OC Supervisor Lisa Bartlett: Like Chad Mayes Abuses Taxpayers and Republican

We have seen it before.  People like Chad Mayes claiming to be a Republican, even taking the leadership of the GOP in the Assembly.  Then taking them over the cliff in favor of tax hikes and money going to the train to nowhere.  Brian Maienschein who told us he was a conservative Republican and we spent a million dollars to get him elected—then a couple of months later he announced he was a Newsom Democrat.  Even in the California Republican Party we have actual delegates that are supposed to help Republicans, instead working to defeat President Trump and GOP Senators across the nation.  Mike Madrid was appointed to be a delegate to the California Republican Party by Chad Mayes.  No surprise in 2016 Mayes OPPOSED Trump for President.  Also, Luis Alvarado, claiming to be a GOP consultant and delegate—is part of the Lincoln Project with Madrid to defeat the President and GOP Senators—yet the CRP has allowed them to stay as voting members of the organization, though violating the by-laws.

Now we come to another “Republican” Orange County Supervisor Lisa Bartlett.  You know the type.  She will tell you anything to get your donations and your vote.  Now she is acting like a Democrat—she is using her office to lie to the public, so she can stay in office.  (h/t to Jon Fleischman and the Flashreport for exposing this career politician.  See the article here.  

OC Supervisor Lisa Bartlett: Like Chad Mayes Abuses Taxpayers and Republican

Stephen Frank, editorial Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,  7/13/20

This is a cautionary tale.  While it only affects the people of Orange County, it tells you a lot about the weasel language of career politicians.  When you heat an office holder say they only want to tweak a current law or rule, know you are in trouble.  A word here and a word there and the whole meaning fo a law can change.  Look at what “GOP” Supervisor Lisa Barlett has proposed.  This is from the Flashreport.

“Without voters changing the County Charter, poor Bartlett cannot file for re-election in 2022.

This is her proposed ballot title (for a November ballot measure):

“An ordinance of the County of Orange, California, adding section 1-2-9.1 to the codified ordinances of the County of Orange imposing a lifetime limit on the number of terms for members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors”

That is the big print that voters would see.  What you don’t see unless you get well into the weeds on the small print is that there is already a two-term limit, after which a Supervisor has to leave office.  They CAN run again in the future, but this has happened literally once in the history of the county.  Also, in the fine print is the changing of the term limits from two four-year terms to three four-year terms.

And what is not in the print at all is that there is a very strong legal argument that if this measure passes it would “reset” the terms of all of the incumbents, meaning that Bartlett could run for an additional three terms in office, serving until 2034!  While the county lawyers opine this would not likely be the outcome, independent counsel that is not beholding to the Supervisors of course gave the requested opinion.”

By some very minor changes she has:

  1.  Given herself 12 more years as a Supervisor—instead of being termed out in 2022.
  2. She is changing two four years terms, for everybody, into three four year terms.
  3. Her title sound like you do not have term limits in OC—a lie.
  4. If the OC Board of Supervisors agree to put this measure on the November ballot, it will cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for the election.
  5. Demolishes the credibility of those not strongly opposing this measure.

The people of Orange County agreed to the current two term and out limits for Supervisors.  After a period of time, you can run again, under the current law.  Instead Bartlett, pretending to be a conservative Republican is acting like a Regressive Democrat, trying to change the laws to fit her PERSONAL desires.

Sadly this has been promoted VERY quietly and most in the County have no idea of how Bartlett wants to use tax dollars to get an extra 12 years in office.  Please forward this article and the FlashReport article to your friends and activists all over the County—we need to stop this power grab. In Fleischman’s piece he gives contact info for these Supervisors. I encourage you to take a moment and send some emails to the Supervisors, opposing Bartlett’s political play here.”

The OC Board of Supervisors will be voting on this tomorrow, Tuesday—please call your Supervisor and urge a NO vote.  It is expected that the lone Democrat on the Board (already a cosponsor) will second the motion,

.

Not All Black Lives Matter to Black Lives Matter

If Black Lives Matter, the Marxist Movement organization was truly about black lives, then they would be protesting in front of every abortion clinic in the nation.  In New York City, Planned Parenthood kills more black babies every year, than black babies born in the city.  Theses black lives should matter.

“This week, CNN’s Don Lemon, who has spent the last few weeks bashing the supposed thoroughgoing systemic racism of the United States, hosted black actor Terry Crews.

He then proceeded to browbeat Crews, who had committed the great sin of tweeting, “#ALLBLACKLIVESMATTER 9 black CHILDREN killed by violence in Chicago since June 20, 2020.” Lemon specifically objected to Crews’ hashtag.

After Lemon humbly informed Crews that he has skin “as tough as an armadillo,” he then lectured: “The Black Lives Matter movement was started because it was talking about police brutality. … But that’s not what Black Lives Matter is about. It’s not … all-encompassing … The Black Lives Matter movement is about police brutality and injustice in that matter, not about what’s happening in black neighborhoods.”

To Lemon and the emotional disturbed BLM movement folks, black killing blacks is not worthy of attention—those lives do not matter.  Be honest, BLM  is a Marxist operation using black people to take away their freedoms, permanently—just as the Movement takes away everybody’s freedom, regardless of color.

Not All Black Lives Matter to Black Lives Matter

Ben Shapiro, Daily Signal,  7/10/20 

Ben Shapiro is host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is The New York Times best-selling author of “Bullies.” He is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, and lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles.

This week, CNN’s Don Lemon, who has spent the last few weeks bashing the supposed thoroughgoing systemic racism of the United States, hosted black actor Terry Crews.

He then proceeded to browbeat Crews, who had committed the great sin of tweeting, “#ALLBLACKLIVESMATTER 9 black CHILDREN killed by violence in Chicago since June 20, 2020.” Lemon specifically objected to Crews’ hashtag.

After Lemon humbly informed Crews that he has skin “as tough as an armadillo,” he then lectured: “The Black Lives Matter movement was started because it was talking about police brutality. … But that’s not what Black Lives Matter is about. It’s not … all-encompassing … The Black Lives Matter movement is about police brutality and injustice in that matter, not about what’s happening in black neighborhoods.”

This, of course, is largely false. The Black Lives Matter movement did indeed begin with protests about police brutality but quickly morphed into broader debates over the validity of looting and rioting, tearing down historic statues, slavery reparations, and defunding the police.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

And Black Lives Matter, as Crews correctly pointed out, has never restricted its mandate to the question of police violence: It has announced that its focuses also include police brutality, transgender rights, gay rights, disrupting the nuclear family, and freeing Palestine, among other diverse topics.

So why is Lemon so deeply invested in preventing conversations about black lives? Why, in fact, do only some black lives matter, rather than all?

That’s not merely a question asked by conservatives or contrarians. It’s being asked all over the United States by black Americans being left to the predations of criminals, in large part thanks to the woke virtue signaling of many Black Lives Matter leaders and media allies.

In Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser emblazoned the enormous yellow words “BLACK LIVES MATTER” on 16th Street. Protesters quickly added “DEFUND THE POLICE.”

One month later, 11-year-old Davon McNeal was shot in the head while heading to a family cookout on July 4. His grandfather, John Ayala, lamented: “We’re protesting for months, for weeks, saying, ‘Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter.’ Black lives matter it seems like only when a police officer shoots a black person. What about all the black-on-black crime that’s happening in the community?”

McNeal was just one of the latest victims of a wave of violence gripping America’s major cities.

Last weekend, at least 89 people were shot in Chicago, leaving at least 17 dead. Shootings in Philadelphia have spiked 67%. In the first week of June, Los Angeles saw a shocking 250% increase in murders from the prior week. New York City’s shootings have skyrocketed 44% over last year’s numbers; every person shot there the week of June 29—101—was from a minority community.

It turns out that the agenda of Black Lives Matter, which includes fighting against the prevalence of police—a call taken up by Democratic mayors and city councils around the United States—endangers black lives far more than the presence of police.

Yet these lives don’t particularly matter for Black Lives Matter advocates, apparently. Black lives matter when we’re talking about police brutality. But Lemon has no airtime each night for those who seek to talk about threats to black lives that dwarf in severity problems related to policing—and that are just as newsworthy.

Indeed, the statistical case is unassailable that the daily murder of minority youths in America’s major cities is far more newsworthy than the latest cable panel discussion of “white fragility” or the “power of whiteness.”

But our current Black Lives Matter moment isn’t about Davon McNeal, even if the wages of Black Lives Matter’s recommended policies are death for those left unprotected by law enforcement. All that matters for too many in our elite institutions is the narrative that America’s systems are the greatest obstacle to black Americans. And not all lives lost are equally valuable in promoting that perverse narrative.

Bill to create state public bank could jumpstart San Fran efforts

San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer and openly socialist L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti want their governments to buy the utilities, so they are no longer private—publicly owned.  San Fran is about to open a State bank.  The purpose  To force the closure of private banks.  How, by putting all government money in the State owned bank.  Want to buy a home with some State tax credits?  You have to get the loan from the government bank.  A non profit that gets money from government will have to close out their Wells Fargo account and open a new one in the State owned bank.  In the end, private banks will no longer operate in the Socialist Paradise of California.

“Assemblymembers David Chiu, who represents San Francisco, and Miguel Santiago, who represents part of Los Angeles, announced Assembly Bill 310 on Thursday to turn the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, known as IBank, into a state public bank.

That bank would eventually allow various agencies and departments in California to make deposits, freeing it from fees and investment choices of big banks. For cities like San Francisco, which is in the process of creating its own local public bank, the state bank would help jumpstart that effort after it was stalled by coronavirus.

“They would have been relying on local monies,” said Chiu of local efforts. “Now all of those jurisdictions have had enormous whacks to their budget. We need a state public bank to ensure the state’s money is going to work for the people.”

Once the government owns the banks they will decide who can get a loan, who can’t—an end to private capital in California.  Another reason for people and companies to flee the State.

Karl Marx, Godfather of San Fran politics

Bill to create state public bank could jumpstart SF efforts

Ida Mojadad, SF Examiner,  7/9/20  

  •  

California may move $10 billion of its investment banking funds to rebuild its economy battered by coronavirus and convert the financial arm into the country’s second state public bank.

Assemblymembers David Chiu, who represents San Francisco, and Miguel Santiago, who represents part of Los Angeles, announced Assembly Bill 310 on Thursday to turn the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, known as IBank, into a state public bank.

That bank would eventually allow various agencies and departments in California to make deposits, freeing it from fees and investment choices of big banks. For cities like San Francisco, which is in the process of creating its own local public bank, the state bank would help jumpstart that effort after it was stalled by coronavirus.

“They would have been relying on local monies,” said Chiu of local efforts. “Now all of those jurisdictions have had enormous whacks to their budget. We need a state public bank to ensure the state’s money is going to work for the people.”

The Bank of North Dakota has managed public money since 1919 and is noted by public bank proponents for withstanding recessions while investing in the state. America Samoa opened its own bank in 2018 as an oasis to the banking desert.

The immediate focus of AB 310 is to redirect 10 percent of the IBank’s roughly $99 billion in California’s Pooled Investment Account to state entities and businesses in recovery mode. Once the bill takes effect, it would be able to expand its usual lending capability and dole out loans to help the state economy bounce back.

“We already have the money, it’s invested outside our state” said Sushil Jacobs, senior economic justice attorney with Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights in of the San Francisco Bay Area. “I think people recognize that we’re in extremely trying times and now is the time for the state to take the lead in banking.”

AB 310 is co-sponsored by the California Public Banking Alliance and backed by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks in Oakland and Ash Kalra in San Jose. Chiu and Santiago previously authored Assembly Bill 857, which allows cities to apply for a banking license, which passed to great bank lobbying resistance in October.

Legislation by Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer would have had a task force submit a business plan for its own public bank by June 2020. Meetings were never held due to coronavirus, according to San Francisco Public Bank Coalition member Kurtis Wu.

While the idea was gaining popularity through the coalition and at City Hall in San Francisco, the investment needed would be significant. The San Francisco Treasurer’s Office has estimated a fully-fledged bank would take $119 million in start-up costs and 56 years to break even. A Budget and Legislative Analyst report is underway to compare cost calculations.

Under AB 310, the financial path to a San Francisco public bank could be simpler. The City is facing a $1.7 billion projected deficit over the next two years.

“If the state bank happens first, it could potentially fund and capitalize these banks,” Wu said. “We believe California needs to have that option because it keeps us independent from Wall Street. We are still pushing for a public bank locally and we are working to figure out how to build the governing structure.”

But time isn’t on the side of bill proponents. Chiu and Santiago acknowledge AB 310 will face great resistance before being passed, all while having just five weeks to gather support and bring it through the California Legislature. Its recess was extended to July 27 and bills must be passed by Aug. 31.

“It will be a fight, there’s no doubt about that,” Santiago said Thursday. “It’s going to be a very quick, brutal process. This is an opportunity for us to reinvest California dollars in California communities.”

Thousands of North Carolina Voters Double-Voted, Watchdog Group Finds

Vote Fraud is as American as apple pie—and as prevalent.  In Texas, they are prosecuting dozens of vote fraud cases.  In New Jersey whole city council race has to be re-run.  In North Carolina thousands of people voted TWICE.  In California we have illegal aliens and the dead voting.  Corruption?  Honest Elections?  Not anymore.  We have become a Banana Republic.

“A total of 16,700 duplicate votes were cast in North Carolina during the 2016 and 2018 elections, according to an audit. Pictured: A voter casts his ballot during the special election in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District on Sept. 10, 2019, in Charlotte. (Photo: Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

Thousands of voters in North Carolina voted twice in one or both of the past two elections, according to a court filing in the key battleground state.

Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election integrity group, announced Thursday that it had filed a brief in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina outlining the number of double votes. 

Were election results changed due to this corruption?  Doubt if we will definitively know—but it looks like it.  Corrupt elections are the real cause of voter suppression—why vote if you know that fraud will win the day?

Thousands of North Carolina Voters Double-Voted, Watchdog Group Finds

Fred Lucas, Daily Signal,  7/9/20   

A total of 16,700 duplicate votes were cast in North Carolina during the 2016 and 2018 elections, according to an audit. Pictured: A voter casts his ballot during the special election in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District on Sept. 10, 2019, in Charlotte. (Photo: Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

Thousands of voters in North Carolina voted twice in one or both of the past two elections, according to a court filing in the key battleground state.

Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election integrity group, announced Thursday that it had filed a brief in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina outlining the number of double votes. 

A total of 16,700 duplicate votes were cast in the 2016 and 2018 elections, according to an audit by the watchdog group based on public records. 

North Carolina was home to a disputed voter fraud case in 2018. 

Public Interest Legal Foundation made the court filing in the case of Democracy NC et. al. v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, which seeks to suspend North Carolina’s protections for mail-in voters during the presidential election in November in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Specifically, the state’s public voter rolls show that even with election integrity mechanisms in place, voters registered in more than one precinct are credited for voting a second ballot. 

This could be an individual voting twice or someone voting while using someone else’s identity. Such cases largely have resulted from poor maintenance of voter rolls at the local level—for example, not updating the rolls when voters move. 

The audit found that in the 2016 presidential election in North Carolina, about 9,700 voters were credited with voting twice. Of these cases, about half—or 5,000—were mail-in ballots.

Two years later, during the 2018 midterm election, about 7,000 voters were credited with voting twice. Of those, 2,900 were mail-in votes, the audit says.     

It is not clear how many of the same voters voted twice in both elections. 

In one of the most high-profile voter fraud cases in recent years, the North Carolina State Board of Elections decertified the outcome of the 2018 race in the 9th Congressional District and ordered a new election after evidence of absentee ballot fraud emerged. 

In that race, 61% of all mailed votes were cast for Republican Mark Harris over Democrat Dan McCready, although only 16% of those requesting a ballot were Republicans. In the new election, Republican Dan Bishop stepped in as the party nominee and won.

“This is a widespread concern in North Carolina,” J. Christian Adams, president and general counsel of Public Interest Legal Foundation, said in a written statement. “We should be talking about how to strengthen our systems against misdeeds done out of the sight of election officials in 2020 instead of defending an imperfect system from total ruin.”

Those suing, Adams said,  “are only raising the threat of worsening the settled fact that voter fraud is most common in the mail.”

The lawsuit in North Carolina by Democracy NC, the League of Women Voters, and others calls for waiving requirements that voter registration forms be submitted 25 days before an election,  eliminating the witness signature on absentee ballots, allowing ballots to be received in ways other than mail, such as contactless dropboxes, and increasing early voting. 

SF Superior Court ends Zero Bail Policy, threatening public health

The horse is out of the barn.  While the court system has ended the zero cash bail policy, Newsom is releasing 8,000 prisoners from State Prison.  Thanks to being called racists for trying to stop crime, cops are allowing crime to explode—just to save their own financial lives.  BLM Marxist Movement and it white, scared supporters like Pelosi, Newsom and Schiff—are afraid to ask them to stop riots and crime against people because of their race.  These are hate crimes, tolerated by the Democrats.

“The San Francisco Superior Court has chosen not to continue the Zero Bail Policy that has reduced county jail populations across the state.

That, a broad coalition of legal and health advocacy groups says, is a likely reason that the number of COVID cases in the local county jail system has gone up 40 percent since June 18.

The group, which includes SF Public Defender Mano Raju and District Attorney Chesa Boudin, is calling on the court to return to the policies that were in place from April 13 to June 10.

But it should be noted that calls to 911 have dropped significantly—because people do not want to be called racist for calling the cops to stop a crime. They would rather be a victim of a crime than run out of town for trying to stop it.

Photo credit: Michael Coghlan via Flickr

SF Superior Court ends Zero Bail Policy, threatening public health

In a secretive and inexplicable move, judges decide that even minor crimes can keep suspects in jail for up to 30 hours — as jail COVID cases rise by 40 percent.

By Tim Redmond, 48 Hills,  7/9/20  

The state Judicial Council, which oversees the courts, implemented the emergency zero-bail program in April to avoid the spread of the virus in jails, where social distancing is almost impossible. It allowed people charged with low-level offenses to be released almost immediately from custody after an arrest.

But the council ended that order in June – and while courts in Los Angeles, Alameda, Sacramento and Contra Contra Costa have simply continued with the policy, SF has gone back to its old rules.

Those rules, outlined in a settlement of a lawsuit against cash bail, allow a person charged with a minor crime to be held for as long as 30 hours before release. That’s more than enough time either to bring a viral infection into the jail or to become infected.

“Social distancing is already challenging in a jail, but San Francisco jails have successfully avoided a major outbreak of COVID by listening to medical experts and keeping the jail population low,” Dr. Lisa Pratt, director of the Department of Public Health Jail Health Services, said in a press release. “The decision to revoke the zero-bail policy fails to prioritize the real public health concerns of a spread of the virus in jail—and puts everyone who lives and works in jail—as well as those who interact with them—at higher risk of the virus.”

Under the emergency order, most people were released with a written notice to appear in court either at a police station or at jail intake, with minimal time spent behind bars.

Ken Garcia, a spokesman for the courts, told me that the judges are “following the guidelines of the Buffin Decision of the federal court.” The Buffin decision is the ruling that limited cash bail, but also allowed up to 30 hours of incarceration while the system evaluates a candidate for release.

But the SF court has every legal right to stick to the Zero Bail Policy. On April 13, federal Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who ruled on the Buffin case, told the San Francisco sheriff that releasing people under zero bail was not inconsistent with her order:

The Final Judgment and Injunction does not prevent the Sheriff from enforcing the statewide Emergency Bail Schedule under Emergency Rule 4 insofar as it establishes an entitlement to release on $0 bail (including as qualified by the superior court’s authority to deny release on bail under the constitutional authority referenced in subdivision (d) of Emergency Rule 4). Such enforcement of the Emergency Bail Schedule is consistent with the Final Judgment and Injunction.

So why did the San Francisco Superior Court break with other big cities and return to a system that forces people who have been charged with a minor crime to spend a dangerous amount of time in jail?

Did the full panel of judges take a vote on this, or was it a unilateral decision of the presiding judge? If it was a vote of the judges, who voted which way?

It’s hard to say. Garcia hasn’t responded to that question.

“The Superior Court’s decision is shrouded in secrecy,” Matt Gonzalez, chief trial attorney for the Public Defender’s Office, told me. “But one thing is clear: The federal judge in the Buffin case is not the reason, since she has made it clear that zero bail is not inconsistent with her order.”

There are serious public health issues here. “Any additional time spent in custody because of the lack of Zero Bail increases the risk to individuals in the jail, our staff, community partners and Sheriff and Court employees,” said David Mauroff, CEO of the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project. “Reinstating zero bail supports our shared public health priorities and reduces jail exposure and the number of people in jail.”

It’s also a strange political statement. “Removing zero bail signals an assumption that our current public health crisis is over, which is clearly not the case,” said Raju. “As the crisis at San Quentin State Prison and in other overcrowded jails and prisons across the country makes abundantly clear, we can’t control the spread of the virus without dramatically reducing the incarcerated population. San Francisco Superior Court’s decision to move away from this policy means that people with low level, non-violent offenses eligible for immediate release just last month, are now being booked and held in jail before a judge can review their case. This increases the risk of spreading COVID-19 throughout the jail population and community.”

This is another example of the Superior Court – a branch of government run by judges who are elected officials – operating with little transparency. The meetings the judges hold for court administration are closed to the press and public. The presiding judge is elected with an anonymous paper-ballot system, so nobody knows who voted for whom.

And now, people in jail may get sick and die because of a policy that has no basis in law and that the judges either can’t or won’t explain.

After The U.S. Leaves WHO, Should The U.N. Be Next?

The United Nations has been defending terrorists in the Middle East for years, giving high positions to dictators and communists since its beginning.  All of this because we are the largest contributors to this openly corrupt/violent organization.

“We’d take it a step further, however. It’s become increasingly clear from observing the United Nations itself that it, too, suffers from many of the same ailments as WHO.

It spends billions and dollars but achieves little or nothing at all. It’s a feel-good bureaucracy that lets globalists pretend they’re addressing the world’s problems, but instead empowers dictators and authoritarians to do their worst.

Take but one example: the Human Rights Council. More than half its members are non-democracies, and include human rights violators Libya, Venezuela, Eritrea and others.”

The UN building in New York, when converted, could house thousands of homeless along with agencies to help get them back on their feet.  Now, that would be a humanitarian use of the facility—today it is a War Room for terrorists and dictators.

After The U.S. Leaves WHO, Should The U.N. Be Next?

I & I Editorial Board, 7/10/20   

President Donald Trump has served notice to the World Health Organization that the U.S. will no longer take part in its kleptocratic incompetence and its cozying up to dictators and tyrants, including its biggest influencer, China. The reckoning is long overdue. So is one with the United Nations, its parent organization, whose behavior has been far worse.

WHO is one of a number of global organizations, the U.N. among them, funded mainly by U.S. taxpayers. Despite its support from the U.S., WHO is yet another multilateral agency that acts as if its job is to oppose and confound America.

As such, WHO’s fumbling, overtly pro-China response to the coronavirus pandemic earlier this year should be no surprise.

It’s now common knowledge that, at China’s urging and prodding, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, underplayed the initial outbreak of the virus.

WHO had long maintained China had informed it of the disease’s sudden appearance in Wuhan. But on June 29, WHO changed its timeline of events surrounding the outbreak, reflecting that in fact China hadn’t told it at all. No, WHO’s Beijing office learned of it from the internet.

The time lost in dealing with the viral threat proved costly. As the revised text in WHO’s timeline notes, “WHO’s Country Office in the People’s Republic of China picked up a media statement by the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission from their website on cases of ‘viral pneumonia’ in Wuhan, People’s Republic of China.”

So in other words, WHO didn’t even know what was wrong, only that there was an unusual “pneumonia of unknown cause” cluster in Wuhan. The Chinese government was not forthcoming.

Why did WHO’s Tedros pretend China had informed the organization when it didn’t?

He had forged a bond with China, a very special connection based on far-left politics. As Breitbart noted back in April, Tedros “is not a medical doctor and is a member of a Marxist-Leninist Ethiopian political party that analysts have listed as a perpetrator of terrorism.”

Quite a resume. Any wonder that WHO did China’s bidding, leading to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide? For the Communist Party in China, as elsewhere, individual lives are nothing, the party is everything. As Stalin reputedly said, one death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.

Tedros tacitly allowed China to keep Taiwan out of WHO, another favor for Chinese premier Xi Jinping.

Why so solicitous of Xi Jinping? RealClearPolitics sorted it out in a piece published last March. It’s linked to the years that Tedros served as foreign minister of Ethiopia:

“Between 2012 and 2016, when he held that post, China invested $13.6 billion in that African nation. The money went to a railway to connect Ethiopia to Djibouti. It was spent on building a six-lane highway. The funding funded a metro system and a skyscraper and then another one and another one. Politico documented how that Chinese cash transformed the skyline of Addis Ababa long before Tedros was at the helm of a global response to a pandemic.”

So, in other words, Tedros was basically Xi’s man at WHO.

“Tedros is the second-to-last person who should be heading the World Health Organization at this time,” foreign affairs commentator and China expert Gordon Chang told Fox News. “The last person is (Chinese President) Xi Jinping.”

So the U.S. decision to leave a corrupt organization should be applauded, not criticized.

We should never allow ourselves to be sullied by taking part in such incompetence, while paying for its officials’ lavish salaries and privileged bureaucratic perks.

We’d take it a step further, however. It’s become increasingly clear from observing the United Nations itself that it, too, suffers from many of the same ailments as WHO.

It spends billions and dollars but achieves little or nothing at all. It’s a feel-good bureaucracy that lets globalists pretend they’re addressing the world’s problems, but instead empowers dictators and authoritarians to do their worst.

Take but one example: the Human Rights Council. More than half its members are non-democracies, and include human rights violators Libya, Venezuela, Eritrea and others.

But what’s really strange about the U.N., and inexcusable, is its bizarre fixation on condemning Israel for lawful acts, while ignoring the killing, torturing and murder-by-government of many of its less-savory members.

Lest you think it an exaggeration, consider this: Since 2015, according the the U.N. Watch database, there have been 101 condemnatory resolutions against Israel brought to the floor of the General Assembly. All other nations total 35, six of which were against the U.S.

There are many, many other flaws with the New York-based U.N., far too many to enumerate here. Indeed, its misdeeds and malfeasance could fill several books.

At some point, as with WHO, we may decide that our continued participation in the travesty that is the U.N. just isn’t worth it anymore. It doesn’t keep peace, it doesn’t make people freer, it doesn’t create wealth.

Really, what does it do? Nothing.

In fact, created after World War II with the highest of ideals and ambitions, the U.N. has been a dismal failure. Maybe it’s time to walk away and force it to find another home.

Berkeley students, Johns Hopkins plot scams to keep international students in US

Educators are supposed to be role models for the students.  At USC, Cal, John Hopkins and others, they are role models—how to be as corrupt as a Chicago or Los Angeles politician.  Instead of educating students, and obeying the law, these Universities are looking for ways to take college seats from American and give them to foreigners—while the Feds have denied visa’s for foreign students.

“In response to recently announced restrictions regarding international students, students at the University of California- Berkeley have suggested that the school create a course with the sole purpose of keeping impacted students in the United States. 

Protesting the ruling announced by ICE’s Student Exchange and Visitor Program (SEVP), which requires international students to return to their home countries if they are taking a fully online course load during the fall 2020 semester, a Facebook user proposed that Berkeley assemble a one-credit class held outside with COVID-19 safety restrictions. The writer later updated the post to say that a faculty member had been identified to assist with the project, and indicated that a syllabus was also in the works. 

No one is saying that International students can not take classes from USC or Cal.  But like Americans, they can take those classes via the Internet, in their home country.  In fact, the schools can now enroll as many American and foreign students as they want—the use of the Internet means they do not need more buildings or classrooms—just more servers. If a College Chancellor can break the law, openly, why can’t the students?  That is the lesson being taught.  Shameful.

Sather Gate, UC Berkeley

Berkeley students, Johns Hopkins plot ways to keep international students in US

Maria Copeland, Campus Reform,  7/8/20    

More

  • Reacting to the ICE ruling that looks to send international students to their home countries if they cannot attend in-person classes, universities have voiced support for international students.
  • Students at the University of California-Berkeley are considering the creation of a course that would take place on campus and provide a way for students to remain in the U.S.

In response to recently announced restrictions regarding international students, students at the University of California- Berkeley have suggested that the school create a course with the sole purpose of keeping impacted students in the United States. 

Protesting the ruling announced by ICE’s Student Exchange and Visitor Program (SEVP), which requires international students to return to their home countries if they are taking a fully online course load during the fall 2020 semester, a Facebook user proposed that Berkeley assemble a one-credit class held outside with COVID-19 safety restrictions. The writer later updated the post to say that a faculty member had been identified to assist with the project, and indicated that a syllabus was also in the works. 

“immensely misguided and deeply cruel”    Tweet This

A Berkeley student shared the Facebook post to Twitter with a since-deleted message, which was archived by Google. The Twitter user who shared the post self identifies as a “Cal Urban Studies” student. 

“Berkeley students are creating a 1-unit, in-person, student-run class to help international students avoid deportation due to the new ICE regulations. love my school sometimes,” the message stated.

The Facebook user suggested running the course as a “decal,” presumably under the DeCal Program offered by Berkeley, in which students have the opportunity to design their own classes that may not be provided through the traditional curriculum. Students act as the instructors, according to the program’s website, but as long as a faculty member sponsors the class, the university considers it legitimate. 

Fox News reported that academics associated with Berkeley are supportive of the plan. UC-Berkeley Assistant Vice Chancellor of Communications Dan Mogulof told Campus Reform Wednesday that “the campus administration has no connection to the DeCal program” and referred additional questions to the student facilitator. 

In an email following the initial publication of this story and after his original comment to Campus Reform, Mogolof said, “a decision has been made not to allow any of the Decal courses to be taught in person,” adding that “they will have to be entirely online.” Mogulof said that according to the provost’s office, where the decision was made, the determination was made “last week.” 

The radical left will stop at nothing to intimidate conservative students on college campuses. You can help expose them. Find out more »

The proposal comes amid a wave of support for international students, as universities across America have criticized the ICE announcement. 

Mogulof included UC-Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ’s message to students regarding the action to require that international students living in the U.S. take in-person classes while in the country. 

“These requirements run counter to our values of being an inclusive community and one that has a long tradition of welcoming international students from around the globe. International students enrich campus life immeasurably, through their participation in classes, research collaborations and extracurricular activities,” Christ said.

“We will explore all of our options, legal and otherwise, to counter the deleterious effects of these policies that impact the ability for international students to achieve their academic goals. It is not only important for UC Berkeley but for all of higher education across the U.S. to take every step possible to mitigate these policies that send a message of exclusion to our international community of scholars. We will partner with our professional associations to advocate for sound legislation that continues to support international educational exchange,” she added.

The Association of American Universities also released a statement describing the policy as “immensely misguided and deeply cruel to the tens of thousands of international students who come to the United States every year” and urging “the administration to rescind this guidance and provide temporary flexibility to permit international students to participate in the range of in-person, online, and hybrid instruction that institutions are implementing in light of the pandemic and their local conditions.” 

The University of Pennsylvania told the Daily Pennsylvanian that it is “deeply disappointed by the most recent announcement that the federal government will not extend the online course maximum waiver that it put into place this spring. The educational requirements for international students should be the same as for domestic students – not higher or different in any way.”

Vice Provost for Global Affairs at the University of Illinois-Chicago Neal McCrillis said the ruling “hurts us, our institution, and it hurts our students.” UIC promised to review the new guidance and reach out to impacted students as soon as possible, the Chicago Sun Times reported

The University of Pittsburgh wrote on Twitter that the policy is “misguided, unfair, harmful to higher education across the United States, and damaging to both regional and national economies.” 

“Requiring international students to maintain in person instruction or leave the country, irrespective of their own health issues or even a government-mandated shutdown of New York City, is just plain wrong and needlessly rigid,” New York University wrote in a statement. “If there were a moment for flexibility in delivering education, this would be it.” 

Many schools are still determining how they can counter the ICE restrictions, but like Berkeley, Johns Hopkins University has formulated plans for course offerings, telling students in an email message obtained by Campus Reform that the school will be providing a series of in-person classes in order to help students maintain their visa requirements. The email listed six courses that have been made available so far. 

Harvard has promised to work with other universities to “chart a path forward.” 

“We must do all that we can to ensure that our students can continue their studies without fear of being forced to leave the country mid-way through the year, disrupting their academic progress and undermining the commitments—and sacrifices—that many of them have made to advance their education,” Harvard University President Lawrence Bacow said.

CDC director: Keeping schools closed poses greater health threat to children than reopening

Unions want to keep the schools closed—but still get full pay and benefits.  Take the money and run.  Now the Center for Disease Control has issued its statement about the schools staying closed:

“Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield said Thursday that the health risks of keeping schools closed are greater than those of opening them, amid a push by President Trump to have students in classrooms this fall.

“I’m of the point of view as a public health leader in this nation, that having the schools actually closed is a greater public health threat to the children than having the schools reopen,” Redfield told The Hill’s Steve Clemons.

Once again the union take the side of those wanting to harm our kids, limit their education and ability to be successful as adults.  We need to educate our children.  Only in the worst of the Third World nations are children kept from an education.  That is what California is turning into.

CDC director: Keeping schools closed poses greater health threat to children than reopening

By Peter Sullivan, The Hill,- 07/09/20

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield said Thursday that the health risks of keeping schools closed are greater than those of opening them, amid a push by President Trump to have students in classrooms this fall.

“I’m of the point of view as a public health leader in this nation, that having the schools actually closed is a greater public health threat to the children than having the schools reopen,” Redfield told The Hill’s Steve Clemons.

The comments in favor of reopening schools from Redfield come as Trump presses for schools to reopen. On Wednesday, the president criticized the CDC in a tweet for “their very tough & expensive guidelines for opening schools,” raising fears about the politicization of the country’s leading public health agency.

Redfield said in Thursday’s interview, as he did earlier in the day on ABC, that the CDC is not changing its existing guidelines for schools, but will be issuing additional guidance to provide more clarity. He said that guidance will address the role of parents and the importance of facial coverings in schools.

“I think really people underestimate the public health consequences of having the schools closed on the kids,” Redfield said at an event hosted by The Hill and sponsored by the Biosimilars Forum. “I’m confident we can open these schools safely, work in partnership with the local jurisdictions.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also called for students to return to classrooms, citing the educational and social harms to children of being away from school for a prolonged period of time.

But education groups like the American Association of School Administrators and the American Federation of Teachers say much more funding is needed to safely reopen schools, and that districts are already facing severe budget shortfalls due to the economic downturn sparked by the coronavirus.

Redfield demurred when asked about the need for more funding on Thursday.

“I think we’ve got to see the plans that the different schools and jurisdictions come up with,” he said.

The Trump administration has not put forward a specific plan for aiding school districts in reopening. Asked on Wednesday about what the plan is for areas like testing to help reopen schools, Vice President Pence said, “the plan is to continue to do what we have done from the very beginning,” pointing to existing testing efforts.

“I don’t think we should go overboard in trying to develop a system that doesn’t recognize the reality that this virus really is relatively benign to those of us that are under the age of 20,” Redfield said. He added that there is a need to “protect the vulnerable,” such as children with underlying conditions, as well as teachers, but did not go into detail on how to do that.

“We’re prepared to work with each school or each school district,” he said.

UCSB asks students to rat each other out for hosting parties amid COVID: students

UCSB Administration did not get its degrees from a UC or modern day American college.  Instead, they appear to all be graduates of the World War II University, GESTAPO U.  How else do you explain the demand that students be used to “rat” on one another?  First it is parties—you can expect the next item will be “wrongful thought”, like supporting freedom.

“Andrea Estrada, director of news and media relations for UCSB, ignored two requests to share the full email with The College Fix. She did not answer whether it was encouraging students to report each other for hosting parties, and if so, the grounds for investigation under UCSB policies.

“The message from the vice chancellor for student affairs stated that we are asking for information because ‘our first priority is to trace exposure and attempt to mitigate further spread, which must be done quickly,’” Estrada wrote in an email.

The student who forwarded the email to Berenson said UCSB was “openly threatening investigations” of students, who are “waking up to their lack of vulnerability [to COVID-19] and taking matters into their own hands.”

Your tax dollars are paying for educators that act like storm troopers.  Another reason to Recall Newsom—he is allowing this.

UCSB asks students to rat each other out for hosting parties amid COVID

Greg Piper, The College Fix,  7/8/20   

In loco parentis, to the extreme

The University of California-Santa Barbara urged students to help it “mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in our community” on Tuesday.

According to at least two students who received the email, the taxpayer-funded institution asked them to report students who were having parties that could spread the novel coronavirus.

Former New York Times reporter and COVID-19 contrarian Alex Berenson posted the first part of an email from the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, saying he received it from a UCSB grad student.

Titled “COVID-19 Cases Increasing in Isla Vista,” a neighboring community where many students live, the email says the university “urgently need[s] your help” as cases rise:

Over the holiday weekend a concerned citizen notified authorities about a report they received concerning a “COVID Party” hosted at a private residence in Isla Vista. If you or someone you know has knowledge or …

This is where the screenshot cuts off. The rest of the email is not visible.

Andrea Estrada, director of news and media relations for UCSB, ignored two requests to share the full email with The College Fix. She did not answer whether it was encouraging students to report each other for hosting parties, and if so, the grounds for investigation under UCSB policies.

“The message from the vice chancellor for student affairs stated that we are asking for information because ‘our first priority is to trace exposure and attempt to mitigate further spread, which must be done quickly,’” Estrada wrote in an email.

The student who forwarded the email to Berenson said UCSB was “openly threatening investigations” of students, who are “waking up to their lack of vulnerability [to COVID-19] and taking matters into their own hands.”

A follower of Berenson’s posted a screenshot from the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department’s daily COVID-19 tracker for Tuesday. It said Isla Vista has had 25 confirmed COVID-19 cases since the epidemic began, apparently the lowest in the county. Santa Barbara, home to the university, has had 16 times more cases.

Another self-identified student tweeted Tuesday that the university “sent out an email asking for any info on the covid party that happened this past weekend.” The student claimed to have been invited, “so I sent them the screenshot of the party invited and the names and pics of those involved in hosting it.”

The student posted a Facebook event invitation that shows the physical address for the alleged July 4 party; separately posted the names and photos of alleged party organizers; and threatened to dox others who are reported to be having parties.

One of the alleged organizers of the July 4 party responded that the party didn’t happen because “sadly no one showed up.” He continued: “People do not take very kindly to being doxxed online.”

In any case, their advertised party “was not ‘the Covid’ party,” he continued: “this is misinformation putting my safety and privacy at risk because of a false claim.”

UCSB does not appear to have posted the message on any official school channel, and student newspaper The Daily Nexus has not mentioned it as of Wednesday afternoon.

The university’s COVID-19 page does not mention any similar guidance asking students to report each other for alleged violations of social distancing. A June 27 message from the office says the county health department will contact anyone thought to be in “direct close contact” with an infected person, meaning “within 6 feet of the individual while not wearing a mask for a time period of 10 minutes or longer.”

Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Margarat Klawunn has also been identified as perpetrating Title IX and due process violations in multiple lawsuits by students accused of sexual misconduct. Just last month an appeals court ordered the university to pay steep attorney’s fees to a student who successfully sued it.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, she said chalk messages supporting Donald Trump and conservative causes violated content-neutral campus policies. Yet Klawunn assailed their “sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and intolerance” as contrary to “our commitment to maintain an inclusive and safe learning environment for every member of the UCSB community.”

San Diego State Professor: Playing College Football This Year is RACIST

Patrick Mahomes just signed a half a billion contract with an NFL team.  He got that good by playing college football.  Bet he did not know that college football is intrinsically RACIST?

“In addition, the Times of San Diego piece isn’t exactly coming from a qualified expert, as the author is a literature professor at SDSU. He is a self-proclaimed “expert on Shakespeare and Milton.” To my knowledge, there are no mentions of racism towards African Americans in any of Shakespeare’s works and there are no epidemiology classes in a literature Ph.D. In other words, this is yet another phony spouting off on issues he knows nothing about—which is a pandemic in its own right.

Herman’s argument is complete nonsense because it’s not meant to be taken seriously. When you need legal advice, you don’t go to your physics teacher, and naturally, it’s equally ridiculous to listen to advice on racial justice and preventing the spread of COVID-19 from a literature professor. This is merely a case of the arrogance of the intellectual.

As I thought for years, the Left has an epidemic of mental disease.  They meltdown at any thought of people being successful—regardless of color.  And, if you are not successful, it is because of society, your color, your sex—never because of things you did or did not do.  The Left needs people to be victims.  This is a professor that is a victim of a mental breakdown—he needs therapy, not a classroom—for the safety and sanity of all.

San Diego State Literature Professor Argues that Allowing College Football Season to Continue is Racist

San Diego News Desk, Written by Nicholas Vetrisek, 7/10/20 

Recently, San Diego State University professor Peter C. Herman wrote an article in Times of San Diego claiming that allowing college football during the pandemic is racist towards Black people. The argument is as follows: the players will be in contact with each other and there will be many infections. These infections would in theory result in many hospitalizations and deaths.

The truth is that SDSU athletes are at extremely low risk of suffering severely from COVID-19. They could potentially be infected, but their lives are not in significant danger. The only people truly at risk of being severely affected or killed by the virus are either incredibly unhealthy or elderly. Not only are college athletes young, but they are also easily in the top one percent of health and overall physicality.

In addition, the Times of San Diego piece isn’t exactly coming from a qualified expert, as the author is a literature professor at SDSU. He is a self-proclaimed “expert on Shakespeare and Milton.” To my knowledge, there are no mentions of racism towards African Americans in any of Shakespeare’s works and there are no epidemiology classes in a literature Ph.D. In other words, this is yet another phony spouting off on issues he knows nothing about—which is a pandemic in its own right.

Herman’s argument is complete nonsense because it’s not meant to be taken seriously. When you need legal advice, you don’t go to your physics teacher, and naturally, it’s equally ridiculous to listen to advice on racial justice and preventing the spread of COVID-19 from a literature professor. This is merely a case of the arrogance of the intellectual.

Would stopping football slow the spread of the virus? Maybe. It would only stop a handful of cases at best and would do nothing given that most of the cases come from large crowds at protests and bars, not from playing outdoor sports. Very little—if any—containment would happen, meanwhile, the racism argument is completely laughable.

These are the types of fools that prevent things from getting done. They cloud and obscure the issue until it’s just noise and no one knows what’s true or false.