'Unacceptable incompetence': CDC made dozens of basic data errors on COVID, epidemiologists find - Grep Piper

 

​ by Grep Piper

FDA evidence for full approval of COVID antiviral Paxlovid, known for "rebound" infections in top federal officials, found wanting by scientists, including NIAID researcher.

 

The CDC found itself hoist with its own petard by making 25 basic statistical and numerical errors related to COVID-19, particularly with regard to children, while purporting to expose COVID vaccine misinformation, according to an analysis led by University of California San Francisco epidemiologists.

The preprint, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, documented 20 errors that "exaggerated the severity of the COVID-19 situation" and three that "simultaneously exaggerated and downplayed" severity, while one each was neutral or exaggerated vaccine risks. 

More than half were from 2022, but nearly as many were made in the first two months of 2023 as in all of 2021, they found. Several errors were related to the agency's COVID data tracker, which failed to align with its National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), and the CDC corrected at least in part 13 of the 16 errors brought to its attention.

The paper emphasizes how widely CDC errors can spread even if they are later corrected, with YouTube and Spotify linking its website on videos and podcasts that discuss COVID and the wide deference to CDC guidance in schools, businesses and healthcare facilities.

"The errors are damning," coauthor Vinay Prasad, a former National Institutes of Health fellow, said on Twitter. "Basic counts of dead kids, causes of childhood death. Unacceptable incompetence."

Just OUT @SSRN
By @KelleyKga, AH, @TracyBethHoeg @vkprasadlab

An Analysis of Statistical and Numerical Errors Made by the US @CDCgov

The errors are damning. Basic counts of dead kids, causes of childhood death.

Unacceptable incompetence 👇https://t.co/szmB78lfDC
see 🧵 pic.twitter.com/P9RMA2KywH

— Vinay Prasad MD MPH (@VPrasadMDMPH) March 23, 2023

 

UCSF's Alyson Haslam, a former CDC fellow who works in Prasad's lab, made the final call on CDC errors that Prasad, Tracy Beth Hoeg and independent Georgia COVID analyst Kelley Krohnert collectively agreed "were indisputable and incorrect, as a matter of fact, and not preference or opinion."

The trio conducted "real time" review of news sources, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meetings and materials, the agency's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and the Twitter accounts of the CDC and its director, as well as reports sent to them by others, going back to 2021.

The errors were heavily weighted toward exaggerating COVID's risk to children. Fifteen of the 16 pertaining to children's data "enhanced the perceived risk" of the virus and more than half the total errors involved mortality statistics, with the CDC data tracker "consistently" reporting higher deaths for children and adolescents than did NCHS.

Perhaps the most consequential error was the CDC's repeated promotion of a preprint that deemed COVID a "top 5" cause of death in children, which the agency only corrected in one place months later.

That paper compared 26 months of COVID deaths, where the virus was "one of several contributing causes to deaths," to 12 months of deaths from other causes that were "identified as the single underlying cause of death ... which by design exaggerates" the COVID risk to kids, the paper says.

It’s just so striking to see all these errors at once. Reckless incompetence from @CDCgov.

Thank you for your work! 👏 👏 👏 pic.twitter.com/59XjKWOBn7

— Kristen Mag (@kristenmag) March 23, 2023

 

Not only was the claim made in ACIP and FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meetings, but also at a White House briefing by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and by ACIP's chair in a subsequent meeting "after the errors were identified." Only ACIP's page on "vaccination evidence for young children" includes the correction.

The agency was plain sloppy in other errors, the authors allege. It listed pediatric deaths as 4% of COVID deaths when it meant to write 0.04% and gave a lower estimated rate of pediatric infections than symptomatic illness, with some errors remaining live for seven months.

"These errors have been made repeatedly and were likely to have affected discussion of pandemic policies," particularly the CDC's guidance calling for "school closures, mask mandates, and strong recommendations for vaccinations and multiple boosters even among children who have recovered from the virus," the authors conclude.

The CDC did not respond to queries for its response to the paper.

The FDA's evidence for full approval of Pfizer's COVID antiviral Paxlovid, shared with its advisory committee on antimicrobial drugs, also came under scrutiny.

The advisers voted in mid-March to approve the two-drug treatment for high-risk adults while warning that many patients could have harmful drug interactions, CNBC reported. The agency will make the final decision in May. (Pfizer long ago acknowledged Paxlovid is not useful against household transmission.)

While the FDA's briefing packet emphasized the infrequency of Paxlovid "rebound" infections — which hit the president, his COVID adviser, first lady and both FDA and CDC commissioners, all up to date on COVID jabs — its cited evidence only applies to a sliver of potential Paxlovid patients.

The Pfizer studies gave five-day treatments to unvaccinated high-risk patients (EPIC-HR) and vaccinated high-risk or unvaccinated low-risk patients before and after the Omicron variant wave (EPIC-SR). Only EPIC-HR found "any meaningful difference" compared to a placebo, a 5.6% absolute reduction and 86% relative reduction.

"Data supports the efficacy of Paxlovid regardless of Covid vaccination status or prior infection."

What?!? Their study concluded the exact opposite. There is ONLY statistical benefit if you are BOTH unvaxxed and high-risk. It's right in their own data!🤬https://t.co/bMfnH4I9eS

— Theo Jordan (@Theo_TJ_Jordan) March 16, 2023

 

The FDA emphasized the "symptom rebound" rates were similar between Paxlovid and placebo arms across both studies, around 10-16%. This shows that for a "subset" of infections, regardless of Paxlovid, "virologic and/or symptomatic rebound may occur as part of the natural progression and resolution of COVID-19 disease." 

A different graph on "viral RNA rebound," however, found notably higher rates in the Paxlovid arm in EPIC-HR and EPIC-SR's Omicron period. 

In a lengthy review of the FDA evidence, University of Minnesota infectious disease researcher David Boulware said it actually shows Paxlovid is "likely near zero benefit" for under-60s with a "normal immune system" and vaccine- or infection-induced immunity.

#Paxlovid effect on reducing #COVID19 hospitalizations in vaccinated population finally revealed to the public by FDA. #IDTwitter
0.9% (3/317) paxlovid vs. 2.2% (7/314) placebohttps://t.co/fO0hTWq168 pic.twitter.com/78MTXDN9rZ

— David Boulware, MD MPH (@boulware_dr) March 16, 2023

 

Before the Paxlovid vote, National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases scientist Margery Smelkinson questioned its emergency use authorization starting at age 12 in spite of dramatically different COVID risk by age. She noted Pfizer ended EPIC-SR early after finding no "statistically significant evidence of benefit." 

A member of the Norfolk Group of scientists, physicians and policy experts that recently published a "blueprint" for a potential COVID truth commission, Smelkinson pointed to the Paxlovid section of their report, which emphasizes the lack of rigorous data on who actually benefits from the treatment.

Prasad also questioned the quality of evidence for Paxlovid, including a Lancet Infectious Diseases observational study that found "the curves already split" between treatment and placebo groups at "Day 0," which he said indicates immortal time bias.

"Non randomized evidence will forever be plagued by differences in people who get pax and those who do not (likely being rich, health literate and well connected gets you more pax!)," he wrote in his newsletter in February.

The FDA declined to comment on the criticism of its proffered evidence. "We can’t comment on pending applications," press officer Chanapa Tantibanchachai wrote in an email.

 

Grep Piper

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/unacceptable-incompetence-cdc-made-dozens-basic-data-errors-covid

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Axis vs. Allies, Then and Now - Lawrence Kadish

 

​ by Lawrence Kadish

This 21st Century Axis has the same goals of its historic predecessor: global domination.

• In their summit meeting, Chinese and Russian leadership have done democracy a service of sorts. They have made their intentions clear and unmistakable. We need to have the strength, wisdom, insight, and courage to confront an alliance whose intent is to reduce America to a historic afterthought.

For Chinese and Russian leadership to meet over the bodies of Ukrainian freedom fighters sends a message to free nations around the world. This 21st Century Axis has the same goals of its historic predecessor: global domination. Pictured: China's President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin in Moscow on March 21, 2023. (Photo by Pavel Byrkin/Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images)

World War II was already a year old when Germany, Japan and Italy formally signed the Tripartite Pact in 1940, creating a military alliance among three nations intent on world domination. History would subsequently call them the Axis powers. It would be another year before America entered the conflict, but this Axis alliance of power sent a sharp and chilling message to Washington. There was no mistaking now that our nation, and our very civilization, was now in serious jeopardy.

In its wake, America accelerated its defense planning and just prior to the Axis pact being signed, the United States reintroduced the draft in recognition that, pact or no pact, democracy was at risk.

Today's "Axis" alliance membership is different -- China and Russia, along with North Korea and Iran -- but the goals are the same. For Chinese and Russian leadership to meet over the bodies of Ukrainian freedom fighters sends a message to free nations around the world. This 21st Century Axis has the same goals of its historic predecessor: global domination. While China is clearly the more powerful of those two nations, its intent to achieve global dominance is obvious to even the most casual observer.

Consider the data that is available as public information. Analysts report China spends $300 billion a year on its military, up from $22 billion some 23 years ago. The Chinese Communist Party intends to own the Pacific. Their navy is now larger than ours and they have created artificial islands upon which they have built military bases capable of firing missiles at American aircraft carriers patrolling international waters. Analysts also report they are gaining on nuclear warheads and with more land based missiles than the U.S.

While these statistics do not include the strategic forces its Axis partner can bring to the table, one should not conclude that Russia's inept showing in Ukraine means it cannot project a menacing military presence along NATO's borders.

During World War II, the arrival of the Axis alliance was confronted by a president who understood the threat, moved resolutely to defend this nation, and the future of democracy, and surrounded himself with military and civilian advisors who were smart, focused, and offered strategic advice.

Today's Axis challenge finds a profoundly different White House, one that often seems confused or surprised, incapable of articulating a strategy that will provide comfort to our allies or demand caution from our enemies. In their summit meeting, Chinese and Russian leadership have done democracy a service of sorts. They have made their intentions clear and unmistakable. We need to have the strength, wisdom, insight, and courage to confront an alliance whose intent is to reduce America to a historic afterthought.

Who in Washington is capable of saving our nation's future?

Lawrence Kadish serves on the Board of Governors of Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19538/axis-vs-allies-then-and-now

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel's National Security Advisor: There's a rather unusual US involvement in Israel's affairs - Israel National News

 

​ by Israel National News

Tzachi Hanegbi comments on Israel-US tensions, says other friends of Israel in the world have also expressed concerns.

 

Tzachi Hanegbi                                                                               Yonatan Sindel/Flash 90

National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi on Wednesday evening commented on the crisis in relations between the United States and Israel, and said that there is a rather unusual involvement of the United States in Israel's internal affairs.

Hanegbi told Kan 11 News in an interview that the US involvement does not stand alone, and that other leaders from countries that are friendly to Israel wish for the difficult and painful saga to pass.

He added that "relationships have always had ups and downs. President Biden, like every Israeli, is troubled by this public controversy that has burdened us all, and he is happy that there is calm and an attempt to reach understanding."

Hanegbi said that "the American approach does not interfere that much in what the understandings in Israel will ultimately be."He added that "they really want us to come to an agreement."

Regarding President Biden's message to Netanyahu, Hanegbi said, "I read the transcript of the conversation between Biden and the Prime Minister, and the President told him, 'I trust you to find a way to reach compromises.'"

Hanegbi’s comments come a day after Biden offered very harsh criticism of Israel, saying he is “very concerned” about the goings on in light of the judicial reform and adding, “They cannot continue down this road.”

Biden also added he will not be inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House in the near term.

Netanyahu later responded to Biden and said, “The alliance between Israel and the United States is unbreakable and always overcomes the occasional disagreements between us.”

He also stressed that “Israel is a sovereign country which makes its decisions by the will of its people and not based on pressures from abroad, including from the best of friends.”

On Wednesday, US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby was asked about the angry reactions of some Israeli officials at pressure from the Biden administration on the judicial reform issue and replied, "Israel is a democracy and a sovereign state, of course. And sovereign states make sovereign decisions."

"Our whole point about this and our whole concern is that we'd like to see decisions made there with a good friend like Israel, that are in keeping with consensus and that can be done with the broadest possible base of public support. Because that's one of the key components of a democracy, and Israel is a democracy. It's one of the great things that our two countries share, some basic fundamental democratic institutions and principles," he said.

Israel National News

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/369407

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Turkey: A Belated Farewell to Erdoğan? - Burak Bekdil

 

​ by Burak Bekdil

Reuters reported that new polls show the opposition's presidential candidate, CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leading against Erdoğan by more than 10 percentage points ahead of elections seen by many as the most consequential in Turkey's history.

• Polls suggest that although the presidential race will be tight, the gap against Erdoğan is widening.... [T]he CHP-led opposition bloc, with the participation of the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party, would win a combined 55.4% of the nationwide vote.

• Reuters reported that new polls show the opposition's presidential candidate, CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leading against Erdoğan by more than 10 percentage points ahead of elections seen by many as the most consequential in Turkey's history.

• Polling in Turkey can be a murky business. But with or without polls, realities spell existential danger for one of the world's most anti-Semitic and disruptive leaders.

Ahead of elections on May 14, Turkey's Islamist strongman, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is battling for survival after 21 corrupt and autocratic years in power. (Photo by Adem Altan/AFP via Getty Images)

Nearly a month and a half before the most critical presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkey's modern history, it is still too early to make a guess as to who will win: all indicators show that May 14 will be an extremely tight race. The results may even be inconclusive: there may be chaos, vote rigging, allegations and objections from both sides, the electoral board having to struggle with which side it should politically favor, potential re-runs in disputed districts, further disputes and even potential street violence.

An overall re-vote is also one of the possibilities. Another is that the country's Islamist strongman, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, battling for his survival after 21 corrupt and autocratic years in power, wins the presidential race but that his party loses its parliamentary majority. This result will mean governmental and administrative chaos.

Erdoğan's miraculous appeal to tens of millions of conservative and nationalist Turks seems to be waning. The economy is reeling from double-digit inflation rates, measured, officially, at 55% in February. The recent devastating twin earthquakes in the country's southeast will cost Turkey's ailing economy an additional $104 billion. Corruption and nepotism are rampant, while the average Turk earns barely $9,000 a year. Another key vulnerability for the economy is the current account deficit. It jumped 43% year-on-year to $9.85 billion in January, the highest monthly level since the data was first collected in 1984. The Turkish lira has lost about 60% of its value against the US dollar since March 2021.

The rule of law has evaporated tragically, in line with Erdoğan's dramatic shift from Turkey's "greatest reformer" to brutal oppressor. Polls show that nearly 70% of Turks do not trust the country's courts.

It appears that the state machinery and top brass in the bureaucracy are bracing for a shock. "For the first time in 20 years I will not vote for him [Erdoğan]. We've had enough of him. There are scores of bureaucrats of my rank who think the same," a director general at a critical government office told this author on March 25. "Why have you come to your senses so late?" I asked him. The director general, appointed by Erdoğan, ignored the question.

The main opposition, the Republican People's Party (CHP), says that civil servants are already sending in their resumes in preparation for a new order. They are apparently sensing that this could be the end of Erdoğan's one-man Islamist show and are simply hedging their bets. The numbers also speak. Just weeks before the elections, only 3,000 candidates have applied to Erdoğan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) to become members of parliament. For the 2018 elections, the number was 8,000.

Polls suggest that although the presidential race will be tight, the gap against Erdoğan is widening. The average of 11 polls conducted in March put the AKP's vote at 32.8% and its ultra-nationalist partner MHP's at 6.5% -- failing to win any parliamentary seats as its nationwide vote fell below the 7% national threshold. By contrast, the CHP-led opposition bloc, with the participation of the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party, would win a combined 55.4% of the nationwide vote.

Reuters reported that new polls show the opposition's presidential candidate, CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leading against Erdoğan by more than 10 percentage points ahead of elections seen by many as the most consequential in Turkey's history.

Polling in Turkey can be a murky business. But with or without polls, realities spell existential danger for one of the world's most anti-Semitic and disruptive leaders.

Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey's leading journalists, was recently fired from the country's most noted newspaper after 29 years, for writing in Gatestone what is taking place in Turkey. He is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19535/turkey-farewell-erdogan

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

House approves amendment to protect gas stoves from Biden admin, two dozen Democrats support - Ben Whedon

 

​ by Ben Whedon

The bill would still need to secure approval from both chambers of Congress and overcome a possible veto from President Joe Biden in order to take effect.

 

The House of Representatives on Wednesday approved an amendment to a pivotal energy bill that would bar the Department of Energy from restricting gas stoves.

In a 251-181 vote, more than two dozen Democrats crossed the aisle to support the measure, Fox News reported. The measure follows reports from earlier this year indicating that the Consumer Product Safety Commission was exploring a ban on the appliance due to health concerns.

That ban did not materialize, but the Department of Energy instead proposed strict regulations and efficiency requirements that would significantly increase the cost of using them. The administration has insisted it does not support banning gas stoves.

The bill itself would still need to secure approval from both chambers of Congress and overcome a possible veto from President Joe Biden in order to take effect.

The Democratic defections, however, could indicate significant bipartisan opposition to gas stove regulations that might give the administration pause when mulling whether to double down on its efforts.

While federal regulations remain a matter of debate, some left-leaning states such as New York have moved to impose even tighter restrictions on gas stoves and other "fossil fuel equipment."

Ben Whedon is an editor and reporter for Just the News. Follow him on Twitter.

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/house-approves-amendment-protect-gas-stoves-biden-admin-democrat-support

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Cultural And Political Forces Driving Violence In The Black Community - Vince Coyner

 

​ by Vince Coyner

American blacks inherited a violent culture that is not their own, but the Democrat establishment has a vested interest in keeping them locked into that culture.

 

America has a problem: a subculture of black crime. Every race has criminals, but when 6% of the population, black males, are responsible for over 50% of the murders and violent crimes, one must ask why. The answer lies in the irony that blacks inherited the worst of old-time, white Scots-Irish culture, over which leftists placed racial grievance politics. The former created bad behavior; the latter leaves blacks unprepared or unwilling to address that behavior.

Thomas Sowell’s fascinating Conquests and Cultures discusses how different societies evolved. The primary takeaway is that, in the last 500 years, the Europeans have far surpassed the rest of the planet while Africans have lagged farthest behind. This isn’t race-based. It’s because of water and geography.

Europe has numerous easily navigable rivers and deep-water harbors. Additionally, almost every spot on the continent is within 500 miles of the sea, allowing most Europeans to trade within Europe and around the world. That ability to easily trade foods, manufactured goods, people and, most of all, ideas with one another allowed Europeans to incorporate everything from gunpowder from China to numbers from India, crafting a civilization that far surpassed anything found anywhere else. The inventiveness, efficiencies, freedoms, and prosperity Europeans developed allowed them to dominate the world for centuries.

Image: 19th-century drawing showing an Appalachian couple (i.e., Scots-Irish), entitled “The trial’s next Wednesday,” by E.W. Kemble (1861-1933). Public domain

Africa, however, has few deep-water harbors and few functionally navigable rivers, and its rugged topography make the exchange of goods, people, and ideas over large areas difficult at best and almost impossible at worst. In pre-modern times, those barriers saw most civilizations in sub-Saharan Africa remain relatively insular and isolated.

Africans couldn’t benefit from the exchange of ideas and goods, which would have allowed them to coalesce into powerful, advanced societies. This reality has nothing to do with race. Sowell points out that similar geographic hurdles impeded the development of robust trading mechanisms in a number of places in Europe, including the Scottish Highlands, Russia, and much of the Balkans, with similarly retarded cultural development.

Sowell is clear: It’s geography that shapes a society’s culture, not race. The same is true in America. As Sowell shows in Black Rednecks and White Liberals, southern blacks adopted the self-destructive culture of the early Scots-Irish settlers. To this non-African heritage, the left has added a sense of chronic victimhood. The result? Violence and a lack of respect for people and property that so many predominantly black communities display.

What Sowell calls “Cultural capital” must be developed. It involves an ability and willingness to work to achieve desired goals. He contrasts the success of the Germans and Japanese after WWII with that of many of the newly independent states in Africa in the second half of the 20th century. All received massive amounts of money from outside, but the outcomes were far different.

While Germany and Japan became economic juggernauts, most newly independent African nations became economic basket cases where poverty and corruption reigned while freedom and security were almost nonexistent. He points out that while it was engineers and business leaders who took the lead in Germany and Japan after the war, in Africa it was usually members of the western educated intelligentsia, steeped in “social sciences” and largely lacking in knowledge or experience in demonstrably productive endeavors who took the lead.

In the United States, the same leftist intelligentsia (read Democrats…) have led much of black America into similarly dire straits. Democrats have convinced a significant portion of black Americans that they are victims of systemic racism that cannot be overcome.

The catalyst was, of course, slavery. While slavery did exist, as did its Jim Crow progeny, the problems that bedevil many black Americans today have little to do with these racist systems. Slavery has been gone for 170 years, and Jim Crow for more than half a century. Since then, the country has seen government-mandated school integration, decades of affirmative action and government welfare programs and, perhaps most harmfully, programs that made it economically viable for women to have children without the father present, resulting in 70% of black babies being born out of wedlock and raised by single mothers.

Still, leftists claim, America is systemically racist—even though between 1947 and 2021, the median individual income for blacks rose 458% while, for whites, it rose only 297%. But we’re told racism is America’s biggest threat—even though “hate crimes” are so few that there seems to be a cottage industry associated with fakes. However, Blacks, we’re told, can’t succeed in America—even though the $35,000 median household income of the average black American family is higher than the median household income of every other country on the planet except for Luxemburg, Norway, Canada, and Switzerland.

The Democrats’ ability to brainwash a significant number of black Americans into believing they’re victims of white racism leads to the carnage that plays itself out across the country, as viral videos too frequently prove. This violence seems to be different from 20 years ago, both in terms of savagery and frequency.

In 1998 Jessie Jackson said, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” Today, the danger Jackson alludes to exists not only when people are walking down the street, but while serving customers in restaurants, working in a drugstore or at the Apple Store, or standing on a subway platform.

People ask how the Nazis could kill so many Jews with so little remorse. It was easy. A media campaign of dehumanization. A firehose pumping out propaganda that Jews were not human unsurprisingly resulted in a significant percentage of the German people believing that Jews were indeed subhuman and, therefore, could be abused and killed to the point of extinction.

The campaign the Nazis used is not so different from what the Democrats are using today to convince black Americans that they are indeed victims of white racism. In just one week during the 2020 election campaign, CNN and MSNBC used the term “racist” 4,100 times. The Democrat’s Victim Industrial Complex has been so successful that a recent Rasmussen poll found that 47% of blacks disagreed with or weren’t sure about the statement: “It’s OK to be white.”

But it’s not only the whites we see being punched, kicked, stomped, and shot because of the nihilism inculcated into blacks brainwashed to think the world is their enemy; it’s Asians, Hispanics and, most of all, other blacks. In many black neighborhoods in American cities, crime rates rival those of the deadliest cities in the world.

If there’s any question about this, visit two websites—Bestneighborhood and Neighborhoodscout—and compare the data. The first shows the geographic population data for cities by race, while the second shows precinct-level crime rates. What you’ll discover is that, in almost every big city, there’s a direct correlation between the levels of crime and the percentage of the black population within the area.

The violent dystopian reality that tragically characterizes too much of black America results directly from the Democrat’s Victim Industrial Complex, which discourages black Americans from breaking free from the worst of the Scots-Irish culture they absorbed in the south. Leftists have told too many black people they have no opportunity for success, and that negative outcomes in their lives are due to the racist system they were born into. They’ve taught them that math, coffee, physical fitness, and virtually everything else, are racist. Simultaneously they’ve allowed many to terrorize their communities with impunity because of “equity.”

The Democrat’s Victim Industrial Complex has sadly destroyed Sowell’s “Cultural capital” for much of black America. And that’s a problem for everyone because, as Abraham Lincoln said in 1858, “A house divided against itself, cannot stand.”

You can follow Vince on Twitter at ImperfectUSA.

 

Vince Coyner

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/03/the_cultural_and_political_forces_driving_violence_in_the_black_community.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

War over the corporate kingdom: DeSantis' new board spars for control with Disney - Matt Leach

 

​ by Matt Leach

Board created to limit Disney's self-governing status headed for legal fight

 

A board appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis to run a district overseeing Disney World looks to be headed for a legal fight with the corporate giant.

In the hours before the Florida House of Representatives approved a state takeover, the board — still under control of company appointees — transferred many duties of the special district over to Disney's control.

"The Executive Office of the Governor is aware of Disney's last-ditch efforts to execute contracts just before ratifying the new law that transfers rights and authorities from the former Reedy Creek Improvement District to Disney," said a spokesperson for the governor’s office, Taryn Fenske.

DESANTIS SIGNS BILL REVOKING DISNEY'S SELF-GOVERNING POWER

According to developer agreements signed into effect Feb. 8, the same day the Florida House passed legislation to control aspects of Disney’s land, the Reedy Creek Improvement District transferred most of its power to Disney for the next 30 years.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this year gained control over a board that oversees aspects of Disney World. (Roberto Machado Noa/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The governor was not aware of the agreements made by the former board before putting his stamp on the new district, according DeSantis’ office. However, they were passed by the board during a public meeting that included public hearings.

"An initial review suggests these agreements may have significant legal infirmities that would render the contracts void as a matter of law," Fenske said. "We are pleased the new Governor-appointed board retained multiple financial and legal firms to conduct audits and investigate Disney's past behavior."

The moves were not widely discovered until a Wednesday meeting of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight Board, formerly known as the Reedy Creek Special District.

"I can’t think of a more naked attempt to circumvent the will of the voters and the will of the Florida Legislature and the will of the governor," new board member, Brian Aungst Jr., said. 

GOV. RON DESANTIS: DISNEY WILL FINALLY PAY ITS FAIR SHARE

DeSantis has sparred with Disney ever since the corporate giant came out against the Parental Rights in Education legislation. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

"This development agreement, which in my opinion is void … was passed the same day the Florida House passed the bill creating this board, and it was done to prevent us from doing our job," he continued. "That is offensive to me."

FORMER DISNEY CEO PRIVATELY COMPLAINED TO DESANTIS ABOUT ‘PRESSURE’ FROM WOKE LEFT AMID FLORIDA FIGHT: BOOK

The previous board that oversaw aspects of Disney World approved a series of agreements that gave the corporate giant a wide range of control. (Getty Images for Disney Dreamers Academy)

Disney said in a statement, "All agreements signed between Disney and the District were appropriate, and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida Government in the Sunshine law."

The new board hired two outside law firms as it weighs litigation.

Matt Leach is a Fox Digital Originals senior producer based in Tampa, FL.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/war-corporate-kingdom-desantis-new-board-spars-control-disney

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden Regime Even Wanted to Censor PRIVATE Text Messages - Robert Spencer

 

​ by Robert Spencer

How long before it happens?

 

The Biden regime has already abundantly established that it has no patience for dissent. The Twitter Files show regime lackeys pressuring Twitter, along with other social media giants, to silence people who dared question, among other things, its COVID-19 narrative — yes, the one that has been shown to have been full of holes all along. But as is so often the case these days, it gets worse. Now it has come to light that the Biden White House actually pressured Meta to censor private WhatsApp texts that dared to express disagreement from the regime’s line. Yes, private texts.

This is not some crazy “far right” conspiracy theory (many of which have turned out to be true, anyway). It comes from investigative journalist David Zweig, whose Leftist bona fides are impeccable: he has written for The Atlantic, New York magazine, and Wired, among others. Despite this background, Zweig has had the integrity to reveal that the Biden regime is even more obsessed with crushing dissenting voices than we had previously known, and rivals even Stalin and Mao in its determination to allow only the approved line to be aired.

Zweig “gained access to emails between White House staffers and Meta executives about WhatsApp that underlie this investigative report. The emails were obtained through discovery in Missouri v Biden, a first amendment case brought by two attorneys general, and New Civil Liberties Alliance (a nonprofit public interest law firm) on behalf of private plaintiffs.” These emails demonstrate that less than a week after taking power, Biden’s handlers began talks with Meta executives regarding “content moderation.” That was when things took a dark turn.

Zweig notes that “of specific concern was vaccine hesitancy and how Meta would combat this across its multiple platforms, including Facebook and Instagram.” That much was to be expected, given what we already know about how Old Joe’s henchmen worked to censor dissidents on Twitter. But regime wonks made “repeated queries about another Meta property, WhatsApp, a service designed for private messaging.” Almost all of WhatsApp’s users make use of the platform for just that — private messages with one other person. Zweig says that “according to Meta, 90% of WhatsApp messages are from one person to another,” and while the app does have a group option, “groups typically have fewer than 10 people.” Yet Biden’s handlers wanted to censor disagreement even on WhatsApp.

One of the chief Stalinists, Rob Flaherty, the Biden White House’s Director of Digital Strategy, sent “multiple emails” to Meta top dogs, demanding they “tell him what interventions the company had taken on WhatsApp.” He “wanted to know what they were doing to reduce harm on the messaging app.” On March 22, 2021, this tinhorn authoritarian demanded specific information about how Meta was deep-sixing dissident WhatsApp messages: “I’m confused about how you’re measuring reduction of harm.” Apparently referring to WhatsApp’s pledge of privacy to its users, he added, “If you can’t see the message, I’m genuinely curious—how do you know what kinds of messages you’ve cut down on? Assuming you’ve got a good mousetrap here, that’s the kind of info we’re looking for above: what interventions you’ve taken, and what you’ve found to work and not work?” Mousetrap? Did the Biden regime expect WhatsApp to set out some kind of bait in order to trap dissidents?

Because of the difficulty of isolating individual dissenting texts, the objective quickly became one of propaganda rather than censorship. Zweig states that “because of WhatsApp’s structure, targeted suppression or censorship of certain information did not appear possible. Instead, much of the aim of the content moderation on WhatsApp, therefore, was to ‘push’ information to users.” WhatsApp users were inundated with agitprop from the WHO, UNICEF, and “more than 100 governments and health ministries.” Flaherty, however, wasn’t satisfied with this, and continued to push for more. When “a Meta employee responded to Flaherty’s questions, explaining that WhatsApp is for private messaging,” Flaherty “replied that he was ‘very aware’ and added a smiley face.”

The primary tool that the app had to suppress dissent, however, was simply to limit the ability to forward messages. But Flaherty was still unhappy, writing Meta honchos, “I care mostly about what actions and changes you’re making to ensure you’re not making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem worse. I still don’t have a good, empirical answer on how effective you’ve been at reducing the spread of vaccine-skeptical content and misinformation to vaccine fence sitters.”

Remember, he was writing this about a private messaging service. How long before the Biden regime starts hiring people to read your personal texts and censor those that contain what it considers to be “misinformation”? That idea might not be as fanciful, or that day as far off, as we would like to think.

Robert Spencer

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/biden-regime-even-wanted-to-censor-private-text-messages/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why did the Biden administration oppose Israeli judicial reform? - Jonathan S. Tobin

 

​ by Jonathan S. Tobin

Ignore Washington’s hypocritical talk about protecting democracy. They want a weak government that won’t make trouble when it comes to Iran, and they won’t stop until they get one.

 

It didn’t play a decisive role in the drama that unfolded in Israel as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to call a halt to his efforts to enact judicial reform. But the Biden administration’s willingness to involve itself in the push to oppose the measure was remarkable for two reasons.

The first is that, as The New York Times noted, Washington made no secret of its efforts to directly intervene in a domestic Israeli dispute in a manner that was almost unprecedented. The second was that the standard by which the administration seems ready to judge its Israeli counterpart is entirely hypocritical and would, if applied to Biden, categorize him as just as much of an “authoritarian” as Netanyahu. Or at least it would if those scurrilous accusations that have been hurled against the Likud-led government by its opponents—and dutifully mimicked by the international media, as well as many Democrats and American Jewish organizations—weren’t entirely false.

But however unpersuasive or politically motivated, what the Times termed a “U.S. pressure campaign” to shelve the reform legislation had nothing to do with a belief in the virtues of Israel’s current judicial system.

If they favor the continued rule of what amounts to a juristocracy in the Jewish state, it is for the same reason that most of the people who jammed the streets of Israel’s cities or sought to undermine its economy and national defense did. They see the maintenance of an unaccountable court with virtually unlimited power as the only way to maintain the Israeli left’s political power even when they lose elections, as Netanyahu’s opponents did only a few months ago.

Even more to the point, Washington is as determined as the anti-Bibi resistance not just to stop judicial reform but to oust a democratically elected government by any means possible. Biden’s interest in toppling him is disconnected from any purported concern about Netanyahu’s alleged shortcomings. What the White House and State Department want is a more pliable Israeli prime minister who will keep quiet about the nuclear threat from Iran and who can be intimidated into not acting to forestall that deadly threat to Israel’s existence.

As to the substance of the American critique of the effort to reform Israel’s judiciary, as a JNS report described, the hypocrisy of Biden’s stand is epic in nature.

Democrats and their liberal Jewish supporters are vocal critics of the U.S. Supreme Court because of its current conservative majority and its willingness to enforce constitutional limits on the power of the state. Biden and the Democrats have been assailing the independence of the court for years with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) even issuing warnings against its conservative members that liberals would have labeled as incitement to violence, if not criminal threats, had they been uttered by a Republican.

Equally hypocritical is their talk about Netanyahu being at fault for not seeking a national consensus before trying to enact change with a narrow parliamentary majority. That never stopped Democrats from advancing ideas that they considered to be progressive innovations, like Obamacare, with no consensus, compromise or broad congressional support. Nor did it stop liberal American Jews from supporting the disastrous Oslo Accords or the disengagement from Gaza, which were pulled off with even less support in the Knesset than Netanyahu can boast.

As for behaving like a dictator, Biden’s predilection for governing by executive order—of which his canceling of student loan debt is just one outstanding example—even when his diktats are obviously contrary to the Constitution or existing laws makes anything Netanyahu might attempt look like child’s play. Biden bristles at the ability of American courts to strike down some of his more egregious initiatives, even when they do so on the basis of settled law. But his administration apparently thinks that when Israel’s Supreme Court strikes down Netanyahu’s efforts to govern—on the basis of no law and only on the judges’ subjective ideas about what is “reasonable”—it’s a great idea.

The same applies to the critiques of judicial reform that emanated from establishment Jewish groups like the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. And though the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is supposed to speak for a consensus of all Jewish groups and act in defense of Israel rather than specific political factions inside the country, it joined the liberal groups in praising Netanyahu’s surrender to the mob. It then had the chutzpah to laud the protesters, who sought to sabotage the country to get their way without even any attempt at balance by treating supporters of the government and reform, who clearly outnumbered the critics at the ballot box last November, as equally praiseworthy.

A number of the leaders of those groups may share the fear and contempt for Israel’s right-wing and religious voters that animate many, if not most, of the protesters who believe that any government that isn’t dominated by the left is somehow illegitimate. But they also understand that the hyperbolic claims that Netanyahu and advocates of judicial reform seek to impose a dictatorship or a Torah state is pure fiction.

Yet it isn’t an accident that arguments being floated about the issue of Israeli judicial reform from American sources are so weak and unpersuasive. What Biden and his supporters want in Jerusalem isn’t so much an all-powerful Supreme Court—though they are pleased if it can hamstring Netanyahu’s attempt to govern, as it has continually attempted to do—but anything that can help oust the prime minister.

The Biden foreign-policy team, largely made up as it is of Obama administration alumni, bears a grudge against Netanyahu. The eight years of bickering between Washington and Jerusalem centered on former President Barack Obama’s futile efforts to undermine Netanyahu and force him to make concessions to a Palestinian Authority that had no interest in peace. They reached a peak in 2015 during Netanyahu’s campaign to try and halt Washington’s push for appeasement of Iran, which led to the dangerous nuclear deal that year that enriched and empowered the Islamist regime.

While Biden seems to have wisely disabused himself of myths about the Palestinians wanting peace, he is still interested in realigning U.S. Middle East policy away from support for allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia in favor of a rapprochement with Iran, even if his efforts to revive the nuclear deal have flopped.

Under the current circumstances in which Iran has shown its contempt for the Americans, Biden is still eager to avoid any confrontation with Tehran over the fact that, thanks to the Democrats’ appeasement policy, it is fast approaching the status of being a threshold nuclear power. As one of Biden’s most loyal aides—chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Miley—recently made clear, the administration is now willing to tolerate Iran having nuclear weapons as long as they are not going to publicly flaunt them.

This attitude isn’t just unacceptable to all of Israel’s major political parties. It constitutes a grave threat to the security of the Jewish state that no Israeli prime minister could reasonably be expected to tolerate. But there is a big difference between Netanyahu and someone like opposition leader Yair Lapid, whom Biden hopes will soon return to the prime minister’s office. As the multi-party coalition that ruled Israel from June 2021 to December 2022—led in part by Lapid—demonstrated, no one other than Netanyahu has the guts to confront the Americans, even over an existential threat like Iran. Biden knows that if the current government survives, it will present a formidable challenge to the disgraceful policy that Milley articulated.

So while there is nothing new about American governments seeking to intervene in Israeli politics, the brazen nature of Biden’s attack on Netanyahu says nothing about the virtues of judicial reform. It does, however, speak volumes about how much the administration wants an Israeli government that won’t cause trouble over Iran.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/why-did-the-biden-administration-oppose-israeli-judicial-reform/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

What’s to stop the next government from reversing judicial reform? - David Isaac

 

​ by David Isaac

Opposition leader Yair Lapid has repeatedly said he will roll back everything on the day he returns to power.

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for a “timeout” on judicial reform to give dialogue a chance. He also promised his supporters that reform will get done. If negotiations fail, and the coalition pushes through reform anyway, the opposition has promised to reverse it once it’s at the helm.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid of the Yesh Atid Party has repeatedly said, as he did in February at the Knesset, “On the day we return to power, all these changes will be canceled.… We will fight against all this insanity with all our strength.”

Two analysts JNS spoke with, despite holding opposite views about the reform, said that’s unlikely. Russell Shalev of the Kohelet Policy Forum, who supports the reform, and Amichai Cohen of the Israel Democracy Institute, who opposes it, agree that the opposition will not want to give up the reform’s benefits because the reform takes power away from judges and gives it to elected officials. Politicians would, therefore, have an incentive to uphold the new system.

“The basic idea behind all these reform proposals is democratic accountability—increasing the public’s ability to decide on the policies that influence our faith, our politics, our country,” Shalev told JNS. He noted that the most important proposal advanced so far, up until Netanyahu froze the legislative process on Monday, was a bill to change how judges are selected by nullifying judges’ control over the Judicial Selection Committee.

“The reform gives the public [through its elected officials] the ability to appoint judges. So I have a hard time believing that should this be passed in the future, a left-wing government will give up its newfound power to decide who will be the judges,” he said.

Once they receive more power…

Cohen, despite having an unfavorable view of the reforms, believing “they would significantly undermine the identity of Israel as a democratic state,” nevertheless seconded Shalev’s assessment. “Once they receive more power, will politicians be willing to give it up? I don’t think so. They believe that they should be in control and they won’t want to hand it back,” he said, adding that he opposes politicians from either side having “unbalanced, unchecked power.”

Shalev disagreed that politicians will gain unchecked power, noting that elections act as a check. “There is a lot of misinformation about the proposals—how the coalition will have no checks and balances and can do whatever it wants; how giving it the power to choose judges is such a terrible thing. But in a democracy, the coalition today is the opposition tomorrow and the opposition in four years will be the majority. It’ll be the other side that chooses the judges and will be able to promote its policies. There’s nothing here that warrants the apocalyptic rhetoric that we’re hearing.”

Jerome Marcus, an American lawyer who has written extensively on Israel’s legal reform, took a more pessimistic view about the chances reform will stick, even assuming the legislative freeze thaws and the government resumes it. In his scenario, the opposition won’t get a chance to reverse it because the Supreme Court will strike the reform down.

“I don’t know what happens then. There’s no road map here. It’s the very definition of a constitutional crisis,” Marcus told JNS. “But I think the likelihood is very strong that the government would fall and it’s certainly good odds that the next government would not be a government that supported these proposals.

“They probably would be delighted to reverse whatever was enacted, but again I think they won’t have to reverse anything because the Supreme Court will already have struck it down.”

Marcus said he thought the government, and not the court, would fall because cracks had already appeared within the Likud Party before Netanyahu made his announcement calling for a timeout.

While Justice Minister Yair Levin warned the Supreme Court on March 20 that he wouldn’t accept a court decision overturning judicial reform, and was echoed by another architect of the reform, Knesset member Simcha Rothman, Economy Minister Nir Barkat of Likud said a day later he would accept the court’s decision. Other Likud MKs called for a temporary halt to the legislation.

The coalition has a five-vote margin in the Knesset and it won’t hold on to enough MKs to see the battle between the branches through, Marcus predicted. The court, on the other hand, will be of one mind, “which is the problem this reform attempts to address in the first place. They all think alike.”

David Isaac

Source: https://www.jns.org/whats-to-stop-the-next-government-from-reversing-judicial-reform/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter