Monthly Archives: September 2020

The Treatment of Covid in Venezuela, Crimes Against Humanity

Posted on by

VP and presidential candidate Biden and Kamala Harris may need to get the memo on governance in Venezuela. Then they can invite blue state governors and mayors in the U.S. to a Zoom call about it….read on…

Note the U.S. is paying some salaries for medical workers.

The illegitimate Maduro regime wants Venezuelans to denounce their neighbors who are sick with COVID-19, calling them “bioterrorists.”

Nicolás Maduro’s National Bolivarian Armed Forces of Venezuela encouraged citizens to look for sick Venezuelans, saying a returning migrant “is a bioterrorist who puts everyone’s health at risk.” They also provided an email address and asked anyone with information to send them “the information of the person and their exact location” so the Maduro regime could detain them.

“They told us we’re contaminated, that we’re guilty of infecting the country,” Javier Aristizabal, a nurse from Caracas, told the New York Times. He said he spent 70 days in detention centers after he returned from Colombia in March.

Once these Venezuelans are detained, they are placed in unsafe containment conditions even if they do not display symptoms of COVID-19.

“In commandeered hotels, disused schools and cordoned-off bus stations, Venezuelans returning home from other countries in Latin America are being forced into crowded rooms with limited food, water or masks,” the New York Times reported.

Soldiers guarding people sitting in street (© Manaure Quintero/Reuters)
Venezuelans are placed in the middle of the street by security forces as punishment for disobeying social distancing measures August 5 in Caracas, Venezuela. (© Manaure Quintero/Reuters)

While the illegitimate regime continues to create more problems for Venezuelans during the pandemic, legitimate interim president Juan Guaidó and the legitimate government developed a program to help deliver better medical care to all.

The Héroes de la Salud program helps frontline health workers save lives by giving them the funds and resources they need to fight the virus, according to the National Assembly.

The interim Guaidó government recently accessed frozen funds with the support of the U.S. Treasury Department to pay the salaries of health care workers, providing close to $20 million for the program. Over 60,000 frontline doctors and nurses in Venezuela will receive $100 a month, considerably more than their pay under the Maduro regime.

The program is a recognition of the “men and women who save lives in the middle of an emergency, a pandemic and a dictatorship,” Guaidó said on Twitter, “so that we can continue fighting for the freedom of Venezuela. In the face of challenges, we are going to triumph.”

***

Meanwhile:

(AP) — Independent experts commissioned by the U.N.’s top human rights body have alleged the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro committed crimes against humanity.

The experts issued a scathing, in-depth report on Wednesday that said the people responsible for crimes that include extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions and torture must be held to account, in part to ensure they don’t happen again.

Do antibiotics from antibioticspharm.com have any side effects?
Each antibiotic has a bunch of side effects. You need to tell the doctor about all your medical conditions so they can prescribe you the right med. Every healthcare practitioner will make sure you have to take antibiotics for a small time, if possible. Due to this strategy, you won’t get the toxic side effects of antibiotics.

The report was commissioned last year by the 47-member-state Human Rights Council, which has the backing of the United Nations,

The findings, based on nearly 3,000 cases that were investigated or examined, concluded that Maduro and his defense and interior ministers were aware of crimes committed by security forces and intelligence agencies. It further alleged that high-level authorities had both power and oversight over the forces and agencies, making the top officials responsible.

The report appeared likely to fan international and domestic criticism of Maduro’s government, which has overseen a country in tatters with runaway inflation, a violent crackdown and an exodus of millions of Venezuelans who have fled to neighboring countries to escape the turmoil since he took power in 2013.

Maduro’s government has come under increasing political pressure from the United States and dozens of other countries which consider politician Juan Guaidó the legitimate leader of Venezuela. Maduro has called this a plot to overthrow him so the U.S. can exploit Venezuela’s vast oil wealth.

Critics in other countries have already accused Maduro’s government of crimes against humanity. The 411-page report for the Human Rights Council represents an extensive look at rights violations in Venezuela and was based on interviews with victims, relatives, witnesses, police, government officials and judges, as well as videos, satellite imagery and social media content.

The authors said they did not receive responses from the government itself.

The experts — Marta Valinas of Portugal, Francisco Cox Vial of Chile, and Paul Seils of Britain — worked under a fact-finding mission the Geneva-based rights council set up last September to investigate alleged cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and other human rights violations in Venezuela over the past five years

“These acts were committed pursuant to two state policies, one to quash opposition to the government and another to combat crime, including by eliminating individuals perceived as criminals,” Valinas told reporters. “We also consider that the documented crimes were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population.”

“For these reasons, the mission has reasonable grounds to believe that they amount to crimes against humanity,” she said, noting the alleged arbitrary killings and systematic use of torture, in particular. “Far from being isolated acts, these crimes were coordinated and committed pursuant to state policies, with the knowledge or direct support of commanding officers and senior government officials.”

In the report, the experts said the violations took place amid a breakdown of democratic institutions, rule of law and judicial independence in Venezuela. They said the great majority of unlawful killings by security forces have not resulted in prosecutions and “at no stage have officials with command responsibility been brought to justice,” according to a summary of the findings.

A report that the U.N.’s human rights chief, former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, issued last year after a visit to Venezuela that included meeting Maduro said the government had registered nearly 5,300 killings in security operations linked to cases of “resistance to authority.” Bachelet also decried a “shockingly high” number of extrajudicial killings.

Under Article 7 of the U.N. treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, a crime against humanity is defined as an act committed as part of a “widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.”

 

White House Historic Abraham Accords Declaration Signing

Posted on by

Yes indeed, a new dawn beginning in the Middle East as stated by President Trump. The signing of the Abraham Declaration by the United States, Israel, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates is now official. Discussions with other countries in the region include: Oman, Morocco, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and possible Lebanon.

 

WATCH: ‘Six more Arab states ready to make peace’ as ...

The text is as follows:

We, the undersigned, recognize the importance of maintaining and strengthening peace in the Middle East and around the world based on mutual understanding and coexistence, as well as respect for human dignity and freedom, including religious freedom.

We encourage efforts to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue to advance a culture of peace among the three Abrahamic religions and all humanity.

We believe that the best way to address challenges is through cooperation and dialogue and that developing friendly relations among States advances the interests of lasting peace in the Middle East and around the world.

We seek tolerance and respect for every person in order to make this world a place where all can enjoy a life of dignity and hope, no matter their race, faith or ethnicity.

We support science, art, medicine, and commerce to inspire humankind, maximize human potential and bring nations closer together.

We seek to end radicalization and conflict to provide all children a better future.

*** 

The peace treaty text reads as follows:

The Government of the United Arab Emirates and the Government of the State of Israel (hereinafter, the “Parties”)

Aspiring to realize the vision of a Middle East region that is stable, peaceful and prosperous, for the benefit of all States and peoples in the region;

Desiring to establish peace, diplomatic and friendly relations, co-operation and full normalization of ties between them and their peoples, in accordance with this Treaty, and to chart together a new path to unlock the vast potential of their countries and of the region;

Reaffirming the “Joint Statement of the United States, the State of Israel, and the United Arab Emirates” (the “Abraham Accords”), dated 13 August 2020;

Believing that the further development of friendly relations meets the interests of lasting peace in the Middle East and that challenges can only be effectively addressed by cooperation and not by conflict;

Determined to ensure lasting peace, stability, security and prosperity for both their States and to develop and enhance their dynamic and innovative economies;

Reaffirming their shared commitment to normalize relations and promote stability through diplomatic engagement, increased economic cooperation and other close coordination;

Reaffirming also their shared belief that the establishment of peace and full normalization between them can help transform the Middle East by spurring economic growth, enhancing technological innovation and forging closer people-to-people relations;

Recognizing that the Arab and Jewish peoples are descendants of a common ancestor, Abraham, and inspired, in that spirit, to foster in the Middle East a reality in which Muslims, Jews, Christians and peoples of all faiths, denominations, beliefs and nationalities live in, and are committed to, a spirit of coexistence, mutual understanding and mutual respect;

Recalling the reception held on January 28, 2020, at which President Trump presented his Vision for Peace, and committing to continuing their efforts to achieve a just, comprehensive, realistic and enduring solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;

Recalling the Treaties of Peace between the State of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt and between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and committed to working together to realize a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that meets the legitimate needs and aspirations of both peoples, and to advance comprehensive Middle East peace, stability and prosperity;

Emphasizing the belief that the normalization of Israeli and Emirati relations is in the interest of both peoples and contributes to the cause of peace in the Middle East and the world;

Expressing deep appreciation to the United States for its profound contribution to this historic achievement;

Have agreed as follows:

 

1, Establishment of Peace, Diplomatic Relations and Normalization: Peace, diplomatic relations and full normalization of bilateral ties are hereby established between the United Arab Emirates and the State of Israel.

 

  1. General Principles: The Parties shall be guided in their relations by the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law governing relations among States. In particular, they shall recognize and respect each other’s sovereignty and right to live in peace and security, develop friendly relations of cooperation between them and their peoples, and settle all disputes between them by peaceful means.

 

  1. Establishment of Embassies: The Parties shall exchange resident ambassadors as soon as practicable after the signing of this Treaty, and shall conduct diplomatic and consular relations in accordance with the applicable rules of international law.

 

  1. Peace and Stability: The Parties shall attach profound importance to mutual understanding, cooperation and coordination between them in the spheres of peace and stability, as a fundamental pillar of their relations and as a means for enhancing those spheres in the Middle East as a whole.

They undertake to take the necessary steps to prevent any terrorist or hostile activities against each other on or from their respective territories, as well as deny any support for such activities abroad or allowing such support on or from their respective territories. Recognizing the new era of peace and friendly relations between them, as well as the centrality of stability to the well-being of their respective peoples and of the region, the Parties undertake to consider and discuss these matters regularly, and to conclude detailed agreements and arrangements on coordination and cooperation.

 

  1. Cooperation and Agreements in Other Spheres: As an integral part of their commitment to peace, prosperity, diplomatic and friendly relations, cooperation and full normalization, the Parties shall work to advance the cause of peace, stability and prosperity throughout the Middle East, and to unlock the great potential of their countries and of the region. For such purposes, the Parties shall conclude bilateral agreements in the following spheres at the earliest practicable date, as well as in other spheres of mutual interest as may be agreed:- Finance and Investment- Civil Aviation- Visas and Consular Services- Innovation, Trade and Economic Relations

 

– Healthcare

 

– Science, Technology and Peaceful Uses of Outer-Space

 

– Tourism, Culture and Sport

 

– Energy

 

– Environment

 

– Education

 

– Maritime Arrangements

 

– Telecommunications and Post

 

– Agriculture and Food Security

 

– Water

 

– Legal Cooperation

 

Any such agreements concluded before the entry into force of this Treaty shall enter into effect with the entry into force of this Treaty unless otherwise stipulated therein. Agreed principles for cooperation in specific spheres are annexed to this Treaty and form an integral part thereof.

 

 

  1. Mutual Understanding and Co-existence: The Parties undertake to foster mutual understanding, respect, co-existence and a culture of peace between their societies in the spirit of their common ancestor, Abraham, and the new era of peace and friendly relations ushered in by this Treaty, including by cultivating people-to-people programs, interfaith dialogue and cultural, academic, youth, scientific, and other exchanges between their peoples. They shall conclude and implement the necessary visa and consular services agreements and arrangements so as to facilitate efficient and secure travel for their respective nationals to the territory of each other. The Parties shall work together to counter extremism, which promotes hatred and division, and terrorism and its justifications, including by preventing radicalization and recruitment and by combating incitement and discrimination. They shall work towards establishing a High-Level Joint Forum for Peace and Co-Existence dedicated to advancing these goals.

 

  1. Strategic Agenda for the Middle East: Further to the Abraham Accords, the Parties stand ready to join with the United States to develop and launch a “Strategic Agenda for the Middle East” in order to expand regional diplomatic, trade, stability and other cooperation. They are committed to work together, and with the United States and others, as appropriate, in order to advance the cause of peace, stability and prosperity in the relations between them and for the Middle East as a whole, including by seeking to advance regional security and stability; pursue regional economic opportunities; promote a culture of peace across the region; and consider joint aid and development programs.

 

  1. Other Rights and Obligations: This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting, in any way, the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations. The Parties shall take all necessary measures for the application in their bilateral relations of the provisions of the multilateral conventions of which they are both parties, including the submission of appropriate notification to the depositaries of such conventions.

 

  1. Respect for Obligations: The Parties undertake to fulfill in good faith their obligations under this Treaty, without regard to action or inaction of any other party and independently of any instrument inconsistent with this Treaty. For the purposes of this paragraph each Party represents to the other that in its opinion and interpretation there is no inconsistency between their existing treaty obligations and this Treaty. The Parties undertake not to enter into any obligation in conflict with this Treaty.

Subject to Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Parties under the present Treaty and any of their other obligations, the obligations under this Treaty shall be binding and implemented. The Parties further undertake to adopt any legislation or other internal legal procedure necessary in order to implement this Treaty, and to repeal any national legislation or official publications inconsistent with this Treaty.

 

  1. Ratification and Entry into Force: This Treaty shall be ratified by both Parties as soon as practicable in conformity with their respective national procedures and will enter into force following the exchange of instruments of ratification.

 

  1. Settlement of Disputes: Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Treaty shall be resolved by negotiation. Any such dispute which cannot be settled by negotiation may be referred to conciliation or arbitration subject to the agreement of the Parties.

 

  1. Registration: This Treaty shall be transmitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for registration in accordance with the provisions of Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

 

Done at Washington, DC, this day Elul 26th, 5780, Muharram 27th, 1442, which corresponds to 15 September 2020, in the Hebrew, Arabic and English languages, all texts being equally authentic. In case of divergence of interpretation, the English text shall prevail.

 

For the State of Israel: H.E. Benjamin, Netanyahu, Prime Minister

 

For the United Arab Emirates: H.H. Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation

 

Witnessed by: H.E. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America

 

ANNEX

 

Pursuant to Article 5 of the Treaty of Peace, Diplomatic Relations and Full Normalization between the United Arab Emirates and the State of Israel, the Parties shall conclude bilateral agreements in spheres of mutual interest, in furtherance of which they have agreed to the following provisions. Such provisions are annexed to the Treaty and form an integral part thereof.

 

Finance and Investment

 

Further to the Agreed Protocol signed between the Parties on September 1, 2020, in Abu Dhabi, the Parties shall cooperate to expeditiously deepen and broaden bilateral investment relations, and give high priority to concluding agreements in the sphere of finance and investment, recognizing the key role of these agreements in the economic development of the Parties and the Middle East as a whole. The Parties reaffirm their commitment to protecting investors, consumers, market integrity and financial stability, as well as maintaining all applicable regulatory standards. Recognizing also their shared goal to advance regional economic development and the flow of goods and services, the Parties shall endeavor to promote collaborations on strategic regional infrastructure projects and shall explore the establishment of a multilateral working group for the “Tracks for Regional Peace” project.

 

Civil Aviation

 

The Parties acknowledge the importance of ensuring regular direct flights between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, for passengers and cargo, as an essential means for developing and promoting their relations. They recognize as applicable to each other the rights, privileges and obligations provided for by the multilateral aviation agreements to which they are both a party, their annexes and any amendments thereof applicable to both Parties, particularly the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation, opened for signature at Chicago on the seventh day of December 1944, and the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement. Accordingly, the Parties shall as soon as practicable conclude all the necessary agreements and arrangements governing civil aviation, and consequently work towards establishing an international air corridor between their two States in accordance with international law. They shall also reach and implement the necessary agreements and arrangements with respect to visas and consular services to facilitate travel for the citizens of both States.

 

Tourism

 

The Parties affirm their mutual desire to promote tourism cooperation between them as a key component of economic development and of developing closer people-to-people and cultural ties. To this end, the Parties shall facilitate the exchange of information through advertisement spots, published and audiovisual promotional materials, and participation in tourist fairs. They shall also work together to promote joint tourism projects and packages between tourist operators so as to enhance tourism from third States. They shall work towards carrying out reciprocal study tours in order to increase knowledge in the development, management and marketing of heritage, cultural and rural tourism with a view to diversifying and deepening touristic links between them; and endeavor to utilize national marketing budgets to promote mutual tourism between the States.

 

Innovation, Trade and Economic Relations

 

The Parties shall enhance and expand their cooperation in innovation, trade and economic relations, so that the dividends of peace are felt across their societies. Recognizing that the principle of the free and unimpeded flow of goods and services should guide their relations, as well as the potential for diversification of bilateral trade opportunities, the Parties shall cooperate in order to enable favorable conditions for trade, and the reduction of trade barriers.

 

Science, Technology and Peaceful Uses of Outer-Space

 

The Parties acknowledge the important role of science, technology and innovation in the growth of multiple key sectors and shall strengthen joint action and mutual cooperation in scientific and technological advancement.

This shall include furthering scientific cooperation and exchange, including between scientists, research and academic institutions, pursuing the establishment of joint research and development centers, and exploring the possibility of joint funding of research and scientific projects in select fields of mutual interest.

 

The Parties further express their common interest in establishing and developing mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes, in a manner consistent with each Party’s respective applicable national laws and international obligations.

Such cooperation may include implementation of joint programs, projects and activities in the fields of science, space exploration, space related technologies and education, exchange of experts, information and best practices, and the promotion of cooperation between their respective space industries.

 

Environment

 

The Parties acknowledge the importance of protecting, preserving and improving the environment, and shall promote environmental innovation for the sustainable development of the region and beyond. The Parties shall endeavor to cooperate to develop environmental protection strategies on priority issues, including on biodiversity conservation, marine environment protection and climate change mitigation and adaptation, and on the possible establishment of a center for developing pioneering solutions to climate challenges in arid and semi-arid environments.

 

Telecommunications and Post

 

The Parties recognize the necessity of mutually beneficial cooperation for the continued development of telecommunications, information technologies and postal services. They take note of the establishment between them of direct communications services, including telephone lines, and agree to promote, in accordance with relevant international conventions and regulations, direct postal exchange, submarine cables and e-commerce solutions, as well as utilize available satellite systems, fiber optical communication, and broadcasting services. The Parties will strive to develop frameworks for innovation in ICT, including advanced fixed and wireless communications, collaboration on 5G networks, smart cities, and use of ICT solutions to foster innovation and the creation of best services.

 

Healthcare

 

The Parties welcome progress made in cooperation between them regarding the treatment of, and the development of a vaccine for, the Covid-19 virus, as a sign of the tremendous potential for cooperation between them in the healthcare sphere. Recognizing the importance of building ties in the fields of health and medicine, the Parties shall cooperate, inter alia, on: medical education, training and simulations, digital health and artificial intelligence innovation in the health sector, and emergency management and preparedness.

 

Agriculture and Food Security

 

The Parties recognize the great importance of sustainable agricultural development, recognizing its vital role in addressing food security concerns, as well as in the preservation of the environment. They shall cooperate to harness and maximize existing technologies, actively facilitate new collaborations, and share and develop knowledge, technologies and innovative approaches in the field of arid agriculture, irrigation technologies, mariculture techniques in shallow sea water, sustainable nutritious fish feed production, and seed enhancement in hot and humid climates.

 

Water

 

The Parties recognize the critical importance of sustainable water use and shall cooperate for their mutual benefit to address issues of water supply, water treatment and management, water security, efficiency, wastewater management and re-use, as well as water conservation and desalination.

 

Energy

 

The Parties take note of the strategic importance of the energy sector and in particular of their need to promote renewable energy, cooperation in the natural gas field, regional grids, alternative energy and energy security.

They shall advance and develop mutual cooperation in energy projects, share best practices and discuss policies in energy forums that will help to promote and unlock the energy potential of the region, coordinating where appropriate with the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), headquartered in Abu Dhabi.

 

Maritime Arrangements

 

Each Party shall recognize the right of vessels of the other Party to innocent passage through its territorial waters in accordance with international law. Each Party will grant normal access to its ports for vessels and cargoes of the other Party, as well as vessels and cargoes destined for or coming from the other Party. Such access shall be granted on the same terms as generally applicable to vessels and cargoes of other nations. The Parties shall conclude agreements and arrangements in maritime affairs, as may be required.

 

Legal Cooperation

 

Recognizing the importance of a supporting legal framework for the movement of people and goods and for fostering a continuous business friendly environment between them, the Parties shall make best efforts to grant each other the widest measure of legal cooperation, including, inter alia, in respect of mutual legal assistance in civil and commercial matters, in accordance with their national laws and shall endeavor to conclude specific agreements and arrangements in this sphere.

 

We pursue a vision of peace, security, and prosperity in the Middle East and around the world.

 

In this spirit, we warmly welcome and are encouraged by the progress already made in establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and its neighbors in the region under the principles of the Abraham Accords.  We are encouraged by the ongoing efforts to consolidate and expand such friendly relations based on shared interests and a shared commitment to a better future.

 

 

‘Transition Integrity’ Group is Tied to Hunter

Posted on by

The National Pulse can reveal the oft-described “non-partisan” Transition Integrity Project – an organization claiming to work to defend the integrity of America’s November elections – has links to former President Barack Obama, being funded by an organization led by Obama-era lawyers and over 20 Obama White House staff.

NP: The critical connection comes through President Obama’s former associate White House Counsel, Ian Bassin, who heads the anti-Trump litigation efforts Protect Democracy Project and United to Protect Democracy.

Bassin previously headed the far-left Avaaz network, founded in turn by the leftist MoveOn.org group, as well as the Truman National Security Project, which has featured lead Joe Biden policy advisor Jake Sullivan and Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden on its board.

The revelations destroy the Transition Integrity Project’s central tenet: that it is a non-partisan and independent organization that simply seeks to secure the fair results of the upcoming election.

The group has previously attempted to claim that it “takes no position on how Americans should cast their votes, or on the likely winner of the upcoming election.”

TRANSITION INTEGRITY PROJECT.

The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) was first accurately reported on by The National Pulse in early August, after a slew of fawning media articles about a group which performed “war games” to predict what would happen in the case of a disputed election in November.

Despite claims of being non- or bi-partisan, The National Pulse exposed the group as a host of NeverTrump activists, partnered with Open Society Foundation staffers, and partnered in turn with Chinese Communist Party officials.

Now, following a trail of evidence left by the TIP’s new website, The National Pulse can report that the falsely labelled “non-partisan” project is in-turn financed by a group that was founded explicitly to oppose President Trump using false allegations of Russian interference, headed by President Obama’s former Associate White House Counsel.

PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT.

TIP’s website revealed the group is “funded by United to Protect Democracy,” a branch of the broader Protect Democracy Project (PDP).

The only other prior mention of the connection between the two groups came from former Michigan Governor turned CNN commentator Jennifer Granholm, who told anchors Jim Sciutto and Alisyn Camerota in July:

“…it’s called the Transition Integrity Project. There were 100 participants and, as you say, it was bipartisan, it’s sponsored by a non-partisan entity called Protect Democracy. And, honestly, Jim, it was — it was a real eye opener to many of us. It was pretty scary.”

**

Despite being a participant in the highly-partisan endeavor, CNN allowed Granholm to report, unchallenged, on the group wherein she falsely made the claim that Protect Democracy is “non-partisan.”

The Protect Democracy Project’s inception coincided with Donald Trump’s first election victory.

It was born in “early 2017” by “a group of former high-level executive branch officials who served in the White House Counsel’s Office and upper echelons of the Department of Justice” from the Obama administration.

The group boasts of the inclusion of marginal Republicans – all “Never Trumpers” including Mona Charen who was notoriously booed off of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) stage for attacking President Trump. But these former Republicans are window dressing for the organization which features a whopping 22 former Obama administration officials amongst its ranks.

PDP’s founder is Ian Bassin, President Obama’s Deputy Associate Counsel from 2009 to 2011.

** bassin

Prior to his stint in the White House, he was a member of the administration’s transition team and a Director of Florida Policy for President Obama’s 2008 campaign.

Bassin is a prolific critic of President Trump, comparing his supporters to neo-Nazis and demanding the federal government unduly “remove Trump from office.”

Indeed, PDP’s mission statement vows that President Trump “must be blunted.” Hardly a “non-partisan” approach to election integrity.

In addition to Bassin, the group counts 21 more individuals who worked in the Obama administration as staff, board members, or advisors.

Among the cohort are high-ranking officials such as Special Assistant to the President and Associate White House Counsel Michael Gottlieb, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, and Senior Deputy Director of Operations and Director for Finance Beau Wright.

GLOBALIST BIGWIGS.

The group’s anti-Trump links, however, transcend affiliation with the Obama administration alone.

Instead, key figures in the globalist movement appear to be connected with PDP and therefore TIP.

Advisors to the group include a bevy of vocal Trump critics such as failed presidential candidate Evan McMullin and Anne Applebaum, who frequently decries the Republican party’s Trump-catalyzed shift towards populism and extols globalism.

Another globalist on the advisory board, Jerry Taylor, serves as President of the Niskanen Center, which has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from George Soros’s Open Society Institute. Niskanen often masquerades as a libertarian for the sake of media coverage, but has opposed the Trump presidency which has done more for libertarian anti-war causes than any President in four decades.

RUSSIAGATE.

PDP’s sister organization “United to Protect Democracy” – which files its reports together with PDP – was first reported on by Politico following the Trump inauguration.

PDP’s financial filings show a rapid increase in resources

Reporter Edward-Isaac Dovere – who recently threw a soft ball question to candidate Joe Biden – lauded the arrival of the group, claiming it drew its name “from a line in President Barack Obama’s farewell address that urged his supporters to pick up where he was leaving off.”

The organization’s recently filed 990 forms reveal Bassin and other staff making six-figure salaries as a result of their efforts which appear to amount to filing Freedom of Information Act requests, and supporting entities like TIP.

Bassin himself appears to have made nearly $300,000 in 2018 from the project.

Bassin enriches himself at a cost of dividing America

On the same day as the Politico article, the Daily Mail published a story linking the PDP’s operations to another ex-Obama official refuge known as The Moscow Project. The Moscow Project would go on to promote the false Russia hoax with the assistance of the establishment press.

The article by Francesca Chambers – now a board member at the White House Correspondents’ Association – reads like a PDP press release, stating: “Bassin’s organization is also preparing for the ‘worst-case scenario’ – that Trump would deny a judge’s order and create a constitutional crisis.

“The White House has not suggested that it intends to override the judicial branch, despite Trump’s smackdown of a so-called judge who rule [sic] against him, but should it move in that direction, United to Protect Democracy will be ready.”

ROSA BROOKS AND GEORGE SOROS.

The uncovered money trail is yet another blow to the group’s facade of bipartisanship and neutrality in addition to its founder Rosa Brooks vowing she’d do “every legal and ethical thing within her power” to elect Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The bottom of the group’s website, which was quickly pulled down after it went up last week, reads “Transition Integrity Project is funded by United to Protect Democracy.”

Insistent American democracy is “in danger,” left-wing United to Protect Democracy insists “Trump is a symptom, not a cause” of the phenomenon before branding him an “autocratic” leader.

“Donald Trump poses an immediate, acute, and extreme threat to our democracy that must be blunted,” the group, named after a phrase from Obama’s farewell address, promises.

The Transition Integrity Project has previously been exposed for its links to George Soros’s Open Society Institute, as well as the Chinese Communist Party-linked Berggruen Institute.

Rosa Brooks, the ex-Soros lawyer ostensibly in charge of TIP, once offered “substantive help” to the Hillary Clinton campaign, as well as liaising with John Podesta and Biden advisor Jake Sullivan.

Leaked DHS email Explains ANTIFA Portland is Organized

Posted on by

Primer: Rose City Antifa (RCA) was founded in Portland, Oregon in October of 2007. RCA was formed after a coalition of local people and organizations formed the ‘Ad-Hoc Coalition Against Racism and Fascism’.

Portland & Antifa: National Review Cover Story — Kevin ... photo

Source:

An internal email from the Department of Homeland Security leaked to CBS Catherine Herridge late Monday detailing that the violence in Portland was not “opportunistic,” but rather “organized”—confirming long-suspected details about the Antifa movement.

The email explains that Antifa is organized and runs contrary to reports in the mainstream media that Antifa was not responsible for anti-police violence, but an impromptu movement spurred on by anti-fascist sentiments held by most of the American public.

A recent article in the Washington Post by Mark Bray, author of Antifa: Anti-Fascist Handbook, attempted to dispel “myths” about Antifa, claims that the group is not an organization, but rather a “tradition of militant antifascism.” The article disputed claims that Antifa “masterminds violence at Black Lives Matter protests.”

An internal email from the Department of Homeland Security leaked to CBS Catherine Herridge late Monday detailing that the violence in Portland was not “opportunistic,” but rather “organized”—confirming long-suspected details about the Antifa movement.

The email explains that Antifa is organized and runs contrary to reports in the mainstream media that Antifa was not responsible for anti-police violence, but an impromptu movement spurred on by anti-fascist sentiments held by most of the American public.

A recent article in the Washington Post by Mark Bray, author of Antifa: Anti-Fascist Handbook, attempted to dispel “myths” about Antifa, claims that the group is not an organization, but rather a “tradition of militant antifascism.” The article disputed claims that Antifa “masterminds violence at Black Lives Matter protests.”

**

 

 

“Threat actors who are motivated by Anarchist or ANTIFA (or a combination of both) ideologies to carry out acts of violence against State, Local, and Federal authorities and infrastructure they believe represent authority or represent political and social ideas they reject,” Murphy concluded.

Phrases like “Every city, every town. Burn the precincts to the ground” are a common refrain at Black Lives Matter rallies, and have been chanted during arson attacks on the Portland Police Bureau, the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse in Portland, and other facilities where Antifa and Black Lives Matter militants were present.

The intelligence provided by the DHS validates claims by conservative voices who have long identified Antifa as an organized movement, and flies in the face of claims that the group was not intent on committing violence or conducting an insurgency against the United States government.

Fed Judge Rules Pennsylvania’s Shutdown Order Unconstitutional

Posted on by

Primer: This decision has far reaching consequences including other states with the same shutdown orders. Further, it makes those states vulnerable to class action lawsuits by business owners, churches, schools and public gatherings of various sorts over revenue/economic loss.

Not Just for Schools: Evaluating Lockdown Systems for ...

***

Source:

In today’s decision in County of Butler v. Wolf (W.D. Pa.), Judge William S. Stickman IV broadly struck down the Pennsylvania shutdown orders, reasoning:

[1.] The court held that Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), which ruled in favor of broad government power in an epidemic, should not be applied, and instead the government’s heightened interests in public health should be considered within the normal framework of constitutional scrutiny (e.g., in deciding whether a law is narrowly tailored to an important government interest):

Jacobson was decided over a century ago. Since that time, there has been substantial development of federal constitutional law in the area of civil liberties. As a general matter, this development has seen a jurisprudential shift whereby federal courts have given greater deference to considerations of individual liberties, as weighed against the exercise of state police powers. That century of development has seen the creation of tiered levels of scrutiny for constitutional claims. They did not exist when Jacobson was decided. While Jacobson has been cited by some modern courts as ongoing support for a broad, hands-off deference to state authorities in matters of health and safety, other courts and commentators have questioned whether it remains instructive in light of the intervening jurisprudential developments….

The Court has reviewed {Lindsay F. Wiley & Stephen I. Vladeck, Coronavirus, Civil Liberties, and the Courts: the Case Against “Suspending“ Judicial Review, 133 Harv. L. Rev. F. 179 (2020)} … and finds it both instructive and persuasive. There, the learned professors argue that Jacobson should not be interpreted as permitting the “suspension” of traditional levels of constitutional scrutiny in reviewing challenges to COVID- 19 mitigation measures…. The Court shares [these concerns] …. The Court will apply “regular” constitutional scrutiny to the issues in this case. Two considerations inform this decision—the ongoing and open-ended nature of the restrictions and the need for an independent judiciary to serve as a check on the exercise of emergency government power….

The Court closes this Opinion as it began, by recognizing that Defendants’ actions at issue here were undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency. But even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms—in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble.

There is no question that this Country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a “new normal” where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Actions taken by Defendants crossed those lines. It is the duty of the Court to declare those actions unconstitutional. Thus, consistent with the reasons set forth above, the Court will enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.

[2.] The court then concluded that the limits on nonreligious gatherings (“25 persons for indoor gatherings and 250 persons for outdoor gatherings,” “specifically exempt[ing] religious gatherings and certain commercial operations”) violate the Assembly Clause. The court concluded the restrictions were content-neutral, and therefore applied intermediate scrutiny—but held that the restrictions failed this scrutiny:

 

Defendants’ congregate limits are not narrowly tailored. Rather, they place substantially more burdens on gatherings than needed to achieve their own stated purpose. This is not a mere supposition of the Court, but rather, is highlighted by Defendants’ own actions. While permitting commercial gatherings at a percentage of occupancy may not render the restrictions on other gatherings content-based, they do highlight the lack of narrow tailoring.

Indeed, hundreds of people may congregate in stores, malls, large restaurants and other businesses based only on the occupancy limit of the building. Up to 20,000 people may attend the gathering in Carlisle (almost 100 times the approved outdoor limit!)- with Defendants’ blessing. Ostensibly, the occupancy restriction limits in Defendants’ orders for those commercial purposes operate to the same end as the congregate gathering limits-to combat the spread of COVID-19. However, they do so in a manner that is far less restrictive of the First Amendment right of assembly than the orders permit for activities that are more traditionally covered within the ambit of the Amendment­ political, social, cultural, educational and other expressive gatherings.

Moreover, the record in this case failed to establish any evidence that the specific numeric congregate limits were necessary to achieve Defendants’ ends, much less that “[they] target and eliminate no more than the exact source of the ‘ evil’ [they] seek to remedy.” [Sam Robinson, a Deputy Chief of Staff to the Governor] testified that the congregate limits were designed to prevent “mega-spreading events.” However, when asked whether, for example, the large protests—often featuring numbers far in excess of the outdoor limit and without social distancing or masks—led to any known mega-spreading event, he was unable to point to a single mega-spreading instance. (ECF No. 75, p. 155) (“I am not aware specifically. I have not seen any sort of press coverage or, you know, CDC information about that. I have not seen information linking a spread to protests.”).

Further, the limitations are not narrowly tailored in that they do not address the specific experience of the virus across the Commonwealth. Because all of Pennsylvania’ s counties are currently in the “green phase,” the same restrictions apply to all. Pennsylvania has nearly fourteen million residents across sixty-seven counties. Pennsylvania has dense urban areas, commuter communities servicing the New York metropolitan area, small towns and vast expanses of rural communities. The virus’ s prevalence varies greatly over the vast diversity of the Commonwealth—as do the resources of the various regions to combat a population proportionate outbreak. Despite this diversity, Defendants’ orders take a one-size fits all approach. The same limits apply in counties with a history of hundreds or thousands of cases as those with only a handful. The statewide approach is broadly, rather than narrowly, tailored.

The imposition of a cap on the number of people that may gather for political, social, cultural, educational and other expressive gatherings, while permitting a larger number for commercial gatherings limited only by a percentage of the occupancy capacity of the facility is not narrowly tailored and does not pass constitutional muster. Moreover, it creates a topsy-turvy world where Plaintiffs are more restricted in areas traditionally protected by the First Amendment than in areas which usually receive far less, if any, protection. This inconsistency has been aptly noted in other COVID-19 cases….

This is a plausible argument, given that the law seems to treat constitutionally protected activity worse than other activity. But I’m far from certain that it will be upheld on appeal, given courts’ general (and likely correct) tendency to give the government considerable latitude in trying to contain the disease while minimizing the economic devastation of the shutdowns.

I also think a stronger argument would have been that the restrictions don’t leave open “ample alternative channels” for expression—a separate prong of the content-neutral restriction test—especially given that the First Amendment singles out peaceable assembly as a separately protected right: other channels would be more expensive, or wouldn’t reach the same audience, or wouldn’t convey the same message. (See City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994).) I expect the challengers will make that argument on appeal, as they are entitled to do: A judgment can be defended on appeal on any basis fairly presented by the record, including one on which the trial court didn’t rely.