SILENT — I Will Not Be Silent Any Longer!

I have been silent.

I have been silent long enough.

I have been silent for too long.

Covid-19 has forced me into silence, so I tell myself.  But that is not the whole truth. The whole truth is I was tired.  I was mentally drained. I was shut down by social media. I almost gave up.

Almost.

You see, there is only so much a human can take.  Even someone who is as experienced in the world body politic as I am.  There comes a point when you think “what’s the point”?

You see people willingly give up their freedom out of fear in order to be safe.  The problem is, they know in their own little minds, they are not safe. But they give up that freedom and real security because everyone else is doing so.

I felt like I was shouting in the face of a category 6 hurricane.  Nobody could or would hear me. I was not alone. A few months out there were shouting the same warning.  But it seemed as if we were not, could not be heard.

But then, events in the states of Michigan and Montana changed everything.  Yes, two small events, as the media would have you believe, could indeed change everything.

Some of my fans would tell me to not give up.  Don’t give in. Your words are being heard. It just takes some time for the majority to process them.  It takes some time for the majority to actually live out what they believe at first to be the “new normal”.

Most folks don’t like this new normal.  By the way, where have we heard that before?  New normal?

Normal is not new.  It is as it has always been.

But, I hear that Social Distancing is the new normal.  This is nothing more than a Millennial construct that means nothing in reality.  Let’s face it, it does not and cannot work. Frankly, the truth is if one violates this “rule” just once, then it is a moot point.

Let me ask you, have you always maintained a safe Social Distance of at least 6 feet ALL the time when you are in public?  Of course not. As soon as you pass by someone in the grocery isle, you have negated this stupid rule.

I love it (not really) when I do my grocery shopping and I freely interact in less than 6 feet with other shoppers in the isles only to end up in the check out line where there are marks on the floor imploring me to stand here and not there.

Then I get to the checkout register and of course, the clerk is not 6 feet away from me.  But they do have a plexiglass partition. As if Covid or any other virus could not find its way around and over that hastily applied barrier.

Oh, and the store emplores shoppers to use their credit or debit card.  I comply with that request only to find that the terminal is covered in plastic wrap.  The problem is, I have to enter a lot of information into that terminal. And so do countless other shoppers before and after me.

Does the store change that plastic barrier after every shopper?  Nope.

My logical brain cannot compute the idiocy in which it is currently living.  I can walk within inches of another customer, but I must stand in line 6 feet from that same customer.  I have to use a terminal touched by that other customer. But, that customer was wearing a mask so I must be safe.

Don’t get me started on those stupid mask.  Every medical professional I have spoken to, (and it has been more than a few) have told me the masks that most are wearing are almost totally useless.

But folks “feel” safe wearing them.  Folks “feel” safe with Social Distancing.  But then if you have ever listened to my program or read any of my articles or blog posts you would know, your feelings don’t count’

Covid-19 and every other virus out there, does not care if you FEEL safe.  Terrorist don’t care if you FEEL safe. (I have often said the people on those jets during 9-11 FELT safe, but were they?  Obviously, they cannot answer you because they are all dead.)

What we have going on now is a vast experiment on how to take away people’s rights and freedoms without a war.  It’s as simple as that. And the majority of us have fallen into line without question.

This is not about Covid-19 and it never has been about Covid-19.  It is about destroying economies that were booming without government intervention.  It was about destroying President Trump in the USA and any leader elected around the world who was like Trump.

It was about the Globalist grasping at their waining power to instill their will upon the people of the free world.  Nothing more and nothing less. And much of the world fell in line out of fear. Not logic.

I was screaming into the wind about this.  And I got tired. But the actions of people in a few states here in the USA has given me a glimmer of hope that all is not lost.

I may be tired, but I am not out of energy.

I will not be silent any longer.

President Trump Invites Heritage’s President to Work With America’s Business Leaders to Develop Ideas for Reopening America

WASHINGTON—Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James joined American industry leaders and CEOs on a White House call with President Donald Trump today to discuss the administration’s Great American Revival efforts.

Trump announced Tuesday that he would consult James as one of America’s thought leaders with ideas for restarting the U.S. economy. James is currently serving as chairman of the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, which includes 17 top experts and leaders whose mission is to save lives and livelihoods in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic by charting a path through the crisis and determining when and how to best begin to get Americans’ lives “back to normal.”

“I am grateful to work with President Trump alongside economists, scholars, and industry leaders on the Great American Economic Revival,” James said. “We are committed to developing plans to get Americans back to work as soon as it’s safe to do so and helping the nation recover from COVID-19. The president has assembled an amazing team, and I am honored to be a part of it.”

“Heritage recently formed the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, bringing together experts in medicine, economics, business, government, disaster relief, and education to develop recommendations to save both the lives and livelihoods of Americans from this pandemic and provide our nation’s leaders with a roadmap to reopen America when the time comes to do so safely. I am excited to bring those recommendations to the president’s Great American Economic Revival team.”

Heritage announced the formation of the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission on April 6. At its first meeting last Thursday, the commission announced a five-phase plan for reopening America. The plan calls for returning to a more normal level of business activity regionally, based on scientific data, as a first step. The commission is currently working on a set of recommendations for policymakers and the American people.

The commission’s next meeting will take place April 20. The commission will provide continual updates on the crisis response and recovery and publish its recommendations on its website, www.coronaviruscommission.com.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Helping Our Nation Get Back on Track

Predicting the Mortality Rate of Coronavirus Is More Difficult Than Media Portrays

Let’s Increase Hospital Bed Capacity Temporarily Instead of Permanent Expansions

Soros-funded Muslim group associated with Muslim Brotherhood – linked defenders of jihad terror – endorses Biden

If Biden said he was honored to receive the endorsement of a group that is opposed to jihad violence and Sharia oppression, he would pay a huge political price. But no one will take any particular notice of this.

“Soros-Funded Muslim Group Associated With Homophobia, Terrorist Defenders Endorses Biden,” by Joe Schoffstall, Washington Free Beacon, April 18, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):” Joe Schoffstall  

A George Soros-backed Muslim group, which cohosts a conference that in recent years drew speakers who called homosexuality a “disease” and defended terrorist groups, announced its endorsement of Joe Biden for president.

Emgage, which bills itself as the largest Muslim PAC in the country, on Thursday announced it would switch its endorsement from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) to Biden. The group cited Biden’s promises to end President Donald Trump’s travel bans, increase the refugee admissions cap, and overhaul the immigration system. Biden said he was “honored” to receive the endorsement.

Emgage has collaborated with a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated group on events that in recent years attracted speakers who openly opposed LGBT rights and supported terror groups. Last year, Emgage became an official cohost of Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) conferences. ISNA was previously revealed to be part of the Muslim Brotherhood network—though it claims it is no longer associated with the group.

The 2018 ISNA conference featured an array of homophobic speakers. One was Omar Suleiman, an imam who has called homosexuality a “disease” that will “destroy your children.” Another, former ISNA president Muzammil Siddiqi, said he “supported laws in countries where homosexuality is punishable by death.” Imam Shamsi Ali, an attendee who was described as a “moderate” on ISNA’s website, has stated that homosexuality is an “unbearable plague.”

Meanwhile, ISNA has disinvited pro-LGBT groups Muslims for Progressive Values and the Human Rights Campaign, because they “don’t fit in.”

The 2018 conference also featured individuals who have come to the defense of terrorist organizations. One speaker, Council on American-Islamic Relations executive Zahra Billoo, has regularly defended Hamas and refers to Israel as an “apartheid state.”

Khalid Griggs, who spoke on a panel with Billoo, has referred to al Qaeda as the “presumed perpetrators” of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and said the U.S. government used the tragedy to wage war on “legitimate resistance fighters” in the Middle East. Griggs previously launched a petition calling on the Obama administration to pardon former Black Panther Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, better known as H. Rap Brown. Brown is serving a life sentence as a convicted cop killer.

Also included in that year’s speaker lineup was Suhaib Webb, a Boston-based imam who held a fundraiser for Brown’s criminal defense fund. Webb hosted the event with Anwar al-Awlaki, an imam who preached to two of the 9/11 hijackers, joined al Qaeda, and was eventually killed in a drone strike.

Anti-Israel activist Linda Sarsour, who in 2004 called for a violent “intifada” in the United States, also spoke on a panel at the conference. During the panel Sarsour warned against “humanizing” Israelis, according to audio published by the Algemeiner. Hatem Bazian, head of American Muslims for Palestine, the agent of which has defended terrorists in court, was on the panel with Sarsour….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why the Coronavirus Poses a Unique Threat to Islamic Terrorists

Nigeria: Imam fired for complying with state government ban on congregational prayers

India: Muslim leader charged with sedition for inciting riots at Islamic university

Egypt: Muslims planned jihad massacre at Easter celebrations today

Gaza medical system on verge of collapse, Hamas turns to Israeli doctors for coronavirus training

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

How China’s Coronavirus Cover-Up Happened

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to kill thousands a day and bring the global economy to its knees, the origins of the virus are still being investigated and debated.

A recent Fox News report said that the virus came from a lab in the Chinese province of Wuhan, contradicting earlier reports that it originated in one of China’s infamously unsanitary wet markets.

The Wall Street Journal reported last month that coronavirus “Patient Zero” may have been Wei Guixian, a 57-year-old seafood merchant who felt like she was coming down with a cold on Dec. 10, and found herself unconscious in a hospital just eight days later.

From there, the situation spiraled as the number of cases climbed. Wuhan doctor Li Wenliang attempted to sound the alarms in late December, but was threatened and admonished by China’s totalitarian government. The government forced Wienlang to write a self-criticism letter, where he said that his decision to blow the whistle had a “negative impact” on China’s ability to investigate and control the virus. Wienlang himself succumbed to the virus in early February at the age of 34.

Chinese Communist Party Dictator Xi Jinping ordered Wuhan to get things under control on Jan. 7, and locked down the city on Jan. 23. During that time period, China was covering up the extent of the virus, with the help of the World Health Organization (WHO). Millions of people were still allowed to leave the country in January, and Dr. Anthony Fauci later said the devastating outbreak in Italy occurred largely as a result of Chinese tourists. President Donald Trump banned travel to the U.S. from China at the end of January, but over 40,000 people have arrived from there since then, taking advantage of exceptions. Experts have suggested that 95% of the outbreak could have been avoided if China had not attempted to cover up the virus.

The WHO wrote on Jan. 14 that ” based on the available information there is no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission,” which turned out to be gravely wrong, and severely tarnished the organization’s credibility. Later analysis found deep ties between the WHO’s leadership and China, leading President Donald Trump to suspend U.S. funding for the organization. China has relied on organizations like the WHO to provide cover for its campaign of censorship and disinformation.

As the official coronavirus death toll in the U.S. nears 40,000, China continues to report less than 5,000 deaths. U.S. intelligence later confirmed that China has been under-reporting its numbers. Even as the effects of the virus became evident, the Chinese Communist Party continued to go to great lengths to cover it up. China announced in mid March that they were expelling U.S. journalists from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and The Washington Post. The regime previously expelled three Wall Street Journal reporters from the country in February. Despite the communist country’s repeated missteps, China has not taken responsibility or demonstrated any remorse for the havoc the virus has wreaked on the world. Chinese government officials have continued to underreport their numbers, and have promoted conspiracy theories that the U.S. Army injected the virus into China.

The coronavirus spread and China’s attempts to cover it up have thrown the future of their relationship with the U.S. into doubt. President Donald Trump has stated that China will face consequences if it is proven that they knowingly covered up the virus, while members of Congress have vowed to make China pay. The future of the U.S.-China relationship will also play a significant role in the upcoming presidential campaign. Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden have already run advertisements accusing the other of being weak on China. Republicans have highlighted Biden’s family ties to China, as well as his past praise for the communist regime. A Pro-Trump Super PAC recently labeled the former vice president as “Beijing Biden,” in a campaign commercial being run in the crucial swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

China hawks have spent years warning about the communist nation’s deception, which has now been exposed for the whole world to see. While the origins of the virus and the extent of China’s cover-up are not yet known, there seems to be a consensus that they must be held accountable for the damage inflicted upon the world.

COLUMN BY

WILLIAM DAVIS

RELATED ARTICLES:

FLASHBACK: Joe Biden: ‘China Is Not Our Problem’

Pelosi Says She Didn’t Downplay Coronavirus By Encouraging Tourists To ‘Come To Chinatown’ In February

China Lifts Lockdown Restrictions On Wuhan After 76 Days

WHO Official Says She Suspected Human-To-Human COVID-19 Transmission ‘Right From The Start’ — But The WHO Echoed Misleading Chinese Claims To The Contrary For Weeks

What You Need to Know About Antibody Tests for COVID-19

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

ISRAEL: Imbecilic, Iniquitous, Inimical . . .

By its unflagging support of the establishment of a homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny (a.k.a. a Palestinian state), America’s allegedly “progressive” Jewry reveals that it is, in fact, profoundly regressive

Benjamin Netanyahu is a failed leader. He has led the State of Israel, once a proud example of a tenacious and highly developed democracy, to the threshold of third-world status. He has failed in his domestic policy and his foreign policy. And a substantial percentage of Israel’s citizens refuse to believe a single word that he says—Eric Yoffie, former president of the Union for Reform Judaism, in Netanyahu is a colossal failure. But against the coronavirus, he is all Israel has, Haaretz, April 2, 2020.

In the midst of this unprecedented health and financial crisis for Israel, we respectfully urge you not to use the need for unity in the face of emergency to create a different crisis for Israel by moving forward on unilateral annexation—From a letter initiated by the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) to Blue & White leaders, Benny Gantz and Gabi Ashkenazi, signed by over 130 left leaning US Jewish leaders, April 6, 2020.

Such a move would make a two-state solution harder — if not impossible to achieve — and would likely have far-reaching negative consequences for the US-Israel alliance…We cannot overstate the long-term damage such a move would have on the US-Israel alliance…The repercussions would be extremely serious and long-lasting. Most Americans will only support that so long as they believe Israel is committed to pursuing peaceA letter from Mark Mellman and Anne Lewis, president and co-chairwoman of the Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) to Benjamin Netanyahu, Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid, warning against unilateral annexation in Judea-Samaria, circa April 13, 2020.


April was a bad month for common sense—at least as far as declarations from representatives of allegedly “progressive” US Jewry and purportedly pro-Israel organizations associated with the Democratic Party are concerned.

Appalling, asinine & absurd

Arguably, one of the most appallingly asinine instances of the torrent of pompous and pretentiously pious pontification directed at Israel and Israelis was a recent opinion piece in Haaretz by Eric Yoffie (see introductory excerpt), berating Netanyahu as a “colossal failure”. Indeed, virtually every sentence in the article “elevates” the absurd to heights rarely attained in he past.

Yoffie begins his venomous brew of self-contradictions, non-sequiturs and flights of fancy with a toxic tirade against Benjamin Netanyahu and indirectly against Israeli society as a whole.

According to Yoffie: “Benjamin Netanyahu is a failed leader [who] has led the State of Israel, [from being] a proud example of a tenacious and highly developed democracy, to the threshold of third-world status.

Yoffie rails on: “He has failed in his domestic policy and his foreign policy. And a substantial percentage of Israel’s citizens refuse to believe a single word that he says.

However, despite this, Yoffie concedes: “And yet, not only does he remain Israel’s prime minister, but at the moment he is widely seen as the only figure who can lead Israel through the coronavirus crisis… Bibi, after all, is the man who has governed Israel for the past 11 years, (Israel’s longest-serving premier, Bibi was also in office for three years in the 1990s).

Yet despite this, he depicts Netanyahu’s long incumbency as “a period of dramatic and disastrous decline in Israel’s economic and social well-being.”

Disdainful and derogatory

This, of course, is a grave indictment of Israel and Israelis and by unavoidable implication, displays utter disdain for the Israeli electorate—and for the Israeli population in general.

After all, if Yoffie was right in his assessment (i.e. that “Israel’s citizens refuse to believe a single word that he says” and Netanyahu has been responsible for “a period of dramatic and disastrous decline in Israel’s economic and social well-being”), then surely the Israeli voters must be both masochistic and moronic. For what other reason could there be for them to keep reelecting a leader so “unequivocally” mendacious and incompetent.

Curiously, it was well into Netanyahu’s second incumbency that Israel acceded to the prestigious organization of the world’s most developed countries, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and, despite stiff, opposition the country became a significant energy exporter.

Under his stewardship, Israel has become one of the best performing economies in the world — with GDP per capita breaching the $40,000 mark for the first time ever in 2017, up sharply by over 45% since 2009, when he was first re-elected after losing power in 1999. Indeed, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), today Israel has overtaken France, Britain and Japan in terms of GDP per capita—something unimaginable not many  years ago

This is a “dramatic and disastrous decline in Israel’s economic …well-being”?  Really?

The pot calling the kettle black?

In stark contrast to Yoffie’s glum assessment of Israel’s socio-economic progress after almost a decade under the allegedly “inept” Netanyahu-led governments, the OECD itself describes Israel’s development, in glowing terms: “Israel’s economy continues to register remarkable macroeconomic and fiscal performance. Growth is strong and unemployment low and falling. With low interest rates and price stability, financial policy is prudent, and public debt is comparatively low and declining.”

According to the OECD’s report: “[Israel’s] external position is solid, thanks to a dynamic high-tech sector. The average standard of living is improving, mainly due to higher employment rates. Continued accommodative macro policies and planned investments in the offshore gas fields in the coming years will spur further growth.”

Of course, the dimwitted Israelis, who, by Yoffie’s account are teetering on the brink of a third-world tyranny, are far too dumb to realize in what a perilous situation they are in. Thus, the OECD report concluded: “Against this backdrop, Israelis remain on average more satisfied with their lives than residents of most other OECD countries.”

Significantly, in this regard, Israel was slated number eleven in the 2018 Happiness Survey, released every year by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, coming in just below the top ten, which included (in descending order): Finland Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and Australia—none of which are facing the harrowing existential challenges faced by Israel.

Thus, Israel easily outpaced Yoffie’s own country, the United States, which was in 18th place. Likewise, he berates Israel’s health services as being “near collapse”. However, if one assumes the life expectancy is largely determined by the level of medical services and social support, it is interesting to note the 2019 UN Development Report ranked Israel 9th out of over 200 countries, well above a host of Western European countries and almost thirty (!) places above the United States, in the 38th place.

Could the pot be calling the kettle black??

A truly transformative leader?

Of course, Netanyahu—like every mortal on the planet—is not irreplaceable or unblemished, but his record indicates that he is by far the most capable candidate to lead Israel in these challenging times—as even Yoffie is compelled to concede.

Indeed, in many ways, he has been a truly transformative leader.

This is clearly the case not only in the economic sphere, but in security and diplomacy as well.

He has drastically reduced Palestinian terror from the horrific levels he “inherited” from the Rabin-Peres era — and, despite occasional flare-ups, he has largely managed to contain it to hardly perceptible proportions — certainly nowhere near the grisly scale that prevailed under his predecessors.

In terms of foreign policy, he has produced remarkable success. He managed to wait out the inclement incumbency of Barack Obama, emerging largely unscathed — despite the undisguised antipathy between the two men.

His views on Iran and its perilous nuclear ambitions have been embraced by the Trump administration. He has managed to initiate far-reaching changes in Middle East politics, with increasingly amicable — albeit, as yet, only semi-overt — relations with important Arab states, inconceivable several years ago, while sidelining — or at least, significantly reducing — the centrality of the intractable “Palestinian problem”.

He has overseen Israel’s “pivot” eastwards, and burgeoning relationships with the ascendant economies of India and China, increasingly offsetting Israel’s commercial dependence on the oft less-than-benign EU. He also has scored remarkable diplomatic successes in Africa and South America.

Moreover, notwithstanding difficulties with western European countries, he has fostered increasingly warm relations and understanding with those in central and eastern Europe, driving a wedge into the otherwise widespread European animus towards Israel.

Small minded endeavor to diminish achievements

Yet despite Netanyahu’s impressive record of achievement, Yoffie embarks on a smallminded and meanspirited endeavor to dismiss them. Belittling his warm relations with world leaders, his success in getting the US to adopt his perspective on the Iran nuclear issue, his success in reducing the once horrific levels of terror and his developing contacts with the Arab-Sunni worlds, Yoffie sneers: “Bibi has produced a record that is, by any measure, a miserable one.

Significantly, Yoffie is at a loss to explain why a country, that is on the cutting edge of almost all fields of human endeavor, repeatedly “shoots itself in the foot” by time and again voting into power a leader, whose record is “by any measure, a miserable one”.

He produces a motley mélange of unpersuasive excuses for a lack of realistic competitors from both Right ([Bibi] has destroyed potential rivals on the right by his ruthless control of… the right-wing bloc)  and Left (Barak was “…politically inept”, Herzog “…insufficiently tough ; Gantz… weak and indecisive…)

Of course, the real reason for Yoffie’s chronic Bibiphobia is only thinly disguised, something he gives away about halfway through the article: The “Palestinians”.

He laments: “Deal of the Century’ practically forgotten, Bibi has shown no interest in any alternative arrangement—if not peace, then at least separation that would offer the Palestinians a degree of stability and dignity.

This leaves us to puzzle over just how much “stability and dignity” separation has provided the “Palestinians” in Gaza—with many awash in a untreated sewage, with polluted water supplies, with perennial power outages and under the yoke of the oppressive, dysfunctional Islamist tyranny of Hamas.

As to why separation is likely to produce anything more “stable and dignified” in Judea-Samaria, Yoffie offers nary a clue.

Pursing a pipedream

Significantly, the Trump Plan and the Palestinians constitute the link that brings us to the other “progressive” caveats directed at the Israeli leadership.

The first is a letter (April 6, 2020) initiated by the Israel Policy Forum (IPF), an organization that aims to shape the discourse and mobilize support among American Jewish leaders and U.S. policymakers for the realization of a viable two-state solution.

Addressed to Blue & White leaders, Benny Gantz and Gabi Ashkenazi, and signed by over 130 left leaning US Jewish leaders, it proclaims: “We have strongly objected to Israel unilaterally annexing West Bank territory and applying sovereignty to Jewish settlements, whether according to the parameters of the Trump plan or any other similar proposal, at any point in time.”

The IPF letter warns “To unilaterally move forward with such a plan now would be particularly damaging. It will call into question the Israeli government’s priorities during a global and national emergency, shine a spotlight on controversial Israeli policies… and could create a rupture inside of Congress and in the upcoming presidential campaign….”

According to the IPF signatories, such a unilateral initiative “will be viewed as political opportunism by proponents of annexation during the worst possible moment and will make it more challenging for American Jewish leaders as they seek to maintain strong support for Israel and pro-Israel policies at this time.

The second is a letter (circa April 13, 2020) from the president and co-chairwoman of the Democratic Majority for Israel, whose goal is to “Promote a Two-State Solution and Arab-Israeli Peace through Diplomacy and Partnership.

Addressed to Benjamin Netanyahu, Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid, it warns against unilateral annexation in Judea-Samaria: “Such a move would make a two-state solution harder — if not impossible to achieve — and would likely have far-reaching negative consequences for the US-Israel alliance… We cannot overstate the long-term damage such a move would have on the US-Israel alliance…The repercussions would be extremely serious and long-lasting. Most Americans will only support that so long as they believe Israel is committed to pursuing peace .”

When “progressive” means “regressive”

It is of course, a long-standing conundrum why so called “progressives”, who purportedly cherish liberal values of societal pluralism and individual freedoms would cling to support for a Palestinian state. After all, such a state, if it were to emerge, would almost certainly be yet another homophobic misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny and the utter antithesis of all to which they claim to subscribe. Yet impervious to factual precedents and future probabilities they adhere doggedly to their flawed dogma.

This was aptly described by Jonathan Tobin in a recent opinion piece, A disingenuous debate about annexation. He ends it with these words: Living in the past and clinging to the false hopes of the 1990s won’t build support for Israel or nurture the alliance between the two democracies. It’s long past time for liberal American Jews, even the old Oslo-cheering squad, to accept the reality of Palestinian rejectionism and the permanence of the West Bank settlements, whether or not they believed that they were a good idea in the first place.

He points out: Trying to undermine the new Israeli government or setting the stage for a conflict with the Democrats should Trump lose in the fall isn’t consistent with their claim of being ardent supporters of the Jewish state. Nostalgia for the illusions of the past should never be confused with activism that actually helps Israel.

He is of course, quite right. By its unflagging support of the establishment of a homophobic, misogynistic tyrannical political entity (a.k.a.  a Palestinian state), America’s allegedly “progressive” Jewry reveals that it is, in fact, profoundly regressive.

That is the real paradox that Eric Yoffie should set about resolving.

© All rights reserved.

Blue Bloods Gone Oprah

Among the TV shows I gravitate to with my husband Steve, a former athlete, include live baseball, basketball and football games, historical documentaries, and both true crime shows and crime dramas like Law & Order, Forensic Files, Chicago PD, and Blue Bloods––all studies in the greatest mystery of all time, human behavior.

When Blue Bloods debuted in September 2010, we thought it was excellent, featuring in-depth and provocative episodes, and at last embodying the conservative values we embraced, including a distinct lack of the three-legged stool on which Progressives base their so-called values: moral relativism, political correctness, and multiculturalism.

The show is about the Reagan dynasty in NY City, where the following characters are presented every week with daunting challenges, moral dilemmas, high-action chases and arrests, and touching family dramas:

  • Frank Reagan, a widower and the New York Police Department (NYPD) Commissioner, played by Tom Selleck.
  • His father Henry Reagan, also a widower and a former NYPD Commissioner, played by Len Cariou.
  • Frank’s son Danny, played by Donnie Wahlberg, a tough, street-smart detective, and his partner Maria Baez (played by Marisa Ramirez). Danny was happily married to R.N.  Linda (played by Amy Carlson) before her death, and they were the parents of two sons played by real-life brothers Andrew and Tony Terraciano.
  • Frank’s daughter Erin, played by Bridget Moynihan, a letter-of-the-law Bureau Chief in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and divorced mother of daughter Nicky (played by Sami Gayle). Erin works closely with Anthony Abetemarco, a detective in the D.A.’s office (played by Steve Schirripa).
  • Frank’s son Jamie, played by Will Estes, a Harvard Law School graduate who chose to become a street cop, promoted to sergeant, and then married to his NYPD partner––a beautiful blonde from a decidedly dysfunctional background––“Eddie” Janko, played by Vanessa Ray.
  • Frank’s Chief of Staff, Garrett Moore, who is also the NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Public Information, played by Gregory Jbara.
  • I cannot omit the very gorgeous and fabulous actress Abigail Baker who plays Commissioner Reagan’s chief aide as Detective Abigail Hawk.

Suffusing the drama is the Commissioner’s late son Joe, an NYPD detective who was murdered by a corrupt gang of police officers and whose memory continues to haunt the Reagan family.

THE OLD FORMAT

Every week for the past many years, all these characters presented compelling and original drama with episodes addressing themes such as the unreliability of eyewitnesses, the difficulty of identifying sociopaths, the nefarious inner workings of the New York mafia, the dangers of nepotism within the ranks, the reluctance of sexual assault victims to come forward, the complexity of solving murder cases, on and on and on.

In every episode, it was clear that the protagonists––members of the NYPD from the top on down––knew the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, legal and illegal.

Right was the teenage kid from the projects who resisted following his thug friends into a life of crime; wrong were the thugs who chose a life of crime, including robbery, rape and murder.

Good were the people who yearned for a safe neighborhood coming forward to identify the bad guys, in spite of great risk to themselves and their families; bad were the drug dealers and corrupt politicians who covered for the bad guys.
Legal were the follow-the-rules cops who crossed every “t” and dotted every “I”; bad were the on-the-take judges who ruled against them.

Riveting. Illuminating. Thought-provoking. Influential. Worthy of our time.

THE OLD VALUES

Among the most refreshing qualities of the show was––not is––the great respect the children and grandchildren exhibited toward their father, the Commissioner, and their grandfather, the former Commissioner.

Every week, viewers were treated to the Reagan clan gathering around a huge dining-room table for a sumptuous dinner consisting of platters of roast turkey and roast beef, mountains of salad and vegetables, and heaping portions of baked and mashed potatoes, where one or another member of the family would say Grace before the meal, thank their Lord Jesus Christ for their bounty, make the sign of the Cross, and in unison say Amen.

While serious discussions and good-humored kidding took place around the table, philosophical disagreements also abounded. Yes, quizzical looks and raised eyebrows and even scowls were evinced, but there was always a refreshing absence of the dismissive, rude, hostile and insulting behavior and the repulsively foul language we’ve become accustomed to in shows ranging from newscasts to award shows to daytime talk shows to “Housewives” dramas. And there was never any sign or sight of an iPhone!

RATINGS DON’T LIE

According to Wikipedia, the pilot episode 10 years ago garnered 15,246 million viewers, and the ratings remained sky-high for about seven seasons. But from season eight on, the ratings began to plunge, with season nine seeing the lowest in the show’s history.

No mystery to me, as the Blue Bloods audience witnessed this once-terrific show go Oprah––turning into both a social service and finger-wagging forum designed to set Commissioner Frank Reagan and his unenlightened family straight, to teach them the Progressive values that the leftist writers they hired wanted them to learn: how to be a moral relativist, a multiculturalist, a politically correct jerk.

CLUELESS WRITERS

It is abundantly clear that the current writers had never watched the show, had no idea about the rock-ribbed simpatico dynamics of the Reagan family, had contempt for the police, and had a deep loathing of the Christian religion and prayer and even the mention of Jesus.

Why else would they have the always respectful sons of Frank Reagan and their grandfather Henry speak to them with such antagonistic, disrespectful language? Why would they feature rookie and even senior policemen speak to the Commissioner in such brazenly inappropriate terms? Why would they completely eliminate the prayer before eating dinner and any reference to Jesus?

Why? I know nothing about corporate media or who calls the shots and ultimately determines content. But this is an all-important election year and we already see the Murdoch boys pushing their properties––The Wall St. Journal and Fox News, among others––in a distinctly leftward direction, so it’s not a far stretch to theorize that anti-Trump CBS-TV is also pushing their popular shows along the same route.

After all, why would they drag a veteran leftist, the seemingly dotty 90-year-old Ed Asner, out of his comfortable California home to star in a preposterous episode where the writers wasted our time watching Asner and his old friend Commissioner Reagan show off their knowledge of ancient movies?

Why? Clearly the writers want to make the Commissioner look like a regular guy, to reduce his gravitas, to make him less important.

Why would they feature the toughest guy in town, Commissioner Reagan, visiting the new Mayor of NYC––who told him the City needed a tougher P.R. person than Reagan’s longtime Chief of Staff Garrett Moore––and then portray the Commissioner as an emotional, conflicted, hand-wringing wuss over a simple executive decision?

Why? Again, an attempt by the writers to make the Commissioner look incapable of taking charge and getting something done––sort of like Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Of course, the goal of the real wusses who are writing this junk is to convince the viewing public that they’ve been wrong all along about Blue Bloods, that what we should really believe is that the police are the problem, prayer is the problem, Jesus is the problem, and we should vote for all the leftwing candidates who believe this tripe.

As for me and Steve, we’ve dropped this leftist travesty forever, and are now enjoying both reruns and new episodes of the quite fabulous and compelling Chicago PD!

© All rights reserved.

Illinois: Muslim who slashed tires at churches and said ‘I don’t like Christians’ now tries to burn occupied church

“In November 2019, prosecutors said that El Hannouny slashed the tires of 19 cars in the parking lots of the First Baptist and Sts. Helen and Constantine churches. Upon his arrest, he told authorities that he damaged the cars because, “I don’t like Christians,” according to police. Hate crime charges were added in January, and he was released on a $10,000 I-bond with electronic monitoring.”

We see how well that worked. Officials did not and would never dare to address the root causes of El-Hannouny’s hatred, and so he was free to act upon it again. When arrested this time, he didn’t show any sign of remorse: “While El Hannouny was being processed, police said he started spitting at officers, reports said. El Hannouny also wrote a religious slur on the wall of his cell.” Yet he will soon be free again, and will almost certainly target yet another church.

“Man Accused of Trying To Burn Down Occupied Church,” by Lorraine Swanson, Patch, April 16, 2020 (thanks to the Geller Report):

PALOS HILLS, IL — A Palos Hills man already facing hate crime and criminal damage charges is now accused of trying to set fire to an occupied church, reports said. Osama E. El Hannouny, 25, appeared Wednesday before a Cook County judge on charges of arson, hate crimes, criminal damage to property, battery to a police officer and violation of bail bond.

In November 2019, prosecutors said that El Hannouny slashed the tires of 19 cars in the parking lots of the First Baptist and Sts. Helen and Constantine churches. Upon his arrest, he told authorities that he damaged the cars because, “I don’t like Christians,” according to police. Hate crime charges were added in January, and he was released on a $10,000 I-bond with electronic monitoring.

On April 14, police said El Hannouny used leaves to set fire to Sacred Heart Church, 8245 W. 111th St. According to the police report, El Hannouny was caught on video looking through the doors of the church building and noticing that it was occupied. Police said he made numerous trips to pile leaves near the gas main and air conditioning unit. El Hannouny allegedly set the leaves on fire, but firefighters quickly extinguished the flames.

While El Hannouny was being processed, police said he started spitting at officers, reports said. El Hannouny also wrote a religious slur on the wall of his cell, according to the report. El Hannouny allegedly scratched, bit and spit at police when they tried to stop him….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Afghanistan: Muslims shoot and kill six workers at US-run Bagram Airfield

Australia: Sunni Muslims who firebombed a Shi’ite mosque lose appeals against their terror convictions

Killing for Muhammad’s Honor: The Highest Expression of the Islamic Faith

Egypt: Muslims who targeted Christians for jihad massacre planned to strike under cover of coronavirus curfew

Tunisia: Two jihadis arrested for trying to infect police with coronavirus

Germany: Government pays $19,500 to jihad preacher who is classified as a threat and is already on welfare

PBS Backdating and Exaggerating the Muslim Presence in the U.S. (Part 1)

RELATED VIDEO: Corona Virus  – The Muslim Response.

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

COVID-19 Damage Control: At What Cost?

This is not to say that the virus does not exist, nor that pockets of America do not suffer disproportionately from the health consequences of COVID-19. As the hysteria-driven lockdowns of coronavirus persist, constitutional conservatives are slowly emerging from under their beds.

Spear carriers for social isolation and economic constriction in America have reacted to critics with the same derision accorded wearers of red MAGA hats.

In less than thirty days, Americans have been persuaded to swap Constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties in exchange for the illusion of protection from a virus that has touched a relative few.

However, neither the vast majority of Americans, nor family, friends, or neighbors, have been infected by the virus. Yet, the American public is expected – no, required – to support a one-size-fits-all national response that, to this writer, is akin to killing a flea with an elephant gun.

As international travel is acknowledged as the world’s COVID-19 courier, I’m led to an inescapable conclusion:

COVID-19 is, first and foremost, an unintended consequence of three factors, in order of significance: Open Borders movement, business globalization, and international tourism.

Presently, the nation of Sweden has the most relaxed posture in western Europe regarding COVID-19; she has no lockdown whatsoever. Many media pundits are nearly gleeful in reports of higher infection rates in Sweden compared to the rest of Europe. However, in its daily briefings on the virus, the Sweden Department of Public Health insists that its infection rate would be much lower, had the government enacted screening measures early on, for Swedish vacationers returning from Italy.

According to the state department of health here in Minnesota, our rate of infection as a percentage of the population is the lowest of any state in the nation.

The mean age for deaths attributed to COVID-19 here is 86. Pre-existing health problems accompany nearly all the fatalities, and the majority have been residents of nursing homes.

This past week, several meatpacking companies throughout the Midwest – names like Smithfield, Cargill, Tyson, and Brazilian conglomerate JBS – reported closures of plants in which anywhere from 20 to 80 employees tested positive for corona virus. What do nursing homes and meatpacking plants share in common? The majority of workers in both industries – industries hard-hit by labor shortages- are recent arrivals from third-world nations; populations for whom international travel is commonplace.

New York City – the epicenter of COVID-19 in the United States – is also America’s symbol for the “nation of immigrants.” Additionally, she is a preeminent international business center. Business travelers from across the globe travel in and out of New York City by the hundreds every single day.

Finally, New York City may be the most popular tourist destination in America for foreign travelers. Walk down Fifth Avenue on any given weekend in Autumn if there is any doubt.

Is it any wonder, then, that COVID-19 fatalities in the New York Tri-state area make up as much as half of the nation’s COVID-related deaths?

What we are witnessing is the unintended consequence of unbridled, open borders migration, be it for business, escaping third world poverty, or tourism.

Globalists are hard at work on damage control. Their messengers of doomsday scenarios will claim victory regardless of the outcome. If the death count is high, they’ll say “we told you so”. If the death rate is low, they’ll take credit for convincing the world to heed their warnings.

And let’s not forget the icing on the cake.

Leftists the world over are not about to pass up an opportunity to exploit a crisis that could hurt the President’s re-election campaign. If turning a blind eye to civil liberties sends President Trump packing and derails the conservative/national sovereignty contingent, well, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette. Collateral damaged be damned.

And the collateral damage? There are many versions of death. Nearly all agree that economic recovery will be long and drawn out, at best. The fallout will certainly be the death knell for many rural towns throughout the Midwest that have been hanging on by fingernails for years as it is. Hospitals will go broke. Record numbers face unemployment. Children are kept from schooling. Small retail businesses and the hospitality industry are crushed, many for good. Socializing is verboten. All in the name of containing a virus for which attributable deaths in New York’s Tri-state area (a population of nearly 20 million) make up roughly FIVE ONE HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT of its population.

My late mother, a nurse, had a one-liner of dark humor she picked up on the hospital floor: “the operation was a complete success, and the patient died.”

NOTE: This is a guest column by my friend Bob Enos of Willmar, Minnesota.  Regular readers of Refugee Resettlement Watch may remember Bob who compiled a great deal of information on the economic cost of migrant and refugee labor and wrote several articles for RRW in the past.

Watch Mr. Enos give a presentation to a county board meeting in 2015 about his economic analysis of the cost to the county and state of the immigrant labor that benefits large global corporations at taxpayers’ expense.

Go here to read previous posts at RRW either written by him or about his work.

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

PODCAST: When Is Opening Day?

Good question. After two months, a lot of people are itching to lose the masks and gloves, return to work, and get their lives back to normal. Believe it or not, others want to see the country stay in paralysis until the election making it a sore political subject. We obviously cannot do the latter as the United States would become a burned out shell by then. The question though is when to re-open the country, and that will be the toughest question President Trump will face as he knows the clock is ticking on our ability to recover from this mess.

Whatever day President Trump picks, the press will, of course, ridicule his decision and the Democrats will turn it into a political football. In other words, they do not want him to win on this one which is why they are trying to undermine him every step of the way. Frankly, we do not have time for such hi-jinks; the show must go on.

The decision to open back up will be shared between the president, and the state governors. The Republicans will, of course, side with the president, and the Democrats will not. Nonetheless, if the Republican led states begin to open up, the liberal news media will criticize them, but they will still open up, thereby applying pressure on Democrat states to do likewise. Please keep in mind there are more Republican-led states than there are Democrat-led. It will be interesting to see how the larger Democrat-led states will react, particularly New York, Michigan, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and California.

The one Democrat-led state to pay particular attention to is Nevada where the gambling and tourist trade has been crippled by the coronavirus. Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) will be pressured to open the state, not just by the casinos and resorts, but by members of his own party who desperately want to go back to work. If Nevada opens, this will put pressure on West Coast Democrat-led states to do likewise, particularly California who has been struggling financially for quite some time.

The opening of states like Nevada and Florida will not only pressure tourist attractions to open, but will also push sports venues to reopen, particularly Major League Baseball. As for basketball and hockey, they may go into tournament play, but I believe their seasons are essentially over. Interestingly, the NFL will be untouched by the virus, but will instigate precautions for safeguarding attendance at their games.

Following this, watch the transportation industry begin to rebound.

The “anti-open” people will rebel loudly, but this is to be expected. By doing so, they run the risk of becoming an annoyance and losing votes in November. In other words, they will be coerced into accepting the reopening of the country.

So, when exactly should we re-open? This too has been a tricky question, one the president has been shrewd to avoid. During the presidential virus news conferences, reporters have repeatedly tried to pin him down to a date, so they can spread false alarms and insist the commander-in-chief is incompetent to remain in office (sound familiar?). Fortunately, the president has a lot of data available for his team to analyze and make a recommendation. Whatever date is picked, it will remain an educated guess, but it will be better than simply picking a date out of the air. Again, whichever date is picked, the president’s opponents will seize on the moment and politicize it.

The point is, we obviously have to re-open sooner or later; otherwise we will go into a death spiral. Whatever day Mr. Trump picks, it will be ridiculed by his opponents. This is all inevitable. However, if the American people truly want to return to work, as I suspect they do, they will support the president’s decision and move on with their lives.

Let’s be clear on one point, regardless of the day picked to re-open, life will not be quite the same anymore. For example, masks and gloves will not disappear any time soon, particularly at sporting events, and people will keep their social distance from each other in general.

As to an exact date, I will leave it the president’s team, but we typically like to marry it to a well known holiday. The betting is on a date in May, of which we have plenty of choices:

Tue, May 5th – Cinco de Mayo – Yea, let’s get drunk one last time before going back to work.

Sun, May 10th – Mother’s Day – Not a bad time to return back to work in support of Moms everywhere.

Sat, May 16th – Armed Forces Day – Also a good day to return to work following a patriotic day.

Mon, May 25th – Memorial Day – This will be the favorite as it is a three day weekend. However, it is far away.

Actually, I think it would be more appropriate to use Monday, May 11th, as this is Twilight Zone Day. It makes sense to me.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Evidence Is Coming In: Virus Experts May Have Been Badly Wrong

It’s looking more like the experts got the handling of COVID-19 wrong. Maybe really wrong.

In analyzing the data from countries who took dramatically different measures in response to COVID-19, from the most severe restrictions to very few restrictions (countries that keep and share good data, not China or Iran) it appears they are all showing essentially the same spread, spikes, flattening and decline. This includes Sweden and others that did not shutdown.

The same phenomenon is playing out among individual states in the U.S. Some went into Stalinist lockdowns (Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer) while others never locked down at all and only encouraged social distancing (South Dakota Gov. Krist Noem.) Florida technically did a lockdown, very “late” as Gov. Ron DeSantis is constantly lectured, but even then DeSantis exempted so much it was really not much different than the voluntary social distancing. And Florida’s numbers, which were supposed to be the next hotspot after New York, are tracking ballpark with those that took the most draconian measures.

So again, as with nations, the states are at different timeframes on the graphs, but all looking very similar in a timeframe to timeframe comparison — similar to each other and, this is critical, similar to previous coronavirus outbreaks. That’s a head-scratcher.

Another data set is adding to the suspicions.

Denmark, Scotland and Germany have done thorough antibody testing in specific locals and found infection rates between 12 and 27 times higher than they thought and models had projected. And a majority of the people were either asymptomatic or had very mild symptoms. This means that the death rate might be wildly lower than is currently suggested, as low as 0.2 percent — which would be very near to the normal flu. It could be close to 1 percent, but that is seeming less likely now, and still way below the 3.4 percent the World Health Organization put out that was used in the Imperial College projections of death totals.

“Many magnitudes more people have been infected with it than we realized,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford university, said on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show. “That means the death rate is lower than we thought, by orders of magnitude.”

It’s important to remember that because it is so contagious, the overall numbers may be higher, but then they may not be because of how quickly the peak is reached and the downside starts — much faster than anticipated even with the full lockdowns. Again, that is according to the models.

None of this was jibing with what the experts had said.

And then journalist John Solomon interviewed Dr. Knut Wittkowski, a biomedical researcher, statistician and modeler at Rockefeller University in New York, on his Just The News podcast. And a lot of bewilderment came into clarity. The numbers began making sense if, IF, Wittkowski is right.

First off, he is obviously an expert, but he also is a major outlier among the expert class. However, he mentions in the interview that more and more of his colleagues are agreeing with him and his bottom line, to wit: We not only did not need to shut down economies, we should not have. We may have made it worse by creating a second wave — which coronaviruses in the past did not have.

Wittkkowski said the first big mistake was closing the schools. If they had been left open, it would have gone through the children, who are least affected by the virus, and their parents, who also have low impacts from it. That’s a big way towards herd immunity of 60-70 percent. And the people who are vulnerable to it should stay away from children for the duration, which is a few months.

He said the threat continues to be for the elderly and those with underlying health conditions — something we’ve known almost from the beginning. In that way, he said it is just like all of the previous respiratory viruses such as MERS and SARS. They all differ some in both contagiousness and fatality rate, but the similarities are strong.

Here’s the key: Wittkowski said the shut down probably did not slow the spread because herd immunity would have started kicking in now, or soon, as has been the case in the previous coronavirus outbreaks. However, by truncating the opportunity for herd immunity, we have set ourselves up for the feared “second wave” — something that did not happen in previous coronaviruses because we did not prevent herd immunity with the shutdown.

If Wittkowski is right, at least to some degree, these shutdowns may well have destroyed the strongest economy in history and ultimately made the virus impact worse. That would be a failing of the expert class in truly epic fashion.

Now I do not blame politicians from either party without more information. They relied on experts and did what they were told they should do. DeSantis and some other governors pushed back, but the pressure was great. However, I do blame the experts and the media’s near idolatry of the expert class. Just do what they say!

In reality, we will know by probably mid fall if the expert class made a colossal mistake. And if so, a lot of heads should roll, because mistakes of this magnitude cannot be tolerated.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Watch Live: Trump’s Press Briefing on COVID-19

What Would the Reopening of the Economy Look Like?

California Mayor to Resign After Comparing Trump Supporters to KKK

How COVID-19 Exacerbates Lebanon’s Mounting Economic, Political Woes

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

Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Democratic Primary Challenger Antone Melton-Meaux Calls for Explanation on Continued Payments to Her Chief Fundraiser and Now Husband

MINNEAPOLISApril 17, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Antone Melton-Meaux today called on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) to defend her ongoing payments to E Street Group, a political consulting firm co-owned by her husband and chief fundraiser, Tim Mynett.

According to yesterday’s Federal Election Commission (FEC) quarterly filing, Rep. Omar’s campaign paid her husband’s firm $292,000, a significant majority of the total $460,000 her campaign raised in the same time period. At this pace, Rep. Omar’s campaign will pay E Street Group well over $1 million this year.

“Another quarter, another staggering payment. Although these payments are not illegal, that doesn’t make them right. Rep. Omar’s decision to keep working with E Street Group without full-disclosure continues to raise legitimate questions about her transparency, integrity, and accountability,” said Melton-Meaux.

Months

Quarter

Year

E Street
Disbursements

Total Funds

Raised

%

Of Total

Oct-Dec

Q4

2018

$62,673.78

$475,572.71

15%

Jan-March

Q1

2019

$69,064.04

$280,110.30

25%

Apr-June

Q2

2019

$91,100.56

$279,051.57

33%

July-Sept

Q3

2019

$146,712.61

$491,274.39

30%

Oct-Dec

Q4

2019

$216,564.64

$403,773.28

54%

Jan-March

Q1

2020

$292,814.99

$460,455.76

63%

Publicly available data from the Federal Election Commission website www.fec.gov.

To date, Rep. Omar has not disclosed when her relationship with Mr. Mynett began. Her first acknowledgment of a relationship was an Instagram post during President Trump’s historic prime time coronavirus address to the nation, when she announced their marriage.

In an interview with WCCO-TV’s Esme Murphy in August 2019, Rep. Omar was asked directly if she was involved with Mr. Mynett. She categorically denied a relationship. Yet, just a few weeks later, Mr. Mynett’s former wife stated in her divorce filing that he and Rep. Omar were in a relationship.

“Like all of us, Rep. Omar and Mr. Mynett are entitled to their private life. That’s not the issue. But how a candidate manages both their public life and political campaign are important metrics for voters to assess their fitness for office,” said Melton-Meaux.

Over the past year, payments to Mr. Mynett’s firm went from 15% to over 63% compared to total funds raised. Additionally, Rep. Omar’s payments are a majority of E Street Group’s total lifetime revenue.

“This concerning trend is unacceptable. Why have the payments increased and why are they increasing with no end in sight? Have Rep. Omar and Mr. Mynett taken appropriate steps to avoid any conflict of interest? And why does she refuse to answer questions about this matter? The residents of the Fifth Congressional District deserve answers,” said Melton-Meaux. “I call on Rep. Omar to answer these questions and agree to public debates,” continued Melton-Meaux.

He continued, “Misleading voters is a serious breach of the public’s trust, whether it be the President of the United States or a Member of Congress. Rep. Omar’s refusal to give an explanation is simply another indicator that she’s out of touch with this district and is apparently not concerned with ethics.”

“A fundamental pillar of the progressive platform is accountability and transparency in how candidates raise and spend their money. Preserving the integrity of our democracy is inherently tied to seriously reforming campaign finance laws. Particularly for such a visible member of the progressive movement, Rep. Omar’s actions undermine her credibility and effectiveness on this critical issue. This does great harm to what we are trying to accomplish,” added Melton-Meaux.

In Congress, Melton-Meaux will be a staunch advocate for campaign finance reform that ensures voters and donors no longer have to wonder if a campaign’s contributions are being used for their intended purpose.

A progressive, lifelong Democrat, Melton-Meaux owns a small business—a mediation practice—that helps people come together and find solutions when they can’t find common ground on their own. He has a long track record of public service with a strong commitment to the community.

Active in the Fifth Congressional District , Melton-Meaux serves as a volunteer minister at Salem English Lutheran Church and has served on the boards of the Page Education Foundation, College Possible, the Guthrie Theater, the Conflict Resolution Center, Northrop at the University of Minnesota, and the Children’s Law Center.

Melton-Meaux was an All-American track star and Academic All-American at Washington University in St. Louis. At the University of Virginia School of Law, he served on the board of the Journal of Social Policy and the Law and was a recipient of the prestigious Congressional Black Caucus Fellowship. At Union Theological Seminary, he was a Union Scholar and chaplain at a senior center on the Upper West Side of New York City.

Melton-Meaux and his wife, Dr. Genevieve Melton-Meaux, were college sweethearts and have been together for 27 years. They live with their two school-age children in the Uptown neighborhood of Minneapolis.

To learn more, please visit www.AntoneForCongress.com. Follow Antone on Twitter @antone_mn  Instagram @antone_mn and on Facebook at Antone For Congress.

© All rights reserved.

Iran attack boats harass US Navy and Coast Guard ships in ‘dangerous’ exchange

Iran keeps acting as if Obama were still President, although they have already found out that he isn’t. They are avid for war with the United States, and have been for years.

I wrote it in 2016, but I could have written it yesterday. The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran details the Islamic Republic’s militaristic aims, its support for global terrorism, its oppression of its own people, and much, much more, including exactly why Obama’s late and much-lamented nuclear deal was so disastrous.

“Photos show nearly a dozen Iranian attack boats harassing US Navy and Coast Guard ships in ‘dangerous’ exchange,” by Ryan Pickrell, Business Insider, April 15, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Nearly a dozen Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy vessels sailed out Wednesday to harass a collection of US Navy and Coast Guard vessels conducting operations in international waters, the US 5th Fleet said in a statement accompanied by a collection of photos.

At the time of the incident, the Navy expeditionary mobile base vessel USS Lewis B. Puller, destroyer USS Paul Hamilton, and patrol ships USS Firebolt and USS Sirocco, together with the Coast Guard cutters USCGC Wrangell and USCGC Maui, were carrying out joint operations with Army AH-64E Apache attack helicopters in the Persian Gulf.

The US Navy has been using the Puller as a landing base platform for the Army helicopters in operations the Navy has said are designed to “enhance the capabilities of US forces to respond to surface threats.” Such threats could potentially include swarms of small boats.

The US Navy said Wednesday that 11 Iranian boats “conducted dangerous and harassing approaches” and that the IRGCN boats crossed the bows and sterns of the US ships repeatedly, at one point closing to within 10 yards of one of the cutters.

The crews on the US vessels issued warnings over bridge-to-bridge radio and sounded their horns and long-range acoustic noise-maker devices, 5th Fleet said in its statement. After about an hour, the Iranian vessels finally responded and moved away from the American ships.

In addition to photos, 5th Fleet released video from the incident.

“The IRGCN’s dangerous and provocative actions increased the risk of miscalculation and collision,” the US Navy said, accusing the Iranian vessels of violating the “rules of the road.”

The US and Iran came close to war earlier this year after the US killed a top Iranian general in a drone strike and Iran retaliated with a missile strike on US forces. While there is currently a decreased risk of immediate armed conflict, tensions persist

RELATED ARTICLES:

Italy: Doctor on migrant transport ship says rescuing migrants more important than coronavirus worries

Yemen: Houthi jihadis say they will kill people who contract coronavirus

Afghanistan: Taliban open fire on youths who were playing cricket, one dead, three others wounded

Mozambique: “We want everyone here to apply Islamic law. We want a government from Allah.”

Italy: Leftist government shuts out Muslim migrants only because coronavirus makes the country unsafe for them

Iran: Islamic Revolution Guards Corps says its new coronavirus detector can identify infected people 100 meters away

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

Coronavirus Authoritarianism Is Getting Out of Hand

It’s reasonable to assume that the vast majority of Americans process news and data, and calculate that self-quarantining, wearing masks, and social distancing make sense for themselves, their families, and the country.

Free people act out of self-preservation, but they shouldn’t be coerced to act through the authoritarian whims of the state. Yet this is exactly what’s happening.

There has been lots of pounding of keyboards over the power grabs of authoritarians in Central and Eastern Europe, and rightly so.

Yet right here, politicians act as though a health crisis gives them license to lord over the most private activities of the American people in ways that are wholly inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the Constitution.


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 >>>

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>>>


I’m not even talking about national political and media elites who, after fueling years of hysteria over the coming Republican dictatorship, now demand Donald Trump dominate state actions. I’m talking about local governments.

Under what imperious conception of governance does Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer believe it is within her power to unilaterally ban garden stores from selling fruit or vegetable plants and seeds?

What business is it of Vermont or Howard County, Indiana, to dictate that Walmart, Costco, or Target stop selling “nonessential” items, such as electronics or clothing?

Vermont has 628 cases of the coronavirus as of this writing. Is that the magic number authorizing the governor to ban people from buying seeds for their gardens?

Maybe a family needs new pajamas for their young kids because they’re stuck in a new town. Or maybe Mom needs a remote hard drive to help her work remotely. Or maybe Dad just likes apples. Whatever the case, it’s absolutely none of your mayor’s business.

It makes sense for places like Washington, D.C.; Virginia; and Maryland to ban large, avoidable gatherings. But it is an astonishing abuse of power to issue stay-at-home orders, enforced by criminal law, empowering police to harass and fine individuals for nothing more than taking a walk.

The criminalization of movement ends with 10 Philly cops dragging a passenger off a bus for not wearing a face mask.

It ends with local Brighton, Colorado, cops handcuffing a father in front of his family for playing softball with his daughter in an empty park.

It ends with three Massachusetts men being arrested, and facing the possibility of 90 days in jail, for crossing state lines and golfing—a sport built for social distancing—in Rhode Island.

There is no reason to close “public” parks, where Americans can maintain social distance while getting some air or space for their mental and physical well-being—or maybe see a grandchild from afar.

In California, surfers, who stay far away from each other, are banned from going in the water. Elsewhere, hikers are banned from roaming the millions of acres in national parks.

Millions of lower-income and urban-dwelling Americans don’t have the luxury of backyards, and there is absolutely no reason to inhibit their movement, either.

Two days before Easter, Mayor Greg Fischer of Louisville, Kentucky, attempted to unilaterally ban drive-in church services for the most holy day in Christianity.

It’s one thing if people are purposely and openly undermining public health. The constitutional right to assemble peacefully and protest or practice your religion, however, is not inoperable in the presence of a viral pandemic.

Would-be petty tyrants, such as Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins—who implores residences to rat out neighbors who sell cigarettes for “putting profits over public health”—forget that we are not ruled by him, and that he is merely our temporary servant.

But it’s important and necessary, say the experts. Great. Convince us. Most polls show that 80-something percent of Americans will stay home for the rest of this month even if lockdowns are lifted.

The question of how many lives would be lost if we didn’t shut down the economy is a vital one, but it is not the only one. There is an array of factors that goes into these decisions. One of them should be preserving our laws and our freedom in times of crisis.

We aren’t at “war.” There are no coronavirus spies and no coronavirus sabotage. Affixing “war” to societal problems—the “war on drugs” being the most obvious example—is typically a justification for expanding state power.

Also, authoritarianism isn’t defined as “strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom except when there is a pandemic.”

Your declarative sentences and forceful feelings do not transform the meaning of either authoritarianism or freedom—though if we dump our principles every time there’s a crisis, they might as well.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

David Harsanyi is a senior writer at National Review and the author of “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

When It Comes to Fighting COVID-19, Let’s Not Emulate China’s Totalitarianism

Trump’s Attack on VOA Over COVID-19 Shows Need for New Agency Chief


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.

Teachers Unions Try to Thwart Education Access at a Most Inopportune Time

With millions of students at home as the result of coronavirus district closures, and families finding themselves thrown into “unexpected homeschooling,” Americans rightly expect that teachers, administrators, and principals at all types of schools would be embracing an “all hands on deck” approach to this challenging situation.

But while instances of cooperation between public and private schools, charters, and virtual academies abound, unfortunately, so does the continuation of education politics as usual.

The Wall Street Journal reports that, “under pressure from the unions,” the Oregon Department of Education is now preventing students from transferring to the state’s virtual public charter schools.

Many families in Oregon sought to enroll their children in virtual charter schools when the brick-and-mortar public schools closed their doors on March 16.


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 >>


But the Oregon Education Association convinced the state to halt any further transfers to virtual charter school, blocking enrollment of 1,600 students at Oregon Connections Academy alone.

There’s more hopeful news out of Alaska. Students there could soon be the beneficiaries of a partnership between their state and the Florida Virtual School. The online provider has signed a contract to offer courses to Alaskan students who cannot access their now shuttered public schools, the Anchorage Daily News reports.

As Alaska Education Commissioner Michael Johnson put it, “While the world around us is scrambling with uncertainty, I believe our students and teachers can and will re-imagine teaching and learning.”

Johnson’s right. Yet the teachers union in Alaska is also trying to put the deep freeze on education access. It stands firmly opposed to the partnership, in part because it hasn’t been vetted by “Alaska education professionals.”

The union apparently believes nothing is better than something that hasn’t been blessed by their professional “experts.”

What is really at the heart of the special interest groups’ opposition? We find a blunt answer in Alaska: the union is afraid the online learning option will remain a permanent feature of the Alaskan education landscape. And it isn’t alone.

The Los Angeles teachers union is resisting efforts by the Los Angeles Unified School District to have teachers move instruction online during the pandemic.

The Pennsylvania Legislature, acting under pressure from unions, has cut off tuition for any additional enrollees at the states’ cyber charter networks, which are now scrambling to serve the surge of students for free.

The political obstacle course is all the more disappointing because this could be a time of great cooperation and cross-pollination of best practices between traditional public schools and those that, by the nature of their model, are better prepared for this disruptive crisis.

Some virtual schools have offered free distance learning instruction to districts, and dozens of educational technology companies are offering their products heavily discounted or entirely gratis, but few have taken them up on the offer.

Turf wars are not the only political barrier impacting instruction during the coronavirus crisis. In states as diverse as California, Kentucky, and Washington, districts are choosing not to offer instruction online at all because not every student will be able to access the lessons.

Instead of finding creative ways to deliver internet services to disadvantaged families as some New York charter networks are doing, these districts are ceasing instruction for the majority of students who would otherwise be able to continue learning, ensuring that everyone falls behind.

Just as the nation faces dark weeks and months ahead, the coming year will be difficult and turbulent for students, families, teachers, and schools.

For the education sector, the problems will continue long after the virus is largely defeated, as school systems face large budgetary shortfalls due to reduced tax revenue. In facing these challenges, our priority should be to keep students learning as much as is possible.

Delivering continued education and support to students and families during this time will take cooperation, creativity, and a heavy dose of pragmatism, not retreads of pre-crisis political debates.

Originally published by Tucson.com

COMMENTARY BY

Lindsey Burke

Lindsey M. Burke researches and writes on federal and state education issues as the Will Skillman fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. Twitter: .

Inez Feltscher Stepman

Inez Feltscher Stepman is a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum. Twitter: .


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.

It’s Time to Privatize the United States Postal Service

The country would be wise to let the market take a shot at cleaning up government waste.


Last week, the Trump administration unveiled a proposal to privatize the United States Postal Service (USPS). The plan comes as part of a broader initiative to trim and reorganize the federal government. And given its track record of waste and inefficiency, the USPS is a great place to start cutting the fat.

“USPS’s current model is unsustainable. Major changes are needed in how the Postal Service is financed and the level of service Americans should expect from their universal service operator,” the White House’s new proposal reads. The plan goes on to say that the administration plans to “fix” the post office before beginning the process of privatization. “USPS privatization through an initial public offering (IPO) or sale to another entity would require the implementation of significant reforms prior to sale to show a possible path to profitability.”

In terms of “fixing” the post office before taking it out of the hands of the government, the Trump administration has proposed reassessing the USPS’s ties with labor unions. This would give the new owners of the post office more freedom to set wages and provide benefits that are economically realistic.

The document reads:

“Freeing USPS to more fully negotiate pay and benefits rather than prescribing participation in costly federal personnel benefit programs, and allowing it to follow private sector practices in compensation and labor relations, could further reduce costs.”

As it stands today, much of the financial mess the USPS has found itself in is because of the exorbitant benefits programs that come with collective bargaining. In fact, as it stands today, the USPS still owes over $100 billion to its retiree health benefits fund.

It should come as no surprise that the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) have joined the likes of Bernie Sanders in opposing privatization. Commenting on the matter the NALC President Fredric Rolando said:

“NALC has long been committed to working with all of the stakeholders and not one has floated the idea of privatization except private shippers, who would love nothing more than to see the Postal Service dismantled. Now that we know that this administration and its Task Force will make recommendations on reforms to achieve OMB’s privatization goals, NALC will work tirelessly with other stakeholders and Congress to oppose this faulty privatization plan every step of the way to preserve this public institution, which is based in the Constitution.”

To be sure, when Rolando speaks of other “stakeholders” he is speaking about the other labor unions who have a vested interest in seeing this perpetual cycle of inefficiency continue, so long as they continue cashing checks. In fact, Mark Dimondstein, the president of the American Postal Workers Union echoed this sentiment, calling the privatization proposal “draconian” and predicting that it “would end regular mail and package services at an affordable cost.”

But as it stands currently, costs are hardly affordable. In addition to the billions of taxpayer dollars used to fund the post office, “consumers” also have to pay to use the USPS services, which essentially means that post office patrons are actually paying twice.

But all this just speaks to the larger point that the post office has been an incompetent disaster for far too long. It is about time some sort of action was taken.

No one looks to the post office as a beacon of government competence. Actually, no one looks to the post office for any sense of efficiency at all. And while the United States Postal Service has frequently found itself at the butt of many jokes, the truth of the matter is that its incompetence is costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars each year.

For the last 11 years in a row, the post office has experienced financial losses. In 2012, it was revealed that the USPS had experienced a net loss of $15.9 billion dollars. In 2013, this number decreased to a still enormous $4.8 billion, followed by $5.3 billion in 2014. As far as fiscal year 2018 is concerned, the Postal Service has already reported a $1.3 billion dollar loss. If any private company had experienced net losses to the tune of several billions of dollars, they would quickly find themselves out of business. But the post office is a beast of a different color.

As the USPS is a government protected monopoly, it does not have to respond to market demand. And since the taxpayers are on the hook for funding the USPS regardless of its performance, there are almost no consequences for its ineptitude. In fact, in many cases, it has been rewarded for its incompetence by having more money thrown in its direction.

It might be easier for Americans to look the other way and ignore all the wasteful spending if the post office actually held some sort of relevance in our daily lives. But in the digital age, there is really no justification for extorting money from taxpayers in order to pay for an outdated service that most people do not need. All correspondence can now be done through email and online shopping has completely replaced the need to send off for physical retail catalogs. Most bills are also already sent through email, with many companies even offering discounts for going “paperless.”

While congressional approval is needed before any manner of privatization can occur, it has been met with opposition by both members of Congress and labor unions. Unfortunately, the term “privatize” scares many, who fear what might happen if the post office is put in the hands of “greedy capitalists.”

Luckily for the critics, the post office serves almost no purpose in our digital age, making these concerns virtually unfounded. Not to mention, considering the USPS’s reputation for inefficiency and waste, it would take a great deal of effort for the private sector to do a worse job than the government has done.

Bernie Sanders recently expressed his concerns over Trump’s plans for the post office, saying:

“If the goal of the Postal Service is to make as much money as possible, tens of millions of people, particularly low-income people and people in rural areas, will see a decline in or doing away with basic mail services.”

But those who, like Sanders, are wary of putting the post office in the hands of the private sector might be surprised to learn that many European countries began privatizing their postal systems years ago. And it didn’t end in a disaster. For example, when Germany privatized the Deutsche Post in 1995, it helped saved the country’s mail system.

In the wake of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall, Germany was ready for change. Much like the USPS, prior to privatization, the Deutsche Post was slow and costly. Eager to get this wasteful agency out of the state budget, Germany decided to experiment with privatization. While the process was rather long, privatizing the German post and giving it control over its own operations allowed it to function like an actual business.

Now able to make decisions without the input of state authorities, Deutsche Post was able to implement policies that saved vast amounts of money. Instead of hiring new couriers to replace those who had retired, the German post opted to leave the positions vacant. They also centralized routes to save money where they could. Coincidentally, this plan to centralize routes is also part of the proposal by the Trump administration.

The only law that the German government placed on the Deutsche Post was to mandate that letters were to be delivered to all areas of the country, meaning no one could be excluded.

Sure, this one stipulation did give the government a little control over the post, but it was far preferable to the previous situation. Since it was now privately controlled, Deutsche Post was still able to make the important budget decisions that ultimately led to its eventual success. In fact, the German privatization model was so successful, it now runs the DHL shipping company. And while the German model provides a beacon to look to abroad, even the United States has had its own experiment in privatizing the mail.

In 1844, Lysander Spooner was frustrated by the increasing costs of the USPS. Recognizing that as a government monopoly, the post office was exempt from having to actually care about its consumers’ needs, Spooner founded The American Letter Mail Company. Charging less and providing better services than the USPS, Spooner’s venture became a direct competitor to the almighty state.

However, while the American Letter Mail Company did end up having several locations in cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York, the USPS was not impressed. Angered by Spooner’s success, the government made threats to railroad companies who preferred Spooner’s services. When the state fought back, the Circuit Court actually began to doubt that the government had any authority to monopolize the mail. While the Constitution does give the government the power to run the Postal Service, it does not explicitly bar other companies from competing with state-run services. However, the state sought legislative action against Spooner, reinforcing its monopoly.

Commenting on the advantage private enterprise has over government-run  services, Spooner wrote:

“Universal experience attests that government establishments cannot keep pace with private enterprise in matters of business — (and the transmission of letters is a mere matter of business.) Private enterprise has always the most active physical powers, and the most ingenious mental ones. It is constantly increasing its speed, and simplifying and cheapening its operations. But government functionaries, secure in the enjoyment of warm nests, large salaries, official honors and power, and presidential smiles — all of which they are sure of so long as they are the partisans of the President — feel few quickening impulses to labor, and are altogether too independent and dignified personages to move at the speed that commercial interests require. They take office to enjoy its honors and emoluments, not to get their living by the sweat of their brows.”

Governments love to think inside the box. In fact, they are almost incapable of operating in any other fashion. But this has led to major inefficiencies, which, in the case of the USPS, have become too expensive to ignore. While Congress would need to approve this plan before any measure of privatization can occur, our elected officials would be wise to look at the options the private sector has to offer. If we are truly seeking prosperity, rather than financial insolvency, then the country would be wise to let the market take a shot at cleaning up government waste.

COLUMN BY

Brittany Hunter

Brittany was a senior writer for the Foundation for Economic Education. Additionally, she is a co-host of Beltway Banthas, a podcast that combines Star Wars and politics. Brittany believes that the most effective way to promote individual liberty and free-market economics is by telling timely stories that highlight timeless principles.

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