Month: May 2021

Authored by Jack Posobiec via HumanEvents.com,

A source within the Biden State Department wishing to remain anonymous has shared with Human Events News a document that indicates that all U.S. “Diplomatic and Consular posts” are being encouraged to display shows of support for Black Lives Matter on Tuesday, May 25, the one-year anniversary of George Floyd’s death.  The memo reads in part, “The Department supports the use of the term ‘Black Lives Matter’ in messaging content, speeches, and other diplomatic engagements with foreign audiences to advance racial equity and access to justice on May 25 and beyond (italics added) We encourage posts to focus on the need to eliminate systemic racism and its continued impact.”

The memo, which is in part a woke statement on social justice, part an apology for U.S. actions, and part an endorsement of all BLM materials, expressly encourages the display of the BLM flag or banner at U.S. facilities (except on the actual flagpole that holds the American flag). It reads, in part:

This cable constitutes a blanket written authorization for calendar year 2021 from the Under Secretary for Management (M) to display the BLM flag on the external-facing flagpole to any Chiefs of Mission who determine such a display is appropriate in light of local conditions.

Despite the documented actions of BLM protestors during the riots of 2020, and despite the New York Times reporting on their organization’s declining popularity with American voters, our federal  government has nonetheless decided to endorse and promote an organization with admitted Marxist roots as one having ties to our official foreign offices.

 

The entirety of the State Department memo has been reproduced below. 

 

*  *  *

UNCLASSIFIED Action Office: ALDACS, PAS, POL, MGT, ECON_EXPANDED, HR, DAO, LEGAT MRN: 21 STATE 53304 Date/DTG: May 22, 2021 / 222307Z MAY 21 From: SECSTATE WASHDC Action: ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE E.O.: 13526 TAGS: PREL, PGOV, PHUM, PREF, SMIG, SOCI, EAID, KDNI, APER, AMGT, KPAO, KWMN, KLGBT, KJUS, KDEM Reference: A) E.O. 13985 B) 21 STATE 47544 Subject: COMMEMORATING GEORGE FLOYD: DIPLOMATIC ENGAGEMENT AND USE OF BLACK LIVES MATTER (BLM) LANGUAGE AND MATERIAL 

1.  (U) This is an action request. Please see paragraphs 13 – 15. 2. (U) 

Summary: May 25 marks one year since the brutal murder of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Last year, the horrific video of Mr. Floyd’s final 9 minutes and 29 seconds went viral and spurred Black Lives Matter protests worldwide, in response to his senseless killing and to demand an end to systemic racism and police brutality. One year later, many in the international community will honor Mr. Floyd and acknowledge the long journey nations face to advance racial justice. Leading up to May 25, the Department has issued guidance on the use of Black Lives Matter language, banners, and flags. End Summary.

 Context 

3.  (U) May 25 marks the one-year commemoration of George Floyd’s murder. For 9 minutes and 29 seconds, the world saw firsthand how police officers brutally took the life of an unarmed Black man in the United States. These viral images ignited national and global Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests and demonstrations. This tragedy joined a long line of Black men and women who have suffered at the hands of police brutality. These national and global protests sparked a movement to confront systems perpetuating deep-seated inequities rooted in colonialism and the oppression of racial, tribal, ethnic, and other minority communities. Mr. Floyd’s murder prompted an international outcry to seek racial justice and equity by dismantling systemic racism and eradicating police brutality affecting communities of color, most acutely, people of African descent. 

4.  (U) On January 20, as one of his first official actions, President Biden issued Executive Order 13985 to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities (reftel 21 STATE 47544). This effort is a top priority for the Administration’s domestic and foreign policy; the United States cannot credibly message on human rights abroad if it does not address these same issues at home. To achieve his policy objectives, President Biden issued several additional executive actions to support underserved communities and advance racial equity, which notably include: • Memorandum Condemning and Combating Racism, Xenophobia, and Intolerance Against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the United States • Executive Order #14020 on Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council, and • Presidential Memorandum on Advancing the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex (LGBTQI+) Persons Around the World. 

A National Security Priority: Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities 

5.  (U) The Department’s policy efforts with respect to advancing racial equity as part of supporting our national security interests are as follows:  • Partnering with like-minded nations and civil society stakeholders to counter disinformation, propaganda, and the concerted malign influence of state and non-state actors which sow racial discord among communities, undermining democratic norms. • Promoting democratic principles, fighting corruption, increasing access to justice through reform efforts, and raising awareness of the prevalence and effect of discrimination against members of racial, ethnic, and underserved communities. • Combating violence and discrimination against members of racial, ethnic, and other underserved communities. • Building coalitions of like-minded nations and engaging international organizations in the fight against systemic racism and discrimination, to include swift and meaningful responses to human rights abuses and violations of racial, ethnic, and other underserved and mainstream racial equity issues throughout the multilateral system. • Expanding efforts to ensure regular U.S. federal government engagement with foreign governments, citizens, civil society, and the private sector promotes respect for the human rights of members of racial, ethnic, and other underserved communities. • Empowering local movements to advance the human rights of members of racial, ethnic, and other underserved communities through efforts that strengthen the capacity of civil society. 

Press Guidance and Statements: Black Lives Matter and Commemoration of George Floyd’s Murder 

6.  (U) The documents below provide talking points and press guidance on racial inequity and discrimination: • Press Guidance: Racial Justice in Foreign Policy in Content Commons, dated 1/28/2021. • Press Guidance: Thematic Guidance – Human Rights Report and Toplines for the Human Rights Reports in Content Commons, both dated 4/2/2021. • Joint Statement on Countering Racism and Racial Discrimination, Human Rights Council 46th Session, dated 3/19/2021. • Statement During the Adoption of the Third Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the United States, as delivered by Lisa Peterson, DRL Acting Assistant Secretary, dated 3/17/2021.• Remarks by Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, dated 3/19/2021. 

Background of Black Lives Matter Movement

7.  (U) According to the Office of U.S. Special Counsel, “As a social movement, BLM gained prominence following a series of high-profile killings of Black Americans in 2013 and 2014 and, in particular, the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. The movement appears to have begun organically on social media. The phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ then became a rallying cry for protesters and organizations seeking to raise awareness of, and respond to, issues associated with racism in the United States. BLM is thus an umbrella term for a constellation of ideas, objectives, and groups. There is no ‘leader’ of the BLM movement. Rather, there are numerous organizations that use BLM terminology to varying degrees, including some whose names include the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter.’ Of these, the most prominent is the Black Lives Matter Global Network (BLMGN).” 

Use of Black Lives Matter Language in Diplomatic Engagements

8.  (U) The United States remains concerned about the racial inequities of underserved communities, both domestically and abroad. The Department supports the use of the term “Black Lives Matter” in messaging content, speeches, and other diplomatic engagements with foreign audiences to advance racial equity and access to justice on May 25 and beyond. We encourage posts to focus on the need to eliminate systemic racism and its continued impact. 

Participation in Black Lives Matter-related Activities 

9.  (U) As outlined by 2020 guidance from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the “Hatch Act generally allows employees to engage in BLM-related activity while on duty or in the workplace. But, as described below, employees are still prohibited from combining BLM-related activity with ‘political activity’ while on duty or in the workplace and from engaging in partisan political fundraising in connection with BLM-related organizations. ‘Political activity’ is an ‘activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.” 

Guidance on Black Lives Matter Banner Displays 

10.  (U) Any BLM-related displays within the interior of the mission, or exterior displays other than the display of a BLM flag on the flagpole (e.g., a banner over the door, BLM spotlights, projections, etc.) are at the Chief of Mission’s discretion. 

11.  (U) As outlined below, Chiefs of Mission may decide to hang BLM flags, as appropriate and depending on local context. This cable constitutes a blanket written authorization for calendar year 2021 from the Under Secretary for Management (M) to display the BLM flag on the external-facing flagpole to any Chiefs of Mission who determine such a display is appropriate in light of local conditions. This is an authorization, not a requirement. 

12.  (U) U.S. law at 4 U.S.C. section 7(f) provides that “[w]hen flags of States, cities, or localities, or pennants of societies are flown on the same halyard with the flag of the United States, the latter should always be at the peak. When the flags are flown from adjacent staffs, the flag of the United States should be hoisted first and lowered last. No such flag or pennant may be placed above the flag of the United States or to the right of the U.S. flag.” The Black Lives Matter flag, and/or any other types of affinity flags, should be treated as pennants of societies in accordance with this provision, and accordingly, when displayed alongside the U.S. flag either indoors or outdoors, should always be placed in a subordinate position. Regarding the external, public-facing flagpole of all U.S. missions, the written approval of the Secretary, through the Under Secretary for Management (M), is necessary to display any flag other than the U.S. flag, a Foreign Service flag, or a POW/MIA flag. As noted above, this cable constitutes blanket written authorization to display the BLM flag on the external-facing flagpole during calendar year 2021. 

Action Request 

13.  (U) Posts are strongly encouraged to make full use of Department and Interagency tools and resources to promote policy objectives to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities throughout the year, including with a particular focus on May 25 and during June to commemorate Juneteenth and lesser-known racially motivated attacks such as the Tulsa Race Massacre – the 100th anniversary of which will take place May 31 – June 1, 2021. On May 24, GPA will release a compilation video featuring messages from activists around the world on the importance of global racial justice as part of a playbook with language for the anniversary of George Floyd’s murder. This video compilation will also feature senior Department leaders to demonstrate the Administration’s commitment to racial equity and support for underserved communities. 

14.  (U) Posts may pull from DRL’s library of evergreen content, including its civil rights toolkit and its Juneteenth toolkit, the latter of which will have new material in early June. DRL is creating a mini toolkit to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre and will send that to Posts during the last week of May. Posts should also look for articles from GPA’s Share America office on both topics. Content Commons may also contain resources. Public Affairs sections should leverage ECA programs to advance this priority at post. The following are a few programming suggestions: • Use resources at American Spaces, including digital resources; • Work with Alumni Coordinators to engage networks of alumni and current U.S. and incountry exchange participants to draw on their experience and expertise; • Hold open conversations with target audiences using ECA-curated racial inclusion films; • Request an in-person or virtual expert from the ECA U.S. Speaker Program, actively recruit professionals for International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) and IVLP On-Demand Programs from underserved communities as well as those working on efforts advance racial equity incountry. It is important for us to continue planning events, activities, and messages to demonstrate the commitment of the U.S. government and efforts by American communities to overcome racism, including by acknowledging historical events and tragedies and their lasting impact today. 

15.  (U) The Department stands ready to assist Posts in their efforts to develop and implement equity-related programming, outreach, and events.  Posts are requested to use the Diversity and Inclusion (KDNI) tag when reporting these activities via front-channel as appropriate. The Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer, and regional bureaus will collect information to be included for reporting to the White House required by E.O. 13985 to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities.  Posts may contact D-MR staff with questions at equity@state.gov. 

Signature: Blinken

*  *  *

You can read the original document here.  

The Outagamie County Sheriff’s office told residents of Appleton, a city just north of Lake Winnebago, to avoid calling the police when a train of lights appears in the night sky because they’re just satellites. 

“We have seen a lot of questions about the long strings of lights appearing in the night sky lately. These lights are satellites, and are part of a new internet service called, Starlink. Starlink provides internet to rural and typically hard-to-service areas,” Outagamie County Sheriff Facebook post read. 

The post continued: “There is no concern to the publics safety and we ask that you please do not call the Outagamie County Communications Center – 911 about them.” 

The Facebook post was likely prompted by an uptick in 911 calls when a train of Starlink satellites illuminate the night sky that may frighten some people into believing an alien invasion is imminent. 

Starlink satellites are providing internet to rural America and are reportedly faster than land-based internet. But with the Starlinks so bright, it hasn’t just frightened some people but also become an optical nuisance to astronomers. 

Over the next few years, SpaceX plans to launch at least 12,000 Starlink satellites. The increase of UFO sightings could due to Starlink satellites gliding through low Earth orbit at thousands of miles per hour. 

Here’s footage of Starlink satellites over the skies of Mississauga, a city neighboring Toronto on Lake Ontario.

To the average person unfamiliar with Starlink could easily mistake the satellites for an alien invasion and warrant a 911 call. 

Authored by Frank Miele via RealClearPolitics.com,

Liz Cheney doesn’t get to decide what is true for the rest of us; neither, as hard as it is for some of them to believe, do the media pundits and philosopher-kings whom our society breeds like rats in a junkyard.

But they sure do try, and for the most part they have gotten away with it for decades.

Cheney has become the darling of the oligarchs the last several months because she first voted to impeach Donald Trump and because she then elected to condemn the Republican Party for disagreeing with her.

Cheney, the lone Wyoming representative in Congress, has deemed herself the conscience of the GOP. Of course, what is obvious is that she is the latest in a long line of self-appointed saviors of the party who believe the way to save the village is to first destroy it.

Her pretend friends in the media take offense when Cheney is described as a traitor, but anyone who still thinks the Republican Party stands for something fundamental and principled certainly is within their rights to question her loyalty, as her obsession with destroying Donald Trump and excising the 75 million Americans who voted for him has only one effect — to give aid and comfort to the Democrat Party and to its agenda of transforming America into a post-constitutional Marxist regime.

Listen to her preening speech the night before she was stripped of her title as chair of the House Republican caucus:

“We must speak the truth. Our election was not stolen. And America has not failed. Every one of us who has sworn the oath must act to prevent the unraveling of our democracy. This is not about policy. This is not about partisanship. This is about our duty as Americans. Remaining silent and ignoring the lie emboldens the liar. I will not sit back and watch in silence while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins the former president’s crusade to undermine our democracy.”

Cheney’s arrogance is only exceeded by her ignorance. The only truth is Cheney’s truth, which just so happens to coincide with the Democrats’ truth. “Our duty as Americans” is apparently to accept election results without question, and to sacrifice our rights and responsibilities on the altar of the “rule of law.” But despite her certainty that the 2020 election was not stolen, many of us remain unconvinced. According to Cheney and her media champions, we are being deceived by the former president. Apparently, it is impossible for the elitist establishmentarian to conceive of an electorate that thinks for itself.

There have always been politicians like Liz Cheney, those who see their role as protecting the people from themselves, but it is a much more recent phenomenon for the media to take the side of politicians over the people, and in particular to accept the word of politicians without testing it against the evidence. The Watergate break-in’s connection to President Nixon never would have been discovered if the media were as obeisant to authority then as they appear to be now, but there is virtually no mainstream reporter who has done a deep dive into the many anomalies that marred the last election.

What we have instead are dutiful pundits who parrot the official party line of Democrats and call it journalism. They never tire of repeating the provocation that this was the most secure election in American history. You can read their mournful condemnations of Trump and anyone who still believes in him virtually every day at RealClearPolitics and other political websites.

At the heart of every such story or column lies one fundamental fact — the authors were too lazy (or too biased) to investigate the evidence of a corrupt political process for themselves. It’s as if they had never heard of Watergate, or the alleged weapons of mass destruction that justified a deadly invasion of Iraq, or the Steele dossier. Last week, I read one such condemnation of Trump — and paean to St. Cheney — by an author who should have known better.

Elizabeth Drew covered Watergate, and hundreds of other stories of political and government malfeasance, in a long and celebrated career as someone with a reputation for objectivity and common sense. I grew up watching her on PBS and “Meet the Press” and thought I could trust her to keep her head when others were losing theirs. But it turned out that Drew was more in love with Washington than with her job. When Donald Trump came into office on a pledge to rip the guts out of the bureaucratic Deep State that was auctioning off our American heritage, she instinctively sided with the politicians over the man she called bombastic, crude, and “manifestly unprepared” to be president.

Her lengthy list of articles attacking Trump was unknown to me at the time I read her recent column, but the title of her new piece told me everything I needed to know about Drew’s politics: “The Big Lie and Its Consequences.” The teaser declared that “By questioning the very integrity of America’s electoral system, [the Republican Party] now represents an open threat to the U.S. constitutional order.”

Talk about a Catch-22! If you fear that someone is tampering with elections, you are a threat to the Constitution, but if you actually are tampering with elections, you have nothing to worry about because those who figure it out will be denounced as enemies of the Constitution. That’s a sweet deal for the bad guys.

Still I plowed on, hoping that this childhood hero of mine wasn’t completely out of touch with reality. That hope was dashed by the second paragraph when Drew informed a gullible public that “the U.S. constitution’s promise and central premise — that the people elect the president — has never been totally fulfilled.” I have two issues with that sentence. First, Drew and/or her editors lower-cased “Constitution,” which gives some suggestion of how low a view they hold of that remarkable document. Second, what bizarre theory is she advancing when she claims that popular election of the president is the “central premise” of the Constitution?

That proposition does not exist in the Constitution, not even as a “promise,” and certainly not as a “central premise.” It is well known – Drew certainly knows it — that the nation’s Founders feared the results of allowing direct election of the chief executive, and installed the Electoral College as a protective mechanism to guard against demagogues and democratic (small d) mobs.

So here we have Elizabeth Drew, who can’t even tell the truth about a basic historic fact, scolding millions of Americans for supposedly promoting a “Big Lie” because we have questions about what happened on Nov. 3, 2020. The underlying assumption of Drew’s column, like that of all the columns that paint Trump as the author of the so-called Big Lie, is that election fraud is impossible, and that therefore anyone who tries to prove it is a fraud or worse. In Drew’s case, this is not a guess. She admits it:

“To question the veracity of the official election result is to undermine the assumption of the integrity of the election system.”

To me, that sounds like top-down Soviet-style orthodoxy. But that is what the Democrats and their fawning phalanx in the media most passionately desire. In their perfect world, they talk and the rest of us just shut up and listen. Or even better, we are supposed to dutifully embrace the party line and become true believers like Liz Cheney. Free thought and free speech be damned.

Drew ends her column by invoking the “rule of law” as her presumed ally, just as Cheney did in her speech to Congress. But Drew makes it clear that for her, the rule of law is nothing but the yoke of subservience. For her, “democracy cannot succeed without voluntary cooperation, trust and restraint.” What she doesn’t grasp is that the same can be said much more accurately about dictatorship.

The real Big Lie is that America is great because Americans are obedient. In fact, America is great because Americans are independent, rebellious and rowdy — just like Donald Trump. “Voluntary cooperation” be damned. Let the evidence speak for itself, and let the people make up their own minds. We certainly don’t need Liz Cheney and Elizabeth Drew to tell us what to think.

When it comes to the forthcoming trial of disgraced Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes, her “appetite for fame and fortune” can and will be used against her as a potential motivator to commit fraud, a judge ruled late last week.

Holmes’ trial, which has already been delayed several times (due to the pandemic and to Holmes’ pregnancy), is finally set to commence in August. Prosecutors are keen to paint a picture of Holmes as someone who traveled on private jets, stayed in luxury hotels and relied on multiple personal assistants, Bloomberg Law wrote late last week.

Her association with celebrities and “other wealthy and powerful people” could be used as evidence she had incentive to commit fraud, the government wants to argue.

And that seemed OK with U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, who agreed to allow that line of prosecution, but for “some limitations”. 

The judge’s ruling, issued Saturday, said the government could compare Holmes to other tech CEOs. The judge wrote: “This includes salary, travel, celebrity, and other perks and benefits commensurate with the position. Each time Holmes made an extravagant purchase, it is reasonable to infer that she knew her fraudulent activity allowed her to pay for those items.”

The judge did, however, ask that the government refrain from getting into the weeds and “referring to specific purchases, brands of clothing, hotels and other personal items”.

Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney who teaches at the University of Michigan law, commented that the ruling was fair: ”People should not be punished merely for being wealthy, just as they should not be punished merely for being poor, but if someone profited from a crime, then the fruits of their crime is fair game to show their guilt and motive.” 

Holmes’ lawyers had argued that using her wealth against her would “inflame” the jury and that it should be off-limits: “The real value of the evidence to the government is to paint a misleading picture of Ms. Holmes as a woman who prioritized fashion, a luxurious lifestyle, and fame, and to invite a referendum on startup and corporate culture.”

The government countered: “Theranos’s stock — both literal and figurative — soared as a result of” Holmes’s fraud, prosecutors said in a court filing. “The evidence at trial will show that these benefits were meaningful to the defendant, who closely monitored daily news to cultivate her image.”

Authored by John Tamny via RealClearMarkets.com,

People didn’t need government, or entities created by government. They also didn’t require force to protect themselves. Let’s never forget this.

Better yet, let’s make this truth clear over and over again.

Ok, what truth? The truth that the American people along with people around the world adjusted to the spreading coronavirus much more quickly than did their self-appointed political minders.

As I point out in my new book When Politicians Panicked, New York City mayor de Blasio was encouraging increasingly cautious New Yorkers to go see movies at a time when more and more of them were staying home, plus he was riding the city’s subways to encourage ridership that was on decline as a consequence of fear about the virus.

In the U.S.’s allegedly science-denying red states, as in the states that locked down last, citizens had become more than cautious well before the wholly superfluous and destructive lockdowns reared their ugly heads. They were dining out less, washing their hands more, avoiding crowds more. It’s funny how fear of potential hospitalization or death focuses the mind on avoiding either outcome. 

Notable about this very human desire to cheat illness, it wasn’t just an American thing. Holman Jenkins pointed out last summer that masks and hand sanitizer were scarce in Germany at a time when Angela Merkel was still downplaying the virus.

The people are a market. Repeat this truth too, over and over again. While processing limited information, they began to take precautions. Government force in 2020 was wholly unnecessary.

XPhyto Therapeutics Corp.

This company is on its way to being a market leader in the psychedelic industry

Which raises a basic question about Anthony Fauci, Robert Redfield, USIAID and the CDC.

What if the two political bureaucrats lacked their well-funded taxpayer-funded perches? Would Americans have dropped dead in high numbers? The question itself insults the American people, along with human nature.

Up front, people respond to incentives. They respond to reality. If the virus had been an indiscriminate killer, the lengths Americans would have gone to in order to avoid infection would have well exceeded what any politician or government drone could have ever imagined. At the same time, it’s worth pointing out that if the virus had been a rabid life ender, we would have known it well in advance of it reaching the U.S. Think the internet. Think the smartphone. China is dense with them. If its people had been dying en masse, there’s no way this could have been hidden.

After which, it’s useful to point out the obvious; that Redfield and Fauci didn’t invent communications, the internet or smartphones, so without the two functionaries word about a spreading virus would have just as easily reached the American people. Some will point out how contradictory Fauci has been over the last 14 months about the virus, masks and other things related, but that’s shooting fish in a barrel.

The better answer is that Fauci, Redfield, USIAID and the CDC weren’t needed in the first place. No doubt such a statement would cause the heads of lefties like David Brooks to explode, but Brooks’s feelings don’t alter reality. In Brooks’s case, “national plans” excite him endlessly, which means national government organizations excite him, but it perhaps hasn’t occurred to Brooks to consider a world without Fauci et al. Better yet, Brooks might ask himself if dead Americans would be piled up on city streets around the country absent Fauci et al. Probably not. Actually, definitely not.

That’s the case because the same profit motive that continues to bring us closer to cancer cures (along with advances that make it possible to live with cancer) also ensures that capitalism would have produced all manner of virus-mitigating strategies. Ludwig von Mises described profits in Human Action as being a consequence of the motivated removing “unease” from our lives, so does anyone seriously think the wealth-focused would punt on creating information about and solutions for a situation like the one that was presented to us in 2020 when a globally spreading pathogen had red and blue state Americans alike on edge, along with the rest of the world? The question answers itself.

What form would a private version of the USIAID or CDC take? There’s no way of knowing, and that’s the point. Government is constrained by a static known, while the desire for profits always and everywhere results in the unexpected. All anyone really need say is that a capitalist system capable of producing Amazon, or Apple and its iPhones, could put together myriad innovative ways to deal with a virus.

Which brings us to the tragedy that was and is Fauci, Redfield, USIAID and the CDC. Not constrained by market signals, or profits, Fauci and Redfield quite simply “felt things.” Emotion guided them. So did fear. In possession of swagger that was not their own, they created fear all the while pushing the easily gulled (think politicians) toward panic. In other words, government creates the very crises it aims to avoid by trying to avoid them. Please think about this.

The virus had been in the news for months, and had been spreading for months. During this time American stock markets reached all-time highs as the virus spread. Free people don’t cause crises. Crises are born of panicky politicians “doing something” that always and everywhere involves replacing the marketplace that is the people with the narrow knowledge of the very few. It’s called central planning, and its imposition always creates a crisis.

So it did. Scared of their own shadow politicians let experts like Fauci and Redfield terrify them into a command-and-control stance.

The rest is tragic history as jobs and businesses vanished in a climate of fear created by politicians and bureaucrats who would never miss a paycheck or a meal.

So what would the world and life have been like sans Fauci et al? Your answer can be found in February of 2020 before expert-reverent politicians panicked.  

As President Biden and Nancy Pelosi slow-roll Democrats’ plans to pack the Supreme Court (even as they insisted that they don’t have a position on the issue but agree it should be “studied further”), the Democratic grass roots is trying to ensure that Democrats don’t make the same mistake twice.

The mistake we’re referring to here is, of course, the decision by former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to stay on after President Obama left office (though, to be fair, the fact that Obama couldn’t get a vote on Merrick Garland, it’s unclear whether her retirement would have ultimately stopped the seat from being filled by a Republican).

Still, a growing number on the left see RBG’s decision as a critical error and a strike against her legacy. While few Democratic lawmakers have spoken out directly in support of Breyer retiring now, progressive groups are growing increasingly vocal about suggesting him to “consider” stepping down before the next election, to ensure that President Biden and the Democrat-controlled Senate have a chance to confirm his replacement before the start of campaign season.

At 82, Breyer is the eldest justice on the court.

Source: Bloomberg

The campaign to oust Breyer is being led by a group called “Demand Justice”. According to Bloomberg, DJ is “using social-media hashtags to get its point across, and also drove a truck-mounted electronic billboard around Capitol Hill last month, urging Breyer to retire.”

In an interview with Bloomberg, “Demand Justice’s” founder Christopher Kang, a veteran of the Obama White House, said the campaign isn’t so much about forcing Breyer out as it is about galvanizing progressive attention (and, of course, donations) for the cause of pushing the Supreme Court back toward the progressive end of the spectrum and undoing President Trump’s most enduring legacy.

“I don’t suspect that Justice Breyer is going to look out the window of the Supreme Court and see one of our trucks driving by and say, ‘They’re right! I should retire now!'”

Instead, Kang said he and co-founder Brian Fallon, press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, want the group to focus liberal voters on the “importance of every single vacancy, and the need to start building a more enduring bloc on the court.”

But we suspect he’s being facetious. In reality, Demand Justice sees itself as a kind of ersatz Federalist Society: Liberals have long envied the political machine that the GOP built up around building a conservative majority on the nation’s highest courts. This infrastructure was leveraged to great effect during Trump’s presidency, as he filled hundreds of federal court vacancies. Democratic justices, by comparison, have marched to the beat of their own drum, instead of doing the right thing for Dems’ overall political strategy.

Democrats had no such grass-roots effort with voters or with judicial-minded think tanks before 2020, except to sound the alarm when a confirmation fight was brewing, like after Ginsburg’s death in September.

“It’s about reminding people that the Supreme Court is an inherently political institution. And in this moment, when we have a 50-50 Senate, part of this is about preserving Justice Breyer’s legacy and making sure that he’s succeeded by a like-minded justice,” Kang said.

And at least as far as Democrats are concerned, the most important issue that progressive politicians deploy to scare voters to the polls is the undoing of Roe v. Wade. The court’s decision just to hear a case about a Mississippi abortion law has once again got pro-choice activists up in arms, even as the conservative Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to embrace the most restrictive path available when it comes to shifting abortion rights.

As one twitter user pointed out, Dems need to avoid “another RBG situation”.

1) Not a surprise to see Feinstein with a horrifically bad take here. Breyer needs to retire now to avoid another RBG situation under a future GOP president.
2) Not a surprise to see Feinstein, age 87, saying a really old fellow top official (Breyer, age 82) should retire early https://t.co/MUcd6LjAGx

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) May 6, 2021

Notably, the push for Breyer to consider retirement is escalating just as the Supreme Court’s term is ending (it will end late nest month). Typically, decisions about retirement have been held until after the end of session.

Should he chose to stay on, Breyer might be forced to retire mid-term, or shortly after the next term ends in the summer of 2022, right in the middle of campaign season.

Bloomberg noted that the pressure campaign “is unusually high profile for the judicial branch, an arena that has typically been seen as beyond the realm of politicking. So far, only two Congressional Dems, NY’s Mondaire Jones and California’s Jared Huffman, have suggested that Breyer should retire. Sen. Richard Blumenthal has offered a more subtle hint, saying that Breyer should consider the political reality during a recent interview with the Washington Post.

Authored by Nicole Hao via The Epoch Times,

The Chinese communist regime announced on May 23 that 21 athletes, including China’s marathon champions, died at the Gansu ultramarathon due to the extreme weather.

The death list includes Liang Jing, 31, China’s ultramarathon record holder, Huang Guanjun, 34, winner of the men’s marathon for hearing-impaired runners at China’s 2019 National Paralympic Games, and famous ultramarathon runners Huang Yinbin and Cao Pengfei.

“All elite ultramarathon runners died,” a Chinese netizen wrote on Weibo on Sunday.

From videos and photos that surviving sportsmen shot onsite and shared on social media, the athletes dressed in shorts were stuck in no man’s land and couldn’t procure clothes to stay warm or food to keep going.

“This is definitely a man-made catastrophe!” a Chinese netizen from Guangdong Province commented on a news report of the official’s statement on May 23.

“These 21 people were frozen to death!” wrote Chinese media The Economic Observer in a commentary on Sunday asking the Chinese regime to reflect on the tragedy. “If the organizer can set  up a medical tent every five kilometers, the disaster can be avoided to a large extent.”

Tragedy

The Gansu ultramarathon is held at Yellow River Stone Forest Park in Baiyin city, northwestern China’s Gansu Province by the local government, together with a five-kilometer and a 21-kilometer run.

The mountain race is 100 kilometers (62.14 miles) long, and is between 5,000 feet to 9,000 feet above sea level, according to the official announcement. The race started at 9:00 a.m. on May 22, and the organizer estimated that all athletes could finish the race on the second day.

“At around noon, the high-altitude section of the race between 20 and 31 kilometers was suddenly affected by disastrous weather,” Baiyin Mayor Zhang Xuchen said at Sunday’s press conference.

“In a short period of time, hailstones and ice rain suddenly fell in the local area, and there were strong winds. The temperature sharply dropped.”

Chinese runner Jing Liang competes during the 170 kilometres Mont Blanc Ultra Trail (UTMB) race around Mont-Blanc, crossing France, Italy and Swiss, in Chamonix, France on Aug. 30, 2019. (Jean-Pierre Clatot/AFP via Getty Images)

State-run The Time Weekly on Sunday interviewed three surviving runners who presented a more complete picture.

There were 172 athletes who participated in the ultramarathon. All of them are professional runners because “the mountain race needs to be finished within 20 hours. Non-professional ones can’t make it at all,” Gao Shuang told the outlet.

It was windy and cloudy in the early morning, but the organizer didn’t suggest the runners carry warmer clothes, such as outdoor jackets.

“The weather wasn’t good when we started. But I followed others because they kept on running,” Feifei (anonymous) told the Weekly. “At 1:00 p.m., the rain became heavier and the wind was likely to blow me away at any time.”

The best runners were at the phase between station CP2 to CP3 of the race, which “is the most difficult part. It’s about eight kilometers (4.97 miles) long, but the altitude increased 1,000 meters (3,280 feet). The road is very steep, mixed with rocks and mud. We had to use both hands and feet to climb,” Gao said.

Li Liang (anonymous) was between station CP 1 to CP2 and was among the runners who decided to leave the race as soon as the weather got bad. He ran into the CP2, where he could find hot water and food as quickly as possible.

“The rain hit my back like needles. We (runners at CP2) shared our concerns and decided to quit,” Li said.

Tourists ride the camels in the Gobi near the famed tourist attraction Jiayuguan Pass, in China’s northwestern Gansu Province on Oct. 13, 2005. (Liu Jin/AFP via Getty Images)

At that time, Gao was in the middle between CP2 and CP3 with many better runners in front of him. He didn’t give up because he didn’t receive the notice from the organizer that the race should be stopped, and he wanted to win.

However, Gao quickly changed his mind due to the cold.

“All my ten fingers lost their sensation. I put my finger into my mouth, but my tongue was cold as well,” Gao said. He decided to go back to CP2 because “even motorbikes can’t cross the road, so there’s no supplement at CP3.”

On the way back to CP2, Gao met many runners who were on the edge of death.

“I saw a large number of them lying on the ground who couldn’t stand any more. About six or seven of them had white foam in their mouths.”

Gao said he was sad that he couldn’t help others because he himself was almost frozen and had limited energy to keep going.

“The runners who were rescued were the ones who were still conscious and could walk back themselves,” said Feifei. She went back to rescue others after warming up.

The race was called off by 2 p.m. Saturday, but it was too late.

On the afternoon of May 23, local time, Baiyin city government announced 21 athletes had died, eight had been injured and hospitalized, and others were rescued.

Peng Jianhua celebrates after crossing the finish line to win first place in the men’s category during the 2021 Beijing Half Marathon at Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China on April 24, 2021. (Lintao Zhang/Getty Images)

Man-Made or Natural

On May 23, state-run media tried to explain that the disaster was caused by weather and that forecasters were wrong. However, a large number of Chinese netizens started to question the organizers’ preparation.

The Economic Observer compared the Gansu ultramarathon with other cross-country races. In the Gobi desert marathon in Mongolia, organizers prepared watermelon and other food and drinks for athletes along the way. But in Gansu, the athletes had nothing for most of the race.

The article pointed out that local weather is unstable in spring and the organizers know clearly that some parts of the race can’t be reached by any vehicles. However, they didn’t arrange standby helicopters either.

Private media Kuai Tech reported on Sunday that shepherd Zhu Keming was herding goats nearby when the catastrophe happened. He set up a fire in a cave that he owned, and rescued six runners by moving them to the warm cave and covering them with quilts.

The Economic Observer suggested the regime reflect on the tragedy and organize the competition in a professional way in future.

Just days after anointing four white men as the most likely contenders to succeed CEO James Gorman…

…Morgan Stanley has settled a lawsuit filed by the bank’s former chief diversity officer alleging that the bank discriminated against black women. The terms of the settlement (including the dollar amount) weren’t immediately disclosed.

Morgan Stanley, which was sued last year by its former head of diversity for discriminating against Black female employees, has reached a deal to end the lawsuit: BBG

$ > diversity

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 24, 2021

It wasn’t immediately clear how much Morgan paid to settle the lawsuit, which was filed against the bank and two top executives by Marilyn Booker, the former diversity chief who claimed she was fired in December of 2019 after pushing for a plan that she said would help promote career advancement for Morgan Stanley’s Black employees.

The suit, filed roughly one year ago, alleged that Booker’s firing reflects a pattern of widespread discrimination against Black and female employees at the investment bank.

“Clearly, Black lives did not matter at Morgan Stanley,” the suit stated.

The original complaint included allegations about instances where Booker was allegedly discriminated against during her 26 years at the firm, including one time when she and another black employee brought in a deal, only for white colleagues to get the credit.

The suit notes that, until recently, just three of Morgan Stanley’s operating committee are women, and none are Black. As for its board of directors, the suit says that 10 of 14 board members are men, while only one is Black.

The settlement likely won’t go unnoticed by the financial press, just as Morgan Stanley’s recent personnel shift notably bucked the trend at American megabanks to promote women to take over as the next generation of CEOs. Citi’s Jane Fraser took the reins earlier this year becoming the first female CEO of a Wall Street megabank. And JPM’s latest shakeup suggests that a woman will likely succeed CEO Jamie Dimon.

But as both Investment News and Bloomberg pointed out, Morgan “defied the diversity trend.”

In an editorial published Monday afternoon, shortly before news of the Morgan diversity settlement hit, Bloomberg excoriated Morgan for being too white and too male, asserting it was “not a good look” while declaring that improving diversity should be “an urgent task.”

But in an era in which executives are being judged not just for their ability to turn a profit but also for their firm’s role in society, a lack of diversity among senior managers in a position to lead the firm in the future is not a good look. Contrast Morgan Stanley’s top CEO candidates with JPMorgan’s, where two women are competing head to head for the No. 1 job. While the potentially combative setup isn’t ideal, at least there has been a concerted effort to groom a CEO beyond the usual suspects.

Improving diversity is an urgent task Gorman needs to tackle well before his successor takes over, if the data is anything to go by. As of 2018, the firm’s most recent numbers, of about 1,700 executives, just 23 were Black men and 14 were Black women. Women held about 18% of those jobs. And the firm’s operating committee is still dominated by White men, as is the next level of management, where 60% are White men.

To be sure, Morgan’s recent slate of promotions didn’t completely neglect women: Sharon Yeshaya, the head of investor relations, will become Morgan’s new CFO. But her photo wasn’t included with the four men who are likely to succeed Gorman, because she’s very clearly not in the running.

That doesn’t mean she won’t ever be CEO of Morgan Stanley. But definitely expect to see more of Yeshaya as the bank rolls out the next wave of its diversity PR response.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Seventeen Republican attorneys general have filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit brought by South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem against the Biden administration over its decision to deny a request to hold a fireworks display at Mount Rushmore National Memorial in July to celebrate Independence Day.

The Biden administration made the decision to cancel the fireworks display in March. Herbert Frost, a regional director for the National Park Service, cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a key factor in making his decision, stating that public health guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “currently recommends that large gatherings be avoided, particularly those in which physical social distancing cannot be maintained between people who live in different households.”

Noem is suing the administration over the decision, calling Mount Rushmore “the very best place to celebrate America’s birthday and all that makes our country special.”

In this screenshot from the RNC’s livestream of the 2020 Republican National Convention, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem addresses the virtual convention on Aug. 26, 2020. (Courtesy of the Committee on Arrangements for the 2020 Republican National Committee via Getty Images)

Now her lawsuit has the backing of 17 attorneys general, including the top legal officers from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. In a court document (pdf), filed on May 21, the attorneys general called the Biden administration’s decision to cancel the fireworks display “arbitrary and capricious.”

“Given the importance of the Fourth of July holiday and the special role of Mount Rushmore as a national monument, amici States have an interest in seeing the fireworks display take place again this year,” the attorneys general said in the document, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.

They argued that there is a strong public interest in holding a Fourth of July fireworks display at Mount Rushmore, while “the Department of Interior’s flimsy and unsupported rationale for refusing to allow a fireworks display is arbitrary and capricious.”

They argued that last year’s celebration at Mount Rushmore was held when the pandemic was worse and before vaccines were developed.

“More than seven thousand visitors attended, and contact tracing has failed to identify even one case of COVID-19 tied to the event,” they wrote.

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump pay their respects as they listen to the National Anthem during the Independence Day events at Mount Rushmore National Memorial in Keystone, S.D., on July 3, 2020. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

The National Park Service also cited opposition from local tribes as factors in rejecting South Dakota’s bid to display fireworks.

The attorneys general acknowledged tribal objections, but argued that “the mere fact that some people may oppose a fireworks display is not a sufficient justification for cancelling an important national celebration.”

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment following the filing of Noem’s lawsuit in April.

Following the announcement of the lawsuit, Ian Fury, communications director for Noem, told The Epoch Times via email that the governor “is going to do everything in her ability to ensure that we can celebrate America’s birthday with fireworks at Mount Rushmore.”

At this point the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas appears to have held firm for four days, and now US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is en route to the region in hopes of solidifying the truce. His itinerary beginning Tuesday will include Jerusalem, Ramallah, Cairo and Amman – and through Thursday he plans to hold separate meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as Jordan’s King Abdullah and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi. 

Just ahead of his embarking from the US on Monday the White House said that Blinken will stress to Israeli leaders “our ironclad commitment to Israel’s security.” President Biden said in a Monday morningn statement: “Following up on our quiet, intensive diplomacy to bring about a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas … Blinken will meet with Israeli leaders about our ironclad commitment to Israel’s security. He will continue our administration’s efforts to rebuild ties to, and support for, the Palestinian people and leaders, after years of neglect.”

However, there’s growing pressure within his Democratic administration to get “tougher” on Tel Aviv – especially given the huge civilian death toll in Gaza from the eleven days of fighting: “At least 248 Palestinians were killed by Israeli air strikes during this month’s conflict, including 66 children. Hamas rocket attacks killed 12 people in Israel, including one child; Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system blocked many salvos,” France24 tallies.

Following last week’s revelation that Biden had approved the sale of $735 million in precision-guided weapons to Israel just ahead of this month’s outbreak of hostilities, there’s been anger and disunity within Democrat Congressional ranks, particularly by progressives including ‘the Squad’.

But it should have come with little surprise given official US policy and actions have long appeared to be a “blank check” approach to Israel across administrations stretching back decades. The some $3.8 billion in annual foreign military aid given to the Jewish state doesn’t appear to come with any strings attached in terms of human rights.

And now increasing numbers of influential Democrat voices, including many who helped get Biden into office, have issued an open letter demanding accountability, as The Guardian details:

More than 500 Biden campaign alumni and Democratic staffers have signed an open letter calling for the president to do more to protect Palestinians and hold Israel accountable for its actions in and over Gaza, where a ceasefire currently holds.

The staffers and former staffers write that they “commend [Biden’s] efforts to broker a ceasefire. Yet, we also cannot unsee the horrific violence that unfolded in recent weeks in Israel/Palestine, and we implore you to continue using the power of your office to hold Israel accountable for its actions and lay the groundwork for justice and lasting peace.”

…We should note that we struggle to see in what ways he’s “used his power” at all to hold Israel accountable.

Further the letter emphasized that a “power imbalance” exists, which the authors said should naturally result on more US pressure on Israel to reign in its devastating civilian casualties during Gaza airstrikes, not less. 

Over 500 former Biden and Democratic Party staffers signed an open letter urging Biden to do more to protect Palestinians and “hold Israel accountable for its actions” — including asking it to “lift the blockade of Gaza.” https://t.co/S3kEhxI2GY

— Axios (@axios) May 24, 2021

Here’s more from the open letter:

The very same values that motivated us to work countless hours to elect you demand that we speak out… we remain horrified by the images of Palestinian civilians in Gaza killed or made homeless by Israeli airstrikes. We are outraged by Israel’s efforts to forcibly and illegally expel Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah. We are shocked by Israel’s destruction of a building housing international news organizations. We remain horrified by reports of Hamas rockets killing Israeli civilians.

While Israelis had to spend nights hiding in bomb shelters, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip had nowhere to hide. It is critical to acknowledge this power imbalance — that Israel’s highly-advanced military occupies the West Bank and East Jerusalem and blockades the Gaza Strip, creating an uninhabitable open-air prison.

Blinken’s trip is unlikely to produce this desired “accountability” but appears an exercise perhaps in “saving face” with regional allies like Jordan and Egypt while appearing to be “doing something” before the increasingly skeptical Democratic progressives back home, and then there’s also the task of seeking to better the current horribly deteriorated relations with the Palestinian Authority.