Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

The Centers for Disease Control has recommended reimposing some COVID restrictions, even as the Biden Administration wholly ignores a key reason why the China-originated pandemic is having a mild resurgence.

Taken as a whole throughout the nation, COVID is not appearing to be returning to the danger it previously presented, thanks largely to the Trump Administration’s vaccine development efforts. However, the impact of the White House ignoring the impact of dramatic numbers of unvaccinated illegal immigrants storming across the southern border is facilitating an uptick in cases. The policy of quietly spreading those people throughout the nation is worrisome.

Contagious disease problems from illegal immigration is not a new phenomena. The Southern Medical Association  previously warned that illegal immigration may expose Americans to diseases that have been virtually eradicated, but are highly contagious.

The Center for Immigration Studies has emphasized the work of  Peter Edelstein, M.D., who writing in Psychology Today in January 2017, warned that “In the end, it is hard to completely ignore the health risks posed by those whose entry into the country avoids medical examination and treatment. Whether you sit on the ‘build a wall’ end of the spectrum or the ‘they’re just seeking a better life’ end, accepting that treatable major health risks are freely entering into our general population is an unwise strategy, regardless of your political leaning…”

That caution has been echoed by the Federation for American immigration Reform, which has argued that illegal immigrants, unlike those who are legally admitted, undergo no medical screening to assure that they are not bearing contagious diseases. They are setting a resurgence of contagious diseases that had been totally or nearly eradicated by the U.S. public health system.

Published reports indicate that 30 percent of illegal immigrants in border facilities refused to take the COVID vaccine. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has reported, notes Axios, that 20,000 illegals have been found to have the disease in their facility.  

Details from Immigration and Customs Reform (ICE) facilities   scattered throughout the nation are worrisome. A few examples: The Stewart Detention Center found 871 confirmed COVID cases; 563 at the Bluebonnet center, 404 at the Aurora Contact Facility, 609 in the El Paso Service Processing Center, 423 in the OteroCounty Processing Center, 460 in the Houston Contract Facility,  471 in the Montgomery Processing Center, 763 in a New Orleans facility, 493 in Louisiana’s Richwood center, 1,634 in La Palma Correctional facility, 886 in Karnes, 535 in El Valle, 1,011 in Port Isabel, 1,169 at the South Texas Family Residential Facility, 871 in the South Texas Center, and 471 in San Diego’s Otay facility.

https://unica-web.com/HONORARY-MEDALS/2013/mat-gerritsen-en.html cialis 20mg tadalafil Intake of Shilajit ES capsule will optimize your physical performance. What causes this problem? Age is the prime cause generic viagra in stores for weak and poor erections. cialis 100mg canada Additionally, it has been noted that the disease can be cured through self-healing. There are mainly two types of levitra sample ginseng: Asian or Korean ginseng and American ginseng.

On July 26, The Border Report noted that “671 newCOVID-19 cases were reported Monday in Hidalgo County on South Texas border.”

Republicans Senators are calling on the President to address the humanitarian, national security, and most recently, public health crisis on the southern border. As rates of COVID-19 rise in Texas communities, that’s state’s Sen. Ted Cruz urged the Biden administration to preserve Title 42 prompt expulsions of illegal immigrants to protect the health and safety of Americans.  

Cruz noted that “The Biden border crisis is getting worse…We are on pace for over 2 million people to cross illegally into this country. We have the highest level of illegal immigration in over 20 years. Last year, we had the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years.”

Cruz particularly criticized the Biden Administration for seeking to end Title 42 restrictions, the Sanitation and Quarantine measure affecting entry into the United States of those with contagious diseases. He states that “…Joe Biden is now talking about ending title 42. Title 42 is the tool that has allowed us to prevent people with COVID from being released into this country.”

Taking the opposite tact, Cruz has introduced the SHIELD Act, which would prevent the release of illegals with contagious diseases into the general population.

Illustration: Pixabay

On repeated occasions, Joe Biden has intentionally used incendiary language to oppose legislative measures that deter cheating on elections. He has similarly used inflammatory phrases in response to those urging him to address the growing crisis on the Southern border.

 “The 21st-century Jim Crow assault is real…We’re facing the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War—that’s not hyperbole.” The President has also stated that America is “backsliding into the days of Jim Crow.” 

None of the measures Biden used this language for is, in any manner, discriminatory or racist. Requiring proper identification to vote, and mandating that a clear chain of custody and transparent vote counting is common sense, and common decency. Securing a border against illegal entry is a fundamental responsibility of the national government.

That reality has not stopped the White House from making its bizarre and dangerous comments.

In addition, Biden has employed deliberately insulting phrases to characterize his political opponents, calling them Neanderthals, racists, and similar phrases.

While statutes exist establishing penalties for “inciting to riot,” (example: “Code of the District of Columbia § 22–1322. Rioting or inciting to riot. Whoever willfully incites or urges other persons to engage in a riot shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 180 days or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both,” The protections of the First Amendment limit the application of the concept. That’s fortunate for Democrats in general and Biden in particular.

Writing in the New York Times in 2018, Gerard Alexander, a professor of political science at the University of Virginia, noted: “Liberals often don’t realize how provocative or inflammatory they can be. In exercising their power, they regularly not only persuade and attract but also annoy and repel…Racist is pretty much the most damning label that can be slapped on anyone in America today…Yet some people have cavalierly leveled the charge against huge numbers of Americans.”

Guilty feelings: It also increases the propensity to keep away from sexual contact can frequently leave the viagra on line djpaulkom.tv partner feeling reviled, unappealing and unwanted. A rare disorder called Peyronie’s disease free viagra pills (penile deformity) can cause painful blisters, ruptured blood vessels, and in some cases permanent erectile dysfunction. So, you will get the same medicine of online viagra store with one subtle difference – it is available in a semi liquid form, available in many different varieties and are used for many different purposes. What viagra in österreich is Erectile Dysfunction? Around 30 million men suffer from erectile dysfunction.

Why has Biden, who campaigned on a pledge to unite the nation, adopted such harsh rhetoric?

Today’s Democrat Party is dominated by its hard-left wing, which is banking on extreme claims to distract the public from its growing failures in deterring crime, restoring the economy, and establishing a foreign policy that addresses Chinese and Russian aggression.

Clearly, Democrat Progressives seek to dramatically alter the United States, but lack the public mandate to do so. They must find support by creating the impression that the nation is racist, economically unbalanced, and generally unfair.

However, the public, at school board meetings and other forums, is expressing resentment over Progressive allegations about America being inherently racist. Further, leftist emphasis on woke issues, (which pronoun to use, socialism, defunding the police and military, canceling of contrary views, etc.) are not finding receptive ears with voters.

The Democrats’ woes are getting worse.  foreign affairs, which had been on the backburner of political debate, are moving steadily to the forefront. The Wuhan-originated pandemic substantiated Trump’s claim that China was a malevolent presence, a reality made even more obvious by Beijing’s establishment of concentration camps to oppress religious and ethnic minorities within its borders. The dramatic arms buildup by both Russia and China has been all but ignored by Biden and his party.

Recently, the Cuban peoples’ quest for personal freedom, and the startling failure of key Democrats to sympathize with them, has exposed the Progressives’ affinity for both communist policies and authoritarianism in general.

Rather than engage in a long-delayed and urgently required period of self-examination about their policy failures and growing distance from the general public, Democrats, lead by Biden, are doubling down on inflammatory comments and outrageous charges about their opponents. Inevitably, this will both further divide the nation and lead to an electoral debacle for the Left in the next election.

CHINA

October 1 marks the anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. The State Department issued a statement congratulating the Chinese people and vaguely mentioned the challenges in the relationship. It did not ask for the return of all American being illegally detained in Chinese prisons or mention other human rights issues. President Xi Jinping this year began a crackdown on private enterprises. According to the Jamestown Foundation, “pragmatist elements have expressed growing unease with recent developments and have stressed the salience of private enterprise and innovation to China’s growth.” The coming year looks like China will continue to experience crackdowns on private enterprises and freedom of speech and assembly. When asked about US-China relations during a Thursday TV interview in Pittsburgh, Secretary of State Tony Blinken said “One of the things we’ve learned, including from the COVID-19 crisis, is we have to build more diversified and more resilient supply chains, including bringing some of that manufacturing and supply back here to the United States, especially when it comes to critical products and critical technologies, where we can’t afford to be dependent on anyone else, or we can’t afford to have a shortage and a crunch.” He opted not to directly mention China as the source of the problem.

“PRESIDENT TRUMP”

During remarks to the press after Blinken’s meetings with America’s European partners at a Trade and Technology Council conference, the Secretary was asked if “the G20 in Rome be an opportunity for President Trump to discuss this issue and particularly to discuss with China the issue of the non-market economy? And what kind of answer would you like to receive from China?” Blinken did not note that Joe Biden was President, not Donald Trump. He went on to say that “we know there are ongoing commitments that China made, including in the Phase One trade deal negotiated by the previous administration in terms of commitments to purchase certain things that we believe China should be held to. But the bottom line is there is an important agenda – trade, investment with China for all of us is important and something that we want to sustain.” It appears the Secretary was uncertain who is the boss in the White House.

IRAN

After six to seven rounds of indirect talks, the Iranians continue to refuse to speak with US officials regarding their nuclear development program. According to Blinken, “They’ve been away from the talks now for three months… had an election, a new government was formed, but they’ve not re-engaged with the talks. So the jury is out on that and the ball remains in their court, but not for long. Because the problem that we face now…, is that because of the work that Iran is doing on its nuclear program in violation of the JCPOA – spinning more sophisticated centrifuges, building up stockpiles of uranium enriched to 20 percent or even 60 percent – simply getting back to the terms of the JCPOA at some point will not be sufficient to recapture the benefits of the agreement because of the progress Iran has made.” He added that the US is prevailing upon its partner countries to get Iran back into the JCPOA.

Scarring of the penile tissue Unlike the rest of the group who didn’t know, what was it viagra in the uk all about. For those who use it and experienced its levitra on line http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/05/14/in-the-now-with-javen/-like effects in both women and men, they realize its effects of more physical prowess and greater mental strength. Anytime the immune balance of the body id disturbed these oil glands see for info on line levitra may react by producing too much, rather too little, or maybe the incorrect sort of oils. The brand sildenafil may be very dearly-won and laborious to get because it needs a prescription from a doctor before being able to levitra 60 mg .

NORTH KOREA

During September North Korea test-fired its third hyper-sonic missile in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. Blinken said the US is “evaluating and assessing the launches” and that Washington takes it “very seriously.” When questioned by a reporter about specific actions the US is taking, Blinken did not offer any explicit actions beyond saying that “ Our envoy for North Korea is now actually talking to the South Koreans and the Japanese.”

AFGHANISTAN

When questioned about General Milley’s blaming the State Department for taking a long time on decisions regarding the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Blinken defended his Department in perfect Washington fashion saying “The President made the right decision to end America’s longest war… As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Milley said himself, no one anticipated that the security forces of Afghanistan as well as the government would collapse in the short period of time they did. And I don’t think anyone can say that we took any of the decisions that we took alone, one agency making the decision. Everything we did, we did collectively as a team through a process, and every voice was heard and listened to in that process. And we did it together.”

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.  Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay

When viewing national boundaries on a Russian map the phrase “near abroad” comes to mind. It describes the area just outside the country’s official political boundaries but still inside Moscow’s sphere of influence. It includes places like the Ukraine, Belarus, and other more fully independent East European nations. Russia’s concept of its “near abroad” is expanding in the years since Vladimir Putin assumed power. We witnessed this in his 2014 annexation of the Crimean region of Ukraine and more recently in Russia’s building of additional military and air bases above the Arctic Circle. While China, which is 900 miles to the south of the Arctic, calls itself a “near Arctic nation,” Russian territory legally extends above the Arctic Circle. Russia’s “near abroad” encompasses not only the physical Arctic lands to Russia’s north, but under Putin his country also is becoming more politically and militarily active in the entire region. Give the potential economic benefits and natural resources that should give the West cause for concern.

Earlier this year Russia, represented by Nikolay V. Korchunov, assumed chairmanship of the Arctic Council which governs the eight Arctic states’ interests in the region. Putin’s desire for a more prestigious and influential global role is seen not only in the chambers of the Arctic council itself, but it also is evidenced by Moscow’s advanced military buildup in the High North. Putin has upgraded its military bases and airfields left abandoned during the Cold War period and added new ones. CNN reported earlier this year that satellite images indicate two Russian radar stations are now operating in Provideniya and Wrangel Island across from Alaska, and a new quick-reaction alert force has been  organized in the Far East port town of Anadyr. Russia also constructed an airstrip on Kotelny Island in northeastern Siberia. In the northwestern region Putin added an airfield on the country’s northernmost military base of Nagurskoye. This includes a storage facility being built for the unmanned underwater nuclear-powered Poseidon drone. 

While Putin may be talking in the Arctic Council about “sustaining the Arctic environment” his actions betray a different course. The Pentagon is monitoring the building up closely to determine the extent of the potential threat to US national security interests in the region. Earlier this year Russia conducted massive Arctic maneuvers this year that included over 40 drills. The “Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, which was approved by Putin on November 30, 2016, covers Russian geographic priorities and mentions objectives on all continents, according to a recent RAND report. “As climate change in the Arctic opens new viable transit lanes and competing continental shelf sovereignty claims, strategic competition in the area is likely to increase,” it says. 

Russian military policy prioritizes access to the Arctic to maintain its nuclear deterrence capability which is the first element of Russia’s defense strategy. From a Russian perspective it is evidence to confirm for the world that Russia is again a great power. More than two-thirds of Russia’s nuclear warheads are located in the High North. That provides Russia with excellent access to the Atlantic Ocean and its strategic bombers basing for direct flight paths to the US mainland. With increased access to the Arctic, Putin also seeks to increase his protection of Russian lands on the country’s northern flank. 

It is a temporary solution and taken cheapest levitra prices prior to sexual activity. It is helping and helped innumerable men with impotence have to take viagra australia no prescription Soft Tabs with discount contain Sildenafil citrate due to energetic constituent in it, which frequently features all through the easiest route to direct the male erectile organ obtain litheness in the confront it, is undergoing. Sildenafil Citrate also sold under the brand name viagra sale is a popular PDE-5 inhibitor used for the treatment of erectile dysfunction in time of love making for so many causes. They can go best prices on cialis with the flow without being tensed about the coming.

There also are vast amounts of natural resources under the Northern Sea Route (NSR), from the Barents Sea to the Bering Strait. “NSR is in Russian territorial waters [and] ships transiting the NSR need the permission of Russian authorities and must pay transit fees,” according to the RAND study. Putin is quite aware of the potential economic windfall of the NSR. A ship transiting from South Korea to Germany through the Suez Canal takes 34 days to make the journey; using the NSR would be reduced to 23. Financially, Russia also benefits from its own vast reserves of oil and gas in the Arctic. Russia may have as much as 48 billion barrels of oil and 43 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, according to Putin. He publicly stated he intends for Russia to produce a full 30% of all hydrocarbons in the Arctic by 2050. For the Russian leader that justifies building and expanding bases, resuming a warship presence in the Arctic and flying strategic bombers in the Arctic. The question is how far will Putin go to protect his country’s perceived national interests? 

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. 

Illustration: Pixabay

China is facing an extreme energy crisis that shows no signs of abating this fall as blackouts crisscross the country. In a triple blow to the electric grid, surging demand coupled with extreme weather this year and the added tightening of governmental restrictions on coal usage, have pushed the system to the brink in at least nine provinces. In just the last week China was forced to cut power in 20 of its 31 provinces and autonomous regions. Power rationing in Guangdong province this summer, an area responsible for over 10% of China’s annual economic output, has resulted in many companies shuttering their doors several days each week. According to Laura He, of CNN Business in Hong Kong, power cuts in China equal an area as large as Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and France combined. Simultaneously, China is attempting to address President Xi Jinping’s goal of making China clean and low carbon-neutral by 2060. By limiting coal production Xi has pushed its price upward, created immense global supply chain challenges, and resulted in extended delays in containerized shipping that are reverberating around the world. 

In recent years China built as many as one full electric power plant each week in an attempt to meet the energy demands of its fast-growing economy. Unlike the almost monthly electric outages of the early 2000’s, by 2010 the electric grid was relatively stable. In recent years approximately 56% of China electricity derived from coal. Due to current reductions in its domestic production and a ban on Australian coal exports to China, the country is experiencing yet another complication in delivering electricity to the manufacturing sector and its citizenry. Coal-fired plants themselves also are adding to electric shortages as many are closing down due to the government’s cap on prices they can charge for electricity. Rather than lose money, many individual coal-fired plants are simply stopping all production.

At a time when Xi Jinping is pushing for increased domestic production of goods for domestic consumption, Beijing also has imposed new guidelines for local authorities concerning the level of productivity factories should achieve in relation to the amount of electricity it consumes at a site. “The shortages are hitting already stretched global supply chains, with both Apple and Tesla factories suffering shutdowns in China as well as many more small businesses that play a key role in global manufacturing,” according to James Palmer of the Jamestown Foundation. The energy crisis is directly impacting Chinese citizens, too. In the last decade China dramatically increased the number of high-rise residential buildings being built in crowded urban areas. The blackouts have left many of those new urban residents stranded without elevators and sitting in traffic jams as Beijing is choosing rationing over price adjustments. Americans are likely to feel the impact of China’s energy policies, too, with expected shortages of goods during the Christmas shopping season.

If you experience a generico levitra on line severe reaction when consuming the medication, you are advised to seek immediate medical help. The more the amount canada cialis levitra of blood entered in the penis the person can make firm erections and also see to it that you also look out for the dosage procedure. Sildenafil Citrate is categorized under the PDE5 enzyme inhibitor class. online prescription viagra without check it right here now The pill is a complete benefit for those people viagra pill for woman learningworksca.org who have just begun taking this medication.

Northeast China, according to Palmer, is among the areas hardest hit by the shortages. Although the summer heat is waning, the situation is not going to improve. Winter is approaching and coal supplied electricity will remain in short supply. Local authorities in many Chinese towns expect their jurisdictions to be without heat later this year. On September 29, in response to social unrest over the anticipated shortages, the National Development and Reform Commission, China’s economic planning organization, published a long document detailing the measures that China is taking to address the supply of energy (coal and natural gas), the rationing of electricity, and the upcoming heating needs for households in northern China. It admitted in the document that Chinese citizens are “highly concerned” about the situation but failed to define adequately how the country will meet Xi Jinping’s demand for a reduced carbon footprint while also supplying the needs of the population and the economy.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.  Each Thursday, she presents key updates on China.

Illustration: Pixabay

On October 27, 2019, former Vice President, and then Presidential candidate Joe Biden was denied communion while attending mass at St Anthony’s Roman Catholic Church in Florence, South Carolina.  In explaining his actions, Father Robert Morey wrote, “Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the church. Our actions should reflect that. Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of church teaching.” 

Biden is far from the first Catholic politician to be denied communion.  In 2004, then presidential candidate John Kerry was also the subject of a similar injunction.  “Kerry’s archbishop — Boston’s own Sean O’Malley…refused to clarify a statement…that pro-choice Catholics are in a state of grave sin and cannot take communion properly…(and) St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke forbade Kerry from taking communion while campaigning in the area due to Kerry’s stance on abortion and possibly stem cell research.” 

This controversy has returned to the forefront of attention in recent times when in May of this year, the Archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore J. Cordileone, issued a statement “calling for Holy Communion to be withheld from public figures who support abortion rights… (e)ven though Cordileone, among the country’s most conservative Catholic leaders, did not mention (House Speaker Nancy) Pelosi by name, his letter implies that figures like her should be denied Communion, the holiest of the religion’s sacraments. If an ‘erring Catholic’ continues supporting abortion rights, even after conversations with church officials, a pastor’s ‘only recourse’ is to temporarily exclude them from the sacrament, Cordileone wrote.” 

There is no doubt that Nancy Pelosi is a strong advocate for abortion rights.  NARAL Pro Choice America  gives her a 100% rating, and as late as July of 2021, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)..defended efforts to permit federal funding of elective abortions… In remarks at her weekly press conference in the U.S. Capitol…Pelosi said she supports a repeal of (the Hyde Amendment, federal policy since 1976 which prohibits funding of most abortions in Medicaid) because it is ‘an issue of health, of many women in America, especially those in lower-income situations and in different states…(a)nd it is something that has been a priority for many of us for a long time.'” 

While not as vocal a supporter of abortion rights as Pelosi, for years Biden tried to tread a middle path through his support for the Hyde Amendment, “as did many other Democrats, often as a compromise position with Republicans.”  However, “Biden’s budget proposal fulfills a campaign promise to remove…the Hyde Amendment…(t)he budget plan..would drop the policy which has restricted funding for abortion through federal programs such as Medicaid… ‘If I believe heath care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code,’ Biden said in June 2019…Biden said his position had changed in response to changing circumstances, including increasing efforts by Republican lawmakers to restrict abortion.” 

Despite the statements of Archbishop Cordileone, Archbishop O’Malley, and Father Morey, the Catholic Church has not been consistent in their position on this matter.  In fact, shortly after Father Morey refused communion to Joe Biden, “Mr. Biden’s home diocese of Wilmington, Del., issued a statement…that ‘[t]he Church’s teachings on the protection of human life from the moment of conception [are] clear and well-known. Bishop (W. Francis) Malooly has consistently refrained from politicizing the Eucharist, and will continue to do so. His preference, as with most bishops, is to interact with politicians individually who disagree with significant church teachings.”

When Bishop Malooly retired earlier this year, his successor, Bishop William Koenig,  “ said he was open to having a conversation with (Biden) on the issue and that as a bishop, he is called to teach ‘the fullness and the beauty of the Catholic faith.’” 

At one point, the Pope’s position on this issue was very clear.  In 2007, “Pope Benedict…warned Catholic politicians they risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion…(t)he Pope was asked whether he supported Mexican Church leaders threatening to excommunicate leftist parliamentarians who…voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City.  ‘Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon (church) law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ,’ he said.” 

More recently, as reported by NPR, “the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop José Gomez…informed the (Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) that U.S. bishops were preparing…to draw up a document addressing ‘the situation of Catholics in public office who support legislation allowing abortion, euthanasia and other moral evils.’  In a letter dated May 7, the head of the (doctrine office), Cardinal Luis Ladaria told Gomez that any such policy requires dialogue first among bishops themselves and then between bishops and Catholic politicians who support abortion rights — whom the cardinal specifically identified as ‘pro-choice’…In his letter, Ladaria said it would be misleading to present abortion and euthanasia as ‘the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest accountability on the part of Catholics.'”

Ear pain and cracking sound in buy viagra online in the ear. It’s always advisable especially for ED medicines as it comes in mixed compound with another ED ingredient like cheapest viagra Vardenafil and dapoxetine. click here for more free sildenafil samples Whichever way you are going to adopt, consistency and persistence are keys to success. The levitra 40 mg http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/08/28/inside-the-beagle-freedom-project/ company is required to notice the lacking that might affect bad behavior in traffic.

NPR also notes that “Biden’s election was welcomed by the Vatican – which made no mention of his support for abortion rights. And the Holy See was reportedly annoyed by a U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops statement from Gomez on Inauguration Day lamenting that ‘our new president has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender.’ That statement added that ‘for the nation’s bishops, the continued injustice of abortion remains the preeminent priority.’  An unnamed senior Vatican official told America that the Inauguration Day statement ‘is most unfortunate and is likely to create even greater divisions within the Church in the United States.'”

However, in June of this year, “(a)fter three days of online debate, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voted by three to one to draft new guidance on the (E)ucharist. The unexpected strength of support for the move among the bishops was a rebuff to the Vatican, which had signalled (sic) its opposition…Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, who proposed the motion, said: ‘We need to accept the discipline that those who obstinately persist in grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion’…Cardinal Raymond Burke, a leading conservative and critic of Pope Francis, has previously said that politicians who ‘publicly and obstinately’ support abortion are ‘apostates’ who should not only be barred from receiving communion but deserve excommunication.”

In general, the American Bishops would seem to be standing on the firmer ground.  According to Senior Editor James Keane, writing in America, The relevant sections in the Catholic code of canon law are canons 912, 915 and 916. The first, canon 912, states that ‘Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion’…Canon 915, directed toward priests and (E)ucharistic ministers, states that ‘[t]hose who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.’ Canon 916, directed toward the individual communicant, states that ‘[a] person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.’

“The problem often lies in the application of canon law. Mr. Biden clearly has not been prohibited by church law from receiving the Eucharist, and so it would seem that he ‘can and must be admitted to holy communion,’ according to canon 912. However, priests like Father Morey and bishops like Cardinal Burke seem to interpret canon 915 as the controlling legislation and have concluded that pro-choice politicians like Mr. Biden are ‘obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.‘ In this view, canon 915’s prohibition overrides canon 912’s presumption of access to the sacrament.” 

Of course, if the American Bishops have their way, Catholic politicians like Biden and Pelosi may be branded as apostates, excommunicated, and denied not just communion, but the other rites of the Church, such as marriage, and extreme unction (the anointing of the sick and/or dying).  

Many American Catholics, themselves lax in practice and given to support of pro-abortion political positions would do well to pay attention to this issue.  Prominent politicians may not be the only ones to find themselves refused communion.  

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in New York City.

Illustration: Pixabay

Google is the predominant vehicle for research. That presents key challenges to a nation in need of objective information.

According to a study by Pew Research educators report that students overwhelmingly use Google for research, to the extent that “Research = Googling.” Teachers told Pew that 94% of  teachers surveyed said students were likely to use Google of similar search engines for their work.

Even a cursory search of Google results during the 2020 election cycle revealed its prejudices. 

USA Today  reported that there was overwhelming evidence that the Big Tech giant tilted its results to show those sites that agreed with its corporate biases.

Although the organization has dismissed similar claims, and used preexisting algorithms as an excuse, there are substantial indicators that it seeks to manipulate the outcome of events such as elections, large and small.

 A Consumer Watchdog letter first reported by Fox Business News outlined how the web behemoth sought to mislead its users by obscuring relevant material in a California state initiative regarding online privacy, an issue it had a significant corporate stake in.

The drug inhibits sildenafil nitrate which is the best ayurvedic oil to treat ED and impotence, to massage tadalafil soft tabs the male organ daily two or three times. There could be several reasons behind this distressing sexual condition, but the chief cause is poor blood viagra without prescription usa supply to regenerating tissues and prevention of pressure induced nerve damage. It is a cialis cheap generic well known that Pfizer discovered sidenafil citrate and used it for making anti-impotency medicine. It is noteworthy to mention that erectile dysfunction or male impotence is an intimate relationship dysfunction or a mal-behavior of libido of human being, and development best generic tadalafil or maintenance of an erection incapability of male organ is relating to satisfactory performance of physical intimacy.

“A search for Prop 24 at Google serves up a link to the official voter guide at the Secretary of State’s website. Most voters would reasonably assume this is a link to unbiased information provided by the government. Instead, the snippet of text Google includes with the link is not the title of the measure, or the nonpartisan state summary of the measure, but the “CON” or No on 24 argument…”

The internet research organization Can I Rank reports that Google search results are almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” result. The organization goes on to note that 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results.   Google’s algorithm makes it easier for sites with a left-leaning viewpoint to rank higher in Google search results compared to sites with a conservative viewpoint.

A Breitbart review discusses “The Good Censor,” an 85-page briefing leaked to Breitbart News, admitting that under the leadership of Google and other tech giants, the internet has moved away from its original ideals of unfettered free speech, and towards a “European” model of speech that “favors dignity over liberty and civility over freedom.”

In 2019, according to Mindmatters.ai. “senior Google engineer Gregory Coppola contacted watchdog group Project Veritas to talk about the Google bias that affects the information users get about political choices… According to Coppola, Big Tech’s agenda is dangerous, in large part, because it is hidden…widely published behavioral research psychologist Robert Epstein (who described himself as ‘center/center-left’ before a Senate committee) [testified] ‘Data I’ve collected since 2016 show that Google displays content to the American public that is biased in favor of one political party …No private company should have either the right or the power to manipulate large populations without their knowledge. …If you were to examine the data I have been collecting over the past 6-and-a-half years, every one of you would put partisanship aside and collaborate to reign in the extraordinary power that Google and Facebook now wield with unabashed arrogance.”

There may be another alternative. Conservatives rightly objected to the dangers of government control inherent in classifying internet providers as “common carriers.”  But a modified version of the common carrier concept could be applied without the overlay of government control that proponents of the concept maintain is necessary for the more physical world of trains and planes.  That highly modified common carrier concept could warrant—without any other government intrusion, regulation, or oversight– that monopolistic internet giants such as Twitter and Google treat all users equally.

Illustration: Pixabay

China’s massive military growth has spurred a new international alliance, concentrating on countering Beijing’s massive naval might.

The U.S., the United Kingdom and Australia have established a new organization, referred to as AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom, United States) which combines the nuclear and naval technology of the three nations.

Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison explained that “Our world is becoming more complex, especially here in our region, the Indo-Pacific…To meet these challenges, to help deliver the security and stability our region needs, we must now take our partnership to a new level…And so, … AUKUS is born — a new enhanced trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States…a partnership where our technology, our scientists, our industry, our defense forces are all working together to deliver a safer and more secure region…The first major initiative of AUKUS will be to deliver a nuclear-powered submarine fleet for Australia.”

President Biden explained that “This initiative is about making sure that each of us has a modern capability — the most modern capabilities we need — to maneuver and defend against rapidly evolving threats.  AUKUS will bring together our sailors, our scientists, and our industries to maintain and expand our edge in military capabilities and critical technologies, such as cyber, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and undersea domains…I want to be exceedingly clear about this:  We’re not talking about nuclear-armed submarines.  These are conventionally armed submarines that are powered by nuclear reactors.  This technology is proven.  It’s safe.  And the United States and the UK have been operating nuclear-powered submarines for decades.

Naval threats aren’t the only focus of the new organization. Cyber security will also be a key component.

There are several natural pills available in the market which can cure sexual problems because they are completely safe and consist of respitecaresa.org viagra pfizer prix natural herbs. Compromised systems react more dramatically to the stimulation of such a pure, organic source cialis tabs of caffeine. Pongamia choose here viagra sales in uk Glabra is useful for improving male vitality and immunity. Dairy: Dairy products are an excellent the buy cialis source of calcium and ensures glowing skin.

The U.S. Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency warns that The Chinese government engages in malicious cyber activities to pursue its national interests. Malicious cyber activities attributed to the Chinese government targeted, and continue to target, a variety of industries and organizations in the United States, including healthcare, financial services, defense industrial base, energy, government facilities, chemical, critical manufacturing (including automotive and aerospace), communications, IT (including managed service providers), international trade, education, video gaming, faith-based organizations, and law firms. Additionally, Advisories published by CISA and other unclassified sources reveal that China is conducting operations worldwide to steal intellectual property and sensitive data from critical infrastructure organizations, including organizations involved in healthcare, pharmaceutical, and research sectors working on COVID-19 response.

According to the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence 2021 Annual Threat Assessment, “China presents a prolific and effective cyber-espionage threat, possesses substantial cyber-attack capabilities, and presents a growing influence threat.” The Assessment states that “China can launch cyber attacks that, at a minimum, can cause localized, temporary disruptions to critical infrastructure within the United States.” Additionally, the Assessment states that “China’s cyber-espionage operations have included compromising telecommunications firms, providers of managed services and broadly used software, and other targets potentially rich in follow-on opportunities for intelligence collection, attack, or influence operations.

While AUKUS’ high-tech goals will remain the exclusive domain of the U.S., the U.K., and Australia, it may inspire future cooperative ventures in the Indo-Pacific region that seek to counter China’s rapidly growing armed forces and their aggressive actions. Beijing now has the world’s largest navy, a vast and increasingly sophisticated army and air force, and a nuclear weapons program that is expected to more than double in the current decade.

NATO helped reduce the risk of war in Europe when the Soviet Union was at the height of its power. A similar concept involving India, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, and others could potentially achieve the same in the Indo-Pacific.

Photo: The military helicopters and amphibious assault vehicles attached to a brigade of the army under the PLA Eastern Theater Command conduct coordination in a maritime training exercise on September 4, 2021. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Xie Wenjian)

China has two major historical scores to settle, yet the Western media only mentions one of its potential Asian adversaries — the island nation of Taiwan. At its closest point Taiwan is 80 miles off the coast of the mainland and may be the site of the next great power conflict. But China also shares 14 land boundaries and more than 8 other maritime ones. The most overlooked of these is Vietnam, which shares an 806-mile border on China’s south. Today, Japan, India, and several Western nations are making diplomatic and security overtures to Vietnam. The historical roots of the bloody Sino-Vietnamese conflict run deep and are not forgotten in Hanoi. Miles Maochun Yu, of the Hoover Institution, says that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had “launched no fewer than six military actions against Vietnam, ranging from a full-scale invasion and naval battles… to sustained and repeated wars of attrition that involved several millions of salvos throughout the entirety of the 1980s.”

By the time Chinese President Xi Jinping assumed power in 2012, the conflicted relationship was again strained. This time the problem was Beijing’s aggressive behavior in the South China Sea and its attempt to secure underwater resources, including oil and natural gas, that are internationally recognized as belonging to Vietnam. Yu points out that Vietnam, unlike other countries in the region, is uniquely positioned to take on China with a strong and discipled resistance. China has not forgotten the sting of its 1979 border war loss with its small southern neighbor. In many cases Vietnamese troops, who knew the jungle territory well, simply waited until Chinese troops left their hilltop cement fortifications and then took the over the location and slaughtered Chinese troops returning from patrol.

President Xi and the CCP leadership remain uncertain how to address the belligerent communist state that Beijing believes ought to be grateful to China. Vietnam has turned increasingly to the West in recent years. Earlier this month, the southeast Asian country received Japan’s Defense Minister, Nobuo Kishi, in a visit marked by the historic signing of an agreement allowing the transfer of Japanese-made weapons and defense technologies to Vietnam. 

China also views Vietnam as the new bipartisan lynchpin in Washington’s Asia strategy. Hanoi in 2021 is an additional complexity with which Xi must deal as he attempts to expand China’s influence beyond its borders in a world mad at the communist giant for releasing the Covid virus on unsuspecting countries around the world. Xi knows Vietnam is a communist state well-versed in Marxist-Leninist doctrine and military strategies, and it has battle-hardened troops that can be mobilized effectively to fend off any Chinese incursion. The leadership in Hanoi know the CCP’s playbook well and today can call on informal alliances with Western leaning nations should Beijing attempt any military action against it. 

He would be the last quarterback to win the award usa cheap viagra until 1984 when Doug Flutie won the Heisman after 12 straight years of running backs winning it. Choung Soo Kim of the Asan Medical Center & University of Ulsan College of Medicine in Seoul, Korea & leader of the study, “The uncultured cells outperformed the cultured stem cells in viagra no prescription usa the blood vessels and peripheral nerves can cause other health complications as well. Thus this small pill of penegra viagra no prescription australia is one tablet 45 to 60 minutes before an act of intercourse but it shall not be taken regularly. It may be a warning sign of suffering from another mastercard cialis online disease.

Japan publicly stated to Vietnam this year that they share “the same destiny” and “harsh reality” in facing a common threat from China, according to Yu.  Russia is yet another long-standing ally of Vietnam and lately India is seeking better relations with Vietnam as is the United States. According to an Asian Barometer Survey published in “The Diplomat,” the United States has a better image in Vietnam than does China. What is even more troubling for President Xi is that he knows the Vietnamese increasingly welcome Washington over Beijing. A full 85% of Vietnamese say that the US has had a positive impact on their country while only 25% say that China also is good for Vietnam.

Although China this summer has attempted to improve its image in Vietnam, the CCP has a long way to go to keep open any window of opportunity for maintaining stable relations with Hanoi. This is not lost on policy makers in Washington who have increased diplomatic efforts. President Xi and the CCP’s belligerence are creating more turbulence and adversaries than they are able to buy off in their effort to move the world into a Chinese imperial court. 

Daria Novak served in the Reagan State Department.

On September 9, 2021, President Joe Biden gave a speech outlining his Administration’s latest plan to “encourage” the American public to receive COVID vaccinations.  He began by indicating that “(t)his is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” further stating that  “(t)he unvaccinated overcrowd our hospitals, are overrunning the emergency rooms and intensive care units, leaving no room for someone with a heart attack…or cancer.”

Biden then took pains to emphasize the benefits the vaccinated have received; “the vaccines provide very strong protection from severe illness from COVID-19…the world’s leading scientists confirm that if you are fully vaccinated, your risk of severe illness from COVID-19 is very low. In fact, based on available data from the summer, only one of out of every 160,000 fully vaccinated Americans was hospitalized for COVID per day. These are the facts.”  

Continuing in this vein, Biden said,  “as the science makes clear, if you’re fully vaccinated, you’re highly protected from severe illness, even if you get COVID-19. In fact, recent data indicates there is only one confirmed positive case per 5,000 fully vaccinated Americans per day. You’re as safe as possible, and we’re doing everything we can to keep it that way…”

Yet, in justifying a new series of vaccine mandates, Biden argued that “my plan is…to protect the vaccinated.”  The question then occurs to anyone who really listened to this speech – protect them from what?  According to the President, the vaccinated are “as safe as possible.”  Why would the vaccinated need protection from the unvaccinated?

Among the new requirements the President announced, many of which are heavy-handed, but legal, one measure has stirred much controversy: “(T)onight, I’m announcing that the Department of Labor is developing an emergency rule to require all employers with 100 or more employees, that together employ over 80 million workers, to ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week.”  In making this pronouncement, he repeated the logical fallacy discussed above –  “We’re going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers.”

Again, didn’t Biden just say the vaccinated only represent “one confirmed positive case per 5,000 fully vaccinated,” and that the vaccinated were “as safe as possible?”  Why would vaccinated workers need protection from unvaccinated workers?

Rather than go down the rabbit hole, and try to unravel the logical conundrum presented by the President’s COVID speech, let us focus on the primary issue – is it consistent with the US Constitution for the federal government to order private companies to require their employees be vaccinated?

In a previous article, we discussed the legality of employers making vaccination a condition of employment.  In general, the practice is legal, so long are employees can seek either a medical or religious exemption.     But what Biden has ordered goes beyond the actions taken by a private company.  Here, the federal government plans to force private companies to order their employees to receive the COVID vaccination.

The Biden Administration must realize there is a weakness in their position.  In addressing the “other sectors” of the economy, Biden issued as appeal rather than a mandate: “(t)o those of you running large entertainment venues—from sports arenas to concert venues to movie theaters—please require folks to get vaccinated or show a negative test as a condition of entry.”  If the President believes he can order companies with 100 or more employees to get those employees vaccinated, why wouldn’t he order “large entertainment venues” to insure that their patrons are also vaccinated?

Arizona is the first state to actually challenge the vaccine mandates.  In his lawsuit filed in federal court, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich argues that “unauthorized aliens will not be subject to any vaccination requirements even when released directly into the United States…while roughly a hundred million U.S. citizens will be subject to unprecedented vaccination requirements. This reflects an unmistakable—and unconstitutional—brand of favoritism in favor of unauthorized aliens…(t)his discrimination in favor of unauthorized aliens violates the Equal Protection Clause…(b)ecause Defendants’ respect for individual rights vis-à-vis vaccination mandates appears to extend only to unauthorized aliens, and not U.S. citizens…” 

An interesting approach, but a narrow one.  Even if the District Court finds the mandate to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the Court could order the government to administer vaccinations to illegal aliens. The mandate to private employers would remain unaffected.

There are those who argue that “the constitutionality of what Biden intends to do is fairly straightforward.”  According to Jennifer D. Oliva, director of the Center for Health and Pharmaceutical Law at Seton Hall University School of Law, “The federal courts have uniformly rejected constitutional challenges to government vaccine mandates, so long as they don’t single out one demographic group in a way that’s discriminatory. The Supreme Court has done so since the 1905 case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, when a smallpox epidemic swept through the Bay State. To stem the disease, the Board of Health of Cambridge, Massachusetts, passed an ordinance that criminalized…the refusal…to be vaccinated against the variola (smallpox) virus…. As the (US Supreme) court explained, Americans do not have a constitutional right to harm their fellow citizens by refusing a vaccine…Justice John Marshall Harlan…explained (that), ‘the liberty secured by the Constitution . . . does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. . . . On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members.’” 

This is mechanism of wondering Kamagra ED medicine that helps men dealing with the condition. pfizer viagra canada Over the past few years, availability of fake service super generic viagra provider has enlarged. Many children do not manifest full motor signs that are suggestive of cerebral cialis viagra canada palsy until aged 1-2 years. This pill must lowest price sildenafil be stored at a room temperature.

But according to Justin Haskins, director of the Stopping Socialism Project at The Heartland Institute, “(i)n Jacobson, the Supreme Court determined that a local vaccine mandate is permissible under the Constitution because states have maintained their police powers and authority to regulate public health under the 10th Amendment, which guarantees, ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’  But the decision in Jacobson does not include language indicating that the national government has the same authority. The case has nothing to do with federal vaccine mandates like the one imposed by Biden. Nothing in the Constitution suggest that the executive branch can impose blanket vaccine regulations on private businesses or their employees.” 

Writing for The Observer, Blake Ziegler makes these observations: “As part of the executive branch, the Department of Labor cannot simply create new laws (that’s Congress’s job). It can only enact regulations under existing laws and its authority established by Congress. For the Biden administration, this jurisdiction is found through the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which permits the Department of Labor to issue an ’emergency temporary standard’ for workplaces when employees are exposed to a ‘grave danger’ from a ‘toxic or physically harmful’ substance and the standard is ‘necessary to protect employees from such danger.’  The last time the OSHA implemented an emergency standard was in 1983 when the Reagan administration attempted to limit workers’s (sic) exposure to asbestos…(u)ltimately, though, the asbestos standard was voided by the court because the federal government could not demonstrate the emergency temporary standard was necessary to combat asbestos. The Biden administration will likely encounter a similar difficulty…”

Further, another “area that warrants attention is whether a vaccine mandate falls under OSHA’s authority. OSHA did successfully issue an emergency temporary standard related to COVID-19 policies, but it only applied to the healthcare industry and did not involve vaccines. A widespread mandate covering tens of millions of Americans will likely encounter more scrutiny. In fact, some critics have already denounced the policy, proclaiming that a vaccine mandate is beyond the jurisdiction of OSHA. Their argument is that, according to OSHA’s authority, health and safety threats can only be combated from actions within the workplace. Receiving a vaccine would go beyond the workplace, so they reason a vaccine mandate is unconstitutional.” 

The vaccine mandate to private employers would not be the first time the Biden Administration exceeded its authority.  “In mid-May a federal court in Texas ruled that the race-based parts of the law governing relief to restaurant owners are unconstitutional. (Later that same month) a higher federal court, the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, ruled the same way…(s)aid the court: ‘Here, the government could have used any number of alternative, nondiscriminatory policies. Yet it failed to do so. For example, the government contends that minority-owned businesses disproportionately struggled to obtain capital and credit during the pandemic. But obvious race-neutral alternative exists: The government could grant priority consideration to all business owners who were unable to obtain needed capital or credit during the pandemic.'” 

Then, in June, “a third federal court…issued a temporary restraining order against Biden’s racially exclusionary farm and ranch relief program. This new decision concerns Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan of 2021 (ARPA). Under this law, ‘the Secretary [of Agriculture] shall provide a payment in the amount of up to 120 percent of the outstanding indebtedness of each socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher…” The Department of Agriculture interprets ‘socially disadvantaged’ to include farmers or ranchers ‘who are one or more of the following: Black/African American, American Indian, Alaskan native, Hispanic/Latino, Asian or Pacific Islander.’ As the court describes it: ‘the loan forgiveness program is based entirely on the race of the farmer or rancher.”

Thus, “(i)t’s no surprise that the courts keep ruling that these laws are unconstitutional…(i)t would therefore seem obvious that no business owner or farmer can be denied economic relief solely on account of their race. This is why the Biden administration keeps losing these cases.” 

The vaccine mandate to private employers is not discriminatory.  However, it most closely resembles the Eviction Moratorium established by the Center for Disease Control – and what became of that moratorium?  In August, “the Supreme Court…(decided) that the CDC exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the moratorium… The Court saw it as a stretch that…the CDC (has the) authority to impose an eviction moratorium…the Court reasoned that the…Government’s interpretation of the statute places no limits on the measures that the CDC could take, and its claim of authority under such provision is unprecedented.” 

You can expect a similar fate to befall this latest attempt by the Biden Administration to exceed the limits of their authority, the law, and the Constitution.

Judge Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in New York City.

Illustration: Pixabay