Wake up America. You are under siege by Islamists invading this country. Our individual inalienable rights is a standard that Muhammed’s Sharia Law cannot tolerate. You must convert or live as a persecuted minority.Is that your ambition?
Saudi journalist Abdelhameed al-Ghoban gave an interview to the BBC in Arabic. His remarks, which were translated by MEMRI, were devoid of nuance.
“Today, the public is informed. There is a deluge [of opinions] against the Palestinian cause. It is no longer just public support for normalization and building ties with Israel. [Our] public has turned against the Palestinians in general. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have lost. The Palestinians have not contributed anything. We can say that they are emotional people whose behavior is governed by their feelings.”
Al-Ghoban added, “It is in our strategic interest, and in keeping with our future economic interests, to maintain real relations with Israel. Israel is an advanced country and we can benefit from it.”
Al-Ghoban’s remarks are not a lone voice in the wilderness. During the Ramadan Muslim holy month, Saudi television networks broadcast two series that portray Jews and Israelis in a positive light.
Palestinian leaders are beside themselves at what they view as pan-Arab abandonment. In remarks to Israel Hayom this week, a senior Palestinian official bitterly referred to the mild criticisms of U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace plan and of Israel’s plan to apply its sovereignty to its communities in Judea and Samaria and to the Jordan Valley as no more than “lip service.”
Israeli leftist groups are hanging their hopes for torpedoing Israel’s sovereignty plans on the European Union! France’s plan, supported by Luxembourg, Belgium and Ireland, to impose E.U. sanctions on Israel in the event it implements its sovereignty plan was widely reported this week.
But like the Palestinians, Israeli leftists are likely to be disappointed. E.U. rules require all decisions to be made by consensus, and there is no consensus on sanctioning Israel.
Even worse for the leftists is the fact that Israel’s plan to apply sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria is not a unilateral move. Israel will carry it out in the framework of the U.S. peace plan. If the European Union retaliates against Israel for implementing the first stage of the Trump peace plan, it will antagonize the White House, which will rightly view the move as anti-American.
This state of affairs will increase the number of E.U. member states that will oppose anti-Israel sanctions—or any other anti-Israel response to the sovereignty plan. Given this state of affairs, Israeli leftist groups will have to learn to live with disappointment. Europe will not be able to force the government to embrace their radical policies.
There is another reason that Israel needn’t be too concerned that applying its laws to parts of Judea and Samaria will damage it diplomatically or economically. To understand what it is, it is worth considering what was likely a key reason, if not the key reason, that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Israel this week, in the middle of the global coronavirus pandemic.
Commentators in Israel and the United States were surprised by Pompeo’s visit. Like most world leaders, Pompeo has been grounded since late February. Why was he breaking the coronavirus lockdown to fly to Israel of all places for a few hours? What was so important that he couldn’t discuss it via secure video conference?
Most media outlets claimed that the sovereignty plan is what brought him to Jerusalem. But that made little sense even before Pompeo arrived and said that he wasn’t here for that. Both in Pompeo’s interview to Israel Hayom on Tuesday, and in Ambassador David Friedman’s interview with Israel Hayom two weeks ago, they made clear that the Trump administration continues to support Israel’s plan. Friedman even made clear that he views the issue with great urgency.
Another popular explanation was that Pompeo flew to Israel to discuss Iran. This too, makes no sense. Israel and the United States are completely coordinated in their Iran policies.
There appear to be two reasons that Pompeo came to Israel this week of all times. The first and more discussed may be the less significant one. That reason is China. On both sides of the partisan divide, U.S. leaders have long been concerned about Israel’s technological ties with China and with its willingness to grant infrastructure construction contracts to Chinese firms. In an interview with the Washington Free Beacon, published on the eve of Pompeo’s arrival in Israel, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker said, “We don’t want them [Israel] to get into a problematic relationship with China.”
Schenker focused his remarks on U.S. concerns with Israeli-Chinese contracts for major infrastructure projects, like a water desalination plant and the Haifa port. “China sees a lot of value in a relationship with Israel, the high-tech, the innovations,” said Schenker.
He continued, “Israel also needs all sorts of infrastructure and it looks to China. China is a low-cost bidder and Chinese companies do all this work. But there are things that have to be taken into account. We also have interests and we want to be able to work with Israel.”
Pompeo emphasized U.S. concern with Israel-China ties both in his discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and in his remarks to the Israeli media. There is no doubt that the heightened U.S. pressure on Israel to lower the flame on its ties with China is reasonable. China, after all, disseminated the coronavirus plague worldwide and hid the dangers from the world for two months while it purchased the global supply of ventilators and personal protective equipment.
Yet at the same time, even these heightened concerns don’t explain Pompeo’s sudden decision to fly to Israel. There have been no notable new developments in Israel’s ties with China in recent months. And Israel announced last year that it would not be participating in Huawei’s 5G network. Certainly, the messages Pompeo communicated to Netanyahu could just have easily and effectively been delivered in a videoconference.
This brings us to the coronavirus itself.
On May 5, the Israel Institute for Biological Research in Nes Ziona announced a “groundbreaking scientific development” towards a potential treatment for COVID-19 based on an antibody that neutralizes SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the disease. It was the second breakthrough announced that week by institute scientists, who days earlier announced that they had isolated a key coronavirus antibody.
In its announcement of the developments, the Israeli Defense Ministry said that the institute is now pursuing a patent for its development, after which it will begin discussions with international manufacturers.
Israeli Defense Minister Naftali Bennett, who visited the institute on May 7 with Israeli President Reuven Rivlin to receive a briefing on the discovery, said at the end of the tour, “I instructed the defense establishment and the institute to move ahead at the highest speed to develop a mass cure. We will not spare money or resources. We will do everything in our power to shorten the time it takes to have a commercial medicine.”
The first report of Pompeo’s sudden decision to visit Jerusalem this week came on May 6, the day after the Institute of Biological Research’s initial announcement and the day before Bennet and Rivlin visited the institute.
In his remarks at the Prime Minister’s Office with Netanyahu on Wednesday morning, Pompeo mentioned U.S.-Israeli cooperation in fighting the pandemic. Turning to Netanyahu, he said, “Israeli technologies, Israeli medical expertise, all of the things that you and I and our teams can work on together. I know we’ll deliver good outcomes and decrease the risk for people all across the world from this global pandemic.”
The Defense Ministry’s announcement of the Institute of Biological Research’s latest breakthrough noted, “This is an important milestone, which will be followed by a series of complex tests and a process of regulatory approvals.”
That process could take several months. Experts in and out of the defense establishment note that it is too early to know the full implications of the discovery. Obviously, if Israel has developed a cure for the coronavirus, its economic and diplomatic position will be upgraded significantly.
But even if the Institute for Biological Research’s latest discovery doesn’t lead to an immediate cure for the coronavirus, it is clear that the biomedical and technological capabilities that Israel has demonstrated in its treatment and research of the coronavirus have solidified its place among the world-leading nations in these critical areas.
Arab states that are driven towards Israel due to their shared interest in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and becoming a regional hegemon will cling to Israel ever more tightly now. European governments that seek to punish Israel for asserting its sovereign rights in Judea and Samaria, will have to balance their hostility with their desire to benefit from cooperation with Israel.
It is very possible that the main foreign policy challenge facing Israel today is not how to minimize the risks of diplomatic blowback for applying its laws in Judea and Samaria. It is figuring out how to maximize Israel’s new global position in a manner that will strengthen us diplomatically, economically and strategically into the future.
Caroline Glick is an award-winning columnist and author of “The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.”
Arab (yellow) preferred map — just transient until put slim (brown) Israel into Mediterranean Sea.
Co-existence with Israel under any circumstances, even including assurance of massive American economic investment, would not be worth to them relinquishing the decades of hostility that are embedded in Palestinian identity. Their rigid reluctance to engage in negotiations with Israel long ago doomed any peace prospects.
(May 11, 2020 / JNS) In a New York Post article May 4,
U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman challenged the assumptions and conclusions of President Barack Obama’s acolytes Philip Gordon and Robert Malley that recently appeared in Foreign Policy. Gordon served as Obama’s White House coordinator for the Middle East, and Malley was Obama’s special assistant for the Middle East.
Gordon and Malley, worried lest the new Israeli coalition government (with its huge Knesset majority led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) will soon annex major portions of Judea and Samaria, the biblical homeland of the Jewish people, where 400,000 Jews already live, urged former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden to speak out in opposition to the plan. They shuddered over the pronouncement by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that it is “Israel’s decision to make.”
Gordon and Malley cited multiple reasons for rejecting the annexation plan. It “would jeopardize Israel’s future as a democratic, Jewish state”; “damage Israel’s relations with Jordan”; “violate international law”; ignore “the rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people”; and “could be a harbinger of greater regional instability and possibly violence.” It might even lead to demands “in the United States and elsewhere” for a “single state solution” with Palestinians granted “equal civil and political rights.”
It is hardly surprising that Gordon and Malley staunchly oppose the Israeli annexation plan. Obama, whom they loyally served, was arguably Israel’s least friendly president since its Proclamation of Independence in 1948.
Nearing the end of his term in the White House, having already opposed Israeli action against Iran’s nuclear-weapon development, Obama had refused to veto U.N. resolution 2334 that supported boycotts and sanctions against Israel, and declared settlements to be violations of international law. There is no evidence that Biden objected. With “friends” like Obama, Israel hardly needs his loyal acolyte Joe Biden in the White House.
Friedman’s response to the Gordon-Malley article was appropriately lacerating. Labeling the Obama administration’s response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “often wrong, never in doubt,” he accused it of “a barrage of falsehoods and wrongheaded ideas.”
West Bank annexation, Friedman noted, would not, as Gordon and Malley believe, threaten Israel’s future as a Jewish state. It would only claim sovereignty over “a fraction of the West Bank” where Jewish settlements already exist. Land with significant numbers of Palestinian inhabitants would not be affected.
Nor, as Gordon and Malley claimed, would the Israeli annexation plan undermine the possibility of the two-state solution that Palestinians have repeatedly rejected. They seem oblivious to the reality that from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas (1969-2020), Palestinian leaders have not displayed the slightest inkling that a two-state solution requiring peace with Israel is desirable.
Even Friedman’s assurance that a provision for Palestinian statehood would be an integral part of the Trump administration’s Mideast peace plan is unlikely, based on history, to persuade Palestinian leaders. Coexistence with Israel under any circumstances, even including assurance of massive American economic investment, would not be worth relinquishing the decades of hostility that are embedded in Palestinian identity. Their rigid reluctance to engage in negotiations with Israel long ago doomed any peace prospects.
Middle East Forum president Daniel Pipes, while long a supporter of Israel, chimed in with a New York Times op-ed (May 8) providing six reasons for “strongly” opposing Israeli annexation of any part of the West Bank. (That surely pleased editors at the Times, who have found reasons to oppose or lacerate Jewish statehood ever since Adolph Ochs purchased the newspaper in 1896.)
Annexation, Pipes wrote, “would probably damage Israel’s relations with the Trump administration, the Democrats, European and Arab leaders, as well as destabilize the region, radicalize the Israeli left, and harm the Zionist goal of a Jewish state.”
Space does not permit extended refutation of Pipes’s litany of warnings. Suffice it to say that the Trump administration, through Friedman, has already signaled its approval of the Israeli plan; Democratic Party opposition is irrelevant; the Middle East, with bigger fish to fry, is unlikely to be destabilized; the Israeli left is too marginalized for concern; the Zionist goal of Jewish statehood would be enhanced with the Israeli embrace of Jewish communities in biblical Judea and Samaria; and, Friedman acknowledged, Palestinians would finally have their own state.
Perhaps there is an even better solution. Since Jordan was part of Palestine a century ago—and nearly half the Jordanian population may be of Palestinian origin—why not confer Jordanian citizenship on West Bank Palestinians, who will not be uprooted by Israeli annexation of Jewish settlements?
Palestinians would remain at home in Palestine; and Israel would embrace Jewish settlements in its biblical homeland. Obama’s loyal followers surely would be disappointed, but their misguided vision deserves consignment to oblivion.
Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of Fit to Print: The New York Times, Zionism and Israel, 1896-2016, chosen by Ruth Wisse and Martin Kramer for Mosaic as a Best Book for 2019.
We’ve pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into the health-care system, significantly boosted unemployment insurance that directly helps those who have lost their jobs, created a loan program to help small businesses, and provided funding to reimburse states and local governments for coronavirus-related expenses.
There’s more Congress can do, but one thing we absolutely shouldn’t do is shield states from the consequences of their own bad budgetary decisions over the past few decades.
The debate began last week when Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made the point plainly. “There’s not going to be any desire on the Republican side,” he said, “to bail out state pensions by borrowing money from future generations.”
Democrats predictably expressed outrage. They claim that refusing to support hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts for state and local governments amounts to telling police officers, firefighters and schoolteachers to “drop dead,” as New York’s Rep. Max Rose put it on the House floor. That kind of rhetoric only distracts from Democrats’ true aim: using federal taxpayer dollars to bail out poorly run states—typically, states controlled by Democrats.
When I became Florida’s governor in 2011, we had a huge budget shortfall and had lost 832,000 jobs in four years. I had to make tough choices. We cut taxes every year—more than $10 billion over my eight years in office—and saw revenues increase every year. The state went from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs over four years to adding almost 1.7 million in eight. We turned a $2.5 billion budget shortfall into a $4 billion surplus, with $3 billion a year in the rainy-day fund.
Florida’s pension system was funded at 83.9% when I left office, and for the first time in state history all three credit-rating agencies rated the state’s general-obligation bond at AAA. Compare that to states like Illinois, California and New Jersey, whose pension systems are funded at 38.4%, 68.9% and 35.8%, respectively, despite significantly higher taxes.
Florida is well-positioned to address the coming shortfall in revenue without a bailout. The state may need to make some choices, which is what grown-ups do in tough economic times. And if we need to borrow a small amount in the short term to get us through this economic crisis, that borrowing will be cheaper thanks to our AAA bond rating and the reduction in state debt.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said it was “irresponsible” and “reckless” not to bail out states like his, a state with two million fewer people than Florida and a budget almost double the size of ours. The opposite is true. It’s irresponsible and reckless to take money from America’s taxpayers and use it to save liberal politicians from the consequences of their poor choices.
American families make responsible budgetary decisions every day. Well-managed states like Florida have done it for years. It’s time for New York, Illinois and California to do the same.
Mr. Scott, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida.
The Court majority cowers to Senate Democratic threats.
By Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, April 27, 2020
Richmond, Virginia USA / January, 20, 2020 : Pro Second Amendment Gun Rights Rally on the grounds of the Virginia State Capitol
Plus: Politically incorrect comment by Jerome S. Kaufman see below
What an enormous abdication! The Supreme Court ducked its first Second Amendment case in a decade on Monday, and the only plausible explanation is that Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to avoid becoming a target of vengeful Senate Democrats.
In an unsigned per curiam opinion,(In law, a per curiam decision is an opinion is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges),
The Chief joined the four liberals and a (conflicted) Justice Brett Kavanaugh (following in Roberts frightened footsteps) in declaring moot a challenge to New York City’s onerous gun regulation (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York).
At issue is a New York City rule that prevents residents with gun licenses from transporting their guns from their city homes to shooting ranges and homes outside the city. Obtaining even a “premises” license requires a $431 fee and police investigation into an applicant’s mental health, criminal history and moral character. It can take six months. (More DiBlasio Left Wing un-American, self-destructive behavior)
After the High Court accepted the case, the city revised its ban to let the plaintiffs tote their guns (locked and unloaded) “directly” between residences and other permitted destinations. The state Legislature passed a similar law. Case moot, New York politicians declared.
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and four other Democrats also weighed in with an amicus brief threatening the Justices if they didn’t follow their orders to drop the case. “The Supreme Court is not well,” they wrote. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’”
The majority buckled and ignored previous rulings to do it. As Justice Alito writes, the Court’s precedents hold that “a case ‘becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’”
Plaintiffs want to transport their firearms without worrying about getting arrested if they stop somewhere along the way. The city even admitted in oral arguments that it’s unclear whether this is allowed. Justice Alito says this and more make the rule’s violation of the Second Amendment “not a close call.”
On the mootness point, Justice Alito also pokes his colleagues with this hypothetical: “A State enacts a law providing that any woman wishing to obtain an abortion must submit certification from five doctors that the procedure is medically necessary.
After a woman sues, claiming that any requirement of physician certification is unconstitutional, the State replaces its old law with a new one requiring certification by three physicians. Would the court be required to dismiss the woman’s suit?” You know the answer.
Justice Kavanaugh’s role here is curious because, while he joined the majority on mootness, he wrote a concurrence agreeing with the dissent on the Second Amendment merits. This looks to us as if he is trying to protect the Chief Justice from being the fifth vote, and the sole “conservative,” providing a liberal victory while making clear he’s still a solid vote himself for gun rights. The phrase for this is too clever by half.
Justice Kavanaugh may agree with the Chief that the Court needs to avoid political controversies, especially with Democrats threatening to pack the Court if they win the White House and Senate in November. But the Court’s timidity on gun rights amid Senate threats means that liberal and media intimidation will escalate.
The Court hasn’t taken a Second Amendment case in a decade, even as cities and states erode its landmark Heller decision bit by bit. The Court is sending a signal that the Second Amendment is the exception in the Bill of Rights, a second-class freedom.
“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced,” Justice Alito warns. He’s right but too polite.
The Chief Justice is carving out a reputation as a highly political Justice whose views on the law can be coerced with threats to the Court’s “independence.” The danger for the Court is that, in bending to these threats, the Chief is compromising the very independence he claims to want to protect.
(The mystery is of what exactly is Justice John Roberts afraid? Are the Democrats going to take away his license, are they going to disbar him, are they going to throw him off the Supreme Court whose justices were, with brilliant prescience, given lifetime appointments by the founding fathers or is the Left, G-d forbid, going to assassinate him?
And, by the way, I have, from the bottom of my heart, believed they did exactly that to the great Justice Antonin Scalia. He was a huge thorn in the side of the power hungry Left and they shamelessly performed a masterful stroke by assassinating him.
Unfortunately there is a long history of unexplained deaths in the political advancement of some unduly elected prominent Democrats. And … that Scalia death occurring while he was virtually all alone and unprotected on a ranch in the wilderness of Texas. For some reason, other than supposed family objections that cannot apply in cases of this sort, it was never investigated — no autopsy, no second medical or legal opinions, no nothing — All magically swept under the rug)
Maybe we can get Attorney General Wm. Barr to re-open that mysterious case, too? It could be another badly needed epiphany as to real political life in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher Israel Commentary
I am American born, grew up in safe, secure neighborhoods of Brooklyn, NY, went to public schools, college, graduate schools.
I have worked as an attorney and journalist, fully participating in the American dialogue.
And, now, because of my political opinions (Republican, pro-Trump) I have been marginalized and demonized.
I was recently accused of having views “colored by the Holocaust”.
I was told that because I am a descendant of Jewish Holocaust survivors, I had biases and those biases prevented me from accepting my accuser’s point of view, i.e., that Trump was a racist Nazi. (I am still trying to figure out what he meant.)
The truth is, it’s not the logic or the words that are at issue (either his or mine). It’s the fact that I support President Trump. In his mind, that entitles him to insult, demean and degrade me. He seems to believe that he can achieve his goal of changing my mind “by any means necessary” and, if his criticism chills my freedom of expression, so be it. (It won’t.)
Who’s your fascist now? It’s almost mid-2020.
Nearly four years of efforts by his political opponents (Kavanaugh, Russia, Ukraine, impeachment) have failed to oust Trump. As a result, they have ramped up their efforts and expanded their scope.
When an Oscar winning actor delivered an obscenity-laden anti-Trump rant at the Tony awards, it was seen as an oddity.
It is no longer uncommon.
Broadcasters attend Trump’s new conferences and insult and mock him to his face.
The Speaker of the House rips up his State of the Union speech as the cameras record her gesture.
Journalists and celebrities have now added personal threats against Trump supporters.
If you are pro-Trump, according to them, you are deserving of the worst invectives. and if you are a Jew, a member of one of the nation’s smallest minorities why then, there are additional grounds for attack.
Ever since Trump’s election, Jews have been the object of his opponents’ particular wrath. Representative Illan Omar’s (D-Minn) “dual loyalty” calumny went unsanctioned by House Speaker Pelosi. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), presidential candidate embraced BDS promotor, Linda Sansour. Representative. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) wrapped herself in the Palestinian flag.
The “trickle down” tactic of attacking individuals who support Trump in writings, social media and public settings must be opposed.
Somnambulant, peaceful, Trump supporters must wake up and realize that they are the focus of an incessant efforts to dismantle our civil liberties, (“Snitches get rewards,” Eric Garcetti, Mayor of Los Angeles), destabilize our economy and allow totalitarian takeover.
How do I know this?
Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day.
And yes, my views are colored by the Holocaust.
I value human life and protection of minority rights.
There is no negotiating with tyrants.
That is my parents’ legacy.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Elaine Rosenberg Miller writes fiction and non-fiction. Her work has appeared in numerous print publications and online sites, domestically and abroad, including JUDISCHE RUNDSCHAU, THE BANGALORE REVIEW, THE FORWARD, THE HUFFINGTON POST and THE JEWISH PRESS.
White House Outlines Three Phases to Restart Economy
Redacted from article by Andrew Restuccia and Catherine Lucey
Wall Street Journal April 16, 2020
WASHINGTON—President Trump outlined broad new federal guidelines for opening up the country that will put the onus on governors to decide how to restart the economies in their states amid mounting fallout from the coronavirus outbreak.
The new guidelines come as lawmakers and business leaders press the administration to expand virus testing, and days after Mr. Trump said that he—not governors—was the final arbiter on when to reopen the country.
“America wants to be open, and Americans want to be open,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House on Thursday, adding later, “We must have a working economy, and we want to get it back very, very quickly.”
“We are not opening all at once, but one careful step at a time,” Mr. Trump said.
The guidelines don’t suggest specific reopening dates. Instead, they encourage states to base their decisions on data. The White House’s plan says states should move to the first phase of reopening after exhibiting a downward trend of documented cases or positive tests over a two-week period. States could move onto the other stages after showing that cases aren’t surging.
Under the first phase, movie theaters, restaurants, sports venues, places of worship, gyms and other venues could open with strict social-distancing guidelines in place, though bars would stay closed. Schools and day-care centers that are closed would remain shuttered. The plan recommends that vulnerable individuals remain at home during the first phase, and prohibits visits to nursing homes and hospitals. Some people could return to work in phases, though telework is still encouraged under the plan.
In the second phase, nonessential travel could resume and bars could open with some restrictions. Schools and youth activities could reopen. Vulnerable individuals would still be told to stay home and visits to nursing homes and hospitals would still be barred. Telework would continue to be encouraged.
For phase three, there would be no restrictions on workplaces and vulnerable people could resume social interactions, but should seek to follow social distancing. Visits to hospitals and nursing homes could resume, and bars could increase their standing-room capacity.
The president said some states with few cases could proceed to the first phase as early as Friday if they meet the criteria. He declined to name any specific states, deferring to governors, but said there are as many as 29 states that could soon begin the process of opening.
But officials stressed that the virus could make a comeback in some states. “There may be some setbacks. Let’s face it,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the administration’s top infectious-disease expert, cautioned. “We may have to pull back a little, and then go forward.”
The president told governors during a videoconference earlier Thursday that they will make the final decision on opening their states.“You’re going to call your own shots,”
Mr. Trump praised the guidelines and said he wanted to get the country running again. He told the governors that some states were in “good shape” to open quickly, even before May 1 if they want, though other states may need to take longer.
He also said the country’s testing capabilities are excellent, adding that the testing process has improved from early versions that involved sticking a swab into the nasal cavity.
Mr. Trump said the new guidelines have been approved by the administration’s public-health advisers, including Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus coordinator, and Dr. Fauci.
Some states have already extended restrictions past April 30. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, said Thursday that nonessential businesses in his state would remain closed at least through May 15.
Mr. Cuomo is part of a coalition of East Coast governors consulting each other on coronavirus guidelines. A similar group exists on the West Coast, and a bipartisan group of seven Midwestern governors said Thursday it would do the same.
In a news briefing after the call with Mr. Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said a task force he created to plan for a reopening would meet for the first time on Friday, and he hopes to announce a plan within a week.
Public-health experts, including some in the Trump administration, have warned that reopening the country too soon could prompt a second wave of coronavirus cases, undercut ongoing mitigation efforts and overwhelm the health-care system. Dr. Fauci said this week that the country lacked the testing and virus-tracing capabilities needed to reopen. Some business executives raised similar concerns during a teleconference with Mr. Trump on Wednesday.
Mr. Trump held phone briefings on Thursday with House and Senate lawmakers. The White House announced a coronavirus advisory group made up of elected officials, part of a broader task force of more than 200 business executives that Mr. Trump established this week.
The bipartisan group includes all Republican members of the Senate, except Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, who voted to convict Mr. Trump in the impeachment trial in February. Twelve Senate Democrats will serve on the committee, alongside 32 House members—22 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
Mr. Trump is eager to reopen the country as soon as possible, according to White House officials, who are closely tracking the ailing economy. Another 5.2 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits last week, bringing the total seeking aid in a month of coronavirus-related shutdowns to 22 million.
—Michael C. Bender, Natalie Andrews and Sabrina Siddiqui contributed to this article.
Here we are 300 years later fighting the same Muslim Invasion!
Only this time, much more perilous with the invasion also coming from within the USA as naive Americans wallow in denial)
A portrait of Joseph I (1678-1711), Holy Roman Emperor.
Before modern medicine, the Habsburg monarchy kept epidemics at bay for more than a century and a half.
As countries around the world frantically erect barriers against the spread of the novel coronavirus, it might be helpful to look at one of the most successful quarantine systems ever created.
Redacted from an article by A. Wess Mitchell and Charles Ingrao
Wall Street Journal April 7, 2020
In 1710 Emperor Joseph I decided to block the chronic spread of diseases from the Balkans by creating a continuous “sanitary cordon” along the Habsburg monarchy’s southern frontier with the Ottoman Empire.
His action failed to save him; he died of smallpox in April 1711 after he huddled with his prime minister, who was unaware that his daughter had just contracted the disease. No one then knew much about “social distancing.” Nonetheless, the empire’s sanitary cordon outlived him by a century and a half.
The system Joseph created had several strengths. In an age when most international borders were defined only by overlapping feudal jurisdictions, the Habsburg-Ottoman frontier was a visibly delineated thousand-mile line of rivers, mountain peaks and border markers posted by a bilateral peace commission.
It was already a military zone with extensive fortresses and army garrisons, which not only defended against Turkish raids but enforced customs and the processing of Christian refugees fleeing Ottoman rule.
A sense of the scale of this operation can be seen by comparing it with the American border today.Whereas we rely on 21,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents stretched tenuously across the long Mexican and Canadian frontiers, as many as 100,000 fierce, colorfully clad Serb and Croat infantrymen were available to guard a southern Habsburg border zone that was typically dozens of miles deep.
By the middle of the 18th century, 2,000 fortified watchtowers stood every half mile, punctuated by 19 border crossings with facilities that registered, housed and isolated everyone entering for at least 21 days before granting them passports to enter the empire’s territory.
Until 1881 the Habsburg Military Frontier played many roles, acting as a barrier to illegal immigration, an early warning system against Ottoman raids, and a source of superb irregulars to fight Austria’s wars.
The reasons for the cordon’s demise would be recognizable in our own time. It was assaulted by both liberals (because it impeded trade) and nationalists in Hungary and Croatia (because it gave control of the border to the government in Vienna). After the empire split into Austrian and Hungarian halves, Hungary abolished the institution.
The Habsburg experience holds insights for our time. One is the need to foresee rather than react to threats. Another is that physical space matters in fighting epidemics. Hard as it is to swallow for Western publics habituated to globalization, well-regulated, rational borders contribute substantially to the public good.
Early critics of the Trump administration’s travel restrictions failed to appreciate the urgent medical rationale. As Anthony Fauci testified to Congress, no public-health strategy can contain a contagion already inside the country without stopping the influx of new carriers.
Another is that epidemics are not only about public health; they are also about geopolitics. For the Habsburg authorities, their management was also a security issue.. In the aftermath of this crisis, the West must strike the right balance in a trade relationship that involves less reliance on Chinese supply chains.
Mr. Mitchell served as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, 2017-19, and is author of “The Grand Strategy of the Habsburg Empire.” Mr. Ingrao is a professor emeritus of history at Purdue University and author of “The Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815.”
During a speech at the 2020 National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, Attorney General William Barr took on one of the drivers for Christian persecution in America – the fake news media.
In previous speeches Attorney General Barr took on secular liberals that threatened to stamp out the values that made America great.
During Barr’s remarks before the Religious Broadcasters, Barr ripped the fake news for their single-minded bias against Christians in America.
“Today in the United States, the corporate – or ‘mainstream’ – press is massively consolidated,” Barr told the crowd. “And it has become remarkably monolithic in viewpoint, at the same time that an increasing number of journalists see themselves less as objective reporters of the facts, and more as agents of change.
These developments have given the press an unprecedented ability to mobilize a broad segment of the public on a national scale and direct that opinion in a particular direction.”
Barr warned that one of the biggest dangers to democracy is a biased press whipping up a vengeful majority that threatened to run roughshod over their opponents.
“When the entire press ‘advances along the same track,’ as Tocqueville put it, the relationship between the press and the energized majority becomes mutually reinforcing,” the Attorney General added. “Not only does it become easier for the press to mobilize a majority, but the mobilized majority becomes more powerful and overweening with the press as its ally.
This is not a positive cycle, and I think it is fair to say that it puts the press’ role as a breakwater for the tyranny of the majority in jeopardy. The key to restoring the press in that vital role is to cultivate a greater diversity of voices in the media.”
No group of Americans has been under greater attack in recent years than Christian believers. In 2007, Pew Research found that just eight percent of so-called “journalists” attended a religious service weekly.
This disparity explains why on major issues facing Christian Americans, the fake news media cheerleads for causes such as the homosexual agenda that come into direct conflict with religious liberty.
Liberal bureaucrats and judges in blue states that punish Christian florists, bakers, and photographers that decline to participate in homosexual marriages because of their deeply held and sincere religious beliefs were only made possible because the media designated these Christians as bigots whose beliefs did not represent a legitimate interest worthy of respect.
Evangelical Christians continually stand by Donald Trump despite whatever personal issues he may have because they know that Donald Trump and his administration are the only thing standing between them and the secular left looking to flex all of their political, cultural, legal, and financial muscles to banish Christians from exercising their religious beliefs from all aspects of American life save for one hour on Sunday.
American Patriot Daily will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story
Zionist Org. of America opposes Waiving or Easing Nuclear and Financial Sanctions on Iran
On ZOA web page – Jan. 13, 2015, file photo released by the Iranian President’s Office, President Hassan Rouhani visits the Bushehr nuclear power plant just outside of Bushehr, Iran. Iran announced Tuesday it would inject uranium gas into 1,044 centrifuges it previously kept empty under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. (AP Photo/Iranian Presidency Office, Mohammad Berno, File)
Redacted article from ZOA:
Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein and ZOA Chairman Mark Levenson, Esq. released the following statement:
The ZOA strongly opposes the administration’s renewal on Monday, of waivers of certain nuclear sanctions on Iran. The renewal allows Russian, European and Chinese companies to continue to work on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power station, Arak heavy water plant and Tehran Nuclear Research Reactor, for another 60 days – at a time when Iran has dramatically and perilously ramped up its nuclear activities.
Iranian leaders’ actions demonstrate that their real goal is to obtain more funds for its nuclear program and terror activities, instead of to help ill Iranians. Iran continues to reject U.S. and other real offers of humanitarian assistance.
The Trump administration has repeatedly stated that its humanitarian assistance offers to the Iranian people still stand, and confirmed that sanctions do not impede such assistance. See, e.g., Sec’y Pompeo’s Nowruz message: “our offer still stands to send humanitarian and medical assistance to the people of Iran.”
Secretary Pompeo also pointed out on Tuesday that the U.S. is providing humanitarian assistance to Iran indirectly through American taxpayers’ enormous contributions to NGOs, including over $400 million last year to the World Health Organization, and over $700 million last year to UNICEF, which is engaged in emergency actions in China and Iran and dozens of other countries.
Iranian leaders’ actions demonstrate that their real goal is to obtain more funds for its nuclear program and terror activities, instead of to help ill Iranians. Iran continues to reject U.S. and other real offers of humanitarian assistance.
Iran even revoked permission for Médecins Sans Frontieres (MSF or Doctors Without Borders) to send a 50-bed treatment hospital and medical team to Iran’s hardest-hit area. Iran absurdly claimed that MSF doctors were American and Israeli spies, and that MSF planned to examine Iranian patients to design another virus or drug targeted to only harm Iranians.
While Iranians are falling ill, the Iranian regime continues to direct substantial resources towards escalating its perilous nuclear activities.
Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium already exceeded the allowable 202.8 kg (300 kg of UF6 – uranium hexoflouride) in July 2019. The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) March 3, 2020 quarterly report concluded that Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile skyrocketed during the past 3 months, to 1020.9 kg (1510 kg of UF6) on February 19, 2020. That’s five times the allowable stockpile.
The IAEA report also concluded that Iran has “manufacture[d] centrifuges . . . for activities beyond those specified in the JCPOA [Iran deal]” (¶C.3.24); that Iran’s stock of heavy water exceeds the allowable cap (¶C.1.10); and that the IAEA “has detected natural uranium particles of anthropogenic origin [man-made activity, such as enrichment or weapons activity] in Iran not declared to the Agency” (¶E.32).
An FDD analysis indicates that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei controls businesses and assets confiscated in 1979 worth $300 billion. These funds should be used for the Iranian people’s benefit.
ZOA thus urges the Trump administration to ignore media outlets who have joined the Iranian regime’s ploy of using the coronavirus as a pretext for demanding funding for Iran’s terror and nuclear activities. The New York Times editorial last week entitled “This Coronavirus Crisis Is the Time to Ease Sanctions on Iran,” which demanded immediately providing Iran with $5 billion of (fungible) IMF funding, would increase funding for Iran’s terror and nuclear operations.
The New York Times further demanded that all assistance to Iran must be “no strings attached” – thus enabling the Iranian regime to continue to mercilessly hold innocent Americans in its prisons, attack our troops in Iraq, expand its illicit nuclear activities, and foment terror throughout the region, all with impunity. Let’s not fall for this.
As usual, Kimberley A. Strassel calls the supposed Coronavirus appropriation for what it is – a giant pork spending bill having little to do with the virus but guaranteed to put the whole nation into the outhouse with impossible debt — just as Bernie Sanders and the DEMOCRAT/Socialist party have wanted all along.jsk
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Wall Street Journal March 26, 2020
Potomac Watch: Appropriators throw hundreds of billions of dollars at the virus—and at everything else.
The Senate did something good passing a bill to inject liquidity into a virus-ravaged economy. It also did something dangerous, requiring the public to be on guard.
Members of Congress are pointing out the many parts of society aided by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, styled the Cares Act. Checks for American families. Some $377 billion for small business. Help for air carriers and other industries. Money for hospitals.
Missing from their list is an important category, which underlines an inescapable fact: Government mostly “Cares” for government. Bills that hand out money are written by appropriators. And appropriators never miss an opportunity to expand departments, agencies, bureaus and commissions. A rough calculation suggests the single biggest recipient of taxpayer dollars in this legislation—far in excess of $600 billion—is government itself. This legislation may prove the biggest one-day expansion of government power ever.
Some of this money is required. Washington and the states are devoting significant resources to the virus response, and the bill earmarks funds for many specific and warranted purposes. A great deal of cash is going to frontline agencies—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill sends money to the Bureau of Prisons, to help control the virus’s spread among inmates; to the IRS for an extended tax-filing season; to the Transportation Security Administration “for cleaning and sanitization at checkpoints.” Are the amounts a bit excessive? No doubt. But let’s not quibble.
More concerning is the extent to which Democrats used the bill to tighten every fiber of the social safety net. Put aside the $260 billion for unemployment benefits, potentially necessary in light of record jobless claims. The bill throws $25 billion more at food stamps and child nutrition; $12 billion at housing; $3.5 billion to states for child care; $32 billion at education; $900 million at low-income heating assistance; $50 million at legal services for the poor and so on. This is a massive expansion of the welfare state, seemingly with no regard to the actual length of this crisis.
There’s also the money appropriators threw at government for no purpose other than the throwing. Every outpost gets dollars, most for nothing more than the general command “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.” NASA gets $60 million. Has the virus infected the sun’s corona? The National Archives gets $8 million. Will it put the virus on display? Many departments get cash for research, regardless of their relevance to today’s medical crisis. Perhaps the Energy Department will use its additional $99 million in “science” to gauge how the virus responds in a nuclear reactor.
Then there’s the outright pork. The Forest Service gets $3 million for “forest and rangeland research,” $27 million for “capital improvement and maintenance,” and $7 million for wildfire management. The bill shovels $75 million to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, $25 million to the Kennedy Center, an odd $78,000 “payment” to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development. A water project in central Utah gets $500,000. Appropriators can sneak a lot into 880 pages.
The bill sends $150 billion to state governments, on top of the dollars for unemployment, health care and education. Some of this money will be used to backstop local governments struggling with virus response, or with the economic consequences of the shutdown. But for all the Democratic demands of oversight on the bill’s business loans, the state dollars have no real strings attached. Should a locality choose to use its dollars to create new nonsensical business regulations, so be it.
Republicans waved much of this through, viewing it as the Democratic price for urgently needed business liquidity. But they should understand the left has every intention of making these spending levels the new normal, long after this virus has passed and long after the economy is recovering, Democrats will cry foul at any cut. Should they win the presidency or the Senate this fall, the chances of rolling any of this back fall even further.
The bill’s real failure is that it makes no distinctions between temporary and permanent expansion of government. The state has a role in short-term crises, and lawmakers have an obligation to allocate the resources to respond. But Democrats successfully exploited the crisis to expand the power of government overall—perhaps for the long term. That’s especially perverse, given it was government that imposed the restrictions that shut down the economy, necessitating this rescue bill in the first place.
The Trump administration and GOP lawmakers should have been making this distinction all along, and they’d be wise to start reassuring voters immediately of their intent to rationalize the system once the urgent moment passes. Coronavirus has done enough damage. We don’t need it to also become the excuse for a permanent government power grab.
The 12 Tribes of Israel over 3000 years before Muhammed even born!.
The logic of the Trump-administration plan for Israel and the Palestinians and its designers is to slice through two decades of stasis by means of a radical alteration in the role of the United States as one of the players in the so-called peace process.
Since the Oslo accords in 1993 effectively created a negotiating partner for Israel by incepting a “Palestinian Authority” led by Yasser Arafat, the American approach was to propose various trust-building and confidence-building measures. They were explicitly designed as precursors, as ways of smoothing the rocky road to a final deal that would be negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
That strategy was wish-based, not fact-based. It assumed that the difficulty in settling the existential row between the two parties was based in misunderstandings and suspicions that could be calmed by mediated behavior.
That can work when the ultimate aim of both sides is a deal. But even then, such measures are not really necessary since the two sides basically have the same goal. They didn’t. Israel demonstrated its willingness to fulfill the 1947 notion of two states living side by side—not so their interlocutors.
The Palestinians didn’t need confidence-building. What they seemed to have confidence in was the idea that Israel’s acquiescence to international demands marked it as a paper tiger. Their long-expressed hope of pushing the Jews into the sea was within reach.
Over the decades, the Palestinians have never come to the table with a plan of their own, or any plan, only lists of grievances, jaw-dropping claims that Jews have no ancestral history in Jerusalem, and finger-wagging demands that their beloved terrorist Jew-killers be released from Israeli jails.
The Israelis offered Palestinians a state twice in 2000. The Palestinians answered those offers with terrorism, hate-filled propaganda, and war. The hope of optimistic Israelis that there could be a favorable resolution of this intractable problem exploded like a suicide vest.
In the two decades since the second intifada began, there has been only one half-serious, half-ludicrous proposal—made in 2008 in secret by the unpopular, unelected, and bribery-tarnished accidental prime minister, Ehud Olmert. The Olmert plan was rejected on spurious grounds by the Palestinian Authority’s leader, Mahmoud Abbas. When he came into office in 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu immediately offered to move to final-status negotiations with the Palestinians, only to be rebuffed—and there matters have lain dormant.
Donald Trump came into office promising the “deal of the century,” and his administration’s approach is inventive. No confidence-building. No “it’s not up to us to shape the ultimate arrangement.” It’s a full-blown plan that lays out the geography of the two states, including a mammoth tunnel connecting Gaza and the West Bank.
It ends the weird fiction that Israel could ever surrender neighborhoods, some half a century old, because they sit on supposedly “occupied” land—land that was never under any nation’s modern sovereignty.
And, most dramatically, it basically challenges the Palestinians to take it or leave it. They have four years to come to the table, at which point the deal is dead and the Israelis are (in American eyes) free to do what they want.
The outrage with which the plan has been received in certain quarters ignores the central question: Why not try this? Nothing else has worked. Cut the Gordian knot. Bite the bond that won’t burst. See what happens.
If Blue and White Party leader Benny Gantz forms a minority government with Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu Party and the Labor-Meretz Party, based on the outside support of the Joint Arab List, Gantz’s success will torpedo Israel’s relations with the United States.
This week, a senior official who was present during Gantz’s meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in late January revealed: “Gantz committed in the Oval Office that, if he became prime minister, he would form a government of people that would support the president’s peace deal.”
The Trump peace plan includes applying Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. Labor-Meretz and the Joint Arab List are both violently opposed to the Trump plan. A Gantz government that includes them will be a government that is hostile to the Trump plan.
The only way for Gantz to keep the promise he made to Trump is to join a coalition government led by Netanyahu with Likud and its right-religious coalition partners. And that is an option that Gantz and his partners in the Blue and White “cockpit”—fellow former Israel Defense Forces chiefs of staff Moshe Ya’alon and Gabi Ashkenazi and former media star Yair Lapid—will not support.
They are working feverishly to cobble together a radical government with the post-Zionists in Labor-Meretz and the anti-Zionists in the Joint List. All of which will be hard-pressed to work with the Trump administration.
What can explain Gantz’s irresponsible behavior?
Did he lie to Trump—and the Israeli public—because he and his colleagues are secretly radical leftists who seek power to undermine everything Israel stands for? They wouldn’t be the first leftist politicians to do so
Gantz’s willingness to effectively surrender Israel’s rights in Judea and Samaria to win the parliamentary support of politicians that seek Israel’s destruction as a Jewish state—shared by his partners in the Blue and White leadership—seems to indicate that they are rabid post-Zionists.
Gantz and his colleagues present themselves as champions of the rule of law and democracy, which, they insist, Netanyahu is destroying.
But consider their actions: Presently, Blue and White is viciously attacking Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein for refusing to convene the Knesset’s Arrangements Committee, which is responsible for convening the rest of the Knesset committees. They insist that in doing so, Edelstein is colluding with Netanyahu to destroy Israeli democracy.
But as Simcha Rothman from the Movement for Governability and Democracy explained in Israel Hayom on Thursday, it is Blue and White that is blocking the Arrangements Committee from convening.
Breaking the rules to achieve one goal
The Knesset rules provide that membership in the committee is determined by the size of each party. The parties in the Knesset receive one member in the committee for every four members in their Knesset faction. Under the prevailing rules, the blocs working with Netanyahu and Gantz would have equal representation in the committee.
Blue and White and Yisrael Beitienu have submitted bills explicitly directed towards achieving one goal: Preventing Netanyahu—and only Netanyahu—from forming a government. These bills, if passed, would overturn Israel’s rule of law twice.
Then there is Iran. As the coronavirus rages through Iran, experts warn that the risk of an Iranian strike against Israel rises with the death toll. The theology of Iran’s ruling clerics holds that the Shi’ite messiah, the Mahdi, is supposed to return at the end of days. To hasten his arrival, Iran’s ayatollahs believe that they need to start Armageddon.
Which brings us back to Washington: Three weeks ago, I traveled to Washington to speak on a panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)—the largest conservative gathering in America. Most of the discussions were related to U.S. domestic issues, but Israel is so important to U.S. conservatives that organizers chose to hold a panel devoted to Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.
There were no calls for the partition of Jerusalem and the expulsion of Jews from Judea and Samaria either on the panel or from the audience. On the contrary, the sentiment shared by the audience and the panelists alike was that Israel should assert its sovereign rights in Judea and Samaria wherever it deems necessary.
This salutary state of affairs will be turned on its head if the Democrats win the presidency in November. In that event, Israel will find itself under assault from a hostile president who heads a party hostile to Israel.
Congress is looking to pass a broad economic rescue package that the Trump administration estimates will be around $1.3 trillion. We need your help to ensure restaurant relief is properly addressed in this package.
Economic forecasts indicate restaurants and the foodservice industry could sustain $225 billion in losses and eliminate 5-7 million jobs over the next three months. By taking action, you will tell your personalized story about how this has negatively impacted you, your employees, and your industry and call on President Trump and Congress for their support of the National Restaurant Association restaurant recovery plan. This plan provides direct and targeted relief designed to benefit restaurant and foodservice businesses of every size in every corner of the country.
It will provide:
direct relief from a new restaurant recovery fund
community grants for disaster relief assistance
guaranteed loans and business interruption insurance
lost revenue coverage from the government
expand access to efficient and affordable loans
special disaster unemployment assistance for workers