The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) said, "Everyone in the medical community backed up Dr. Fauci, and what we now know is they were receiving a lot of grant dollars."
The
top Republican House investigator says his team has uncovered evidence
suggesting federal health officials used grant dollars to keep private
scientists on script and have them deny COVID-19 originated with a lab
accident despite scientific evidence to the contrary.
Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the likely chairman of the House Oversight
Committee if the GOP wins control of the House, told Just the News on
Monday night that his investigators have evidence showing that even
though Dr. Anthony Fauci was warned the virus likely originated from a
lab leak in Wuhan, China, he constructed, with the aid of federally
funded private scientists, a counter-narrative that COVID-19 evolved
naturally from animals.
"Everyone in the medical community backed up Dr. Fauci, and what we
now know is they were receiving a lot of grant dollars," Comer said
Monday during a wide-ranging interview on the "Just the News, No Noise"
television show.
Comer said his investigators have obtained documents
showing that on Feb. 1, 2020 Fauci and his boss, NIH Director Dr.
Francis Collins, and at least eleven other scientists convened a
conference call to discuss COVID-19. On that call, Fauci and Collins
were first warned that COVID-19 may have leaked from the Wuhan Institute
of Virology and may have been intentionally genetically manipulated.
Four days earlier, Comer said, Fauci was alerted that his own
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases had funded an
American research firm known as EcoHealth Alliance, that the Wuhan
Institute of Virology in China was a subgrantee of EcoHealth, and
EcoHealth was not in compliance with its grant reporting, in particular a
grant that NIAID knew had gain-of-function potential on novel bat
coronaviruses.
"We uncovered the emails that showed Dr. Fauci's earliest advisers
said that this is obviously a lab leak, and this has to be man-made,"
the Kentucky Republican added. "We also showed where Dr. Fauci and Dr.
Collins at the NIH were talking about trying to spin the lab leak
theory, that they were really concerned about the optics of that. What
we learned is how much slush money the NIH had to award in the form of
grants to these advisers."
Comer said he fears the complicity of the private scientists helped
Fauci seize a narrative to justify massive health lockdowns and thwart
an earlier investigation of what role a U.S.-funded lab in Wuhan, China
played in the pandemic.
"So you have someone like Dr. Fauci that had complete control over
the entire pandemic," he said. "And his advisers and all these medical
experts were signing on to everything, essentially giving him a blank
check to say whatever he wanted to say, to shut down whatever industry
he wanted to shut down, to make our kids have to go virtual instead of
in person. And the whole time they were receiving grants from Dr.
Collins and Dr. Fauci."
NIH did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday night. Fauci long shut down the possibility of a lab leak, but U.S. intelligence has since said a lab accident is a likely source of the virus. And Fauci recently told Congress he's keeping an open mind that he was wrong.
Comer laid out a wide-ranging investigative agenda for the committee
if he becomes chairman, saying he was committed to finding way to end
the waste of tax dollars, especially in the areas of research science
and COVID relief aid, which some estimates show may have lost $400
billion to fraud and waste.
"In the name of COVID, Congress has lost its mind over the past three
years," he said. "The trillions of dollars that have been wasted is
mind-boggling."
Comer said his committee would be empowered under GOP rules so that
he, as chairman, could unilaterally issue subpoenas to compel documents
and testimony without having to get a committee vote, where Democrats
and recalcitrant Republicans could block investigations.
"I don't have to get permission from anyone to issue a subpoena," he
explained. "I take that responsibility greatly. I'm not going to abuse
that, because I think it's been abused in the past. But we are going to
get some accountability for the taxpayers and the American people in
this administration. We're going to do it on day one in January."
Comer said subpoenas would be issued to President Joe Biden's son
Hunter and brother James if they don't comply with requests for
documents and testimony.
"What I don't think most Americans realize is how much corruption we
have in this administration," he said. "People know that Hunter Biden is
a shady business character. But they don't realize the direct benefits
Joe Biden was receiving. And the potential of compromise that this White
House has."
He added it is essential for future pandemics to get to the bottom of
how federal health officials deceived the American public on COVID's
origins and some of the outcomes of early treatments of the virus.
"This whole business model for how we treat a future pandemic and how
we treat viruses and diseases in America, it's going to have to
change," Comer declared.
DeSantis enjoyed narrower, but still double-digit, leads in New Hampshire and Iowa.
Florida
Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis leads former President Donald Trump in
several states in a hypothetical GOP 2024 primary matchup, according to a
polling memo.
WPA Intelligence conducted surveys for Club for Growth Action which found the Florida governor ahead of Trump
in several battleground states, according to the Washington Examiner.
In Florida, where both reside, DeSantis led with 56% support to Trump's
30% while commanding a still-strong 55% in Georgia to the former
president's 35%.
MAGA, Inc. head Taylor Budowich rejected the survey results,
asserting that Club for Growth was "consistently wrong" and that the
group would not successfully challenge Trump in a prospective primary
battle.
DeSantis enjoyed narrower, but still double-digit, leads in New Hampshire and Iowa.
The public tension between the two Republican figures has only grown
in the wake of the GOP's disappointing midterm results wherein many
Trump-backed candidates lost contests they were favored to win and the
party failed to secure the Senate.
Trump, moreover, is expected to announce his 2024 bid for the
presidency on Tuesday night and has attempted to dissuade DeSantis from
challenging him for the party nomination.
DeSantis secured a second term as Florida's governor during the midterms, winning his bid by roughly 20% in the traditionally purple state. Separate polls have shown DeSantis gaining traction as a potential leader in place of Trump.
Companies have been cutting thousands of jobs as experts warn of a likely recession, despite Biden's dismissal of such concerns.
Three
days after President Biden said the country's "not anywhere near a
recession right now," Amazon founder and Executive Chairman Jeff Bezos
warned a sharp economic downturn is looming.
"The economy does not look great right now," Bezos told
CNN on Saturday. "Things are slowing down. You're seeing layoffs in
many, many sectors of the economy. The probabilities say if we're not in
a recession right now, we're likely to be in one very soon."
The billionaire entrepreneur declined to estimate how long he thinks
the recession would last but cautioned people to prepare for a time of
economic struggle.
"Take as much risk off the table as you can," he said. "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."
Two days after the interview, several media outlets reported that Amazon plans to lay off about 10,000 employees in corporate and technology roles beginning this week, the largest job cuts in the company's history.
Last week, for example, Facebook parent Meta announced the company is laying off 13% of its staff.
Meanwhile, Disney is planning a hiring freeze and some job cuts, according to an internal company memo obtained by CNBC.
News of all three decisions came shortly after Tuesday's midterm
elections. All three companies have been embroiled in recent political
controversies, with critics accusing them of supporting Democrats and left-wing causes and trying to censor conservatives.
Despite the wave of layoffs and several stark warnings that a
recession is coming, Biden told the country last Wednesday that such a
downturn wasn't on the horizon.
"We're not anywhere near a recession right now, in terms of the growth," Biden said
at the White House the day after the midterm elections. "I think we can
have what most economists call a soft landing, and I'm convinced that
we're going to be able to gradually bring down prices so that they, in
fact, end up with us not having to move into recession."
The White House has echoed that message repeatedly in recent days.
"We are not in a recession," White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain told MSNBC earlier this month. "I want to be really, really clear on that."
That same day, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that a recession was so out of the question that the Biden administration wasn't even holding meetings to prepare for one.
"There are no meetings or anything happening like that in preparing
for a recession because ... look, what we're seeing right now is a
strong labor market," she said.
However, economic experts have been warning a recession is looming.
"I think we are on the verge of a debt-driven economic crash
landing," economist Stephen Moore told Just the News. "These layoff
announcements are the canary in the coal mine. We now have $1 trillion
in consumer debt on top of $4.1 trillion of Biden debt."
Americans could hold nearly $1 trillion
in collective credit card debt before the end of the year due to
historically high inflation, which has caused everyday costs such as
food to skyrocket.
According to experts who previously spoke
to Just the News, soaring inflation was caused by Biden's economic
policies — namely too much spending — combined with the Federal Reserve
keeping interest rates near zero while continuing to print money.
Still, the Biden administration and some economists remain optimistic
that the economy can avoid such a fate with a so-called soft landing.
Many projections, however, see the situation differently.
There's a 65% chance of a recession within the next 12-18 months,
according to a survey of economists conducted by Bankrate, a consumer
financial services company, for its Third-Quarter Economic Indicator. That estimate is up from 52% in its second quarter survey and about one-third in its first quarter survey.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg economists' projection models
from last month show a 100% chance of an economic downturn by October
2023, up from a 65% probability for the comparable period in the model's
previous update.
The CEOs of both Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan, the U.S. and European economic teams for Barclays bank, and former Boston Federal Reserve President Eric Rosengren are among those who also forecast a recession next year.
According to Bankrate.com senior economic analyst Mark Hamrick, the
devastating effects of "high and sustained" inflation have ironically
made considerations of a potential recession "academic," because
Americans are already feeling significant economic pain.
"With the prices for necessities such as food, energy, and shelter
being so high, many individuals and households have needed to cut back
on discretionary purchase," he told Newsweek.
Inflation and the economy more broadly will likely continue to be at
the forefront of the American people's minds moving forward. Polling over the last several months, including exit polls
taken after people voted on Election Day, has shown almost uniformly
that voters ranked the economy, particularly inflation, as their most
important issue. That same polling has also shown a majority of
Americans disapprove of Biden's handling of inflation and the economy.
On Monday November 14 in Bali, Indonesia, Joe Biden met with
President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). According
to the White House press release, “the two leaders spoke candidly
about their respective priorities and intentions across a range of
issues,” including “transnational challenges such as climate change,
global macroeconomic stability including debt relief, health security,
and global food security” and so forth.
As Charlie Spierling noted, in their opening remarks, Biden and Xi failed to mention “the coronavirus pandemic that came from China.”
This lapse comes in the wake of mounting evidence that the pandemic
originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That lab was funded by
Dr. Anthony Fauci to conduct dangerous gain of function research that makes viruses more lethal and transmissible.
“Everyone had to agree to the narrative”
enforced by Fauci, former CDC director Dr. Redfield recently revealed.
In early 2020, CDC official Dr. Nancy Messonnier even complimented China
on its handling of the pandemic. On Monday, former State Department
spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus called out Biden for failing to bring it up.
“Why are we not talking about fentanyl — the chemical precursors that
go from China to Mexico — the number one killer of young people? Why
aren’t we talking about the origins of COVID-19?” Ortagus asked. “Are we
just going to let them get away with this?”
The White House claimed Biden “raised concerns about PRC practices in
Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong, and human rights more broadly.” But as
Andrew Thornebrooke noted at The Epoch Times, “the Chinese Communist Party’s readout of the meeting did not mention any discussion of human rights.”
Biden wants to define the U.S. relationship with China in purely
economic terms, rather than a strategic competition for control of the
future. As Brandon Weichet notes, “In Biden, Beijing has a president who
has spent his entire career championing closer U.S. ties with the CCP.”
As the record shows, that is hardly a stretch.
In November 1989, less than six months after the Tiananmen Square massacre, Sen. Biden voted against strong sanctions on Communist China. In 1998, with the United States again poised to enact sanctions, Biden was part of
a group of 10 senators opposed to the measures. “We are all for human
rights,” the senators’ letter read, but human rights were to be achieved
“through engagement.”
In May 2011, Biden said he believed that “protecting fundamental rights and
freedoms such as those enshrined in China’s international commitments
as well as in China’s own constitution is the best way to promote long
term stability and prosperity—of any society.” The vice president didn’t
specify the “fundamental rights and freedoms” in China’s constitution,
and his statement offered no criticism of the Communist regime.
According to The Black Book of Communism, published in 1997,
China’s Communist regime is responsible for more than 60 million
deaths. Biden shows no familiarity with the book, and in 2000 the
Delaware Democrat, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, supported China’s admission to the World Trade Organization
(WTO).
The man most responsible for helping vice president Biden “get China”
was Tom Donilon, a veteran of the Carter White House and advisor to
Biden his first presidential run in 1988. In a June, 2013, speech to the Asia Society,
Donilon avoided the human rights issue and contended that “a deeper
U.S.-China military-to-military dialogue is central to addressing many
of the sources of insecurity and potential competition between us.” (emphasis added)
Donilon, who served as National Security advisor during the Obama
administration, is the likely source for Joe Biden’s claim that the
Chinese Communists are “not bad folks,” and “not competition for us.” By all indications, China has now “got Biden,” who is also compromised through the business dealings of son Hunter.
Xi Jinping now controls the Chinese Communist Party “without serious
challenge,” Mark Lewis explains, and is now unquestionably “the most dangerous man on earth,” a veritable reincarnation of Chairman Mao. In Joe Biden, Xi Jinping sees weakness incarnate.
On Saturday, at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Phnom
Penh, Biden referred to Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen as the “prime minister of Colombia.” During a press conference, Biden admitted his handlers had limited the number of questions to four.
Ben Owen called the Indonesia meeting Biden’s “statement of support
of – and complicity with – the cultural revolution and the mass murder
of 70 million Chinese people.” Owen’s tweet linked to footage of Biden
wearing what looks like CCP garb.
As Weichert sees it, Xi Jinping “will view Biden’s actions for what
they truly are: bootlicking intended to stave off the inevitable Chinese
assault. Rather than being deterred from future hostilities, Xi will
likely be more aggressive, since American weakness is provocative.”
That weakness has Mark Lewis wondering if the most dangerous man in
the world could be Joe Biden, who is often uncertain of his location and
unable to identify the current century. As the Delaware Democrat repeatedly confirms, “stupidity in power is absolutely horrifying.”
Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Yes I Con: United Fakes of America, Barack ‘Em Up: A
Literary Investigation, Hollywood Party, and numerous other works.
Lethal aid seized by US 5th Fleet is used to make ballistic missiles
Enough material to fuel more than a dozen medium-range ballistic missiles has been intercepted by the U.S. Navy on a fishing vessel heading from Iran to Yemen.
The
massive amount of explosive material was seized by the U.S. Naval
Forces 5th Fleet on Nov. 8 while the ship was traveling along a route
used to send weapons to the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in the war-torn
country.
"The unlawful transfer of lethal aid from Iran
does not go unnoticed," Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Naval
Forces Central Command, U.S. 5th Fleet and Combined Maritime Forces,
said in a statement. "It is irresponsible, dangerous and leads to
violence and instability across the Middle East."
The
5th Fleet said the vessel was intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard ship
USCGC John Scheuerman and guided-missile destroyer USS The Sullivans.
The U.S. 5th Fleet removes explosive material found on board a ship traveling from Iran to Yemen.
(U.S. 5th Fleet)
"Patrol
coastal ship USS Hurricane (PC 3) and Navy explosive ordnance disposal
technicians from U.S. 5th Fleet’s Task Force 56 also assisted during a
weeklong effort to fully search the vessel and verify the type of
material found," it said in a statement.
While on board, "forces
discovered more than 70 tons of ammonium perchlorate, a powerful
oxidizer commonly used to make rocket and missile fuel as well as
explosives," according to the U.S. 5th Fleet, which added that it was
the first time it has intercepted the material.
The U.S. 5th Fleet says it found "more than 70 tons of ammonium
perchlorate, a powerful oxidizer commonly used to make rocket and
missile fuel as well as explosives," on board the fishing vessel.
(U.S. 5th Fleet)
The raid also netted more than 100 tons of urea fertilizer, a chemical compound which can be used to make explosives.
The U.S. 5th Fleet says the ship was traveling along a route
historically used to send lethal aid to Iran-backed Houthi rebels in
Yemen.
(U.S. 5th Fleet)
U.S.
forces sank the vessel on Nov. 13, determining it a hazard for
commercial shipping. The four crew members operating it were returned to Yemen two days later during an at-sea exchange in the Gulf of Aden with the Yemen Coast Guard.
Liz Friden Greg Norman - Liz Friden is a Pentagon producer based in Washington, D.C.
There is no middle ground as this nation is beset with dichotomous ideological and societal differences that are irreconcilable as one side (blue America) is hellbent on defeating and subjugating the other (red America).
There have been many postmortems written about the outcome of the
2022 mid-term elections. Nearly all focus on political or structural
issues. Did the Republican primary voters pick terrible candidates?
Why didn’t the Republican hierarchy spend more money on candidates x,
y, or z? Is Trump’s endorsement the kiss of death in a general
election? Why didn’t the Republicans better prepare for voting fraud
and manipulation? But what nearly everyone fails to understand is that
this election further amplified that this nation has effectively and
permanently split into two countries tenuously living side-by-side,
while exposing the overwhelming importance of the 2024 election.
The United States is currently plagued
with uncontrolled inflation spiraling into a severe recession, crime is
rampant in the nation’s cities, the borders are open and uncontrolled,
the standard of living is rapidly deteriorating, society is sinking into
a morass of premeditated cultural decline, and an increasingly bleak
future awaits the vast majority of Americans. Yet fifty percent of 2022
voters chose to continue this state of affairs by opting to elect or
re-elect the politicians that have created or abetted this ongoing
national devastation.
Far too many, particularly the younger generations who voted overwhelmingly Democrat,
dwell in mindless loyalty to a collectivist tribe, its leaders and its
attendant ideology. In their addled thinking this fidelity outweighs
the well-being of themselves or the nation and its citizenry.
As
half of the populace is content with the current state and trajectory of
this nation and the other half is not, it is clear that these two
populations can no longer maintain their increasingly fragile and
potentially volatile relationship. The United States is at that
defining moment when one side has to win and the other lose; there is no
middle ground.
There is no middle ground as this nation
is beset with dichotomous ideological and societal differences that are
irreconcilable as one side (blue America) is hellbent on defeating and
subjugating the other (red America).
Blue America believes that the United States as founded is an
irredeemable country whose history is rife with atrocities and
unfairness. Thus, the nation’s government must be converted into a
one-party socialist oligarchy and its flawed founding documents
effectively re-written.
Red America believes that the United
States is a great country that has successfully overcome the human
failings of its past citizenries. It is vehemently opposed to any
substantive changes to the nation’s founding documents. It understands
that the Constitution as written guarantees their freedoms and
independence from an overbearing government. There can be no
compromise between the two sides on this the most fundamental tenet of
this nation’s success and survival.
Blue America has abandoned virtually all morality
in its single-minded pursuit of shallow hedonism, wealth, fame and
power. It is increasingly agnostic, it unabashedly promotes sexual
exploitation and mutilation of children, it approves of abortion up to
the point of birth and it justifies any immoral or unethical means to
achieve its ends, among which is the coerced imposition of the religion of “wokeism” upon the rest of society.
Red America believes in God, yet it recognizes that religion is not a necessity in understanding the importance of morality and living a moral and ethical life. That morality is the underlying basis
of a free society. Without morality, and its emphasis on respect for
life, freedom is extinguished. These two diametrically opposed views of
morality cannot co-exist for an extended period of time in the same
society when one side is determined to subjugate the other.
Blue America promotes government-sponsored discrimination with the
malevolent intent of fragmenting society into tribal allegiances in
order to achieve permanent political hegemony. It claims that racism is
embedded in the nation’s DNA, which is solely the fault of the
oppressive white population within red America. This segment of society
must, therefore, be scapegoated and discriminated against as
retaliation for their supposed ongoing bigotry against Black Americans
who are hapless victims of never-ending racism.
Red America represents the United Sates of 2005 that saw nearly 70%
of Americans saying that race relations in this country were very or
somewhat good. These are the same people who are among the 77%
of Americans in a recent poll who thought race relations were good in
their community despite getting considerably worse nationally. This
dichotomy reveals that red America is not racist or roiled by so-called
“white supremacy” and whose indignation and resentment toward blue
America’s accusations and tactics is precipitously escalating.
Blue America is hell-bent on permanently eradicating the unalienable right of self-defense
as codified in the Second Amendment as well as eliminating
constitutionally protected freedom of speech and religion. Its mindless
determination to confiscate guns by any means possible and censor
speech it does not approve of is unbound and unconstrained as it is
willing to use government to enforce its will.
Red America is firm and unmoving in
its belief that unalienable and constitutionally protected rights are
non-negotiable and immutable. The unabashed attempt at disarmament and
censorship has had the effect of convincing over half
of the American populace that these actions are a prelude to
government’s willingness to use force against the citizenry to strip
them of all their rights including fair and impartial justice.
Blue America is steeped in the belief that the ends always
justifies the means. As red America is the implacable enemy, it must be
vanquished and its ashes strewn across the fields, thus, any means in
doing so is acceptable and mandatory. Elections are the primary field
of battle and any level of voting fraud from manipulating and promoting
mail-in ballots to ballot harvesting to mandating unattended drop boxes
to passing unconstitutional voting law changes is a justified necessity.
Red America believes in honor and
integrity and the sanctity of the ballot box. It is not in their
mindset to overtly and fraudulently manipulate the voting process. In
their naiveté they failed to understand their enemy and its
determination to tyrannize them and transform the nation through
unfettered illegal immigration and voter fraud. It took the 2020 and
2022 elections to finally awaken red America
The election in 2024 represents the last chance to defeat blue
America at the ballot box and maintain the United States as founded. If
red America does not prevail in 2024 within a decade or two the United
States will be impotent and unrecognizable.
There is a
generational shift underway as the younger, woefully indoctrinated
generations will evolve into increasingly dominant segments of the
voting populace. Post 2024, blue America will grant citizenship to
30-40+ million illegal immigrants and millions more through unfettered
chain migration. Further, they intend to permanently embed voter fraud
and manipulation through federal legislation. If they are not soundly
defeated in 2024, this demographic change and these legislative
initiatives will assure that blue America never loses a national
election.
In order to win in 2024, the Republican Party must replace its entire
leadership cadre. Then they, the Libertarians, and conservatives must unite and acknowledge the dire situation facing the nation and that blue America is theenemy that must be defeated by any means possible.
Over
the next 18 months they must plan and execute a viable strategy to
offset voter fraud and manipulation. The 2024 primary season needs to
be relatively free of acrimony and divisiveness as the best person with a
proven track record and near universal popularity who can win at least
280-300 electoral votes and has shown a willingness to successfully
confront blue America must be nominated.
Red America will be
faced with three options if it cannot win the presidency and control
Congress in 2024. First, it can meekly and unconditionally surrender,
thus abetting the collapse of the United States. Second, it can hope
for a catastrophic depression wherein everyone will inordinately suffer
and, thus, oust blue America from the corridors of power. Third, the
states controlled by red America can begin the process of a national
divorce by refusing to live under the dictates of blue America.
The
results of 2022 elections have exposed the reality of two Americas and
that the 2024 election will be the most consequential in American
history.
Parents and freedom-loving Americans are standing up and fighting against the evil that has consumed American education.
A year ago, Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin shook the political
landscape when he became Virginia’s first Republican to win a statewide
office in twelve years. Governor Youngkin ran on education issues and
benefited from his opponent’s “faux pas” publicly suggesting parents
should have no say in their children’s curriculum. Not only did he win
his election -- he delivered on his campaign promises. Youngkin issued
an executive order banning Critical Race Theory and his administration
rescinded accommodations for transgender students whereby schools are
prohibited from concealing information about a student from the
student’s parent, including information related to gender. For some of
us, it seems outrageous that this guidance is necessary, but not in
today’s government schools -- it is far more common than most understand
for teachers to hide a child’s transitioning to a non-biological
gender.
The midterm elections paralleled and
superseded the Virginia governor’s race with record support for Governor
Ron DeSantis who delivered on his word to put parents in charge of
their children’s education. From refusing school shutdowns and masking
mandates to ending Marxist critical theories and prohibiting gender
identity and sexual orientation being taught to very young children --
Governor DeSantis has been right on every educational front. His
popularity spilled over into other midterm races where he endorsed
winning candidates, resulting in 24 of the 30 candidates backed by the
governor being elected. Six people supported by DeSantis will soon be
new school board members
There is more good news from Florida.
According to the Child & Parental Rights Campaign, on Friday,
November 4, 2022, “the Florida Board of Medicine voted to prohibit all
puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors to
facilitate ‘gender transition.’”
Founder and President of Child
& Parental Rights Campaign Vernadette Broyles is featured in U.S.
Parents Involved in Education’s (USPIE) documentary film Truth & Lies in American Education. Mrs.
Broyles’ national nonprofit organization exists with the sole mission
to defend families whose children have been influenced toward and
treated for gender dysphoria, often without parental knowledge or
consent. In this important film, Vernadette discusses the widespread
need to protect children in government schools.
Schools today are teaching children
inappropriate sexual information, teaching children they are nothing
more than a color or gender, recruiting children into gender-dysphoria
and then hiding the evidence from parents, facilitating access to
medical treatment for children without parental consent, and even
instructing children not to tell their parents what is happening in
school. And although parents complained to administrators and at school
board meetings, it seems nothing changes. What is happening in our
country’s government schools is abominable. It is tantamount to child
abuse. This agenda to destroy American children so that they can be
manipulated and controlled must end.
While
the rest of the country focused on congressional and gubernatorial
races for the midterm elections, school boards around the country saw
incumbents unseated by parents and others motivated to stop the
sexuality and race agendas that permeate American classrooms. The same
platform was seen in the successful governors’ races around the country
-- even in blue states.
It is obvious that candidates who
recognize and boldly stand against the indoctrination of American
children are winning elections in unprecedented numbers. The surge is so
strong in some states that it defies all boundaries, including voter
integrity issues.
Parents and freedom-loving Americans are standing
up and fighting against the evil that has consumed American education.
The election results have proven we are a force to be reckoned with.
Prosecutors sought to determine whether Giuliani had at any point represented the Ukrainian official in a manner that may have violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Former
New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will not face criminal charges in
connection with an FBI raid on his apartment and the seizure of
electronics stored within.
Prosecutors announced
the decision in a Monday court filing, per the New York Post, saying
"The Government writes to notify the Court that the grand jury
investigation that led to the issuance of the above-referenced warrants
has concluded, and that based on information currently available to the
Government, criminal charges are not forthcoming."
Authorities in the Southern District of New York had been
investigating Giuliani's relationship with Ukrainian prosecutor Yuriy
Lutsenko, the Post reported. Lutsenko reportedly gave the Republican
information on former President Donald Trump's political opponents and
was a prominent figure in his first impeachment trial.
Prosecutors sought to determine whether Giuliani had at any point
represented the Ukrainian official in a manner that may have violated
the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Federal authorities raided
Giuliani's apartment in April 2021 while serving a search warrant. A
special master has been reviewing the evidence and materials seized
during the raid.
Year after year, as the population has grown, the inevitable demand for state aid has risen, stretching resources, while breeding bitter rivalry amongst those vying for help -- be it healthcare, social housing or state benefits.
Claiming that conservatives
are less compassionate because many basic needs are not offered for free
can miss the point. Too often what is offered are words; what is
actually ends up being delivered may be sorely lacking -- as
disillusioned citizens in places such as Venezuela and Cuba have found
out the hard way.
Of course, one does not become a "better person" by voting for
giveaways that are all too often fraudulent or semi-fraudulent -- a
bait-and-switch in which what is delivered ends up being far from what
has been promised, if delivered at all. For many people, however, it
might satisfy a need to be perceived as being on the side of the "good"
-- which social promises always are; why else would a public buy into
them?
Over time, as governments began to separate themselves from
religion, many responsibilities of the church became transferred to the
state. The gradual progression of socialist and Marxist thought,
meanwhile, further increased the divide, while at the same time
expanding the remit of governmental reach into people's daily lives.
Immigration, changes in the workplace, a massive increase in
disability payments (along with what constitutes "disability"), the
length of time people remain unemployed and an increasingly bloated
bureaucracy have all contributed to breaking the back of an outdated
system.
If your needs are immediate, the struggle for medical care is
even more uphill: the NHS is now advising patients to consider private
healthcare.
Then there is dental care. As long ago as 1952, the British
state's initial offer of "free" dental work (and visits to the optician)
had to be dramatically reined-in: the reality of the economics was not
adding up.
The high rate of taxation in Britain, with a top income tax rate
of 45% (for those who earn more than £150,000) and an "ordinary" rate of
20%, has many wondering if their "national insurance" deductions could
not be better spent on private care when needed. As things stand, the
majority of people -- those without chronic medical conditions -- appear
to be paying for the few -- the same business model as for private
insurance companies.
Taking into consideration the challenge of rampant illegal
immigration, the divisive nature of "woke" ideology that pits citizens
against one another, the criminalisation of speech that constitutes
"hate crimes" law, the softly-softly approach to fundamentalist
terrorism, as well "transgender" infiltration into women's sports,
locker rooms and restrooms, media race-baiting and so on, it seems we
have a bit of a problem on our hands.
The over-loading of the NHS, which would be alarming enough on
its own, is merely [with the ever-increasing number of immigrants] the
icing on a hugely unappetising-looking cake. Indeed, the total cost of
providing healthcare to visitors and immigrants alone, was estimated at
two billion pounds per year -- as far back as 2013.
To compound matters, when exceptions to the rules are made for
certain residents -- such as allowing men in polygamous marriages to
claim for wives who do not even reside in the UK, the bitterness can
only grow. To blame the inevitable backlash on "racism" or "xenophobia"
might seem to many a ruse to silence dissent.
Year after year, as the population has grown, the inevitable
demand for state aid has risen, stretching resources, while breeding
bitter rivalry amongst those vying for help -- be it healthcare, social
housing or state benefits. The dynamic between altruism and gratitude,
has been replaced it with an increasingly authoritarian-looking
bureaucracy on the state's part, coupled with what many might regard as a
cynical sense of entitlement in those expecting help.
Far from seeming like a comforting "safety net", welfare now feels more like a soul-crushing method of state-enslavement.
There may well be little doubt that the state has good cause to
implement anti-social measures to counteract the anti-social behaviour
of some of its dependents, but inevitably such action creates a
paranoid, suspicious landscape entirely lacking in empathy.
Sadly, the "safety net" we have in the UK today bears little
resemblance to what its benevolent pioneers envisioned. Perhaps
suggestions could be offered how constructively to improve it.
The myth that socialised medicine is "free" in the United
Kingdom is just that -- a myth. Although it is true that you do not have
to pay directly to see a doctor from the National Health Service (NHS),
if it is anything urgent, you will have to wait -- sometimes weeks or
months -- for an appointment. The NHS is now advising patients to
consider private healthcare. Pictured: A man walks past an NHS
vaccination center on December 30, 2021 in Preston, England. (Photo by
Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)
"Since the general civilisation of mankind, I believe
there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people
by silent & gradual encroachment of power than by violence &
sudden usurpations." — James Madison
"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine." — Ronald Reagan
Winning the hearts and minds of society is arguably easier to achieve
by promising hand-outs. Also, especially in the age of rapid
communication, emotion sells -- a handy method for sneaking political
takeovers through the back door. So, when it comes to something as
fraught with emotion as medicine, it is difficult to argue the downsides
for fear of appearing heartless.
This may be a least one reason that socialists seem to think they
have the monopoly on altruism. Claiming that conservatives are less
compassionate because many basic needs are not offered for free can miss
the point. Too often what is offered are words; what is actually ends
up being delivered may be sorely lacking -- as disillusioned citizens in
places such as Venezuela and Cuba have found out the hard way.
However, this type of Santa-Clausian virtue-signalling -- of
providing everything for everyone for free -- can be an effective
strategy not only to get votes but also to protect the welfare system
from the overhaul it so desperately needs but will never get. As often
with ostensible compassion, posturing has come to depend on the
ignorance or gullibility of the citizenry. Of course, one does not
become a "better person" by voting for giveaways that are all too often
fraudulent or semi-fraudulent -- a bait-and-switch in which what is
delivered ends up being far from what has been promised, if delivered at
all. For many people, however, it might satisfy a need to be perceived
as being on the side of the "good" -- which social promises always are;
why else would a public buy into them?
Even giveaways, however, cannot endlessly provide a stable solution
to the problems of our societies. Who, after all, is ultimately paying
for them to be given away? In the United States, for instance, a plan to
forgive a sizeable portion of student-loan debts looked as if it is
coming a-cropper when it became clear that welders and truck drivers
would ultimately be paying the college tuition of others when they
themselves had never gone to college. That conclusion arrived even
before throwing in that their hard work would be funding someone else's
studies in fields regarded by some as basically unserious.
For a while, the teacher's union appeared
to be lobbying to be on a permanent vacation, and almost entirely to
have given up trying to teach reading, writing and arithmetic in favour
of racist indoctrination. Good luck trying to go out in the world with an "education" such as that.
Long before state welfare was introduced in the UK or USA,
approximately a hundred years ago, it was the domain of church-based
charitable organisations that ensured
basic necessities were made available to those in need. Religious and
philosophical guidelines that have shaped our culture throughout history
have since led people to contemplate the emergence of a "fairer"
society. Financial aid, hospitals, alms houses, and providing food for
the elderly and the poor existed long before state benefits, government
funded housing projects or healthcare were introduced.
Over time, as governments began to separate themselves from religion,
many responsibilities of the church became transferred to the state.
The gradual progression of socialist and Marxist thought, meanwhile,
further increased the divide, while at the same time expanding the remit
of governmental reach into people's daily lives.
Ever since being rolled out universally in 1945 (1938 in the U.S.), the UK's welfare system,
as it has sought to keep up with its burgeoning population, has kept
expanding. Now, however, immigration, changes in the workplace, a
massive increase in disability payments (along with what constitutes
"disability"), the length of time people remain unemployed and an
increasingly bloated bureaucracy have all contributed to breaking the
back of an outdated system.
The fairly simple premise that instigated the need for welfare --
keeping jobless workers and their families from being tipped into
poverty -- has grown out of all proportion, as the volume of its
beneficiaries has long since overwhelmed
the system. Put bluntly, in the eyes of many, it is an experiment that
has failed. It is time to re-evaluate it and perhaps consider whether or
not we would be better off with a return to other, more productive, forms of distributing welfare, as well as a revitalised look at work initiative programmes.
Former US President Ronald Reagan, who famously said that "the top 9 most terrifying words in the English language" were, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help", once suggested,
regarding free healthcare and other forms of "socialised medicine",
that it is easy to disguise a totalitarian programme as a "humanitarian
exercise", because people are reluctant to dismiss a project that seems
to help those in need of practical compassion.
Reagan also noted
that "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism
on a people has been by way of medicine." His observation might explain
why the concept of "socialised medicine" has become a key attribute of
so many political causes whose ideology draws so heavily from Marxist
and neo-Marxist lines of thought. It would also explain the virtuous
posturing of both Democrats in the US, and the Labour Party in the UK,
who like to promise the moon when it comes to pushing their agenda or
career.
First, the myth that socialised medicine is "free" in the United
Kingdom is just that -- a myth. Although it is true that you do not have
to pay directly to see an NHS doctor, if it is anything urgent, you
will have to wait -- sometimes weeks or months -- for an appointment.
Even before Covid-19, arranging to see a doctor was fraught with
problems caused by ever-growing waiting lists. If your needs are immediate, the struggle for medical care is even more uphill: the NHS is now advising patients to consider private healthcare.
Since March 2020, when face-to-face appointments with doctors were
suspended, it has become an increasingly hopeless task even to secure a
"phone appointment". Meanwhile, the cost of each item on a prescription
has been rising year upon year. From 2010-2019, the cost of a prescription has risen by 26% to £8.80. Since April 2021, the price has risen to £9.35 per item. If you are on a variety of permanent medications, it can be a costly business.
Taking into account
the average number of items on a prescription being at £18.7 per head
(in 2012) -- and with 2.7 million items dispensed every day (more than
1,900 per minute) -- this "free" healthcare becomes quite expensive.
Then there is dental care. As long ago as 1952, the British state's initial offer of "free" dental work (and visits to the optician) had to be dramatically reined-in: the reality of the economics was not adding up.
Dental practices may offer subsidised treatment "on the NHS", but the reality is that an increasing number of citizens have been "going private",
despite their apparent legal right to the supposed "free dental care".
The fact is, if you are in pain and cannot wait months to be seen --
which quite often happens -- and because you will anyway be paying
out-of-pocket for at least a part of that treatment (such as basic
x-rays) -- it often makes more sense to use private dental care than to
wait.
The high rate of taxation in Britain, with a top income tax
rate of 45% (for those who earn more than £150,000) and an "ordinary"
rate of 20%, has many wondering if their "national insurance" deductions
could not be better spent on private care when needed. As things stand,
the majority of people -- those without chronic medical conditions --
appear to be paying for the few -- the same business model as for
private insurance companies.
Adding to the growing consternation are increasingly bad optics.
These indicate that the only real "winners", when it comes to welfare,
are newcomers to the UK -- refugees or migrants -- and the long term
"generationally" unemployed. These are the needy individuals who have
never paid into the system. The situation unfortunately does not spread
joy and happiness throughout the British Isles. Quite the opposite.
Indeed, if ever one desired a plan to stoke societal discontent,
Britain's welfare system might be it.
Taking into consideration the challenge of rampant illegal
immigration, the divisive nature of "woke" ideology that pits citizens
against one another, the criminalisation of speech that constitutes
"hate crimes" law, the softly-softly approach to fundamentalist
terrorism, as well "transgender" infiltration into women's sports,
locker rooms and restrooms, media race-baiting and so on, it seems we
have a bit of a problem on our hands.
Muddying the waters still further are the rise of "in work" benefits,
which , since the turn of the century, have become a fixture. The
availability of "working tax credits", "child tax credits", travel
vouchers, and other such schemes, is another cause for scepticism.
Many question whether it is the role of government to subsidise low
wages when it could be focussing on why the minimum wage bears no
relation to the cost of living in the twenty-first century. It has
become almost impossible for most working-class families to avoid being
unable to survive on low wages without government aid.
For many claimants, the process of "signing on" and joining the ranks of the unemployed, seems anything but benevolent or charitable. In the UK, they must agree to a set of Orwellian demands that are foisted upon them when claiming benefits, despite the understandable need to prevent fraud. (See Appendix.)
To help keep the state informed,
members of the public, including mail carriers and neighbours, are
invited to "report" suspicious activity. Every day, it feels less like
the UK and more like China or North Korea.
Inevitably, this creates its own problems. Personal disputes or
biases, and administrative mistakes will often result in erroneous
"reporting" of potential "fraudsters". Thus, perfectly innocent -- and
often highly vulnerable -- claimants can spend weeks or months worrying,
due to malicious or mistaken "information".
Taking all of the above into account, it is not at all surprising that the suicide rate amongst disability benefit claimants has doubled, along with a monumental increase of mental health issues.
By accepting such restrictions and invasions of privacy for a
privilege that falls well short of keeping you afloat, does not aid
one's mental health.
With the UK population having grown by almost eight million (13.8%) since 1980, the welfare system has had to expand well beyond the bounds of its original remit.
Of course, a major contribution to population growth has been the influx of immigrants
to the British Isles. After the Second World War, fewer than one-in-25
of the population were born outside the country. Today that figure is
almost one-in-seven. With my father having been an immigrant, I am in no
way against immigration, but you do not have to be a whiz in
mathematics to notice how overcrowded the UK's towns and cities have
become and who ends up paying for that.
" You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state," the economist Milton Friedman famously noted.
Tempted by an "El Dorado" of jobs and welfare benefits, new arrivals
are showing up daily on our shores, often courtesy of enriched
people-smugglers, despite recent tragedies en route from across the
Channel or the US government's crime statistics for "non-citizen" immigration there. So far in attempting to reach the US,
"At least 4,000 migrants from Central America trying to reach the U.S.
through Mexico in the last four years have gone missing or have died,
according to an AP investigation".
That number includes a "record high of 853 over the past 12 months,
making fiscal year 2022 the deadliest year for migrants ever", according to CBS News.
A report
from the UN's International Organization for Migration notes that "at
least 29,000 have died trying to reach Europe since 2014."
That Western governments appear to have lost the will to tackle the problem, means we can only expect more of the same.
Meanwhile, the bitterness brought about by the "bad optics" of an
out-of-control immigration system, with all the entitlements that go
with it, also appears damaging to society. Competing for finite
resources, jostling for position in the housing queue, and even at
food-banks, creates an unedifying spectacle. The overloading of the NHS,
which would be alarming enough on its own, is merely the icing on a
hugely unappetising-looking cake. Indeed, the total cost of providing healthcare to visitors and immigrants alone was estimated at two billion pounds per year -- as far back as 2013.
To compound matters, when exceptions to the rules are made for certain residents – such as allowing men in polygamous
marriages to claim for wives that do not even reside in the UK, the
bitterness can only grow. To blame the inevitable backlash on "racism"
or "xenophobia" might seem to many a ruse to silence dissent.
Year after year, as the population has grown, the inevitable demand
for state aid has risen, stretching resources, while breeding bitter
rivalry amongst those vying for help -- be it healthcare, social housing
or state benefits. The dynamic between altruism and gratitude, has been
replaced it with an increasingly authoritarian-looking bureaucracy on
the state's part, coupled with what many might regard as a cynical sense
of entitlement in those expecting help.
The outcome has become an over-burdened bureaucracy that has not only
lost sight of its purpose, but is unable to function adequately. It is a
system that has so consistently been abused and taken advantage of as
it has grown, that far from seeming like a comforting "safety net",
welfare now feels more like a soul crushing method of enslavement by the
state. It is no wonder this has led to accusations of "failure" being levelled at successive governments for neglecting to address the situation.
There may well be little doubt that the state has good cause to
implement anti-social measures to counteract the anti-social behaviour
of some of its dependents, but inevitably such action creates a hostile,
suspicious landscape entirely lacking in empathy. In turn, many of its
recipients, not at all grateful for the help they receive, might view
their benefits with an air of entitlement and believe that they should
be getting still more.
The ironic result is that this well-meaning concept has been
irreparably degraded by both claimant and provider to such an extent
that both sides appear to resent each other's existence. The separate
problem of the "generational"
long-term claimants -- where claiming benefits has become a lifestyle
choice for entire generations of families, often without having paid
anything into the system -- can only aggravate an already fraught
situation.
Perhaps, that is why there are so many of us who are in need, but who simply do not wish to engage with the benefits system.
While for many the welfare system undoubtedly is better than being
left to die on the street, it increasingly feels a lot more like a
faceless machine scooping up social need with Big Brother-like measures
and pushing it into a corner. With "compliance officers", the perceived
"shame of claiming" and a variety of hoops to jump through, it seems
like an extremely odd "right".
Sadly, the "safety net" we have in the UK today bears little resemblance to what its benevolent pioneers envisioned.
Perhaps suggestions could be offered how constructively to improve it.
Andrew Ash, born in Great Britain to Anglo-Egyptian, Muslim parents, is based in London, England.
Appendix
In Britain, benefits claimants must accept a number of intrusive provisions, such as the use of government checks and surveillance programmes.
They must, among other requirements accept and give permission to the
state to search their bank accounts if it so desires to exercise its
anti-fraud measures, often triggered by the machine's own incompetence.
Claimants must undertake to inform the government if they plan to take a holiday – abroad or at home, even if only a few days.
They must make themselves available
at all times, should they be called in for a "compliance meeting" --
which is merely a polite (if somewhat threatening) term for a fraud
investigation.
Single parents must inform
the authorities if they develop a romantic relationship with someone,
if their new partner spends more than the permitted time on the
claimant's premises. Otherwise they can expect to be surveilled and
invited to attend a "compliance interview".
It easy to say, "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to
worry about", but having been through such an episode, I can attest to
how emotionally and financially damaging an "administrative error" can
be. As a result, no matter what the circumstances, I hope never to claim
a benefit again, despite it being "my right". Apparently I am not alone in this type of thinking in the UK.
If all of the above was not degrading enough, claimants are also obligated to inform the state if they are gifted money, or valuables that they have not previously declared, even a birthday gift.
Lone attacker identified as 18 year-old Muhammed Soof who worked as a cleaner in the Ariel industrial zone.
Three Israelis were killed and four others injured in a serious terror rampage in the West Bank city of Ariel on Tuesday.
According
to the military, three civilians were killed at the ‘Ten’ gas station
in Ariel and a man in his 50s was killed after he suffered multi-system
injuries in a car crash near the West Bank city of Ariel.
The
attacks began around 9.28 in the morning when the 18 year old terrorist
identified by Palestinian media as Muhammad Soof from the nearby
village of Haris, who had a work permit to work as a cleaner in the
Ariel Industrial zone came to the entrance to the gate with a knife in
his hand.
He
stabbed one of two civilian security guards, moderately wounding him.
The second guard fired shots in the air as the terrorist ran some 60-70
meters toward the ‘Ten’ gas station where he stabbed three people,
killed two civilians.
A terrorist arrived at the entrance gate of the Ariel Industrial Zone and stabbed civilians in the area.
Other civilians were stabbed at a nearby gas station.
The terrorist fled the scene and was neutralized afterwards. IDF soldiers are currently searching the area.
He then stole a car and drove onto Route 5 and crashed into a car,
killing another civilian. The initial car that he stole was destroyed in
the crash and a civilian who saw the crash exited his BMW to help the
wounded Israeli, allowing the terrorist to steal his car and flee the
scene.
Members of Israeli forces work at the scene of an attack, at the Ariel
Industrial Zone, November 15, 2022. (credit: REUTERS/AMMAR AWAD)
With
the stolen BMW he continued toward the Shomron Crossing checkpoint on
Route 5 and did a U-turn when he got to the checkpoint, driving against
traffic heading back to the scene of the crash. He then got out of the
vehicle and tried to escape by foot. At this point, he was shot and
killed by civilians, a soldier on furlough and an on-duty IDF soldier.
A senior IDF officer told reporters that the whole event took about 20 minutes.
“This
event could have ended in the industrial area,” he said, adding that
“there was a single terrorist who succeeded with quite a bit of
audacity.”
While
it is believed that the terrorist acted alone, the officer said that
security forces are checking to see if the individual who brought him to
the gate of Ariel Industrial Zone knew of his intentions or if he just
drove him to work like every other day.
According
to MDA, EMTs and paramedics provided medical treatment to three people
with stab wounds at the ‘Ten’ gas station, one man in his 40s in
critical condition and one in his 40s in serious condition.
The death of one of the men was determined at the scene.
MDA
also treated two injured people on Highway 5, including a 35-year-old
male who was stabbed in his upper body and was critically wounded. The
death of the man in his 50s was declared at the scene.
The
three critically injured were transported to Beilinson Hospital in
Petach Tivka. According to the hospital, the man in his 40s is in very
serious and unstable condition with a chest and head injury. A man in
his 30s is serious but in stable condition with a chest injury and
another man in his 30s is in serious but stable condition with a neck
injury.
IDF troops are scanning the area to make sure that no additional attackers fled the scenes.
Following
the attack, IDF troops raided the terrorist’s village and home. Defense
Minister Benny Gantz also held a situational assessment with IDF Chief
of Staff Lt.-Gen. Aviv Kohavi and the head of the Shin Bet Ronen Bar.
Politicians' comments on the attack
Samaria
Regional Council head Yossi Dagan said in response to the attack: "This
attack is a clear result of the lack of governance and the loss of
deterrence of the leaving government. The incoming government must act
as a national government, and flip the equation."
"The
person who stands behind this wave of terror is the terrorist in a suit
Abu-Mazen. The Israeli government must mark him as a security target.
The Palestinian Authority is behind this wave of terror."
מתפלל לשלום הפצועים בפיגוע הקשה באריאל ומחזק את כוחות הביטחון שפועלים בשטח.
Prime minister-elect Benjamin Netanyahu wrote on Twitter account: "I
pray for the health of the injured people from the terror attack, and
strengthen the security forces operating on the ground."
Prime
Minister Yair Lapid commented on the attack on his Twitter account
saying: "The citizens of Israel awakened today to a difficult and
painful morning. A despicable terrorist has carried out a heinous
terrorist attack in Ariel."
"On
behalf of the Government and State of Israel, I send my condolences to
the families of those murdered and my wishes for a speedy recovery to
the wounded. We are relentlessly fighting terrorism with the full might
of the IDF, ISA, and all the security forces."
"Recently,
we have succeeded in dismantling extensive terrorist infrastructure and
planning, but we must fight this war every day anew. Our security
forces are working around the clock to protect the citizens of Israel
and target terrorist infrastructure anytime, anywhere."
Prime Minister Yair Lapid: “The citizens of Israel awakened today to a difficult and painful morning. A despicable terrorist has carried out a heinous terrorist attack in Ariel.
Far-right Otzma Yehudit leader Itamar Ben Gvir,
who is demanding to be appointed Public Security minister, said that
the incoming government “will do everything to eradicate terrorism and
restore security to the citizens of Israel.”
Ben
Gvir’s policies as public security minister would include changes to
the rules of engagement for policemen and soldiers; immunity for
policemen and soldiers for any actions taken against terrorists;
reducing the rights of terrorists in jails; treating agricultural crime
as terrorism and increasing punishment for criminal demands for
“protection” from business owners; and allowing anyone with basic combat
training to carry a weapon.
The attack comes as the military continues with its Operation Break the Wave against Palestinian terrorism and as the military has seen a decrease in the number of attacks and warnings.
“This
event is a single event, and while it is not timed well, it comes
against a backdrop of a calming from the escalation that we’ve seen
since March,” the senior officer said. “We will do everything necessary
to make sure that this attack does not inspire others.”
It
began in April after 20 people were killed in Israel during terror
attacks. Since then, another 12 civilians have been killed, along with
four security forces. Numerous others have been injured.
The
focus of the military has been in the northern West Bank, where 70-75%
of warnings regarding future attacks originate. Though several attacks
have occurred in the south, they remain few.
Over
2,000 Palestinians have been arrested by security forces during nightly
raids and over 130 Palestinians have been killed in clashes with
Israeli troops or while carrying out attacks against Israelis.
