economic recovery and to build certainty in supply chains. Countless U.S. jobs depend on materials from Great Britain, the European Union, and around the world—and vice versa. The Trump administration should remove Section 201, Section 232, and Section 301 tariffs to benefit all parties.

Every day that passes increases the amount of time that it will take to get the economy up and running again.

If broad-based lockdown policies are continued much longer, we face a real prospect of a depression with economic suffering and social and public health effects that could last for years.

For the complete list of recommendations, visit the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission’s website at CoronavirusCommission.com.

COMMENTARY BY

Paul Winfree is the director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Studies and the Richard F. Aster fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Charmaine Yoest is a vice president of The Heritage Foundation, where she leads the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity. Yoest previously served in the Trump administration in the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

4 Ways the 1957 Pandemic Resembles, and Differs From, COVID-19

Trump, Countering Fauci, Says He Wants Schools Reopened

Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down Wisconsin’s stay-at-home order that closed businesses to limit spread of coronavirus


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.

PODCAST: Air Force Veteran Talks Military Service, Marriage, and Feminism

If “the American dream” describes overcoming the challenges of a difficult childhood; serving in the armed forces; having the financial freedom to support not only yourself, but also your family; making a difference in your community through political engagement; and finding love along the way, then Anna Paulina Luna is living the dream.

Luna joins the “Problematic Women” podcast on the eve of the 78th anniversary of the creation of the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps in 1942 formally allowing women to join the armed forces. She shares her journey of growing up in a single-parent home in California as a Hispanic American and finding confidence, success, and a husband through her Air Force service.

Plus, in the wake of Mother’s Day, we take a moment to say “thank you” to all our wonderful mothers and chat with Lauren’s mom, Karla Evans. And as always, we’ll be crowning our problematic woman of the week.

Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript. Enjoy the show!


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 >>


Virginia Allen: We are joined by Anna Paulina Luna, a conservative political activist and a retired Air Force veteran. Anna, thanks so much for being here.

Anna Paulina Luna: Thank you for having me on, I’m super excited to be here.

Allen: Tomorrow is the anniversary of women being allowed to serve in different branches of the military, so we’re really excited to talk with you about your military service. But first, I just want us to take a minute to talk more about who you are and learn more about your story.

So, Anna, you are a Hispanic American. You were raised by your mom in Southern California. Could you just take a minute to share a little bit about your childhood with us?

Luna: Yeah. I think it’s always interesting doing the political crossover because I feel like so many people, especially in this really digital age, try to put on this front that they’re just these perfect people. And I find that when you really own who you are, when you own your childhood and your upbringing, it actually allows other people to connect with you.

So I found one of the most powerful things has been for me to really talk about that, to give people a little bit of insight as to why I’m so passionate about what I believe in, and really why I believe in certain policies.

What a lot of people off first glance looking at me might not expect is that I grew up in the welfare system. My mom actually had me at 20, and she chose to keep me over an abortion. It was really us on our own from the beginning.

My entire family, not just on my mom’s side, but my father struggled with a very severe drug addiction that really took him away from me a lot of the time.

So not only did I have this kind of chaotic upbringing, but I knew that I really did want to make a change, and I thought at the time that I was going to do that through medicine.

I overheard that the military would pay for medical school, or pay for school in general. So, without telling my mom, I went and talked to a recruiter and I enlisted. I told her about a month before I was supposed to leave that I would be joining the military.

It was really the military that kind of launched me into what I say [is] success as an adult. It gave me that structure that I really didn’t have in a family life.

It was through the military that I was able to excel. And I tell people even to this day, “I will always support the military for that reason.” It was a huge factor in setting me up for success and really enabling me to help my family as well. But you don’t always have to have that victim mentality, you can accomplish anything you set your mind to.

It was through my hard work and dedication to my family and to myself that I was really able to change the outcome, I think, of my own life, my family’s life, and future generations.

So that’s why I’m very passionate and that’s why I share my stories, because I think that more stories like that need to get out there. And through my work with Prager, we’re hoping to really connect with people on that deep personal level and really stand up some great voices to help save this country.

Lauren Evans: What was going on in your head when you were 19 and joined the military? I think a lot of American youth are kind of in this arrested development and they feel like 19 is a really young age, but that was a really big commitment to make.

Luna: It was a super big commitment. And because it was really just my mom, me, my brother, my sister, we didn’t know of anyone in our immediate family that had been in the military. It actually wasn’t until I got out that I found out some of our extended family had either gone to Normandy or had been in Vietnam.

But at the time, I went and talked to a recruiter. I’d actually went and talked to the Army recruiter first, and I was supposed to join the Army as a medic.

And then I went over to the Air Force recruiter prior to me going to MEPS, which is where you do your in-processing before you leave. And the Air Force recruiter is like, “I think I can get a better gig, let me tell you about what jobs we have available.”

But when you’re so young, and you don’t really have a lot of that guidance that I think some people have, you really don’t, I think, understand the magnitude of what you’re about to do, especially when you join the military.

So for me, I went from being in LA, kind of a different lifestyle, to really joining the military, and then that was it, I was gone, I wasn’t at home around my family, I wasn’t at home around where I grew up, I was in a completely different world.

For me, changing that, taking me out of a place of comfort, and putting me somewhere new where I had to excel on my own if I wanted to make it, that really builds character, and that was, I think, where I really started to grow as an adult, was during those early years in the military.

Really, today, it’s weird, but I only got out of the military two years ago. So I really still do have a close tie to the military community because so many of my friends are still actively serving.

Allen: Wow. So amazing. Anna, we want to play just a short clip of an interview you did with PragerU, talking about your time in the military. Let’s take a listen for just a moment.

Luna: The military is one of the best things that, a lot of times, people can do to get out of really bad situations. And it deeply almost angers me when I hear people say that the military targets minorities, and that it’s not a good thing, because not only was I able to help myself, and really, as an adult, get the guidance and the structure that I needed to really excel, but I was able to also help my family.

And I think that for someone like myself, I mean, what other place in the world can a young woman join the military and then help their family to the point of really making changes that impact future generations? And I think that that was something that I will forever be grateful for the military for.

And when I still talk to younger kids, even kids from rougher areas, I’m like, “Hey, look, you should consider joining, because for me, it was life-changing and I don’t regret that decision.”

Allen: So, Anna, let’s unpack for a minute just a little bit of what you say in this clip. You mention that your service changed not only your life, but also really empowered you to be able to affect the lives of your family members. Can you just explain a little bit more about what you mean by that?

Luna: Yeah. So my mom, again, going back, she was a young single mom. … We were in the welfare system. She was very much so, I think, dependent on different loans and sometimes government assistance. But when I joined the military, I was able to not only send money back home, but in an instance, I think I talked about it earlier, but I was able to help out my dad.

What a lot of people don’t know is that my dad was homeless for a little bit. And it was, again, the military giving me a job, a stable form of income, taking care of me completely that I was actually able to move my father out to Florida, and was really, I think, one of the first times in his life that he truly stayed clean, and that he still is.

So had I not done that, had I not been able to send money back home that would help pay for my sister’s art lessons—and then later on she was accepted into one of the best art schools, not even just in the world, but in the country.

All of these things—people don’t realize, but sometimes you never know who’s going to be the one to reach back and really help out and make changes.

But it was that team effort to where I was able to kind of provide the air support for my family that we needed that’s really impacted and made changes.

Frankly, my sister, she didn’t just go on to attend this incredible art school—I mean, she’s there on scholarship—and it was because I was able to hep my mom out, help send her to those lessons. My dad is now sober because I was able to move him from a place that he was in, a very dark area, to an area where he could focus on his life, get his life together.

And I don’t have a perfect family. And I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that through hard work and dedication you can make those changes.

Sometimes you don’t realize how much something as small as me going into a recruiter’s office would help change the next 10 years, the next 20 years in outcomes of your family. But here I am. And it’s really resonated with a lot of people. And I’m not just the only one.

So you meet a lot of people in the military that are from all walks of life. They’re from sometimes the inner city of Chicago, sometimes they’re from well-to-do families.

But the one thing that brings you together is your sense of purpose to serve the country, your uniform, the fact that you are away from home, and that the military, your sergeants become your parents, your younger enlisted members become your brothers and sisters. You spend holidays together. And that deep form of bonding can really help, especially people like myself who didn’t necessarily always have that.

So I still, to this day, I know this is going to sound like a military recruiting ad, but I’m a huge fan of the military. And to tie this to politics, I feel like you have so many politicians that say they want to help out veterans, but they don’t. And they know that veterans are great for photos, but then don’t genuinely have that passion and drive to really help represent veterans, focus on veterans’ issues, and take care of our service members.

I hope to help other leaders stand up, so that we can be advocates for the vet community.

Evans: What are some of those ways that we can be advocating for the veteran community?

Luna: I’d say right now, especially in regard to how many people are now coming back, you have less than 1%, I believe the number is, of the U.S. population now having served. And I think when we’re talking on issues, and this is something that’s even in the military community considered really taboo, but the topics of post traumatic stress disorder.

You have so many people that that word in itself, that term “disorder,” they don’t want to be branded with that, they don’t want to be labeled with that, and they don’t want the stigma that comes along with it.

So sometimes people won’t get the help that they need because of the fact that they don’t want to be in that category. But what ends up happening is, these people become isolated, and because of that, that’s when you have the higher instances of even suicide with post-traumatic stress disorder.

So … let’s say you’re the owner of a company, if there’s a way that you can give back to veterans organizations, do it. If there’s a way that you can hire veterans, do it.

But also, if you’re friends with a veteran, ask them how they’re doing, ask them about their service. A lot of people don’t realize that sometimes just having a simple conversation to take the time and say, “Hey, how are you doing?” I know this is a busy world, everyone is on their phones all the time, but having that intimate conversation, that does make a difference.

And even now, here where I live, I work with different veterans organizations. And even though I’m still doing the political circuit, I reach back, and I try to lift those around me that I know are going to help further veterans’ causes.

But I’d say right now, one of my biggest goals is to really help change the stigma nationally of what post-traumatic stress disorder is. And then also ensure that people are making sure that veterans’ rights aren’t being thrown onto the chopping block in policy.

I love what The Heritage Foundation is doing with veterans. I think it’s incredible. And I think that we need to be the voices sometimes for those that might not want to speak up on these issues. So that’s what I talk about. Sometimes I talk about the uncomfortable, and I think that that’s needed right now.

Allen: It is needed. … We all need to be made a little bit uncomfortable sometimes.

But, Anna, one of my favorite things is just to sit and listen and hear the stories of veterans, veterans like yourself that have served their country, have sacrificed.

Are there any stories that you want to share today that are just really reminiscent for you of your time in the Air Force and what it means to you to serve your country?

Luna: There is a ton. But I’d have to say, one of the things I’m never going to forget is my first sergeant.

The first sergeant that I ever had that I really connected with, his name was Sergeant Haywood. And actually, to this day, [I] still keep in contact with him. But this was kind of when I realized, “Wow, the military is showing me something.” I had my adult moment where I realized the military was teaching me some things.

And you have Sergeant Haywood, and he was from Inglewood, which is in California, at the time, a really rough area, and still somewhat is. But he became my sergeant. And you had me, which people a lot of times look at me and they assume a lot. I’m kind of tiny, they probably think I’m just hanging out at the Starbucks with a mocha late and UGG boots on.

But he was from this really rough area. And I would talk to him at work and we would hang out. Then after work, I finally saw him and I realized that I was kind of judging people based on how they dress. And I didn’t realize that Sergeant Haywood was from the opposite side of town as me. But it was the military uniform that brought us together, and it enabled me to look past that.

That was, I think, kind of one of my first growing, mentally growing experiences. But the other thing that really stuck with me was, in 2014, my husband was shot in Afghanistan.

At this point in time, I really didn’t understand, I guess, what the concept of post-traumatic stress disorder was. And the military will constantly give you CBTs, it’s called computer-based testing. … It’s basically PowerPoints where you check in, walking through the training.

So you had a lot of people that would get the CBT, there’d be slight mentions of it. But no one actually who had gone through an experience of what it was like to have a family member go through that or a community go through that. And what’s been really unique is that my husband is an Air Force special operator. So what his job is is combat control.

When he was shot in Afghanistan, I knew that he would be physically OK from where the injury was. But when I got up to Walter Reed Medical Center in Maryland, about a week after he had been shot, to meet him, and I was going through the hospital, and seeing really what happens after war, it wasn’t this glamorous thing that Hollywood makes it out to be.

It wasn’t like in the movie “Pearl Harbor,” where it’s this epic, positive love story. You had a lot of these people that were coming back physically and mentally in pieces.

When it showed me that and I saw what was happening to the community, what these families were going through, what the service members were going through, and then how certain people were really afraid of, I think, reaching out to get help, it really changed my outlook in, what was I doing on social media? What was I doing in my own community as a military member and then later on as a veteran to really help shed light on this issue?

I realized at that point that I needed to be focusing and making this a topic of discussion so that farther down the line I could help people like this that were coming back and dealing with it.

I ended up actually later on writing a book about really what my husband and I went through during that recovery process because so many marriages, so many people just didn’t want to talk about it, it was this private elephant in the room that I think people were going through and didn’t even realize that someone next to them might be having those same experiences.

My husband and I, we got through it. And it wasn’t easy, it was very difficult. But we made it, and we’re stronger because of it. We now talk about it to help, really, other married couples that might be struggling with similar issues, especially in regards to what’s faced in war time.

But that was something that will forever have changed my life, and … forever, I think, changed the objective of what I’m choosing to fight for, especially on veterans’ issues.

Evans: I think that’s what I love about you, Anna, that you always want to take your experiences and really help others with that knowledge. You met your husband while you both were serving, correct?

Luna: Correct. Yeah. I had joined with zero intent of getting … I wanted to just go to school, and like kind of a Beyoncé song, young independent female. And I met him, not even kidding, eight months after I joined. And we got married a month after we started dating. So it was very quick. That was 10 yeas ago.

Evans: Oh, wait, you got married one month after dating?

Luna: We got married one month after dating. So we were friends for a little bit prior, and then we started dating. He always jokes because he busted out of the friend zone. But yeah, it was 10 years ago. And I look back at that, and I was only 20 years old when I got married.

Evans: So what was that like? You were newlyweds and both in the service, which I imagine is a lot. And then you mentioned the major trauma that your relationship went through. Even now that you’ve transitioned to civilian life and he’s still serving, what has [being] married to a service member been like?

Luna: Well, I tease him all the time, especially when it comes time to get water before bed, I’m like, “I went through five combat deployments, or four combat deployments, go get me water.” I tease him about it all the time.

But it’s one of those things that I always tell people it’s really important, especially if you are in a relationship with a service member, to make sure that you’re friends first, because that kept us through all of the deployments, and all the hard times, and the injuries, and training.

My husband was in a unique job, especially as an active-duty member to work. He was not just deploying basically every six months. But then in between the times that he was deploying, he was going through training. So he really wasn’t around a lot.

But I stayed busy with college, and I was able to get my degree done, my bachelor’s in science. And then I was able to continue to move forward and really focus on my family, and just kind of keeping the house, redecorate ever so often. So I stayed busy.

But it is important to have a good network of friends, it is important to be friends [with] another service member before anything else, because that keeps you together through the hard times.

Allen: Such good life advice.

Evans: I still can’t get over you married your husband one month after meeting him, that’s so awesome.

Luna: I know. We didn’t necessarily advertise it either to people. We just knew people would be like, “What?” Especially now. But eventually when we did announce it, we actually ended up going to India, and we “eloped” in India. So we actually had this secret marriage for a little bit. … I’m very vocal on other issues, but I like to keep my relationship kind of private.

So we’ve been very fortunate enough to kind of have a really energetic and traveling spirit with one another. So when it came time to actually say, “Are we going to do a wedding?” … We went to India and had a blast and didn’t have to worry about wedding planning.

Allen: That’s so awesome. Oh, wow, I love that. Love your story. Well, Anna, since you left the military, you have become one of the most prominent Hispanic conservative leaders in our country. What kind of reactions do you get from people when they find out that you’re a Hispanic American and yet you’re very conservative?

Luna: It’s interesting because I get two completely different reactions. From those that are also conservative Hispanics, it’s like, “Finally. I align with you, you’re like me. Thanks God.”

But when it’s from very liberal, most of the time Democrat Hispanics, the first thing they actually bring up is my skin color and really, really racist undertones. I’ve been told, “Oh, you’re too white to be Hispanic.” Or, “You’re only half Hispanic so … you don’t count.”

And now, I know that that just for them is coming from a place of ignorance. So what I always like to say is, Barack Obama was half white and he’s considered the first black president. And with me, you can’t just box, especially the Hispanic community, into just one category. We’re not all short and Speedy Gonzales-like. And I don’t run around with a maraca and a sombrero just to prove how Hispanic I am.

But I can say that, on the back end, you have a lot of people that, I think, have really been programmed to think that being Hispanic is a certain thing. And the fact is that this Hispanic community is very diverse. You have Cubans, you have Mexicans, you have Puerto Ricans, you have Dominicans, you have Colombians, you have Guatemalans.

You have so many people from so many different areas, and the one thing that brings us together, especially in this country, is the fact that we have ideas that align with the Constitution, that we’re conservative, and that we’re Americans.

So, really, when it came time to kind of title the show for Prager, we wanted to really focus on that.

You have so many people coming from so many different backgrounds to talk about what their American story is, and that we don’t agree with identity politics, that we’re here to really bring this discussion to the forefront and say, “You can’t say that because someone is Hispanic that they have to vote a certain type of way.”

And you can’t take a community that’s really faith-based and has conservative values, and try to change that. Because at the end of the day, we all remember where we came from.

So I think in regards to people’s reactions, I mean, my close friends are not surprised. They all say the same thing, they’re like, “Well, we knew you were going to do something great.”

But when it comes to some of the people online that are really empowered by hiding behind their phones, it definitely does, I think, change their level of what they’ll say to you.

And people can just be mean. But I don’t sit there and I don’t dwell on it. I don’t read through every negative comment. If people want to be fine, that’s great; or be mean, that’s great. But I don’t have to sit there and subject myself to abuse. And so I don’t.

If people act like that, then that’s their own thing. But I’m not going to give them the time of day.

So it’s been mixed. From people that are conservative, you get positive, nothing is ever brought up about my skin tone. But when you get a very liberal person who happens to be Hispanic, even maybe sometimes less Hispanic than I am, the first thing that they bring up is my skin color.

And it’s very racially driven, and it’s almost sad, because if you’re focusing on my skin color and not the things that are coming out of my mouth, that’s how you know you’ve been programmed.

Evans: I think it’s Taylor Swift that said, “And the haters are going to hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.” So you just keep doing what you’re doing.

I want to bring it back to the reason why we’re talking today, and that is that tomorrow is the anniversary of women being allowed to serve in different branches of the military.

What does that mean to you as a female veteran that women, for a long time in our country, couldn’t easily serve in the same capacity that you did?

Luna: Having gone through the military training, and having done my job, and served my country, it’s a weird concept to think at a certain point, women weren’t even allowed to serve. But then you kind of look back at, historically, you had the Women’s Air Corps, the WAC. And then seeing really how women have helped kind of change the service as a whole.

I can say that I’m very, very proud to serve. And there’s just something about joining the military that really has given me, I think, the confidence that I need to now excel in this political arena. …

It’s something that I take great pride in. So to imagine that I wouldn’t have been able to serve is just a weird kind of foreign concept to me because it makes up so much of who I am, even now that I’m no longer in.

My job in particular, I did air field management. It’s called an AFSC, but that’s … kind of your category of learning. So it was “one, Charlie, seven, five, one.” And I actually worked to do flight plans for pilots. So in the sky, you have basically invisible roadways for airplanes. And so you have to work with the [Federal Aviation Administration] to block those out.

Then I did inspections for the airfield, I worked side by side with many pilots, from fighter pilots to gunship pilots, to the stealth bomber. And I also helped do arrivals and departures of some pretty high-level people, to include, at the time, Vice President [Joe] Biden.

I can tell you that, with the military, you always want to make sure that you have an administration that really supports the military. And there is something to be said about the morale now in the military under [President Donald] Trump, which is through the roof, versus at the time, even back in the day, with [President Barack] Obama and Biden.

Having been there when Biden came through, I can tell you that, for sure, I am very excited that President Trump is in office, because when you have people going to fight your wars, you want to make sure that these people are taken care of, and the Trump administration does do that for military members.

Allen: Anna, we’re certainly so thankful for your service and for all of the incredible individuals who have made that sacrifice and that decision to serve their country. There is so much that we are forever indebted to you all for.

But, Anna, last question I want to ask you, this is a question that we love to ask our guests that come on the show because we get so many different answers, do you consider yourself to be a feminist? Yes? No? Why or why not?

Luna: I think the modern-day term for what a feminist is has really changed over time. I support women, I support strong independent women in the workforce, whether it’s the military, or politics, or any other capacity. But the one thing that I think that the modern-day feminist movement has really targeted is men. And I don’t understand that.

You can be a strong independent woman for pro-life causes, for women empowerment, but you don’t have to hate men in the process. And I love my husband, I respect him; I love my father, I respect him, even though he’s not perfect. But I feel like that that’s really been hijacked.

So when people ask me that question, I think in the true, what initially feminism started out as, yes, I would be considered a feminist in that sense. But what it’s been hijacked, and what it’s become today, I wouldn’t consider myself that type of feminist, the type of feminist that really targets men.

So I say that I still will promote what I believe in, I will still fight for women in any capacity and really for being, I think, a good role model for the younger generations. But I don’t think you have to hate men in the process.

Evans: Anna, thank you so much for your time today. It’s been a pleasure talking with you.

Luna: Thank you so much, you guys.

PODCAST BY

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a news producer for The Daily Signal. She is the co-host of The Daily Signal Podcast and Problematic Women. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: @Virginia_Allen5.

Lauren Evans

Lauren Evans is the multimedia manager for The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Lauren. Twitter: @laurenelizevans.


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.

PODCAST: Hack to the Future — China’s Online War

What could be worse than not finding a vaccine? Having it stolen. And right now, in the race to find a coronavirus treatment, that might be the biggest threat of all. That’s why China isn’t just putting its best scientists on the job — it’s unleashing an army of cyberthieves to break into U.S. files and steal whatever progress America’s making. Turns out, the regime wasn’t just content infecting the world — they want to control who recovers first too.

The alerts went out across health care industries, academia, research teams, drug manufacturers: lock down your data. By late February, the U.S. cyber-intelligence and defense communities were getting more and more concerned. There’d been a huge spike in attacks on “sensitive data on COVID-19-related research” by foreign hackers at agencies like HHS. Both the American and U.K. governments sent out a bulletin warning groups that this was a full-scale assault on government agencies, hospitals, labs, and universities. “There is nothing more valuable today than biomedical research relating to vaccines or treatments for the coronavirus,” Jonathan Demers, the assistant attorney general for national security, pointed out. And it would be “beyond absurd,” he argued, to think that the Chinese Communist Party’s espionage would stop during the pandemic.

“It is safe to say,” one official agreed, “that there are only two places in the world” — China and Russia — “that could hit (the Department of Health and Human Services) the way it’s been hit.” And it’s no wonder, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) pointed out. “In the middle of a pandemic, what’s the most valuable intellectual property in the world? It’s the research that our great laboratories and life science companies are doing on prophylactic drugs, therapeutic drugs, and ultimately a vaccine. “[China] wants to be the country that claims credit for finding those drugs or finding a vaccine and then use it as leverage against the rest of the world.”

The vaccine will help millions of people, yes. But in China, what matters isn’t saving lives — it’s having power to lord over the rest of the world. Whoever can inoculate first — and reproduce it — won’t just have an economic advantage. They’ll have a geopolitical one. Scott Gottlieb, the former commissioner of the FDA, wrote a sobering column in the Wall Street Journal about the consequences of coming in second — not just for Americans but for the struggling countries who don’t have the resources to develop treatments of their own. “A more prepared U.S. could inoculate Americans quickly and share the product with others.”

Of course, Senator Cotton reminded listeners, China’s been trying to hack into our systems for years — trying to get a leg up on everything from military technology to agriculture. When it comes to the virus, “there’s no doubt that our scientists and medical researchers are world-leading in the field — better than China’s. Obviously, China is a communist, authoritarian government. Free inquiry and scientific research never flourishes in such a society. They are hacking in part because they need to. But if they can hack into a company or a leading laboratory university that is researching drugs or vaccines, and even if they haven’t developed [them], they can get a head start on [the data]… and corner the market.” That should scare everyone, he explained, because if America has it, we’ll share it. “I can’t say the same thing about China.”

On the bright side, Americans from both parties are starting to recognize what a pariah the Chinese government is. Senator Cotton believes it’s time ride that wave of momentum and start playing hardball. Roll back China’s economic power. Change our security infrastructure. Beef up defense. Bring back American companies. Manufacture our own drugs and products. “We ought not let them be a part of any industry that is vital for the security, prosperity, and help of the American people.”

Including our food supply. While people worry about the meat shortage here at home, our pork exports to China have more than quadrupled since mid-March. That’s because big-name brands like Smithfield Foods have been sold to the Chinese W.H. group. Our slaughterhouses are operating at half-capacity because of the virus, and we’re shipping whatever we do have to China. It’s absurd. But maybe now, on the brink of a meat crisis, Americans will finally start paying attention to these vulnerabilities. “Our food supply chain is one of our most vital national interests,” Senator Cotton shook his head, “and that we haven’t done enough to protect it…”

Like everything else, it all points to one thing: our need to distance — a heck of a lot more than six feet — from China.


Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Latest Surveys Show a Worldview of Difference

Dazed and Recused? ADF Files for New Judge in Sports Case

The End of the Orthodox Christianity?

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

It’s Wildly Wrong to Blame Capitalism for Government’s Botched Response to COVID-19

The litany of government fiascoes speaks for itself.


On April 1, 2020, a letter-to-the-editor appeared in my town’s newspaper in which the author declared that the COVID-19 pandemic proves capitalism to be “woefully inadequate to sustain itself through any type of major crisis.” He suggested that we must embrace a massive expansion of government without offering the slightest hint that this prescription might create a problem or two of its own.

It was breathtaking to read. I anticipated the line, “April Fools!” but this guy wasn’t kidding. Read it for yourself here. Mere weeks into the pandemic, he pronounced a sweeping judgment on an entire economic system (which in its pure form, we don’t even have!)—not just for the moment, but for whatever the duration of the crisis could be.

Try to follow the logic: An unexpected virus appears half a world away. A one-party socialist dictatorship lies about it, jails whistleblowing doctors and silences critics—evil on a grand scale that leads directly to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people around the world. That would normally prompt a hint of doubt about socialist dictatorships, but not in this instance. The author races straight to the conclusion that capitalism can’t handle it and what we need here is uncritical acceptance of gargantuan government (like they have where the virus came from).

Of course, you can’t follow the logic because there isn’t any. Not a shred. It’s the old, familiar knee-jerk reaction that defenders of freedom and markets deal with every day. Capitalism, even when adulterated with endless restrictions, taxes, political cronyism and the like, is a hair-trigger away from mindless, sweeping condemnation. The benevolent state, in spite of its monotonous and often deadly failures, gets a pass.

People who think this way judge capitalism against a fictional, utopian ideal and find it wanting; they judge the state by nothing more than the good intentions it expresses. They turn a blind eye when its intentions aren’t really good or when they produce disastrous results. The letter writer couldn’t wait until the pandemic’s end to render an informed assessment; he judged Big Government a home run before it even got to first base. Whatever the state does to handle it must be right! That’s a magical claim that would embarrass even an unlicensed witch doctor.

Meantime, while politicians deal with the pandemic by shutting everything down and ballooning the national debt, capitalists are revving up production of the very medical devices and equipment needed to solve the problem. We should forgive them if they all decide, “Damned if I do, damned if I don’t. Let somebody else take the risks. I’m headed to Galt’s Gulch.”

Where does this blame-capitalism-first nonsense come from? That’s an intriguing subject, but one for another essay. For now, I simply want to offer a partial catalogue of dubious state actions as documented in these articles. It’s not the final word on the matter because the pandemic is ongoing, and governments aren’t done yet. Count on a lot more mischief. In the meantime, the headlines alone should inoculate most readers against the “government is always right” virus:

COLUMN BY

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Ambassador for Global Liberty at the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also author of Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of ProgressivismFollow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Most Socialists Can’t Even Define Their Own Ideology

Twelve Economic Concepts Everyone Should Know

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

Dems Ramp Up Impeachment II As Flynn Gets Justice

It’s taken three painful years for truth to emerge. But we now know that the head of the Democratic Party’s House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, lied to the American people to justify the Mueller Special Counsel investigation into so-called Trump-Russia collusion. He was hardly the only one. Condoning that behavior, or allowing it to go unpunished, will mean the death of America as we know it.

According to Breitbart more than a year ago, Schiff lied to the American people no fewer than fourteen times. He is still lying today.

He no longer has cover for his lies now that the classified information he was privy to has been un-redacted and released by Attorney General Bill Barr’s office. Trey Gowdy recently told FOX News that Congressmen have total immunity for anything said in office. That’s insane. And it allows the lowest of characters, like Schiff, to rise to power.

We know that the Democrats, the DOJ, the FBI, and Mueller, along with his entire team, were aware that there was no evidence to back up the Trump-Russia collusion charges well before the midterm election in 2018. The Washington Examiner reported that “Special counsel prosecutors mostly knew by the end of 2017, and certainly by a few months later, that the evidence would not establish that conspiracy or coordination had taken place.” Think about that.

As President Trump was being falsely accused, the American people were led to believe he and many supporters were guilty of some of the worst crimes against our country. We were put through an agonizing array of confusing messages that now appear almost certainly to have been intentionally planted. If ever there was true election interference, this was it and the evidence is out.

We see waves of evidence today as the DOJ finally dropped the relentless prosecution of decorated war hero, Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn. Incredibly, some Democrats quickly took to the airwaves to condemn the move and call for a re-do. They argue that the Mueller investigation was justified because convictions were ultimately attained. No matter that those convictions came by “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Or that FBI 302 forms had been changed. Too bad if the DOJ withheld exculpatory evidence. It doesn’t matter to them that Flynn only testified that he lied after losing his home, filing bankruptcy in his defense, and having the FBI target his son. Who among us wouldn’t say just about anything having gone through the same — particularly targeting family members?

That is exactly how the left plays the game. Target the man, then fashion the crime. Eventually you’ll find something that will stick. It’s disgraceful.

Chapter 3 of my book, Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism (RFD), explores this in Saul Alinsky’s tactic #3, “whenever possible go outside the experience of your enemy.” Democrats and the left created a scenario against Trump that was so unbelievably convoluted that the average American could barely follow. That was intentional. All thirteen of Alinsky’s tactics are being used against America today in an effort to transform our country to socialism. If we don’t get this right, our grandchildren won’t know the meaning of freedom.

“‘Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.’ So said Lavrentiy Beria, the ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragging that he ‘could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent’….

“…Beria targeted ‘the man’ first, then proceeded to find or fabricate a crime. Beria’s modus operandi was to presume the man guilty, and fill in the blanks later. By contrast, under the United States Constitution, there’s a presumption of innocence….

You wouldn’t know that if you followed the Trump-Russia collusion special counsel investigation or with the confirmation process of Judge Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.

“When Saul Alinsky discusses Tactic #3, he claims its intent is to cause confusion, chaos, fear and retreat on the part of one’s opponent.” (RFD,pp. 59-60)

That’s exactly what Adam Schiff intended with his purposely misleading statements throughout the Mueller investigation. He’s the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, after all. Those in his party should be outraged, if they are honest. Likewise, any American who blindly followed their favorite mainstream media source only to now learn they had been lied to for years, should feel betrayed — if they have learned the truth now.

It should be no secret to common sense Americans that the “fake news” media has been infiltrated by puppets who follow the leftist agenda. As more evidence comes out about the phony Trump-Russia collusion witch-hunt (and it will), the survival of the Democratic Party may well depend on how it responds to this new reality.

According to U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, who has been sounding the alarm about the attempted coup against this President since the beginning, “53 House Intel Committee transcripts will expose more lies made to Congress by the deep state and Radical Dems.” Schiff inexcusably withheld the documents for over two years. America should be grateful to Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell for finally having the courage to make them public. Now that they’ve been un-redacted and released, we’re seeing the extent to which the past administration tried to damage Trump and company.

Obama’s top guns, e.g. James Comey, James Clapper, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Evelyn Farkas et al, giddily cast suspicions about Trump-Russia collusion to complicit news anchors from the start. The newly released transcripts reveal that every one of them, during testimony under threat of perjury, denied having any evidence whatsoever to back up claims they made on TV. All was done in an attempt to impeach Trump. That is truly treasonous.

Many Americans will feign surprise at these new revelations. They shouldn’t. Nearly everything being exposed today has been known for years to those paying attention. Much of it was revealed in Chapter 3 of my book, written in the fall of 2018. Every word has since held true. In fact, some revelations have not yet hit the mainstream. Isn’t it time to start asking, where has the media been?

How the collusion suspicions began is really quite a spy novel. And, for the sake of our country’s survival, it’s time we all learn the facts because it’s about to happen all over again.

As early “as late 2015 through the summer of 2016, the British spy agency GCHQ (equivalent to our NSA), along with other foreign allied agencies known as the ‘Five Eyes’, began passing highly sensitive information [about Trump et al] to their U.S. counterparts.

“GCHQ supposedly became aware of ‘suspicious interactions’ between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to U.K. intelligence said. Or, did they?

“GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to CIA chief, John Brennan (his long-time buddy.) Brennan used that information to ‘launch a major interagency investigation. … Both U.S. and U.K. intelligence sources acknowledge that GCHQ played an early, prominent role in kick-starting the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, which began in late July 2016.’ But, why?

“Joe DiGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, reported on a Lou Dobbs Tonight episode of FOX News Business (October 16, 2018), that they did so because it was illegal for American agencies to spy on American citizens. The Obama administration, via his FBI and DOJ asked the U.K. for assistance, and GCHQ complied.” (RFD, pp. 61-62)

And, so it began.

But, Brennan didn’t stop there. And, what follows is key to understanding how the left has gotten away with this and so many other attacks against our Constitutional principles since Obama left the White House. It’s something we ought all be worried about.

Kimberly Strassel, member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, laid out John Brennan’s involvement better than I ever could: “‘In a late August [2016] briefing, [Brennan] told the [Democratic] Senate minority leader [Harry Reid] Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump win the election, and that Trump advisers might be colluding with Russia. [Do you see how they give each other cover?]

“‘…Within a few days of the briefing, Mr. Reid wrote a letter to Mr. Comey, which…immediately became public…[i.e., was leaked.] “The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,’ wrote Mr. Reid, going on to float Team Clinton’s the-Russians-are-helping-Trump theory. Mr. Reid publicly divulged at least one of the allegations contained in the infamous Steele dossier, insisting that the FBI use ‘every resource available to investigate this matter.’

“‘The Reid letter marked the first official blast of the Brennan-Clinton collusion narrative into the open. Clinton opposition-research firm Fusion GPS followed up by briefing its media allies about the dossier it had dropped off at the FBI. On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff ran the headline: “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.”…Not only was the collusion narrative out there, but so was evidence that the FBI was investigating.’” (RFD, pp. 66-67)

What makes this information so relevant today is that the same Michael Isikoff is still doing the left’s bidding. And, most probably, Americans are again only paying attention to the headlines. His latest article is entitled “Exclusive: Obama says in private call that ‘rule of law is at risk’ in Michael Flynn case.” It could translate as a direct shout-out, via Isikoff, by the former president to his entrenched, well-coordinated army of agitators. It exemplifies a pattern repeated by the left critical for Americans to recognize. Let’s see how Isikoff’s 2016 article of half-truths played out.

“The Guardian concurs with Strassel’s account, adding further insight: ‘In late August and September 2016, Brennan gave a series of classified briefings to the Gang of Eight, the top-ranking Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. He told them the agency had evidence the Kremlin might be trying to help Trump to win the presidency….’ At the time, Brennan did not tell the committee who his sources were [hard to believe nobody asked], only that they came from America’s allies. Much later, however, Trump learned that the source was the GCHQ. In fact, Trump blamed them later in his infamous wiretap tweet for secretly surveilling him in Trump Tower. He’s not looking so crazy anymore, is he?

“In mid-2016 (two and a half months after ‘Crossfire’ was launched and just weeks before the election), a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) order was approved to spy on an American for supposed criminal activities with Russia. A large part of the evidence supporting that warrant was based on the “Steele dossier” and the Yahoo article by Michael Isikoff.” (RFD, pp. 66-68)

We now know from the Mueller Report that the complete Steele dossier was based on false, unverified information. Recall that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted under oath that the investigation would never have launched had it not been for the dossier. We also know that the FISA warrants were based on lies. But, it no longer matters. The damage has been done. According to John Solomon, a highly-respected investigative reporter, “circular” investigating is a pattern the left uses often to further its goals. Indeed, we’ve seen it repeated again and again against Trump.

Think about it. First, a crisis is created to which some well-placed, left-wing agents of the Intel Community or Congress respond. Their involvement lends credibility. Someone leaks it to the press. The press reports it as though it’s gospel. Fifty-percent of Americans will believe wherever the headline leads them. The new witch-hunt begins. Now, apparently, it’s being leveled against DOJ Director Bill Barr for ordering the criminal charges against Flynn dropped.

Circular investigations occurred with the attacks against Kavanaugh. And again in the Ukraine whistleblower case leading to Trump’s impeachment trial. The crisis in both cases was manufactured. Congress/Intel responded by feigning outrage. They leaked word to the press. The press reported ad nauseum. Americans believed the headlines. A new hoax was born.

This coming attack by the Dempcrats against our President, by way of Barr, is about to be unleashed. Get ready, America. Using Alinsky tactic #3, they will again make this crisis as confusing and chaotic as possible in hopes that you’ll lose interest. But, if we don’t stand up for the rule of law now, what’s left of it will be worthless within a few short years. The Dems constant accusations against the Trump administration are merely deflections from exactly what they are guilty of doing. Isikoff’s recent headline proves it.

Note the newest whistleblower that has recently come forward. Pay attention as this may become another fake “Ukraine phone call” Trump set-up meant to throw us off. According to The Deplorable Report, the Director of BARDA, Dr. Rick Bright, was reassigned on April 21 for reasons unknown.

“In protest, Bright hit back hard by hiring the same law firm that defended Christine Blasey Ford. That’s no accident.

“Days prior an April 16th Press Release on the Gates-funded Moderna’s website announced ‘a commitment of up to $483 million from BARDA … to accelerate development of the Company’s mRNA vaccine candidate against the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2).’ They also note that no commercial product using mRNA technology has been approved before and ‘the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1273 has not yet been established.’”

Could it be that Dr. Bright was doing the bidding of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s race for a universal COVID-19 vaccine at taxpayer expense? Did Bright approve the large loan against the wishes of the Trump Administration? Could that be why he was reassigned? We simply don’t know. It is awfully coincidental. Yet, the press wants us to believe Trump messed up by relieving a qualified doctor of a powerful position at a desperate time of need. Is that really what happened?

The President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has seemingly been working tirelessly for our country, along with others on the Coronavirus Task Force. Yet, like so many other Trump devotees, he’s been subjected to non-stop insults from the left, and even from some Conservatives. Most recently because Kushner put together a volunteer team of professionals who wanted nothing more than to help our country through this difficult time.

The New York Times ran a story headlined, “How Kushner’s Volunteer Force Led a Fumbling Hunt for Medical Supplies.” Pretty deflating if you happen to be one of the volunteers. In contrast, “[s]enior administration officials defended the efforts of the group of volunteers from consulting and private equity firms in obtaining N95 respirator masks, gloves and other protective equipment, ventilators and testing supplies and questioned the legitimacy of a whistleblower complaint filed last month to the House Oversight Committee.” That those on the front lines were distracted by such gossip is pathetic, especially while Americans are still dying.

If you are still a believer in mainstream media reportage even after what we’ve witnessed over the past three years, consider how the “fake news” media is continuing, even now, to lie. “CBS News has deleted footage from a Grand Rapids, Mich., health clinic for a report on coronavirus testing after Project Veritas revealed that the clinic packed a line of patients waiting for tests.”

Project Veritas films their investigations using undercover reporters. This story is especially troubling. Actual patients were intentionally subjected to longer lines because of the “fake” patients CBS planted in cars waiting to be “tested.” Apparently, this was to give the impression there are a lot more infected people than actually exist, scaring us further into staying home. Is the Democrat’s universal income for all agenda really their goal? We are nearly there, after all.

The Dems are doubling down and digging in. Representative Jerry Nadler said he would investigate the DOJ’s decision to drop charges against Flynn. Schiff is already setting the stage for another Trump impeachment trial over the administration’s supposed mishandling of the pandemic. This should leave no doubt in the minds of the American people that these criminal shenanigans are far from over. It will not end until we stand up and say, enough!

The left is on a mad dash to transform America to socialism. Obama told us as much while campaigning for President in 2007. He very nearly succeeded. Is that what we want?

If not, we need to pay closer attention to where our facts are coming from. It’s no longer enough to read headlines. Not only is the content important but the author’s motives should matter, too. When we’re misled by any one reporter or organization, it’s time to boycott and put them out of business. Support the many independent up-and-comers who are working hard to fill the vacuum with well-sourced reporting. This may mean changing long-held habits, but our country’s survival depends on truth.

As Abraham Lincoln stated on May 19, 1856: ‘Be not deceived. Revolutions do not go backward.’ We would all be wise to keep that in mind with the precious little time we may have left. There will be no second chance. The 2020 election may well be framed between Trump and Socialism and an out-of-control bureaucracy.

COLUMN BY

Cathi Chamberlain 

Cathi Chamberlain, aka The Deplorable Author and founder of The Deplorable Report, is a four-time start-up business owner, published author of a self-help book featured on CNN worldwide and owner of the nation’s first all-female construction company. She is a sought-after political speaker and has been a regular contributor on the Salem Media Radio Network. In her book, “Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism,” Cathi heavily references Saul Alinsky’s 1970’s blockbuster book, “Rules for Radicals.” She is currently on her “Florida Deplorable Book Tour.” Contact her for your next speaking event at Cathi@RulesforDeplorablesBook.com.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is This Why the Judge Presiding Over the Flynn Case Is Allowing Amicus Briefs from Anti-Trump Lawyers?

Exposed: Top Obama Official Caught Lying About Flynn Unmasking Requests

Clown Show: Flynn Was Never Charged With Perjury, But Now Could Be Facing Charges…of Perjury

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

Maxine Waters: We Don’t Want Businesses ‘Opened Back Up’

Monday on Spectrum News 1’s Inside the Issues, Rep. Maxine Waters said President Trump and lockdown protesters should be ashamed of themselves for pressuring governors to reopen their states.

“You know our governors are under great stress,” said Waters. “The protests that have been organized, the protests trying to intimidate our governors to open up everything are protests where the people participating in that should be ashamed of themselves. They should not be encouraged in any way.”

“So we’re doing everything that we can give support to our constituents, to our citizens, to the people who work every day, who have families to take care of.” Waters added. “So if we do that, this will support our states and our governors and not having to open back up. So that you know the small businesses that are in direct contact with people — nail shops, beauty shops, barbershops, flower shops — these are people in touch with folks every day, and they’re risking their lives, and we don’t want them opened up. ”

The governors are under stress? No, the people are under stress. Lives are being destroyed, the economy is being torpedoed, by the totalitarian lockdowns. And yet Waters sides with the governors.


Maxine Waters

162 Known Connections

Waters’s Immense Wealth and Hypocrisy

On June 24, 2017, Waters held a town hall meeting at the Nakaoka Community Center in Gardena, California, and did not permit anyone who lived outside of Waters’s 43rd Congressional District to be admitted inside the facility; such individuals were instead relegated to an outdoor “overflow space.” In light of these facts, it is worth noting that Waters herself does not reside in her own 43rd Congressional District, which is one of the poorest districts in the state of California. She owns a $4.8 million mansion in the upscale Hancock Park section of Los Angeles, several miles outside of her District.

To learn more about Waters, click on her profile link here.

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

I’m an ER Physician. Here’s Why Abortion Isn’t an ‘Essential Health Service.’

Although we appear to be “flattening the curve” of the COVID-19 pandemic, with governors slowly lifting stay-at-home orders and hospitals beginning to schedule surgeries again, infection spikes in certain regions remain a possibility.

Throughout the coming months, we need to focus as a society on medical care that will not only help us survive but thrive.

Working in emergency rooms as an emergency medicine physician of more than 20 years, I’m particularly concerned that abortion activists have been promoting and advocating abortion as an “essential health service.”


When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here>>>.

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 >>


An essential health service is a health care action or medical procedure that is essential to protecting the life of a human. But the truth is that rather than helping women through this pandemic, abortion is more likely to worsen the toll of illness.

Any decision about a medical procedure as serious as terminating a pregnancy must be made with facts and an assessment of risks. When medical equipment is scarce and many resources must be directed toward treating victims of COVID-19, continuing to perform abortions is medically irresponsible.

Here are three key facts:

1. The stress of COVID-19 adds to abortion’s emotional toll.

Abortion is known to result in mental health issues, and COVID-19 is likely to exacerbate those negative effects. Anxiety and fear have exploded during this time as many Americans suffer from prolonged isolation and economic challenges.

Calls to the federal mental health crisis hotline are nearly 900% greater than this time last year. According to Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly half (45%) of adults in the United States reported that their mental health has been affected negatively due to worry and stress over the coronavirus.

Combined with the emotional toll of abortion, the impact of this stress is amplified. Abortion long has been associated with serious, adverse mental health outcomes such as depression, grief, persistent sadness, and elevated stress—many of the same mental health challenges we are seeing from COVID-19.


>>> Brian Fisher, president of Human Coalition, is among guests set to participate in “Preserving Life in a Global Pandemic,” a Heritage Foundation webinar, at 11 a.m. May 13.


Losing a baby, whether from abortion or a spontaneous miscarriage, causes emotional pain. Women who have abortions face higher rates of depression.

Data shows an increase in the number of suicide attempts by women who previously had an abortion. In fact, women who get abortions are at a 154% increased risk of suicide, according to the Southern Medical Journal.

What’s more, we know that women sometimes are coerced into abortion as a result of domestic abuse. Claiming that abortion is an “essential health service” only will minimize the emotional risks, fueling this cycle of violence and pressure.

At a time when domestic abuse afflicts more women than ever before, we need to respect and support women, not encourage them to get abortions.

2. Complications from abortion are more dangerous during a pandemic.

Complications from an abortion are a significant risk—even more so during a pandemic with an over-stressed health care system. I’ve seen firsthand the life-threatening medical complications that stem from an abortion procedure.

This type of crisis is often the result of abortion clinics not being equipped to provide the necessary emergency care. Instead, they send women to the ER.

Abortion itself carries risks of infection and increases the likelihood of women needing additional medical supervision and treatment. Also, blood loss, inflammatory stress, and other adverse outcomes from abortion can compromise a woman’s health and immune system, which makes her more susceptible to contracting a virus.

Chemical abortions, such as by the brand-name drug Mifeprex, are no safer. Typically 5% to 7% of women who undergo a chemical abortion require surgical follow-up procedures. Experimenting with an abortion at home—especially right now—is very dangerous.

3.  COVID-19 doesn’t affect pregnancies.

I have heard from pregnant women who are worried that continuing a pregnancy during COVID-19 could be harmful. I understand their concerns, but the available data suggests that pregnant women do not suffer from coronavirus infections.

And as yet there is no evidence of vertical transmission of the coronavirus from mother to baby; the virus hasn’t been found in breast milk or amniotic fluid after birth. To date, the research shows that women infected with the coronavirus during pregnancy don’t have a higher incidence of compromised health or unhealthy babies.

Some women may be considering abortion because they fear that increased doctor visits and a hospital birth might expose them and their family at home to COVID-19. In actuality, abortion puts women at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 than their pregnancy does.

Abortion has long-term detrimental effects on a woman, the data shows. Our nation desperately needs more love and hope, and less death and despair.

The reality is that if women who face unplanned pregnancies view abortion as the “healthy” option, we know that it is in fact a fatal deception.

As a physician who deals with death daily in the ER, I can say that death of any kind is horrific. I believe we can and must protect the lives of both the young and the old, and this includes protecting preborn human life.

COMMENTARY BY

Dr. Scott French oversees clinical operations for Human Coalition, a pro-life health care organization. He is a practicing board-certified emergency physician in Indiana and teaches emergency medicine.

RELATED ARTICLE: Judge in Transgender Athlete Case Dictates Use of Politically Correct Language


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.

6 Big Points From the Senate’s COVID-19 Hearing With Fauci

In one of the most unusual Senate hearings in U.S. history, top Trump administration health officials testified remotely Tuesday from their homes and offices to senators who also mostly were at home.

Here are six big moments from the three-and-a-half-hour hearing on the federal government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic held via video by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

1. States Aren’t Following Guidelines

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, warned senators that if the U.S. economy is not reopened with proper precautions, the new coronavirus could come roaring back in the fall.

“If we do not respond in an adequate way when the fall comes, given that it is without a doubt that there will be infections that will be in the community, then we run the risk of having a resurgence,” Fauci testified.


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 >>


“I would hope that by that time, in the fall, that we would have more than enough to respond adequately,” he said, “but if we don’t, there will be problems.”

States should not be flouting the Trump administration’s guidelines for a phased reopening across the nation, Fauci said.

“What I’ve expressed then and again is my concern that if some areas, cities, states, or what have you jump over those various checkpoints and prematurely open up without having the capability of being able to respond effectively and efficiently—my concern is that we will start to see little spikes [of COVID-19 cases] that might turn into outbreaks,” Fauci told the Senate committee.


When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here>>>.


Fauci did not call out specific states or governors.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, are among the least restrictive, allowing the reopening of salons and other businesses that might be more prone to spread germs. Both states opened up again before April 30, the earliest suggested by the Trump administration.

Trump has publicly criticized Kemp at least twice.

2. ‘Little Bit of Humility’

Sen. Rand Paul, one of the senators actually present in the hearing room, got into a respectful verbal tussle with Fauci as the Kentucky Republican referred to studies suggesting that patients who recovered from COVID-19 had built up immunity.

Paul himself recovered.

“I think we ought to have a little bit of humility in our belief that we know what’s best for the economy,” Paul said, adding:

And as much as I respect you, Dr. Fauci, I don’t think you’re the end-all. I don’t think you’re the one person that gets to make a decision. We can listen to your advice, but there are people on the other side saying there’s not going to be a surge [of COVID-19 cases] and that we can safely open the economy and the facts will bear this out.

Fauci responded that he was aware of the limits to his expertise.

“I have never made myself out to be the end-all and only voice in this,” Fauci said. “I’m a scientist, a physician, and a public health official. I give advice [based] on the best scientific evidence.”

3. Death Toll Likely Higher

The official U.S. death toll from COVID-19 is almost 82,000.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., however, suggested it is much higher.

“The official statistic, Dr. Fauci, is that 80,000 Americans have died from the pandemic,” Sanders said. “There are some epidemiologists who suggest the number may be 50% higher than that. What do you think?”

Fauci said the number likely isn’t that much higher, but guessed it’s higher than the official estimate.

“I’m not sure, Senator Sanders, if it’s going to be 50% higher,” Fauci said. “But most of us feel that the number of deaths are likely higher than that number, because given the situation, particularly in New York City, when they were really strapped with a very serious challenge to their health care system, that there may have been people who died at home who did have COVID who are not counted as COVID because they never really got to the hospital.”

“So, in direct answer to your question,” he told Sanders, “I think you are correct that the number is likely higher. I don’t know what percent higher, but almost certainly it’s higher.”

4. ‘Criminally Vague’

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., pressed Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about when the CDC would release specific guidelines for schools to open in the fall.

The CDC guidelines are supposed to be far more detailed than what was released by the White House’s coronavirus task force.

“Guidances that you’ve talked about have gone through that interagency review,” Redfield said. “Their comments have come back to CDC, and I anticipate they’ll go back up into the task force for final review.”

He added: “I do anticipate this broader guidance, though, [will] be posted on the CDC website soon.”

This answer wasn’t good enough for Murphy, who went on to attack President Donald Trump.

“‘Soon’ isn’t terribly helpful,” Murphy said, complaining that the coronavirus task force’s guidelines are “criminally vague.”

“I worry that you’re trying to have it both ways,” the Connecticut Democrat added. “You say that states should not open too early, but then you don’t give us the resources to succeed. You work for a president who is, frankly, undermining our efforts to comply with the guidelines that you have given us.”

5. Reopening Colleges in the Fall

Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a former president of the University of Tennessee, talked about the need not only for Americans to return to work, but for colleges to reopen in the fall.

“There is not enough money available to help all those hurt by a closed economy,” Alexander said. “All roads back to work, back to school, lead through testing, tracking, isolation, treatment, and vaccines. This requires widespread testing—millions more testing created mostly by new technologies to identify those who are sick, who have been exposed, so they can be quarantined [and] by containing the disease in this way, give the rest of America enough confidence to go back to work and school.”

On the heels of Trump’s announcing that testing for COVID-19 would reach 300,000 per day in May, with about 10 million tested by the end of the week, the Tennessee Republican said there still is not enough testing.

“In the near term, to help make sure those 31,000 UT students and faculty members show up in August, we need widespread testing,” he said.

In a question to Fauci, Alexander noted a conversation he had with a chancellor for a Tennessee university about reopening in the fall. In response, Fauci didn’t sound optimistic. 

“Well, I would be very realistic with the chancellor and tell … her that in this case that the idea of having treatments available or a vaccine to facilitate the reentry of students into the fall term would be something that would be a bit of a bridge too far,” Fauci said.

Also testifying remotely at the unprecedented hearing were Stephen Hahn, who heads the Food and Drug Administration, and Adm. Brett Giroir, assistant secretary for health in the Department of Health and Human Services.

All four health officials testified remotely because they came into contact with a White House aide who tested positive last week for COVID-19.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said the Trump administration has “nothing to celebrate whatsoever” in the expansion of coronavirus testing.

“Yesterday, you celebrated that we had done more tests and more tests per capita even than South Korea,” Romney told the officials. “But you ignored the fact that they accomplished theirs at the beginning of the outbreak, while we treaded water during February and March.”

6. Optimism for Vaccine

The hearing’s high note perhaps came when Fauci, in a response to Romney, predicted that a vaccine could be ready within the next one or two years.

“Given our history with vaccine creation for other coronaviruses, how likely is it?” Romney asked, adding: “Is it extremely likely we are going to get a vaccine within a year or two? Is it more likely than not? Or, is it kind of a long shot?”

Fauci picked the middle answer, but explained in a scientific manner that nevertheless presented hope.

“It’s definitely not a long shot, Sen. Romney. I would think that it’s more likely than not that we will,” Fauci said. “This is a virus that uses an immune response and people recover.”

The immunologist went on to explain:

The overwhelming majority of people recover from this virus. Although there is a morbidity and mortality at a level in certain populations, the very fact that the body is capable of spontaneously clearing the virus tells me that, at least from a conceptual standpoint, we can stimulate the body with a vaccine that would induce a similar response.

Although there is no guarantee, I think it clearly is more likely than not that sometime within that time frame, we will get a vaccine for this virus.

COLUMN BY

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:

What you need to know about four potential COVID-19 vaccines. Source: The Hill

5 Key Provisions in Democrats’ COVID-19 Bill That Will Hurt Our Economy

Why Bailing Out the Postal Service Isn’t a Good Idea

Let’s Not Waste a Crisis

RELATED VIDEO: The Gloating of the Mask-Wearers.


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.

VIDEO: SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Barack Obama was at the Center of Trump/Flynn Targeting

WATCH: #Obamagate

RELATED VIDEOS:

Tom Fitton w/ The Daily Caller: NEW #SPYGATE DEVELOPMENTS, #COVID19 Cash Lawsuit in CA, & MORE!

Chris Farrell: Obama’s Team Needs to Be Charged with SEDITION over #SpyGate Targeting of Trump/Flynn

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Scottsdale Community College Censors Islamic Terror Course Material

Scottsdale Community College (SCC) failed to serve as scholars in an academic institution when the college buckled to local Muslim pressure surrounding three quiz questions.

Teaching a course on Islamic terrorism, Dr. Nicholas Damask, who wrote his doctoral thesis on the subject and has taught at Scottsdale Community College for 24 years, asked the following questions in a class quiz:

  1. Who do terrorists strive to emulate? (Answer: Mohammed)
  2. Where is terrorism encouraged in Islamic doctrine and law? (Answer: The Medina verses [i.e., the portion of the Qur’an traditionally understood as having been revealed later in Muhammad’s prophetic career])
  3. Terrorism is _______ in Islam. (Answer: Justified within the context of jihad.)

A Muslim student raised offense with the professor over the questions and, after a couple of private emails back and forth, the student initiated a social media campaign against Damask.

Forty-eight hours later, the death threats got so bad that the professor and his wife, along with their eight-year-old grandson and 85-year-old parents went into hiding.

Instead of upholding the right to academic freedom, Scottsdale Community College threw the professor under the bus.

In a online statement (see below), the college’s president, Christina Haines, not only apologized for the quiz questions, she said the questions would be removed from future tests and the student would receive full credit for the quiz:

“SCC deeply apologizes to the student and to anyone in the broader community who was offended by the material. SCC Administration has addressed with the instructor the offensive nature of the quiz questions and their contradiction to the college’s values. The instructor will be apologizing to the student shortly, and the student will receive credit for the three questions. The questions will be permanently removed from any future tests.”

As he made clear to the college from even before the statement was issued, Damask has no intention of apologizing. In his own statement, Damask said, “All quiz questions on each of my quizzes, including the ones in question here, are carefully sourced to the reading material. On this quiz, questions were sourced to the Qur’an, the hadiths, and the sira (biography) of Mohammed, and other reputable source material.”

Commenting on the quiz questions and the case in general, Muslim reformer and Clarion’s National Correspondent Shireen Qudosi, writes:

As I shared in my 2016 Congressional Testimony on Radical Islam, the answers to these questions depends on who you ask. It depends on which groups are in question, which version of Islam is being practiced, and how terrorism is defined by the group in question and whether they feel the practice is validated by faith.”

“And as my colleague Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and I discussed in a University of Minnesota Town Hall last year along with Asra Nomani, there are many difficult questions [about Islam] and they deserve an honest conversation.

“In an event themed “Honoring Islam by Asking ‘Appalling Questions,‘” we took on some of the toughest questions from the audience, and when necessary, we listened.

“These questions don’t deserve to be shut down. If the question is felt to be incorrectly stated or misleading, then it’s an opportunity for us as Muslims to reshape the question or ask more questions around it.

“Islam has a rich history of dialogue and debates that have shaped the evolution of faith. Only in the last few generations have those debates been shut down in part due to the growth of an Islamist influence and in part due to their unwittingly Western liberal accomplices.

“As a Muslim Reformer, I say it’s an act of faith to have the most difficult conversations possible. Those conversations are my heritage as a Muslim. They’re also what have kept me tethered to my faith, strengthening my resolve that the problem isn’t Islam — it’s Muslims, including those who like shutting down questions.

“Whether that kill switch is activated through exile or death (during the most violent periods in history) or it’s done through the psychological violence of censorship, the result is the same:

  • Death of inquiry
  • Death of free will
  • Death of opportunity to grow closer to God by using the intellect commanded of us in scripture.

“Furthermore, as Dr. Jasser points out in a statement, Dr. Damask is a respected scholar who earned a PhD in political science and a master’s in international relations from American University. Dr. Damask’s dissertation was on terrorism and its funding in the mid-90s.

“Dr. Jasser’s statement also breaks down the timeline of this incident, which he describes as ‘social media instigated cultural terrorism.’

“That cultural terrorism was initiated by what I would called ignorant belligerence when the unnamed student responded to the quiz questions with an email saying,

“‘You have insulted my religion … I’m sick to my stomach.’

“Dr. Jasser’s statement describes the exchange between Dr. Damask as he attempts to engage the student with respect to no avail.

“As a Muslim who comes from a culture of violence against free speech ignited by toxic behavior — which results in everything from psychological abuse to violent murder over interpreted offense of religion — hearing a phrase like “you have insulted my religion,” absolutely terrifies me, because I know exactly the frame of mind of that person:

  1. They have shut down all rational faculties.
  2. They’re operating from the amygdala, the part of the brain associated with primitive animal instincts such as fear and anger (again confirming that this is no longer a rational actor).
  3. This is not someone who has studied Islam. This is someone with immense personal insecurities who has clutched onto religion as a protective identity marker. When that identity is threatened, they become threatening.
  4. This is someone who, based on behavior patterns of others that have said similar phrases before erupting in violence, would feel comfortable being a bystander to violence, or initiating and partaking in it to protect their world view and interpretation of reality.
  5. This is someone dangerous. This is not someone who needs college; they need a deradicalization program.

In his statement, Jasser not only pointed out the “unprofessional and incompetent conduct of the school’s top administration” in handling the complaint but how the school’s response only added “fuel to the fire,” especially in light of the fact that within 48 hours of the story going public, the professor and his family were forced to flee their home.

Jasser also noted the negative impact this case will have on future academic freedom at Scottsdale Community College and other institutions. Most tellingly, Jasser asked:

Should the Muslim community be treated like adults or infantilized and coddled after every one of their tantrums? What’s the impact of that bigotry of low expectations upon general radicalization? 

Jasser interviewed Damask on his podcast “Reform This!” You can listen to the podcast titled “Snowflake College” by clicking here.

RELATED STORIES:

Muslim Reformers in Minnesota Town Hall

Is Muslim Reform Even Possible?

UAE Doubles Down on CAIR as Terrorists

Stop Forcing People to Wear Masks Over COVID-19 Fears

Whether masks actually prevent the spread of respiratory infection remains a subject of debate. As recently as March, the US Surgeon General was saying face coverings could actually increase one’s risk of infection.


There’s a famous scene in the movie Fight Club where Tyler Durden is on an airplane thumbing through one of those safety manuals in emergency exit rows.

“An exit door procedure at 30,000 feet,” says Durden (Brad Pitt). “The illusion of safety.”

It’s a memorable scene because it touches on the strange things humans do to make ourselves feel secure in frightening situations. Which brings me to America’s latest fad: wearing masks in public.

Polls show that more than half of Americans are now choosing to wear masks when they go out, presumably to prevent catching or spreading the COVID-19 virus. What one chooses to wear is up to them, of course, but the trend is a bit surprising considering government officials spent months telling Americans not to wear protective face coverings.

“We don’t routinely recommend the use of face masks by the public to prevent respiratory illness,” Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the Center for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases said on January 31. “And we certainly are not recommending that at this time for this new virus.”

Throughout February and into March, similar statements were made by numerous other top government officials and agencies.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said “the average American does not need a N95 mask. These are really more for health care providers.” He was echoed by Robert Redfield, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that there “is no role for these masks in the community.” In February, the US Surgeon General chimed in on Twitter, “STOP BUYING MASKS.”

Despite these warnings, the popularity of masks grew. “Maskies”—selfies of people wearing masks—are the latest trend on Instagram, Fast Company reports. They’ve become a symbol and form of expression, a way to show social solidarity and empowerment.

“When everyone is wearing masks, I feel respected,” one woman recently told National Geographic. “The message is: I’m protecting you, you’re protecting me, I can feel safe.”

Feel safe. That’s the key word. Whether masks actually prevent the spread of respiratory infection remains a subject of debate.

There’s a reason public officials made the statements above. An abundance of research shows masks offer little or no protection against infection from respiratory viruses, and some masks can actually increase one’s risk of infection.

A 2011 randomized clinical trial found that medical masks offered no protection at all. A 2015 study concluded rates of infection were especially high in cloth masks, finding particle penetration in nearly 97 percent of them. A 2016 paper that analyzed six clinical studies found that N95 respirator masks fared no better than medical masks in preventing respiratory infection.

As recently as April 7, a paper analyzing data from 15 randomized trials concluded that “compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases for influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.” Despite the lack of hard empirical evidence, however, the study’s authors recommended the use of masks based on “observational evidence from the previous SARS epidemic.”

Perhaps similar reasoning guided the CDC’s about-face in April when it issued guidance recommending the use of cloth face coverings for healthy individuals (though the World Health Organization still advises against them).

Recommended is the key word here. We’re now in May, a mere two months after federal authorities were imploring Americans to not wear or buy masks, and many people are finding themselves forced to wear masks to do their shopping or even go for a walk.

This month the megastore Costco began demanding that customers wear masks to do their shopping. As a private company, Costco has such a right. But many states in mid April began taking things further, demanding that citizens wear masks to leave their homes. The latest state to join the bandwagon is Massachusetts. The new order requires anyone over the age of two to wear a mask or face covering in public places, even if they are outdoors.

In the span of just two months, we’ve gone from urging people to not buy or wear masks (and warning face coverings could increase the risk of infection) to threatening to fine and jail those who don’t wear them. Americans, understandably, are confused. And it’s not helping.

This week in Michigan, a Family Dollar security guard was killed after refusing to allow a woman’s daughter into the store because she wasn’t wearing a mask. The guard was enforcing an executive order Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed two weeks earlier.

While only those people directly involved in the guard’s death are responsible, such confrontations could be avoided if state governors exercised a little humility and acknowledged that CDC recommendations are not gospel and the department’s conclusions (clearly) are not infallible.

Good ideas generally don’t require force. And the truth is, based on an abundance of medical research and the federal government’s own statements and reports, it’s unclear how effective masks are as a preventive measure against COVID-19 transmission.

Public health aside, there’s no disputing the psychological impact masks have.

“The coronavirus is coming, and we feel rather helpless,” Dr. William Schaffner, Professor of Preventive Medicine at Vanderbilt University, told CNN in March. “By getting masks and wearing them, we move the locus of control somewhat to ourselves.”

In a sense, the mask craze is largely about managing our fears. As my colleague Sean Malone recently observed, when people are afraid they’re much more willing to accept anything they believe might make them a little safer. Even really bad policies and ideas.

The illusion of safety. It’s a powerful thing. For both humans and governments, it would seem.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, and Fox News.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How States Turned Nursing Homes Into ‘Slaughter Houses’ By Forcing Them to Admit Discharged COVID-19 Patients

COVID-19: What Would the Founders Have Done?

How ‘Stakeholder’ Movement Could Hinder Economic Recovery From COVID-19

How a Nurse Practitioner Is Using Telemedicine to Treat Patients

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

VIDEO: CBS News and Cherry Health Issue Conflicting Statements on FAKE COVID Testing Line

Earlier today, we sent you our latest video reporting the CBS News segment featuring a FAKE COVID-19 testing line at Cherry Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, that later appeared on “CBS This Morning.”

As a result of this video going public, both Cherry Health and CBS News issued statements to explain what they claim really happened.

The only problem is these two statements are in conflict with each other.

Here is what Cherry Health and CBS News said:

As you can see, Cherry Health’s President and CEO Tasha Blackmon is denying having instructed her staff to participate in a fake testing line.

On the other hand, CBS News claims they did not stage the line and that one of Cherry Health’s “chief officers told at least one staffer to get in the testing line along with real patients.”

The truth still remains clouded. The public has a right to know who staged this fake COVID-19 testing line and why.

We spoke with Michigan State Representative Steve Johnson who expressed concern for the mixed messaging.

We are still awaiting feedback from Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer who appeared at Cherry Health just two months earlier with Presidential hopeful Joe Biden.

Project Veritas will continue to pursue this story in order to uncover what really happened in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

In Truth.

EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Facebook Names Muslim Brotherhood Operative to Oversight and Censorship Board

It is easy to see where all this is tending, although no one seems to have the wit or the will to do anything about it. The social media giants, anxious to make sure that President Trump is not reelected, are moving quickly now to defame and discredit, or silence altogether, all those who dissent from their far-Left agenda. Google recently deep-sixed Jihad Watch from the first page of search results for “Robert Spencer,” which is now filled entirely with the libels of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Bridge Initiative, and the like, with nothing favorable at all. Nor am I the only one this has happened to: I noticed it when I saw Daniel Greenfield writing about the same thing having happened to him, and tried it on my own name. The far-Left’s favored religion, Islam, will be protected on Facebook, even in its jihadist forms, while Tawakkol Karman and her colleagues will make sure that the social media behemoth, through which most people get their news, is entirely divested of all content critical of the religion of peace. We have been blocked from posting on our Jihad Watch page at Facebook for several months now; this new “oversight board” will mop up any dissenting voices that are still active there.

“Facebook sparks controversy by naming Brotherhood figure to oversight board,” Arab Weekly, May 8, 2020 (thanks to Northern Virginiastan):

LONDON – The name of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Yemeni Nobel Prize winner Tawakkol Karman stood out as an odd addition to the list of Facebook’s first 20 oversight board members.

The new oversight body includes four chairs: Former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Stanford Law School Professor Michael McConnell, Columbia Law School Professor Jamal Greene and Dean of the Universidad de los Andes Faculty of Law Catalina Botero-Marino.

Apart from Karman, other members include Kenyan human rights activist Maina Kiai, Pakistani digital rights activist Nighat Dad and former editor of the Indonesian publication Jakarta Post, Endy Bayuni.

Facebook said it selected the four co-chairs who in turn helped choose the rest of the 16 members.

“The Oversight Board is an external body that members of our community can appeal to on some of the most significant and challenging content decisions we face,” announced Facebook.

The social media company pointed out that it expected the members “to make some decisions that we, at Facebook, will not always agree with — but that’s the point: they are truly autonomous in their exercise of independent judgement.”

The decisions by the oversight board are expected to influence “content moderation guidelines” for Facebook and Instagram.

Brent Harris, Facebook’s director of public policy, said the company “will implement the board’s decisions unless doing so violates the law.” Over the next few months, the body expects to grow to around 40 total members.

Radicalisation experts believe that by choosing Karman for the influential role, Facebook failed to recognise the link between the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideological advocacy and extremist activity….

When Karman won the 2011 Nobel Peace prize for her “role in Arab spring protests,” the Muslim Brotherhood’s website, Ikhwanweb, released a statement on Twitter identifying her as a “Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood member,” sparking widespread speculation and criticism about her connection to the group.

Despite tactical disagreements about alliances in Yemen’s war, Karman is a leading figure of  Yemen’s Islah Party, a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate.

Karman has repeatedly defended the Muslim Brotherhood, even describing the group as “one of the victims of official tyranny and terrorism in the region, which Trump gives his supports and assistance.” She has said she believes the movement’s role in the region will “necessarily” grow in the future.

Many social media users in the Middle East and North Africa region reacted to Facebook’s selection of Karmancwith [sic] confusion and derision as the Yemeni writer is more known for her Islamist activism and divisive stances than for public service commitment….

The choice of Karman to Facebook’s advisory board will add to suspicions about the social media body’s political leanings and is unlikely to enhance the company’s credibility in the Arab world, experts say.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York Times Blames Hindu Caste System for Discrimination Against Christians in Pakistan

Canada: Man who mocked Islam and Muslims is fired from his job and removed from School Board post

India: Muslims take Hindu boy to mosque and murder him, police beat up parents when they register complaint

Germany: Muslim spits on and punches Islam critic, police handcuff victim and accuse him of “Islamophobia”

Scottsdale Community College Submits to Sharia

Netherlands: Muslim migrant smashes windows of kosher restaurant in Amsterdam for second time

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