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

/in , , , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , , , , /by

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 Progressivism. Follow 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

/in , , , , , /by

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’

/in , , , , , , /by

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.’

/in , , , , , /by

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

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 , , , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , , , /by

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.

Smokescreen on Samaria

/in , , , , /by

Islamists use our country’s laws and multicultural activism to transform our public libraries into venues for spreading Islam. The indoctrination includes stories that skew the truths and conceal their violent history.   William Sutcliffe’s The Wall is such a novel, designed to impact the mind of the American 9- to 13-year-old reader.  The following is my evaluation of such a book. . .

We meet the thirteen-year-old Jewish boy, Joshua, when he’s playing with his friend David, but he’s left alone to retrieve his new ball from the other side of the fence, “The Wall,” in Amarias.  This is an anagram of Samaria, once the capital of the Northern Hebrew kingdom of Israel, founded in the 9th century BCE, long before Islam or Palestinians.  Will the young reader know why there is a fence in Amarias that renders it off limits or that Jordan was among the five Arab states that attacked the new State of Israel in 1948, annexed Samaria and renamed it West Bank? Will they learn that Jordan ruled for 19 years, attacking Israel until finally, in 1967, Israel was victorious?  Under the rules of war, Israel must now rule Samaria, the Sinai Peninsula, and Gaza, until someone emerges to work out a peace agreement.  Samaria is now home to three million Palestinians and 500,000 Jews, but Sutcliffe calls only the Jews “settlers.”  Thus the Islamic deception about Israel has begun.

The real Joshua would grasp the danger of entering Samaria; the young readers would not.  They read of soldiers and checkpoints, but not their purpose, which is to provide protection from Arabs who cross into Joshua’s side and slaughter Jews without provocation – such as the Fogel family massacre in 2011.  Joshua finds a working flashlight and a tunnel – not identified as a “terror tunnel,” that provides below-ground access to do harm in Jewish areas, even Joshua’s home – and he begins his trek to the other side.

Upon exiting, he sees a demolished home, damaged contents sympathetically described, and bulldozer tracks.  Without explanation, the young reader will assume Israeli soldiers destroy homes for sport or spite.  We have no history about Joshua’s home, as to whether it became available for purchase five months previously because of a deadly raid. Was the Arab home’s destruction an act of reprisal to the terrorist’s family?  Was this tunnel the entry and escape route?  The author provides no critical thought.  The real Joshua would have experienced enough terror raids and known enough of his country’s history to understand that these are the enemy of his people.

Joshua enters the village’s open-air market that is “strange and depressing,” evoking the reader’s pity, never explaining why there is poverty and squalor despite the enormous funding given Palestinians by the UN, EU, America and Israel.  For one, it supports the narrative of victimhood, as during the same years that Israel advanced and flourished, the handouts to Palestinians removed all motivation and challenge to achieve as well. For another, it is common knowledge that the foreign income is rerouted to fund terrorism – to the families of martyred murderers as well as for the many thousands of missiles fired into Israel, 2,600+ rockets and mortars during 2018/2019 alone.  Joshua sees broken streets, stagnant puddles, underfed people, and the kindness of a girl who saves him from the violent rock-throwing teenagers.

She, Leila, gives him her father’s Palestinian scarf for identification security (the boys would attack him if he were Jewish) and flip-flops to replace his lost shoes, and guides him safely to the chain-link fence.  He has lost the flashlight, but gets through the dark tunnel, remembering his father who died in combat, never identifying his combatants as Palestinians.  No Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn adventure, this is a propagandist tale with purposeful omission of pertinent facts.

He sees the stray ball as he exits the tunnel and returns home, immediately secreting the scarf and sandals.  His mother was worried and his stepfather, Liev, explains the demolished house on the other side of the fence as one constructed on disputed land, but nothing about the dispute itself, that these Arabs, now self-identifying as Palestinians, were not welcomed back to their ancestral Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan when their armies lost their aggressive war against Israel in 1967.  They have been abandoned until the Arabs may one day realize their dream of securing all Israel as their own.  Hence, they are determined to never negotiate a peace agreement with Israel and will continue Mohammed’s 14-century vendetta until their last breath, even to the sacrifice of their own children.  At this time, Liev should have reminded his stepson of Israel’s history, but Sutcliffe allows no such information to enter the storyline.

Later, when Joshua and David speak of their future in the IDF, Sutcliffe once again omits any conversation about one day protecting their own families and country from invasion and slaughter by another generation of Palestinian terrorists.  The Arabs cannot bear to have anyone living on land they illegally claim for themselves, and the author obliges.  This is their strategy when conquest cannot be had militarily.

Joshua pines for the girl in Samaria and he begins a series of trips there and back to see her.  During one, he reflects on the checkpoints and the variety of license plate colors, insinuating that these are methods of segregation, which is again fallacious.  The colors represent areas, just as American plates define areas. However, in Israel the colors also serve to distinguish an alien car driven by an infiltrating terrorist.  At the same time, the author uses Joshua’s voice to insinuate his own opinions of facial expressions of Palestinians who queue up to cross the border – patience and rage, weariness and defiance, pride and helplessness.  He circumvents the point that if these people were not dangerous, there would be no need for checkpoints.

On one occasion, we learn more about the violent boys, who throw rocks at Israeli vehicles, too often causing fatal accidents.  This has been the reason for Israel to build new roads for Israelis, to enable driving out of harm’s way.   On another, the author feeds Palestinian victimhood by saying they have no aspirin, yet there is no credibility to the allegation.  Aspirin is not a controlled substance and should certainly be available throughout Judea and Samaria.

On future visits, while Joshua tends olive trees for the Leila’s father, he pensively reminisces about the few hundred years of care given these trees by her ancestors.  Sutcliffe does not provide the same opportunity to consider the thousands of years of Joshua’s Jewish ancestors on this same land.

The story ends with an unusual circumstance and drastic changes that baffle me, except that it furnishes a reason for Joshua and his mother to leave Liev and return to a small apartment in the old seaside town.    As he feels the olive seeds in his pocket, he hopes to one day plant and tend his own olive grove, and perhaps see Leila again.

The omission of facts, the covert revisionist history, the situations to elicit sympathies are the same thought-control techniques used by Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia to shape the values, beliefs and attitudes of future generations in their quest for global domination.  These books of deception are part of a patient advocacy of Islamic ideology and incremental social changes that prepare the students to accept Islam over every other philosophy or worldview.

©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Seattle Police Officer Sacrificed His Job to Speak the Truth on Abuse of Power by Government

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Officer Greg Anderson Courageously Speaks The Truth About Lockdown.

Watch:

Thank you Isaac.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Streak Continues: April Gun Sales Sets NICS Record

/in , , , , , /by

April 2020 set another record for background checks conducted through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Check System (NICS). The FBI NICS office conducted 2,911,128 background checks last month – a nearly 25% increase from the previous April, which had been the previous record high for the month of April.

April 2020 is now the fourth-busiest month in the history of the NICS office. Moreover, the week of April 13th through the 19th is the 9th busiest week in NICS history.

The more than 2.9 million checks run last month included: 984,872 checks related to the transfer of a handgun; 508,122 checks related to the transfer of a long gun; 68,746 checks related to “other” transfers; and, 34,779 checks related to multiple transfers in one transaction. There were also 311,568 permit checks and an additional 888,385 permit rechecks.

To be blunt: Americans set another record for background checks last month because we are a nation of law-abiding gun owners intent on keeping ourselves and our loved ones safe. Nearly three-million background checks to purchase a firearm or obtain a permit were conducted in just the thirty days of April. That is not a small group of “super gun owners” stockpiling thousands of firearms or some small subset of the general population.

Gun owners include all, from every race, gender, and creed. We – the gun owning community – reflect the overall population because we are a significant part of the overall population.

April continued the 2020 trend of record-setting months for the NICS office. January was (at the time) the sixth-busiest month ever and the busiest January by far. February saw even more checks than January, making it the third busiest month ever (at the time) and easily set the February record. March reset the all-time record with more than 3.7 million checks.

This is not an emerging trend. December 2019 saw more than 2.9 million NICS checks and was the second-busiest December ever. Before that, each of these months in 2019 had set the record for that respective month: April, May, June, August, September, October, and November. Of course, April 2020 and May 2020 shattered those respective records.

There were more NICS checks run in 2019 than in any other year, and there were more run in 2018 than any prior year except 2016. The four busiest years for the NICS offices have been the last four years. So far this year, there have been 32% more NICS checks run than there were in the same time period in 2019.

We suspect that we may see more NICS records broken this year. The anti-gun billionaires see these numbers, as do their “volunteers” and their bought-and-sold puppets. Do you think that Mike Bloomberg is going to take this as a sign that the American people support 2nd Amendment rights?

This is a man who spent more than a billion dollars on a shortsighted bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination that only lasted three months. Bloomberg and his allies – as well as those that depend on his funding for their campaigns – will double down as they try to eliminate gun rights in the United States.

We respect the millions of Americans who have decided to become law-abiding gun owners in 2020, but their rights may be revoked if they do not vote this November.

Protecting our rights will take every one of us. Every single American that applied for a permit and/or purchased a firearm this year must do everything they can to help us protect our rights.

Volunteer. Spread the word. Get your family and friends registered to vote. Vote and make your friends and family vote, too.

NRA is always looking for volunteers. See how you can help today.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Florida NRA Case to Protect Second Amendment Rights of Young Adults Moves Forward

Canada: Trudeau’s Liberal Government Imposes Immediate Ban on “Assault Weapons”

Federal Judge Enjoins Massachusetts Gun Store Lockdown

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Fall of Obama’s House of Cards

/in , , , , , , , /by

Obama’s top officials. Lying through their teeth.

Obama on CBS, 60 Minutes. January 25, 2017:

“I’m proud of the fact that we are the first administration in modern history that hasn’t had a major scandal in the White House.”

Pause for cynical laughter.

What Obama officials have said frequently on TV against President Trump, and later under oath with a potential charge of perjury if caught lying, are divided by the proverbial country mile.

Spread the dirt in the media but deny the lies under oath.

Examples:

James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence:

December 18, 2017, CNN. “Vladimir Putin knows how to handle an asset and that’s what he’s doing with the President (Trump).”
Under oath at the House Intelligence Committee. July 17, 2017:

“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting or conspiring with the Russians to meddle in the election.”

Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI:

February 17, 2019. Answering CNN’s Anderson Cooper’s question “Do you think that President Trump could be a Russian asset?”
“I think that’s possible.”

Under oath to the House Intelligence Committee questions in December 2017:

“We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information.”

“What is the most damning or important piece of evidence in the dossier. You don’t know if it’s true or not?”
McCabe’s reply, “That’s correct.”

Samantha Power, US Ambassador to the United Nations:

December 11, 2019. Late Show, CBS, laughingly, “I think Putin has received a very high return on his investment (meaning President Trump).”

Samantha Power to House intelligence Committee; “I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came out of the intelligence community.”

But Samantha Power did request the unmasking of 260 American citizens during 2016 toward the end of the Obama Administration.

Susan Rice, Obama’s National Security Advisor:

July 2018. This Week, ABC; “He (Trump) has taken a number of steps that Vladimir Putin couldn’t have handled more effectively.”

Susan Rice in front of the House Intelligence Committee, September 8, 2017; “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect.”

But Susan Rice made requests for the unmasking on American citizens, members of the Trump campaign.

John Brennan, CIA Director:

August 17, 2018. NBC. Meet the Press. “I call his (Trump’s) behavior treasonous…to aid and abet the enemy…and I very much stand by that claim.”

Brennan addressed President Trump in a tweet dated March 20, 2019, “The Special Council will soon further complicate your life, putting your political and financial future in jeopardy.”

Brennan on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, March 26, 2019. “I don’t know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was.”

This was the head of Obama’s CIA calling the elected President of the United States a traitor based on information at his fingertips.

Obama’s Attorney-General, Loretta Lynch, in an interesting turn of phrase when pressed at the House Intelligence Hearing, “I don’t recall that being briefed up to me.”

Obama’s Attorney-General couldn’t recall if she had been informed that President Trump had been colluding with Russia!

Interesting statements were made by Evelyn Farkas, Obama’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, who told MSNBC in March, 2017, that she “had to get as much intelligence (on Trump) before Obama leaves the Administration before the Trump staff found out how we knew what we knew.”

Farkas left the Obama Administration in 2015. When questioned by Trey Gowdy how she would have known about information in possession of the Obama administration about Trump-Russian collusion if she didn’t work for the US government any more, Farkas admitted, “I didn’t know anything.”

Gowdy pressed further, “You also didn’t know whether or not anyone in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, did you?” Evenly Farkas replied, “I didn’t.”

Here we have a list of Obama top officials feeding the American public an ongoing series of lies but later denying knowledge of any Trump collusion with Russia when put on the spot and under oath where lying to Congress comes with potential prison time.

There is no other way of expressing it. This was a part of a coup attempt to remove a duly elected president and Obama knew what was going on.

It is shown in the August 6, 2016, text message between Peter Strzog and Lisa Page that “The White House is running this.”

This was confirmed in a September 2 reply from Page to Strzok that “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.”

What they wrote is obvious. In the United States, counter-intelligence always runs through the Commander-in-Chief. This is the person who sits in the Oval Office. In this case, Barrack Hussein Obama.

President Obama was keeping tabs on anti-Trump activities by his counter intelligence and law enforcement elite.

On January 7, 2017, after Donald Trump had been elected president, but before he took office, outgoing President Obama held a meeting in the Oval Office purportedly about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Attending that meeting were Vice President Joe Biden, John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, Sally Yates, and James Comey (head of the FBI). After the meeting, Obama asked that Yates and Comey remain behind. This meeting was to discuss General Michael Flynn, who Obama had fired, and Flynn’s brief conversation with the Russian Ambassador as part of his preparation for his national intelligence role under a Trump presidency.

Whatever happened at that Oval Office meeting, Michael Flynn became a prime target for Comey’s FBI which forced the general to accept a plea bargain with Special Council, Robert Mueller, by pleading guilty to “willfully and knowingly” making “false, fictitious and fraudulent statements.”

Flynn was innocent. He was exonerated of all charges.

Flynn had fallen into an FBI entrapment operation. Recent damning documents clearly show the ones who were willfully and knowingly making false, fictitious and fraudulent statements were top FBI personnel, including James Comey.

They now nervously await the Attorney-General, William Barr, and Special Prosecutor, John Durham, axe to fall. An axe which is likely to incriminate them in criminal behavior.

Trump had picked Flynn to be his National Intelligence Chief and Flynn knew where the bodies of the previous administration were buried.

When Obama met with Trump during the White House transition, the outgoing president told Trump to be wary of two people – North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un, and Michael Flynn. That was how nervous Obama was about the general.

He had to be removed or turned against Trump. The plot nearly succeeded.

We now know that the FBI targeted Flynn in an effort to break him and make him turn against President Trump as proven in the shocking revelation of a hand-written instruction to the FBI team to entrap Flynn at a White House meeting.

The note written by Bill Priestap, Obama’s FBI head of counter-intelligence, ordered them to “get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

The note dated January 24, 2017, illustrated the corrupt behavior of Obama’s FBI.

This was the final act of President Obama who had bragged about having the most scandal-free White House in American history.

The question that dare not speak its name concerns President Barrack Hussein Obama.

What did he know, and when did he know it?

Don’t expect that question to be asked by the cover-up media, and certainly not by the Democrats in the House and Senate. They are co-conspirators in the tawdry, perhaps criminal, conduct of Obama’s top officials.

The Wall Street Journal, raised the question of Obama’s role in the gross abuse of FBI-DOJ power in their May 11th editorial, after Obama got himself involved by questioning the dropped charges against Flynn. It wrote:

“Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he had ventured into the Michael Flynn case…we wonder what he’s really worried about.”

Aren’t we all?

With the impending reports of the Barr-Durham probe, a probe that carries with it serious criminal implications for some, expect more bombshells to fall that could affect the outcome of the US 2020 election, and also the reputation of Obama’s closest aides.
Perhaps Obama himself.

We are witnessing the fall of the Obama House of Cards.

©All rights reserved.

INFOGRAPHIC: Timeline of FBI’s FISA Abuse in Trump Campaign Investigation