Tuesday, April 27, 2021

Army University Press: The ‘Union Army’ Is No More

Article by Fred Bauer in National Review
 

Army University Press: The ‘Union Army’ Is No More

Having triumphed over rebel forces long ago, the Union army now faces a new challenge: the effort to erase it from history books. The Army University Press has announced new guidelines for its article and book submissions that strongly discourage the use of the term “the Union” to refer to the forces of the U.S. government during the Civil War:

Similarly, citizens in states who remained loyal to the United States did not all feel a strong commitment towards dissolving the institution of slavery, nor did they believe Lincoln’s views represented their own. Thus, while the historiography has traditionally referred to the “Union” in the American Civil War as “the northern states loyal to the United States government,” the fact is that the term “Union” always referred to all the states together, which clearly was not the situation at all. In light of this, the reader will discover that the word “Union” will be largely replaced by the more historically accurate “Federal Government” or “U.S. Government.” “Union forces” or “Union army” will largely be replaced by the terms “U.S. Army,” “Federals,” or “Federal Army.”

However, it’s not just “the historiography” in the abstract that has referred to the states loyal to the federal government as “the Union.” The people who fought to preserve the Constitutional order called their side “the Union,” too. In his memoirs, Ulysses S. Grant referred many times to the “Union army” or “Union troops.” Countless documents written during the Civil War (by those who fought against the Confederacy) spoke of the “Union army.” Referring to the effort to preserve the U.S. federal government during the Civil War as “the Union” is not some retrospective invention of historians.

In fact, it’s arguable that erasing the term “the Union” from historiographical discourse, far from being “more historically accurate,” distorts the vision of Lincoln, Grant, and many other Americans.

“Union” has a particular charge in American discourse, from the Constitution’s “more perfect Union” onward. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln reflected on the centrality of the hopes of union for the American republic. He held in that address that secession was not just the splintering of the United States but the obliteration of political order: “The central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.” The secession crisis threatened the U.S. government, but Lincoln and his contemporaries also saw violent secession as threatening the prospect of democratic governance in general.

The project of Union was about the U.S. federal government, but it was about more than that, too. Union was the hope of reconciling conflict within a democracy. Union was the assertion of the rule of law over factional violence. Union was securing the prospect of republican liberty. For many Americans, the army that marched under the Stars and Stripes was in that deeper sense the Union army.

In his funeral sermon for Abraham Lincoln, the minister Phineas Gurley did not once mention the “federal government” or even “United States.” Instead, he spoke again and again about “union”: “through all these long and weary years of civil strife, while our friends and brothers on so many ensanguined fields were falling and dying for the cause of Liberty and Union.” If one of the goals of historical study is to capture the textures of past eras, erasing “the Union” and “the Union army” from historical discourse would make it harder to understand the passions and principles of those who risked their lives to preserve the American republic.

 https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/army-university-press-the-union-army-is-no-more/


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Kamala Harris plans trip to Guatemala after dismissing requests to visit southern border

 

OAN Newsroom

UPDATED 1:04 PM PT – Tuesday, April 27, 2021

As detention facilities overflow and illegal immigrants cross the border at record numbers, Kamala Harris has decided to plan a tax-payer funded visit to Guatemala. On Monday, she detailed these efforts during a virtual meeting with the country’s president.

Harris appeared all too eager to send billions of taxpayer dollars overseas. This also apparently includes funding to counteract so-called climate change and fund extreme weather preparations in the Central American country.

“The United States plans to increase relief to the region, strengthen our cooperation to manage migration in an effective, secure and humane manner,” Harris asserted.

 

President Alejandro Giammattei suggested they build a roadmap to secure the cooperation he needs from her.

“You may rest assured, madam vice president, that the  Guatemala governor wishes to be your partners in order to address the common goals to eradicate not only poverty, but he causes of so many evils that afflict us,” he stated.

Critics have pointed out her eagerness to plan a trek to Central America and give them financial compensation runs in stark contrast to her lack of support for border security as well as her outright dismissal of Americans and Republican lawmakers when they ask her to visit the southern border.

In New Hampshire on Sunday, a reporter asked the Democrat when she plans on witnessing the border crisis first-hand

 

 It was quickly pointed out that while Harris may see Americans concern with the ongoing border crisis as nothing more than a political game, she seemingly has no problem prioritizing the concerns of foreign nations over those of American citizens.

 

 

https://www.oann.com/kamala-harris-plans-trip-to-guatemala-after-dismissing-requests-to-visit-southern-border/ 

 

 


 

Anger as ex-generals warn of civil war in France

 

Controversy is growing in France over an open letter signed by former and serving members of the military, warning of the threat of civil war.

Around 1,000 servicemen and women, including some 20 retired generals, put their names to the letter.

"The hour is grave, France is in peril," they wrote last week.

Ministers have strongly condemned the message, which was published by a right-wing magazine on the 60th anniversary of a failed coup d'état.

 

 

 

"Two immutable principles guide the action of members of the military with regard to politics: neutrality and loyalty," tweeted the minister in charge of the armed forces, Florence Parly.

However far-right leader and candidate in next year's presidential election, Marine Le Pen, has spoken out in support of the former generals.

 

 

What does the letter say?

The letter warns French President Emmanuel Macron, his government and MPs of "several deadly dangers" threatening France, including "Islamism and the hordes of the banlieue" - the impoverished immigrant suburbs that surround French cities.

The signatories go on to blame "a certain anti-racism" for creating divisions between communities, and seeking to create "racial war" by attacking statues and other aspects of French history.

 

 

They also accuse the government of seeking to use the police "as proxy agents and scapegoats" in the popular "gilets jaunes", or yellow vest protests of recent years.

"It is no longer the time to procrastinate, otherwise tomorrow civil war will put an end to this growing chaos and deaths - for which you will be responsible - with numbers in the thousands," the letter concludes.

What has the reaction been?

Members of the French military, whether actively serving or reservists, are forbidden from expressing public opinions on religion and politics, and Ms Parly has called for those who signed the letter to be punished.

"For who have violated the duty of reserve, sanctions are planned, and if there are active soldiers among the signatories, I asked the chief of staff of the armed forces to apply the rules... that is to say, sanctions," she told radio network France Info on Monday.

Ms Parly cited the case of a former general in the Foreign Legion who was expelled from the military for taking part in a protest against migrants in Calais.

Why was the timing significant?

Minister of Industry Agnès Pannier-Runacher told France Info she "unreservedly condemned" the generals "calling for an uprising... 60 years to the day after the generals' putsch against General de Gaulle". 

 

 

The failed coup d'état involved generals seeking to prevent Algeria - then a French colony - from gaining independence.

But French nationalist politician Marine Le Pen welcomed the letter, calling on the generals to join her in "the battle of France" - causing further controversy.

Her response came on the same day as a fatal knife attack at a police station south-west of Paris, which is being treated as a possible terrorist attack.

 

 

Many in the French media are expressing surprise that Marine Le Pen came out in support of the generals.

Cosying up to would-be putschists is what her father was supposed to specialise in. He was the one who was close to the anti-Gaullist hardliners of 60 years ago. He was the one who loved to flirt with illegality. Not Marine and her new-look National Rally.

So has she miscalculated? Some think so. 

 

 

Coming out for a group of ex-generals - even of the armchair variety - who are so obviously overstepping the bounds and dabbling in politics - this makes it much easier for President Macron to paint her as a traditional French reactionary, heir to her father, Vichy and the rest.

Voters from the mainstream right, who might have been tempted by her apparent recent conversion to the EU and sound money, will perhaps be thinking twice.

But looked at another way, maybe Marine Le Pen felt she had no choice but to back the letter. After all, no-one thinks there is any serious chance of a military coup, so she didn't think she could be accused of encouraging insurrection.

And the analysis of France's travails was identical to her own. If - in her view - the analysis is also one shared by a silent majority of the French, then she could hardly disown it

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56899765?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_custom3=%40BBCWorld&at_medium=custom7&at_custom4=356E5304-A77A-11EB-82F8-46FD4744363C&at_campaign=64&at_custom2=twitter 

 

 

 


 

The New Antiracism Is the Old Racism

The benchmarks of the Black Lives Matter and affiliated woke movements are 
overt racism, systemic untruth, and the hypocritical privilege of their elite architects. 


What will be the future of the mass hysteria spawned last summer? No one knows. 

But its destination, if unchecked, will be ethnic tensions and sectarian strife at best akin to those in Brazil and India—or at worst Lebanon, Syria, and Rwanda. 

Until just a few years ago, racial differences, according to polls, were more or less receding. Intermarriage between racial groups is at historic highs. 

But by 2014-2015, with the birth of Black Lives Matter, its courting by the Obama Administration, and the emergence of the electronic social media mob and cancel culture, such progress seems to have ended. We have ceased seeing race as increasingly incidental, rather than essential to who we are. 

The benchmarks of the Black Lives Matter and affiliated woke movements are overt racism, systemic untruth, and the hypocritical privilege of their elite architects.  

We are now well beyond the race-based set-asides of the last 50 years, predicated on the evolving concepts of proportional representation and disparate impact. These multitrillion-dollar endowed Great Society principles eventually mandated that admissions and hiring reflect the proportional ethnic and racial makeup of the population. 

All that is now ossified and considered not enough. In its place is a damnation of all things “white” with a new definition of diversity as simply all those, without any other affinities, who claim to be bound proudly together by being nonwhite.

Antiracist Racism

Indeed, it is startling how abruptly our frenzied elites have renounced assimilation (a word now banned by the Biden Administration in matters related to immigration). Integration is also passé‚ at least for those not rich.

Ironies abound. Recently, in the state of Washington, something called the African American Reach and Teach Health Ministry (AARTH) adjudicated vaccination appointments on the basis of race only. I suppose if a 75-year-old indigent white widow showed up, she would be turned away on the basis of her “unearned privilege”—or the organizers say could be put on a “standby list”?

Black intellectuals now use the stereotypical language of the old Jim Crow segregationists. Some vie in an apparent contest to see which woke trailblazer can be crowned the most overt racist antiracist. 

So Elie Mystal writing in the Nation lectures the country that “White people haven’t improved; I’ve just been able to limit my exposure to them.” Would Mystal like to explain the consequences for the country at large, if everyone followed his own example and “limited their exposure” to racial groups that they felt “haven’t improved”? To “improve” whites, would Mystal advise genetic reengineering or more mundane mandatory reeducation camps? 

Damon Young, a senior editor of The Root and an occasional New York Times contributor, adds, “Whiteness is a public health crisis. It shortens life expediencies, it pollutes air, it constricts equilibrium, it devastates forests, it melts ice caps, it sparks (and funds) wars, it flattens dialects, it infests consciousnesses, and it kills people”  

Substitute “Jewishness” for “whiteness,” and it would not be inflammatory to say that Young’s piece would have been normal fare for Der Stürmer circa 1935. Obviously, if whiteness is destroying all aspects of natural and human life, then what should be done about such an infestation—other than destroying the existential toxin’s source?

Almost daily we read that requiring an ID to vote, in the manner of cashing a check, getting a vaccination, or boarding a flight, is white-perpetuated Jim Crow racism. The new farm bill will not allow strapped white farmers to apply for help. The city of Oakland will not extend aid to poor whites in a new pilot program. Note in the latter case there is no pretense of “white privilege” other than in minority-majority Oakland the absurd assumption that impoverished whites there are more privileged than poor nonwhites.

U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), in late Robert Byrd racialist style, recently vowed to block confirmation of white nominees. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) urged street violence if the Derek Chauvin trial verdict did not fit her preconceived ideas of the proper convictions. Millions of Americans now listen to their children and grandchildren come home, as if they were released from Manchurian Candidate camps, as they recite their teachers’ Medieval puppet-show versions of evil white people creating a toxic America—that millions of non-white people in the world strangely seek to immigrate to.

Untruth

No movement can exist for long when it is based on utter untruth. The New York Times’ crackpot “1619 Project” could not convince any sane person to redefine the founding of the United States—not politically, not structurally, not militarily, not socially. And it didn’t even try.

Lincoln was not an evil racist, but willing to wage a civil war to destroy slavery even at the slaughter of nearly 700,000 Americans. The framers included the three-fifths clause in the Constitution not to perpetuate slavery, but as a desperate compromise to avoid a civil war with slave states or an utter disunion of the colonies at their founding—while still not fully rewarding the dehumanization of slavery by letting it be used to enhance the South’s political power. 

Any unarmed suspect shot by the police warrants a thorough investigation and, where proper, legal consequences for any convicted police offender. But Black Lives Matter has told the country that unarmed blacks are being murdered systematically by police, in an environment of racial hatred perpetuated by whites. 

In 2019 the leftwing Washington Post suggested that 13 unarmed African Americans had been fatally shot in confrontations with police. That figure is proportionally double the black percentage of the population, but less than the percentage of blacks arrested each year. 

Data is often warped for political reasons. But in a country where 6,000-7,000 African Americans are fatally shot each year by other African Americans, in cities where often the mayors, the district attorneys, and the chiefs of police are African American, it is not a sustainable proposition to swear black America’s existential threats come from police harvesting of innocent young African Americans—not when families are disintegrating, drug use is normative, fathers are absent, crime is spiking, schools are corrupt, and no one is offering any help other than the failed policies of the last 60 years.

If one peruses the FBI data on those arrested for “hate crimes,” one does not find evidence of a toxic and deadly white majority preying on “the Other.” Whites are proportionally underrepresented as a group in committing such racially motivated violent crimes. Blacks, in contrast, are overrepresented. They commit them at about double their rate of their percentages in the population. 

The media systematically has warped the news cycle to inflame racial tensions and to fuel progressive agendas that suffocate without the oxygen of hysteria. From NBC’s editing of George Zimmerman’s 911 call and the Ferguson lie of “Hands up, don’t shoot!,” to editing out the knife in the hands of Ma’Khia Bryant, who was poised to stab her target, we live in a woke wonderland. 

The woke hyped the first few hours (and sometimes days and weeks) of the Duke Lacrosse hoax, the Covington kids hoax, and the Jussie Smollett hoax. Whether wokeism cares whether an unarmed suspect is lethally shot by the police tragically depends on the race of the shooter and victim.  

So we knew within minutes the name and saw the photo of the officer who presumably accidentally lethally shot Daunte Wright. Fine. She is now charged with a serious crime. But we still don’t who intentionally shot unarmed Ashli Babbitt at the Capitol on January 6. We were told for weeks that officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by alt-Right Trump supporters, until he wasn’t, and the media could no longer hide that he had died of natural causes a day after the Capitol assault. A recent BLM protest in Minnesota over the lethal police shooting of an armed carjacker dissipated when it was suddenly announced the deceased was white. Is it All Lives Don’t Matter? Or support the police when they must use lethal force to protect the community? 

And on and on. 

Wealth and Privilege 

There are two class problems with the wokeists. Elite leftist minorities know little of the poor and middle-class rural whites whom they demonize—but in reality, do not patronize minorities and are more likely to ignore race entirely. And wealthy woke whites know little and care less about poor and lower-middle-class minorities whom they seem assiduously to avoid—and then virtue-signal their recompensatory guilt. 

Instead, the woke movement is largely fueled by the upper- and self-segregating classes—elites who have done well and are using race either to do even better by seeking mandatory concessions, or whites who sympathize with such agendas, or believe they will win exemption from career impairment by their virtue-signaling fides. They recall calculating czarist Russian aristocrats who felt Lenin was inevitable but still easily leveraged.

Is there some rule that says the most vocal “antiracists” of the last two months must live in homes worth over $10 million in value? When the Obamas venture out of their seaside Martha’s Vineyard spread, it is to lecture the country on racial unfairness and “Jim Crow” voting laws. When Oprah Winfrey compares slights with Meghan Markle, it is one $90 million estate holder chatting with another $14 million estate holder. When LeBron James with impunity threatens an officer on Twitter (“You’re next”), he does so from his own well-guarded $40 million Beverly Hills enclave.

None of these loud multimillionaire wokeists would defund their security details or would prefer not to live in their epicenters of “whiteness” and “white privilege.” They would no more prefer to live in an inner-city than they would in rural Kansas. 

We need a Petronius to capture the irony of self-labeled “Marxist” Patrisse Khan-Cullors, co-founder of Black Lives Matter. She is now a proud owner of a $1.4 million Topanga Canyon home, in a nearly all-white neighborhood—and busy using her Marxist market insights to create a mini-real-estate family empire. It’s funny how $100 million in corporate donations can turn Karl Marx into Milton Friedman.

Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey believes his $18 million salary makes him as much an authority on the unfairness and inequity of Georgia’s voting laws as Delta CEO Ed Bastian (a mere $17 million a year) or Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred at a mere pre-COVID $11 million a year. So Americans are to buy Coke, fly Delta, and watch baseball while being lectured on the need for equity by these privileged multimillionaires? That, too, is an unsustainable proposition. 

Those whites smeared for having privilege, usually do not have it; those who smear them, white and non-white, usually do. But the common denominator of wokeism is rank ignorance: ignorance that a multiracial democracy is a combustible, fragile structure, easy for the arsonist to destroy but hard for first responders to save; ignorance that the wealth fueling the thousands in the street, equity commissars, the human resources sleuths, and the professionally aggrieved is predicated on a meritocracy that ensures in a ruthless world Americans and their political and economic system can outperform the competition that has no illusions about the evils of tribalism; and ignorance that the vision of wokeness is not just racialist payback but the nihilism of the Balkans sort.  

And the odd thing is that these deluded appeasers of all this madness won’t even get to be eaten last.


Affluence + Secularism = Boredom = Leftism


 

 Bolshevik Rioters in Moscow 1917

 

Article by Dennis Prager in Townhall
 

Affluence + Secularism = Boredom = Leftism

Just as physicists look for equations to explain the natural world, I have always thought it useful to look for equations to explain human nature. For example, in my book on happiness, I offer this equation: U = I - R. Unhappiness = Image - Reality. The difference between the images we have for our life and the reality of our life is one way of measuring how much unhappiness we experience.

Here, I offer another theorem, this time to help explain leftism.

A + S = B = L

Affluence + Secularism = Boredom = Leftism

The search for an equation to help explain leftism (as distinguished from traditional liberalism) emanates from these facts:

Most leftists come from the upper and upper-middle class. This was true for the two founders of leftism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx was supported by his family and by Engels, who was a wealthy businessman and the son of a very wealthy businessman. All the Western spies for the Soviet Union were economically secure. And the great funder of radical causes today is a billionaire -- George Soros.

Nearly all leftists are irreligious people. And the breeding place of leftism, the university, is the most secular institution in modern society.

These two facts produce a problem: Many people lack meaning in their lives. And lack of meaning is another way of stating "boredom" -- a boredom of the soul.

People need meaning. After food, that is the greatest human need. As important as sex is, there are happy people who go without sex (loss of a partner, never having found a partner, vows of chastity), but there are no happy people who go without meaning (no matter how much sex they have).

This need for meaning has traditionally been met by four things: religion, family, providing for oneself and one's family, and patriotism. And all are fading.

Let's begin with religion. In America today, religion is in sharp decline. According to Pew Research, more than a third of all Americans born after 1980 identify with no religion. That is the highest percentage ever. In a recent Gallup Poll, only 47% of American adults said they were members of a church, mosque or synagogue. It was the first time since Gallup began asking Americans about religious membership in the 1930s that a majority of Americans said they were not members of a church, mosque or synagogue.

Next comes family. Marrying and making a family have always been sources of meaning to the great majority of people. However, like religion, the American family is also in steep decline. For the first time in American history, according to Statista, as of 2020, nearly half of all men in America (46%) have never been married, and 41% of American women have never been married. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 85.4 million Americans 18 and over have never been married. There are presently 130 million unmarried American adults. Worse yet, as Dr. Bella DePaulo of the University of California at Santa Barbara wrote in Psychology Today, "Half of all solo single people don't want a romantic relationship or even a date."

As every criminologist knows, a lot of single men is a problem for society. And as the ubiquity of women on the left and among the left's angriest protesters makes clear, a lot of single women is no blessing either.

Another nearly universal source of meaning has been providing for oneself and one's family. That's why, though the poor lack money and material wealth, they have never lacked meaning. Figuring out how to feed one's family every day provides a person with a great deal of meaning.

Finally, belonging to one's nation also provided meaning to most people in modern history. But love of country largely died in Western Europe after World War II, and it is dying in America today.

So, then, with the four primary sources of meaning dying -- killed in large measure by leftist ideology -- meaning must be found elsewhere. And that is where the left steps in. Leftism has always been a secular religion. It kills traditional religion and presents itself as a secular alternative.

It certainly provides meaning. "Anti-racism" and saving the world from a threat to its very existence (global warming) are two prominent life-filling examples.

Therefore, the only way to prevent the left from destroying America and its core value of freedom is to make the case for Judeo-Christian religions, the importance of marriage and family, and the unique achievement of America as the world's first and greatest multiracial, multiethnic, multinational society.

Americans should have been making that case in every generation. Post-World War II, they forgot, or never really believed, that the land of the free is, as former President Ronald Reagan warned, always just one generation away from losing its freedom.

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2021/04/27/affluence--secularism--boredom--leftism-n2588581 


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Roberts' Rule Appears Over as SCOTUS Takes up Case That Will Decide Gun Rights in America

(Win McNamee/Pool via AP)
Bonchie reporting for RedState

After years of Chief Justice John Roberts seeing to it that major gun cases were punted on at the Supreme Court, today marks a major change on that front. SCOTUS has decided to grant cert to a case out of New York dealing with the carrying of firearms outside the home. This will be a landmark case that will shape the future of rights surrounding gun ownership in America.


Here’s Cam Edwards from our sister site, Bearing Arms, announcing the news.

The Washington Examiner provides more details.

The Supreme Court on Monday accepted for argument a New York Second Amendment case, the first major gun rights suit before the court in a decade.

The court accepted the case in an unsigned order, noting that the justices will consider only “whether the state’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

The case arose out of a dispute over New York licensing. As it stands, New York law requires applicants for a license to demonstrate “proper cause” and a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.” But several New York residents, as well as the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, pushed back, arguing that such rules were unconstitutional.

Blue states like New York have basically made it impossible to get a permit to carry a firearm. They’ve done that by putting restrictions on getting a permit that mirror the same kinds of games played with voting rights in centuries past. For example, they will require a declaration of a “special need” to carry for protection, as if protecting one’s self from the crime-ridden dump that these Democrat areas are isn’t reason enough. Of course, that “special need” exception is rarely granted by the powers that be. Further, these states are notorious for sitting on permit requests for years at a time to stall the process out.

Until the recent past, John Roberts, representing the swing vote, has steadfastly refused to allow the court to take up any major gun cases going back over a decade, allowing states to run amok with violating the Second Amendment. That has changed with Amy Coney Barrett being added to the court. The conservative wing, of which Roberts is not a part, now has the power to bring up pretty much any case they want.

As to how this case will go, I’m not as confident as others that the Supreme Court will do the right thing. In some ways, there’s little risk here. If SCOTUS comes back with a decision that there is no inherent right to carry in the Constitution, states will just continue to make laws as they see fit. Free states will continue to have some form of constitutional carry while blue states will keep playing games and violating the rights of gun owners.

On the other hand, there is a ton to be gained here. If SCOTUS rules that there is an inherent, constitutional right to carry a firearm, it will open the floodgates for some form of constitutional carry in Democrat states that currently prohibit it. We could be looking at what amounts to de facto national carry reciprocity in the near future.

Still, I worry that Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett, who have already shown a willingness to avoid controversy on important issues, won’t have the guts to do the right thing here. On the other hand, without them, this case wouldn’t even be heard so you have to think they have a strong interest in voting for gun rights. Regardless, it’s better to see this issue tested than to continue to see it avoided.



Pink Supermoon seen around the world

 



The Nubble Lighthouse on Cape Neddick, in York, Maine, US

 


 

 

 


 

 

 Sheep grazed around Stonehenge near Amesbury, in the UK, underneath the glowing Moon

 

 


 https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-56900164

Get Ready for Arizona Audit Messaging Madness

AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin
Sarah Lee reporting for RedState

The debate over the 2020 election has been granted new life, as Arizona state senate Republicans have successfully managed to secure an audit that will recount all the ballots cast in Maricopa County, as well as forensically audit the voting machines.

The audit began Friday and in short order, Arizona Democrats filed a lawsuit to pause it, citing concerns it would cause “irreparable harm to the integrity of Arizona’s election systems” by revealing private voting information.

The judge in the case — a Republican appointee who has since recused himself due to a professional relationship in his office by one of the attorneys filing the suit — agreed to pause the audit if Democrats posted a $1 million bond, which they declined to do.

Now a new judge has been assigned and a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday morning. And all sides, including former President Trump, have begun to weigh in. Meanwhile, the audit goes on.

For their part, Democrats believe the firm hired to conduct the audit is biased against the results of the 2020 election.

Republican state senators in Arizona have hired a Florida-based firm called Cyber Ninjas to oversee the audit. That move has raised concerns among Democrats, because of past tweets from the company’s chief executive spreading conspiracy theories about a stolen election in Arizona. Those tweets were deleted earlier this year.

President Biden carried Arizona in the 2020 election by a scant 10,000-vote margin, making Trump the first Republican presidential candidate to lose the state since 1996.

Trump weighed in over the weekend, calling for security to protect the auditors and shaming Arizona Governor Greg Ducey for not providing it. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is getting in front of whatever the results might be by declaring them already the purview of QAnon.

Anyone who believed the country had moved on from the political sniping surrounding the 2020 election should take a breath and get ready for round two.


Biden Administration Plays Childish ‘Opposite Game’ and Endangers America

Article by Rabbi Moshe B. Parnes in Townhall
 

Biden Administration Plays Childish ‘Opposite Game’ and Endangers America

Looking at the Biden administration, I can’t help but be reminded of a mischievous trick that my older brother and I used to regularly play on our younger brother. We called it “the opposite game.” Whatever our younger brother did or said, we did or said the opposite. It was tons of fun for us and annoyed the heck out of our younger brother, which, of course, was the point. 

Now that we’re adults, we know it was petty. But it appears that the Oval Office’s newest occupant, who is anything but young, has developed his own version of our game, except the human costs and the stakes for U.S. national interest are no laughing matter. Biden seems bent on taking the mirror opposite approach of every Trump policy—even the policies that were sensible and proved effective. 

For example, under Trump, the border was—for all intents and purposes—finally secured. We no longer had illegal immigrants entering the country en masse, and we certainly didn’t hear about children wandering alone through Mexico to get into the United States or kids being thrown over the border wall. Trump’s policy was clear: All immigrants must first apply for refugee status while still outside our country. 

It was sensible, too. It vastly cut down on illegal immigration and prevented the further spread of coronavirus. The policy also maintained America’s national sovereignty and gave legal immigrants the opportunity for a better life.

Alas, because Trump implemented it, Biden had to take the diametrically opposed stance, and we, the American people, are bearing the burden.  

And look at U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. When the Palestinian Authority refused to cease operation of its Martyr’s Fund, which was a violation of the Taylor Force Act, Trump, in 2018, cut off the $400 million U.S. taxpayer dollars that the governing body was receiving annually. The fund continues to pay terrorists who murder Israeli citizens and others, and gives life-time, monthly stipends to the families of perpetrators of violent attacks.  

Thus, Trump brought U.S. foreign policy into compliance with the law. The law, by the way, was named after Taylor Force, a former U.S. Army veteran who was stabbed to death by a Palestinian terrorist while on a Vanderbilt University-sponsored tour in Tel Aviv. But because Trump cracked down on vicious terrorists, Biden concluded it must have been wrong to do so. 

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency is another illustration of Biden’s opposite game. UNRWA ostensibly provides aid to Palestinians. It’s supposed to build schools, develop curricula and employ teachers, among other things. This sounds like a worthwhile humanitarian effort. Unfortunately, UNRWA doesn’t come close to living up to its name. 

An investigation by the United Nations—no friend of Israel’s—revealed that its own organization took an active role in perpetrating terror against Israeli civilians. Specifically, UNRWA schools were used as storage facilities for Hamas rockets. They also permitted the firing of those missiles—while school was in session! 

Further, a Center for Near East Policy Research report documented the complicity of UNRWA schools in indoctrinating Palestinian children. Over 200 elementary school textbooks, even in math and civics, explicitly encouraged martyrdom and Jewish expulsion from Israel. The State Department called UNRWA an “irredeemably flawed operation.”

Trump stopped the endless cycle of terror by defunding the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA. Ergo, it must have been the wrong thing to do. So Biden announced he would renew funding to the Palestinians to the tune of $235 million dollars. 

You would assume our nation’s generosity would at least have been predicated upon the Palestinian Authority’s dismantlement of its Martyr’s Fund. It wasn’t. You would think we had received a promise from UNRWA to halt its facilitation of terrorism. We didn’t. The money was given gratis—no strings attached.  

The opposite game is an impish pastime for kids. In real-life, it can have deadly consequences. The new administration’s policy agenda needs to quickly grow up. Biden should objectively assess his predecessor’s record, then embrace and build upon the most successful strategies. The American people, and our strongest allies, deserve nothing less. 

 Rabbi Moshe B. Parnes is Southern Regional Vice President of  Coalition of Jewish Values

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/rabbimoshebparnes/2021/04/26/biden-administration-plays-childish-opposite-game-and-endangers-america-n2588535 


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Health Experts Encourage CDC to Implement Permanent Mask Mandates

Even as Fauci admits CDC needs to start relaxing rules.



Health experts are insisting that the CDC should implement permanent mask mandates even after the COVID-19 pandemic ends.

Despite many areas of the U.S. beginning to open up again and anecdotal evidence suggesting a significant drop in the number of people routinely wearing masks, some are loathe to go back to normal.

“We have seen benefits of masking that occur,” Health Director Dr. Nicole Alexander-Scott told The Providence Journal. “So there may be a new form of normalcy where masks don’t necessarily have to go away.”

His sentiments were echoed by Dr. Leonard A. Mermel, medical director of epidemiology and infection control at Rhode Island Hospital, who said making people wear masks all the time was worth it to stop the spread of other viruses aside from COVID-19.

“Within the Lifespan system we are seeing far fewer of all the respiratory viruses than we are used to seeing at this moment in the calendar year… So it’s impressive: the COVID preventative strategies are having an impact on other respiratory viruses, which just makes sense: they spread in a similar fashion,” said Mermel.

“It would not surprise me if that became a recommendation from the CDC,” he said. “It’s a pretty low price to pay to try to reduce the risk to oneself and to particularly loved ones who may be at particular risk of these sorts of infections causing harm,” he added.

Other experts have argued that the impact of viruses will only be more severe in the long run if human immune systems are prevented from being tested by new infections, harming herd immunity.

Medical professionals are still attempting to have mask mandates become part of the “new normal” despite Dr. Anthony Fauci acknowledging yesterday that it would be “common sense” for the CDC to start relaxing measures.

“I mean, if you are a vaccinated person, wearing a mask outdoors, I mean, obviously, the risk is minuscule,” Fauci told ABC’s This Week.

“Obviously the risk is really very low, particularly if you’re vaccinated,” he added.

Earlier this month, scientists revealed evidence that face masks were laced with toxic chemicals that cause a myriad of health issues.

“Preliminary tests have revealed traces of a variety of compounds which are heavily restricted for both health and environmental reasons. This includes formaldehyde, a chemical known to cause watery eyes; a burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; coughing; wheezing; and nausea,” reported the Daily Mail.

According to Professor Michael Braungart, director at the Hamburg Environmental Institute, face masks being sold to the public are exposing them to “a chemical cocktail in front of our nose and mouth that has never been tested for either toxicity or any long-term effects on health.”

“What we are breathing through our mouth and nose is actually hazardous waste,” said Braungart.

Dr Dieter Sedlak, managing director and co-founder of Modern Testing Services in Augsburg, also discovered that the masks contain hazardous fluorocarbons that “are toxic to human health and scientists have recently called for them to be banned for non-essential use.”

Meanwhile, a new study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has found that there is “little benefit” to 6 meter social distancing rules and that people who are as much as 60 feet away face the same risks.

“The distancing isn’t helping you that much and it’s also giving you a false sense of security because you’re as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you’re indoors,” MIT engineering professor Martin Bazant told CNBC.