The Department of Justice announced Thursday that more than 300 people are now facing federal charges stemming from the violence that has occurred in cities across the country since May. In a news release, the department said individuals in 29 states and the District of Columbia would face federal charges related to a wide range of crimes. The crimes in question, according to the release, were "committed adjacent to or under the guise of peaceful demonstrations." The DOJ said more than 40 separate U.S. attorneys' offices have filed charges over crimes ranging from attempted murder, to arson, to assaulting a law enforcement officer. Other crimes being prosecuted include damaging federal property and inciting a riot. TRENDING: Why we're tragically ending relationships over politics Moreover, many charges are related to alleged crimes involving guns or explosives. The crimes include "burglary of a federally-licensed firearms dealer," as well as "malicious destruction of property using fire or explosives, [being a] felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, unlawful possession of a destructive device" and "felony civil disorder," according to the DOJ. “Violent opportunists have exploited these demonstrations in various ways,” the Justice Department said, adding that roughly 80 people "have been charged with offenses relating to arson and explosives. “Approximately 15 individuals have been charged with damaging federal property. In some instances, these individuals are alleged to have set fires to local businesses as well as city and federal property, which will regrettably incur millions of taxpayer dollars to repair damages,” the DOJ statement added. "Corporate and local businesses were also targeted," the DOJ said. "Through these acts, these individuals have shown minimal regard to their communities and for the safety of others and themselves." The release continued: “Approximately 35 individuals have been charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer and related offenses. One of these cases was charged in Massachusetts; the rest of these individuals were charged in Oregon. “The assaults have targeted local and federal law enforcement officers," it added. "In Portland, a man is alleged to have approached a U.S. Marshals Deputy from behind and struck the deputy in the upper back, neck, and shoulder with a wooden baseball bat; another man, allegedly assaulted a Deputy U.S. Marshal with an explosive device. In Boston, a man allegedly shot at least 11 times toward officers, including a deputized federal officer." Another 30 people have been charged with civil disorder-related crimes. "In several instances, these individuals leveraged social media platforms to incite destruction and assaults against law enforcement officers," the DOJ said. "In Cleveland, two Pennsylvania men are charged with driving to the city with the intent to participate in a riot and commit acts of violence. "In their possession, authorities found a black backpack containing a hammer, two containers of Sterno Firestarter Instant Flame Gel, a can of spray paint, a glass bottle of liquor with a bar-style pour top, a Glock semi-automatic firearm and two magazines loaded with ammunition." The department went on to note: “Several of these charges carry significant maximum prison sentences. For example, felony assault of a federal officer with a dangerous weapon is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.” The DOJ also said in the release that “Arson is punishable by up to 20 years in prison with a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison.” The Justice Department announcement came following investigations conducted by a multitude of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and dozens of U.S. attorneys’ offices. News of the federal charges also comes as prosecutors in some cities, such as Portland, Oregon, have refused to charge individuals arrested on charges relating to rioting. This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
The country has seen the worst from Democrats since President Donald Trump was elected in 2016. But the current Supreme Court battle to fill the seat vacated by late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has them desperate, and there is no end to their willingness to violate long-held mores regarding civility and governance. That includes threatening to pack the high court, allot themselves four additional senators by giving statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico and upend the Supreme Court by limiting terms for justices. On Thursday, Reuters reported that House Democrats plan to introduce legislation next week that, if passed, would limit the tenure of each justice to only 18 years. Currently, high court justices, like all federal court judges, enjoy lifetime appointments. TRENDING: Why we're tragically ending relationships over politics According to the wire service, Democrats claim that reducing terms for justices will end partisan quarrels about vacancies and will preserve the legitimacy of the court. Of course, we know that simply isn't true, as the issue of lifetime appointments for federal judges was never an issue until Democrats found themselves staring down the barrel last Friday of a potential 6-3 conservative majority with the death of Ginsburg. Reuters reported that under the House Democrats’ plan, every president would nominate two justices per term, and all current justices would be grandfathered in to their lifetime appointments. Rep. Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts, who threatened on Twitter last week that his party would pack the courts of Republicans dared do their jobs by filling the seat vacated by Ginsburg, will introduce the proposal, along with Reps. Don Beyer of Virginia and Ro Khanna of California. If he holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. It’s that simple. — Rep. Joe Kennedy III (@RepJoeKennedy) September 19, 2020 The appropriately named Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act will unify the country, according to Khanna. “It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric,” the California Democrat said. Of course, this is just the latest desperate act from Democrats in a turbulent week that has seen them threaten everything from impeachment to packing the courts. The proposal has a tone that seems to surrender to the fact that they are more or less powerless on the issue of the judiciary until January, and that’s assuming they take the Senate, the White House or both. Current polling doesn’t seem to indicate those scenarios are anything to bank their hopes on. Even if Democrats could limit justices to 18-year terms, they would have to amend the Constitution to do so. Lifetime appointments for justices help them avoid becoming involved in petty partisan fights — like the ones Democrats are always engaged in — and allows them to make rulings without outside pressure. As the Senate Judiciary Committee website notes, “Like all Federal judges, Supreme Court Justices serve lifetime appointments on the Court, in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution.” With how Democrats have behaved in recent years, there is little chance two-thirds of both houses of Congress would agree to amend the Constitution. It’s even less likely that the requisite 34 states would ratify such a radical and politically transparent proposal. Democrats are desperate to prevent Trump from replacing Ginsburg with a justice who wouldn’t legislate from the bench, and they’re willing to violate any norm to do so — apparently without a second thought. The measure is sure to go nowhere in the short term, but it does give Americans further insight into their rabid desperation. As the party of Jim Crow and slavery, Democrats have always viewed the Constitution as something to circumvent. Unfortunately for those in the House, they’d need a strong majority to amend a document which they have proven for years they abhor. This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
A 77-year-old veteran who survived the war in Vietnam became a casualty of America's political hate last week when he was attacked at a California post office while displaying his support for President Donald Trump and America's police. The attack happened Friday at the Red Bluff, California, post office, according to KRCR-TV, which spoke with the victim but kept his name out of its report. The man said he was wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat and a "Back the Blue" protective mask when a man and woman approached him. The woman began the confrontation, he said. "She looked at me and she goes, 'We just don't like people like you.' Just kind of got shocked a little bit and said, 'Well, that breaks my heart,' and no more sooner out of my mouth, I get hit on the left side of my head. " He said the man did not leave it there. "Then somehow he got me in a headlock and started pounding me on top of my head ... I got blood all over the place and I'm trying to figure, you know, where's my hat, where's my package?" he said. 77-year-old veteran attacked for wearing #MAGA hat in #RedBluff https://t.co/D1S8SGJciB — KRCR News Channel 7 (@KRCR7) September 22, 2020 An ambulance was called for the man, who was treated for cuts on top of his head and later released. Three days later, when he spoke to the local TV station, he complained of headaches from the incident. The man who hit the veteran left the post office after the incident, but officers who responded were able to later arrest him, Red Bluff police said, according to KRCR. Daniel Gomez-Martinez, 26, was charged with battery and elder abuse. 77-year-old military veteran attacked in Red Bluff, California for wearing 'Make America Great Again' #MAGA hat in support of President @realDonaldTrump. 26-year-old man, accused of attack arrested for battery, elder abuse. FULL DETAILS: https://t.co/CJ5tyvogTf pic.twitter.com/B4sw9IrgtM — Preston Phillips (@PrestonTVNews) September 23, 2020 This latest attack on a Trump supporter made many on Twitter express their anger. I’d like to see this piece of crap try hitting someone his age for wearing a maga hat... this IS a hat crime. Clearly. How big of a story would it be if an old black dude wearing a BLM hat got beat up by a younger white guy? — Jason Jones (@jonesy2316) September 22, 2020 I’m so sick of this happening. https://t.co/wW1tCx6T49 — Carlos Madrigal (@ThinkMadrigal) September 22, 2020 The veteran said he should not have been taken by surprise. "I just feel kind of bad, seven years in the military, Vietnam veteran and 30 plus years in law enforcement and you're always taught situational awareness. And this guy came out of ... I never saw it coming," he said. Above all, he said, he was stunned by the hatred and intolerance that sparked the confrontation. "I was so shocked for the hate that people have, you know. I don't hate them. I never met them. I just can't believe they would do something like that," he said. This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
The Trump administration says its sanctions on Chinese companies that use slave labor could have a quarter-billion-dollar impact. Ken Cuccinelli, the acting deputy secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, said the action will affect up to $250 million worth of goods that come from the Xinjiang region, according to The Washington Free Beacon. The department announced Monday that it issued five so-called withhold release orders targeting products and cotton made at five specific Chinese companies and locations. The orders allow U.S. officials to hold shipments based on suspicion that the products violate U.S. laws to combat human trafficking, child labor and other human rights abuses. To get those shipments released, companies must prove no forced labor was used in making the products. Cuccinelli indicated that a broader, regional ban on cotton harvested through slave labor was under consideration. TRENDING: Undercover journalist turns the tables, sues Planned Parenthood for defamation The Trump administration says the goods targeted in the new order are produced by the forced labor of Muslim Uighurs. "These extraordinary human rights violations demand an extraordinary response,” Cuccinelli said, according to The New York Times. “This is modern-day slavery.” Wang Wenbin, a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, said companies in the region do not use forced labor. “This fully exposes the hypocritical faces and sinister intentions of those in the U.S. hoping to curb Xinjiang’s development and progress and sow Chinese ethnic dissension,” he said. Cuccinelli said disruption is sometimes necessary. "This order is intended to disrupt trade," he said. "The president strongly believes the American people are more than supportive of absorbing those sorts of disruptions in exchange for being able to interrupt the use of slave labor." The Uyghur Human Rights Project is seeking to have all cotton products from the region banned in the U.S. and has drafted a petition seeking such a step. “The system of forced labor is so extensive that there is reason to believe that most cotton-based products linked to the Uyghur Region are a product wholly or in part of forced labor,” the petition read. 📰 PRESS RELEASE 📰 "Human rights, labour & investor organisations restate call for a Regional WRO, and press for transparency & robust enforcement"#EndUyghurForcedLabourhttps://t.co/JVEUgxjLih — Uyghur Human Rights Project (@UyghurProject) September 16, 2020 Cuccinelli said the action fights slave labor while protecting Americans. “By taking this action, DHS is combating illegal and inhumane forced labor, a type of modern slavery, used to make goods that the Chinese government then tries to import into the United States. When China attempts to import these goods into our supply chains, it also disadvantages American workers and businesses,” he said, according to a news release on the DHS website. “President Trump and this Department have, and always will, put American workers and businesses first and protect American citizens from participating in these egregious human rights violations," he said. Acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan said the actions illustrate America's broad commitment to human rights. “The Trump Administration will not stand idly by and allow foreign companies to subject vulnerable workers to forced labor while harming American businesses that respect human rights and the rule of law,” he said in a statement. “Today’s withhold release orders send a clear message to the international community that we will not tolerate the illicit, inhumane, and exploitative practices of forced labor in U.S. supply chains," he said. This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is pretty much a long shot to be Joe Biden's running mate on the Democratic ticket this year; those odds became even longer this week when, while pulling out of contention herself, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar made it clear she thought Biden should pick a woman of color. Jokes aside about whether being 1/1024th Native American puts Warren in the running, Klobuchar became the latest of the class of 2020 Democratic also-rans to toss Warren under the bus on their way out. It seems that even as the progressivism seems to be having Its Moment this summer, one of its standard-bearers is receding from public view. Statements like this probably aren't going to help, either. Take this video, in which Warren calls for a constitutional amendment that already exists: Sen. Elizabeth Warren: "We cannot just be allies. We must be anti-racists." pic.twitter.com/ByBSWQRpZp — The Hill (@thehill) June 19, 2020 TRENDING: Alan Dershowitz sues CNN to halt 'malicious' attacks on innocent people An emphatic Warren, straight off the bat: "We need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing every United States citizen the right to vote and to have that vote counted." This is curious, inasmuch as the 15th Amendment essentially says just that. While it doesn't ban federal and state governments from ever restricting voting rights, it does prohibit those governments from implementing restrictions based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." In essence, it was meant to guarantee former slaves the right to vote: "Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. "Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Yes, Elizabeth Warren was paid more than $400,000 to teach law at Harvard in 2010-11, according to The Associated Press, but forgot the 15th Amendment was still in effect and has been since 1870. While it took quite a while for the words of the amendment to be effectively true -- the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ended the poll taxes and literacy tests rampant in Democrat-controlled Dixie at the time -- the amendment has been part of the Constitution for 150 years. Of course, this isn't quite what Warren means. In the next breath, she says it's time "to restore the Voting Rights Act and overturn every racist voter suppression law." The Voting Rights Act is still a piece of very active legislation, mind you; what she means is she wants to overturn Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 Supreme Court case that held a provision of the Voting Rights Act, which required certain states and jurisdictions to apply to the federal government before they made changes to their voting procedures, was unconstitutional given that it was based on conditions that were almost a half-century old. And when Warren talks about "every racist voter suppression law," note that she also isn't just talking about voter identification laws, the old bogeyman for the left when talking about voter suppression. Instead, any legislation that results in fewer voters than the Democrats think will fall their way is prima facie racist. Let's consider closely the case of Stacey Abrams. Abrams, the 2018 Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Georgia, has long contended that so-called "voter suppression" laws led to her losing the race to Brian Kemp. Her supporters have challenged the laws as "racist." Let's leave aside the fact that it's hardly clear Abrams would have won in the absence of this legislation. There are two laws in particular that the Democrats have come down hard upon: an exact-match law and a law that purges certain voters. The former law states that the information on your voter registration application -- name, date of birth, etc. -- must exactly match state records. If not, you're notified by the state that this information needs to be corrected. If you don't respond, your registration application is invalid. The latter law, which was passed by a Democratic state legislature, involves mechanisms by which voters are removed from the state voter rolls. Many voters are removed because they've been convicted of felonies or moved away from the state, but most of them have been removed because of the "use it or lose it" provision. Essentially, if you hadn't voted for a period of years and you didn't respond to a state notice that asked you whether you wanted to stay on the rolls, you were removed. These were the laws that were deemed "racist" by Abrams' supporters. While part of this was the fact they were enforced under the supervision of now-Gov. Kemp while he was secretary of state, it's difficult to contend that these provisions specifically targeted people of color. Yet, when Warren says she wants a constitutional amendment that will wrestle with "every racist voter suppression law," this is probably what she's talking about. This shouldn't really be news. Warren's recycling one of her campaign promises, in which she promised the right-to-vote amendment and a plan to federalize elections so that control was taken out of the hands of local governments. However, part of politics is having a certain genius for repackaging your ideas when the moment hits, which is exactly what Warren is doing here. The Massachusetts senator is using the recent protests to remind Democrats that while she has "never experienced and can never truly understand the fear, the oppression and the pain that confronts black Americans ... none of us can ignore what is happening in this country." "We cannot just be allies. We must be anti-racists," she says in the video. And that's what the Republican lawmakers of the post Civil War era did when they ratified the 15th Amendment, and what bipartisan lawmakers did when they passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Both of them are still operative and the nebulous changes Warren is describing have no chance of happening in the immediate future. They're not going to make her any more attractive as a running mate, either. Of the issues voters will be concerned with this November, enacting a new 15th Amendment won't be one of them. This article appeared originally on The Western Journal. CORRECTION, June 21, 2020: This article originally misstated now-Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp's previous position in state government. He was secretary of state. UPDATE, Sept. 19, 2020: This article has been updated to note that while the 15th Amendment doesn't ban federal and state governments from ever restricting voting rights, it does prohibit those governments from implementing restrictions based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Thus, it was meant to serve as a guarantee that former slaves' voting rights could not be restricted due to the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their status as former slaves.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Mitt Romney is disputing a report claiming that the Utah lawmaker and former GOP presidential nominee would refrain from voting to confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before Inauguration Day 2021. Immediately after news broke of Ginsburg’s death on Friday evening, the conversation shifted toward whether President Donald Trump would move to quickly fill the seat she vacated. Within hours, Romney was reported to have said he would not confirm a nominee to replace Ginsburg until after Jan. 20. Former Utah state Sen. Jim Dabakis wrote in a post that was retweeted more than 18,000 times: “BREAKING: A high-level Romney insider tells me Mitt Romney has committed to not confirming a Supreme Court nominee until after Inauguration Day 2021.” BREAKING: A high-level Romney insider tells me Mitt Romney has committed to not confirming a Supreme Court nominee until after Inauguration Day 2021. #Mittrevenge #utpol — Jim Dabakis (@JimDabakis) September 19, 2020 TRENDING: In the end, the rioters are Obama's army Debakis used the tag #Mittrevenge in an apparent reference to the contentious relationship between Romney and many of his GOP colleagues in Washington, including the president. However, after Debakis reported that Romney was opposed to the idea of filling Ginsburg’s seat before next January, Romney’s communications director contradicted that claim. Liz Johnson posted on Twitter: “Dear twitter and also @JimDabakis: Unless your name is Mitt Romney or you’re his spokesperson, you do not speak for Mitt Romney.” Dear twitter and also @JimDabakis: Unless your name is Mitt Romney or you’re his spokesperson, you do not speak for Mitt Romney. #utpol — Liz Johnson (@LJ0hnson) September 19, 2020 Johnson then retweeted Debakis with a comment. “This is grossly false. #fakenews," Johnson wrote. This is grossly false. #fakenews https://t.co/HZuqAyYToz — Liz Johnson (@LJ0hnson) September 19, 2020 Romney joined Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska Friday as GOP senators who were reported to already be shooting down the idea of voting to confirm a replacement for Ginsburg on the Supreme Court before the election. Murkowski said in an interview published before news of Ginsburg’s death that she would be opposed to confirming a high court nominee so close to Election Day. When the scenario was still a hypothetical, the senator said she would “not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee" because she felt “that was too close to an election and that the people needed to decide." “We are 50-some days away from an election, and the good news for us is that all of our Supreme Court justices are in good health and doing their job. And we pray that they are able to continue that,” she said during an interview with Alaska Public Media. While it is not clear where Romney, Murkowski or others stood on the issue as of Saturday morning, President Donald Trump indicated Saturday that Republicans must move forward on filling the Supreme Court vacancy. “We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices,” Trump tweeted. “We have this obligation, without delay!” the president added. .@GOP We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2020 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday that if Trump brings forth a nominee, the Senate will vote. The Senate and the nation mourn the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life. My full statement: pic.twitter.com/NOwYLhDxIk — Leader McConnell (@senatemajldr) September 19, 2020 “In the last midterm election before Justice [Antonin] Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term,” he said. “We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. “By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary,” the Senate majority leader added. “Once again, we will keep our promise.” This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
Virginia House Delegate David LaRock is calling on the commonwealth's health commissioner to lift restrictions on the use of antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and suggesting they may be political in nature. The Republican, in a letter to State Health Commissioner M. Norman Oliver last week, also made a Freedom of Information Act request for all documents held by the Department of Health and Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam pertaining to hydroxychloroquine. In March, Oliver issued guidance regarding the treatment of coronavirus cases, which read in part, "Prescriptions for chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, mefloquine and azithromycin should be restricted in the outpatient setting and should require a diagnosis 'consistent with the evidence for its use.'" Several doctors have gone on record stating that they have experienced success treating COVID-19 patients with a combination of hydroxychloroquine, the antibiotic azithromycin and zinc. Some observational studies have supported the efficacy of the treatment regimen, but most randomized trials have not. TRENDING: Franklin Graham to lead prayer march in D.C.: 'Only hope for our country is God' LaRock argued that given the widespread use of the drug, particularly outside the U.S., doctors and patients should be allowed to use it in Virginia without interference from the government. "In this case, we have an inexpensive treatment, an early treatment that in other countries that is proving to be helpful by virtue of its affordability is one of the most available treatments," the delegate told The Western Journal. Virginia Health Commissioner Dr. M. Norman Oliver stresses “health equity” but is denying Virginians, including those with very limited resources, the ability to obtain affordable, safe, and successful COVID-19 treatments readily available elsewhere. More:https://t.co/TIU3Ym5bJw pic.twitter.com/fOiY7VISmt — Delegate Dave LaRock (@LaRock4Delegate) August 1, 2020 In his letter to Oliver, LaRock pointed to India and Costa Rica as examples of other countries that have found success using the drug. Costa Rica's 3.24 deaths per 100,000 COVID-19 patients and India's 2.82 are much lower than Virginia's 26 deaths per 100,000. LaRock is concerned that the Northam administration's resistance to hydroxychloroquine may be political, hence his decision to file a FOIA request. "Our governor, governors of a few other states have been very aggressive with their shutdowns: California, New York, Michigan to name a few," LaRock said. "There’s a possibility that they have communicated and if they are partly or completely motivated politically then we’re hoping that would come forward from a FOIA," he added. LaRock noted that Northam has been in a vulnerable place politically since controversial pictures of the governor surfaced in February 2019 from his medical school days, showing him either in blackface or potentially a Ku Klux Klan custom. The legislator contended that the governor has been in a rebuilding phase since then and one way to curry favor with Democrats is to help deliver Virginia in November, through both the aggressive shutdown to hurt the state economically and denial of life-saving treatment. "If he were to be influential in delivering Virginia, the Democrats in some way, that might be one of the few opportunities he’d have," LaRock said. He noted Northam has already taken an extreme position regarding late-term abortions, saying mothers and their doctors should be able to decide whether babies who survive the procedure should be able to live. "Taking an action that shows an apparent disregard for human life" is something the governor has shown a willingness to do, LaRock said. "He is a medical doctor, so he understands that. So to make that decision you have to be pretty cold." LaRock concluded his letter to Oliver writing, "I have encountered a number of Virginians who have concluded with a sense of outrage that [hydroxychloroquine] is being restricted in Virginia not for medical reasons, but for political reasons." "Every day this directive is left standing, the likelihood increases that more Virginians will die unnecessarily from COVID-19 for lack of proper early treatment." The Western Journal reached out to the offices of Gov. Northam and Commissioner Oliver for comment but did not immediately receive responses. This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
Leftists are extremely concerned with the onerous concept of "systemic racism." They claim that black people and other minorities are unable to get ahead in this country (despite scores of successful minority individuals) because racist systems hold them down. In the name of "social and racial justice," therefore, Democratic leaders institute clearly racist policies in favor of minorities. The most recent example is San Francisco's new Abundant Birth Project, which will provide $1,000 per month to approximately 150 black and Pacific Islander women during their pregnancies and for six months after, according to The Hill. The goal is to eventually provide financial support for as long as two years after a child is born. TRENDING: Franklin Graham to lead prayer march in D.C.: 'Only hope for our country is God' While there is nothing inherently wrong with providing support to pregnant women and new mothers, this program ties participation to the race of the mother rather than any need-based criteria. That is the definition of a racist policy. San Francisco Mayor London Breed praised the Abundant Birth Project as the first of its kind. "Providing guaranteed income support to mothers during pregnancy is an innovative and equitable approach that will ease some of the financial stress that all too often keeps women from being able to put their health first," she said. "The Abundant Birth Project is rooted in racial justice and recognizes that Black and Pacific Islander mothers suffer disparate health impacts, in part because of the persistent wealth and income gap. Thanks to the work of the many partners involved, we are taking real action to end these disparities and are empowering mothers with the resources they need to have healthy pregnancies and births," she continued. In San Francisco, black and Pacific Islander infants are more likely to be born prematurely than white infants: 13.8 percent of black infants and 10.4 percent of Pacific Islander infants were premature from 2012-2016, compared to 7.3 percent of white infants, according to the mayor's office. However, the mayor's office did not provide any data to support that the disparity in infant mortality rates is due to the mother's race, as opposed to non-racial factors such as income. Indeed, Mayor Breed cited the wealth and income gap affecting black and Pacific Islander women as a significant motivator for the project -- but project participation does not appear to be limited to low-income mothers. Rather, it appears the sole criterion for participation is race. Thus, the policy seems to conflate "minority" with "poor," which is clearly a racist sentiment. Moreover, California already has resources in place for low-income pregnant women -- programs that are not bound by the mother's race. Covered California's website describes a number of state programs covering most or all of the cost of pregnancy and birth for low-income women. Of course, the left's response to claims that the Abundant Birth Project is racist is likely to be an assertion that "reverse racism" -- that is, racism against white people -- simply doesn't exist because of the "institutional power" held by white people. Never mind the fact that the legal barriers previously entrenched in this country to keep minorities from having the same opportunities as white people have long been removed. Never mind the fact that there is substantial evidence demonstrating that disparities in outcomes among racial groups are largely based on factors other than race. Never mind the fact that the only "systemic racism" legally allowed in the United States in 2020 actually cuts against white people in favor of certain minority groups -- for instance, affirmative action programs. Programs like the Abundant Birth Project may be well-intentioned, but they don't actually support long-term racial equality. Rather, they sow further division between Americans of different races. If the goal is greater racial harmony in San Francisco, and in America at large, the solution is for government to step away from race, not codify it into government and law. This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
This is the news the mainstream news outlets don’t want to report. Marking a diplomatic triumph where eight years of Barack Obama had produced only failure, President Donald Trump on Tuesday presided over historic agreements between Israel and two key Muslim countries that could change the outlook of the Middle East for generations -- and should be a major part of the 2020 presidential election campaign. And the liberal news media yawned. After ceremonies at the White House where Trump watched Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sign diplomatic deals known as the "Abraham Accords" with the Persian Gulf states of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, the ink was barely dry before The New York Times was shrugging off Trump’s achievement. Under a headline that was about as exciting as a garage sale advertisement (“Trump Hosts Israel, U.A.E. and Bahrain at White House Signing Ceremony”), the Gray Lady published a subhead that told its readers that the president really hadn’t done much at all: TRENDING: Wildfires to get worse thanks to Clinton policies, says fire expert who predicted uptick in blazes “Critics of the agreement between the three countries have said President Trump’s claims that they will produce wider peace in the Middle East are overblown.” Really? Critics of the agreement think Trump’s claims are overblown? That must be comforting to liberals who’ve just watched a president they’ve convinced themselves is a warmonger and budding dictator bring historic enemies to the negotiating table -- something their beloved Barack Obama proved utterly incapable of during his years of appeasing the mullahs of Iran. At CNN, meanwhile, the editors of the network’s homepage seemed to think the biggest news in the country late Tuesday afternoon was the agreement by the city of Louisville, Kentucky, to pay the family of a black woman killed during a police raid $12 million in a wrongful death settlement. (To be fair, Fox News at the same time was leading with a follow-up on the riots in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, early Monday morning, but Fox doesn’t exactly have the history The Times and CNN share of attacking the president.) Any American who remembers the orgiastic joy that greeted Obama’s flawed attempts to rekindle relations with the communist government of Cuba, meanwhile, knows how these two outlets would have covered any hint of progress in the Middle East if it had been brought about by a Democratic administration. ("U.S. to Restore Full Relations With Cuba, Erasing a Last Trace of Cold War Hostility," The Times trumpeted on Dec. 17, 2015.) Never mind that the island remained a personal prison of the Castro regime. Obama wanted to restore relations, and that was good enough for his backers at The Times. In 2020, however, for the mainstream media to admit that Trump had created a real opening for peace in the traditionally bloody Middle East would be to admit that his positions all along have been right. Here are just a few of the ways Trump has been exactly the opposite of Obama: He walked away from the hideously flawed nuclear deal Obama had struck with the Iranian government. If that wasn’t enough, he convinced other governments in the region he was not playing footsy with Tehran when he ordered the strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the mullahs' mastermind of terror. In contrast to Obama’s open distaste for Israel, Trump finally kept the promises made by American presidents over the decades to move the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. In short, Trump’s “peace through strength” is paying off, big time. And if mainstream outlets like The Times and CNN can’t bring themselves to recognize it, plenty of Americans can. Not enough characters to list all these naysayers who populate the Swamp Who said this could never take place unless the Palestinians were included Add one more to the growing list of accomplishments in his first term 👍 TRUMP EFFECT ✔ pic.twitter.com/cBcmRKXF6Q — Chicago1Ray 🇺🇸 (@Chicago1Ray) September 15, 2020 You make the impossible look so easy. Bursting with pride #Trump2020 — Cindy ❤️🇺🇸 (@Cindy70752861) September 15, 2020 Now that’s a Trump Train for peace🇱🇷👏🏻 — Amanda D. (@Ducati_Dahl) September 15, 2020 👍🇺🇸Congratulations on this Historic Day. I am looking forward to you receiving a much deserved Noble Peace Prize award. 👍🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 God Bless 🙏 — Patriotic 🇺🇸Suzanne⭐️⭐️⭐️ Text TRUMP to 88022 (@suzost) September 15, 2020 Most of the world knows Trump isn't likely to get a Nobel Peace Prize, though he's been nominated. He's the very opposite of Obama, the man who was awarded the prize for literally nothing during his first year in office -- and did nothing to earn it in the years that followed. And most of America already knows the mainstream media has long since abdicated its responsibility to report the news to the American people with the importance it deserved. Reporters and editors who've spent the past four years chasing hoaxes about Russia "collusion" and covering a sham impeachment effort as though it was anything but an insult to the constitutional process will never be able to bring themselves to admit that the Trump administration has accomplished something extraordinary in the Middle East. In any other year, with any other president, that accomplishment would be going a long way toward guaranteeing his re-election in November. And this may yet for Trump. It's the news that the news media doesn't want to report, but the whole world is going to know it. This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
On Sept. 9, 18-year-old Justin Gavin was walking to a Walgreens in Waterbury, Connecticut. As he walked along, something terrifying happened. A small SUV on fire drove by as other drivers honked at it. Gavin joined in, yelling at the car to stop. "I'm yelling, 'Stop the car! Your car is on fire! Your car is on fire!'" he recalled to CNN. The car didn't stop immediately, but Gavin chased after it and when it finally did stop, he was there to help. Once he pulled the female driver out, he also rescued her three children aged 1, 4 and 9. The youngest was still in a car seat, but he managed. TRENDING: Wildfires to get worse thanks to Clinton policies, says fire expert who predicted uptick in blazes Later on, he said he'd been scared and wondered if the car was going to explode, but that didn't stop him from jumping into action. "It kind of got scary because I didn't know whether I was going to be able to get everyone out in time," he said. "And luckily, I did." Shortly after he rescued the family, the car was completely on fire. Firefighters arrived to put it out, but the wreckage was a haunting reminder of mortality. "It made me realize life is short," the hero said. Gavin said he did what he hoped someone would do for him, if the need arose. "I just felt like if I was in that situation, I would want somebody to help me out. I guess my instincts took over." The Waterbury Police Department recognized his heroic acts with a challenge coin, which they gave to him during a small ceremony that they shared on Facebook on Wednesday. "September 9th 2020 - Chief Fernando Spagnolo thanks Justin Gavin (age 18) for helping to save a mother and her three children from a burning car," the video caption reads. "Great job Justin!" "I hope that when you have that coin it just reminds you of this day and you can reflect back on all the good that came out of this for you and for that family that you saved," Police Chief Fernando Spagnolo said in the clip. The video has been reacted to over 31,000 times and racked up over 1,300 comments -- many of them commending the young man's actions and expressing pride and gratitude. In a time of division and selfishness, Gavin is a shining example of how we should behave: Loving our neighbors as ourselves. This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
First, an acknowledgement: The Nobel Peace Prize is a thoroughgoing joke that just gets more ridiculous. It's honored a pretty impressive roster of people, true, but we didn't need an award to recognize that Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Elie Wiesel or Albert Schweitzer were awe-inspiring human beings. On the other hand, the committee gave the imprimatur of the peace prize to war criminals like Yasser Arafat and Le Duc Tho, lumbering supranational bodies like the European Union and the United Nations, and other individuals of questionable deservedness, like Mikhail Gorbachev and Woodrow Wilson. The committee's recent use of the award to remark on American politics is a particular irritant. In 2007, Al Gore won the award because, for all intents and purposes, he made a movie about climate change. That beats 2009's winner, Barack Obama, who received the award for winning an election. TRENDING: Another Nobel Peace Prize nomination for Trump Jimmy Carter won it in 2002 "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development," which was convenient timing given the United States and its allies were wrestling with a truculent regime in Baghdad at the time. The peace prize has degraded to the point that Greta Thunberg was considered the favorite for last year's award for skipping school and scolding adults; the committee exercised a bit of sense at the last moment and gave it to the relatively more deserving Abiy Ahmed, the prime minister of Ethiopia. Still, when oddsmakers are surprised a Nordic teenager with a good nose for publicity didn't win the award, that should be a sign things are amiss in Oslo. Now that President Donald Trump has been nominated for the peace prize because of his role brokering a peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Graeme Wood has suddenly come to the convenient conclusion that it's time to abolish the award. If you're unfamiliar, Wood is usually one of the more tolerable writers in The Atlantic's stable. I'm not a fan of his politics, but stylistically, he's excellent. He's the author of an admirable tome, "The Way of the Strangers: Encounters with the Islamic State." His denunciation of far-left author Vicky Osterweil's recent book "In Defense of Looting" is one of the best treatments of that dismal subject and deserves a read. Wood had a conniption when Norwegian parliamentarian Christian Tybring-Gjedde nominated Trump for the award. The conservative lawmaker said he wasn't "a big Trump supporter" but that "[t]he committee should look at the facts and judge him on the facts -- not on the way he behaves sometimes. The people who have received the Peace Prize in recent years have done much less than Donald Trump. For example, Barack Obama did nothing." Wood didn't take kindly to this, as shown by the simple title of his Friday piece: "End the Nobel Peace Prize." "Trolls are a Scandinavian invention, straight from the frigid sagas of Norse mythology," Wood began his article, "but Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a Norwegian parliamentarian, swears that he is not one. Observers of his antics this week could be forgiven for thinking otherwise." He went on to note that the committee had, on occasion, not given out any prize. (The most recent occasion for this was in 1972.) He thinks that ought to happen again because the Orange Man was nominated. "Giving the peace prize to no one at all is a tradition the Nobel Committee should revive, perhaps on a permanent basis. The record of achievement of the peace laureates is so spotty, and the rationales for their awards so eclectic, that the committee should take a long break to consider whether peace is a category coherent enough to be worth recognizing," Wood wrote. "Peace had its chance, and blew it. The Trump nomination -- one of hundreds, including this second from a Swede -- helps show why." The second one, I assume, is Trump's second nomination for the prize, this time from Swedish parliamentarian Magnus Jacobsson in recognition of the president's separate role brokering a deal between Serbia and Kosovo. I have nominated the US Gov. and the governments of Kosovo and Serbia for the Nobel Peace Prize for their joint work for peace and economic development, through the cooperation agreement signed in the White House. Trade and communications are important building blocks for peace. pic.twitter.com/XuhkLbHZAV — Magnus Jacobsson (@magnusjacobsson) September 11, 2020 Wood talked with Tybring-Gjedde, who argued that Trump's troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan met the prize's criteria for “the abolition or reduction of standing armies" even as he built up the U.S. military. "He admitted that Trump won’t win the prize, if only because of the man’s vulgarity and crude behavior," Wood wrote, before quoting Tybring-Gjedde: “I know a couple of [the five members of the committee],” the parliamentarian told Wood. “And they are looking for people who should behave a certain way. It’s not like chemistry -- if they find out you have four divorces and are bad personally, they will never not give you the chemistry prize for that.” So, naturally, Wood thinks it's time to abolish the prize. "By now the contradictions of the peace prize should be apparent. Is it given for peace, or for rumors of peace? Do you deserve a prize for maintaining despots, as long as the despots are part of a stable network? Is it given for accidentally wrecking a great military -- or only if the destruction is intentional?" Wood wrote. "What if you do all the right things, but you are a boor, or an alleged rapist? To these questions one might add a counsel of humility: If you have given the prize to enablers of genocide, kleptocrats, serial fabricators, and AIDS conspiracists, maybe you should sit out the next few rounds." Wood was likely referring to four other problematic winners: Burmese democracy campaigner Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been criticized for her relative silence in the face of the country's campaign of genocide; Yasser Arafat, whose rule of Palestine was marred by his arrant kleptocracy; Rigoberta Menchu, the Guatemalan indigenous campaigner who won the award in 1992 and eventually had her backstory dismantled; and Wangari Maathai, the Kenyan ecologist who won the award in 2004 and believes AIDS is a biological agent. Should President Trump win the Nobel Peace Prize? 100% (6 Votes) 0% (0 Votes) Wood wrote that the prize "has always been subjective" but that "its incoherence has become too great." "The honor doesn’t incentivize peace, if one year you give it to [Henry] Kissinger (starter of many conflicts, ender of one), and another you give it to Mother Teresa (who never started a war, but who -- as Christopher Hitchens liked to point out -- used her Nobel lecture to inform the world that the 'greatest destroyer of world peace' was abortion)," he wrote. "Tybring-Gjedde suggests that brief conversations with hideous men are a reason to award the prize, and its history suggests that he might be right. Then again, Barack Obama won the prize in 2009, while refusing to meet with Kim Jong-il and, by the way, expanding America’s drone program. (He won for his promotion of, notably not his success in achieving, 'cooperation between peoples.')" All of this has been well-known for a while, mind you; noted Mother Teresa- and Henry Kissinger-hater Christopher Hitchens, who Wood name-checked, has been dead for almost a decade and spent the better part of his career railing against them. Menchu was exposed over 20 years ago and Maathai began getting Infowars-y on HIV/AIDS over 15 years ago. Yasser Arafat was always sick joke of a man, no matter how many people refused to see it. So, why now? Wood makes it clear he thinks the award is getting too political, but it's interesting to see him come to this conclusion so recently. For him, the Nobel committee is left with two choices: Either it can give the award to one of those supranational organizations "or it can keep the prize locked away for a while, and reevaluate its reasoning for a modern era. "I suspect that that reevaluation will end, if the committee is honest, with the admission that peace can be recognized only by its fruits, which take decades to mature, and not by its seeds. To keep giving awards for the seeds is to court embarrassment, and to make yourself hostage to wacky attention-seeking nominations like Trump’s. Better to shut it down, before the trolls do first." Too late for that. Barack Obama, again, had done nothing but spend four years in the Senate and win a national election when he was awarded his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Wood has come up with nothing new about the fatuousness of the prize, merely that he's just been awakened (dare I say "woked?") to the senselessness of it all because someone nominated President Trump for the award. At least Trump did something before he was nominated -- and he still won't win. The mere nomination is enough to raise Wood's hackles, however. I'm sure there's a lesson here about the politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize process, but darned if I can find it. This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.