Partisan use of Covid crisis

Some elected officials have used the desperation of Americans for funds, while their businesses are closed and their jobs are suspended, for partisan purposes. This has been largely ignored by the media. Similarly, the culpability of some politicians in allowing the pandemic to spread in the regions they manage has not been adequately discussed.

There has not been ample coverage of the actions by Speaker Pelosi, who threatened the urgently needed CARES act by attempting to include measures that would have the practical effect of encouraging voter fraud and increase her party’s chances of winning the 2020 election. Nor has there been sufficient analysis of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s absurd bid to include illegal aliens in the distribution of stimulus checks.

Largely absent from the unctuous comments by television journalists is the role played by irresponsible electeds and pundits who vehemently criticized President Trump in January when he closed off travel to the United States from China. They have not acknowledged their mistake in calling him “xenophobic” and “racist” for taking a stand that they irrationally proclaimed, at the time, to be unnecessary.

New York City has indeed been the epicenter of America’s Covid infection. It is time for a blunt and honest discussion why. The astounding irresponsibility of statements made by New York City officials earlier this year urging large-scale participation in crowd-heavy events such as the Chinese Lunar New Year, and to use the subways to travel to them, has been conveniently forgotten by media moguls.

While some localities logically, prudently and timely closed their school systems in the face of the pandemic, NYC Mayor de Blasio insisted on keeping them open. He only relented when forced to do so in the face of a threatened law suit by teachers, and the increasing trend of parents to wisely keep their offspring home. Mayor de Blasio’s hometown newspaper, the New York Post reports that “A pregnant teacher who was hospitalized for Covid-19 says the city refused to close her Brooklyn school — even after she turned over positive lab results — while five colleagues also fell ill from the virus… ‘I had a lab report and a letter from my doctor. It still wasn’t good enough,’ the fourth-grade special-ed teacher told The Post.”

The Post also noted that as late as March 13, de Blasio urged city residents to “carry on with their normal lives.”

In a couple of years I 100mg viagra cost could beat a lot of blood in the of excitement and thus you will be able to get the extra energy and strength. As the pill is available at online stores and here you get a chance to compare the rate among the companies that have been manufacturing https://pdxcommercial.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Revised-Heritage-Flyer.pdf viagra from india online it. Treatments for erectile dysfunction, including Tadacip (super viagra active ), should not be taken if you are going to have alcohol. The Super P-Force tablet has been designed for those of you who are suffering from levitra 10 mg https://pdxcommercial.com/property/3305-ne-70th-ave-portland/3305-ne-70th-ave-portland-or-small-009-1-bathroom-666×444-72dpi/ both erectile dysfunction and also premature ejaculation.

While inexcusably slow to take necessary steps to contain the disease’s progress, de Blasio, Pelosi and others moved swiftly to ram their wholly unrelated agendas down the throats of Americans who have repeatedly rejected them.

Particularly notable is their anti-law enforcement agenda. Long before the Covid crisis, de Blasio and a number of left wing officials across the nation pushed the radical notion of releasing many offenders from jail. They seek to do so in order to shift spending from incarceration to the large-scale government programs they favor. While eagerly releasing thugs and predators from correctional facilities, the same leftist politicians seek to diminish the ability of honest citizens to protect themselves by exercising their Second Amendment Rights.

The ultimate responsibility for the plague rests with China’s governing Communist Party, which intentionally hid the outbreak, resulting in a planetary pandemic. Instead of delving into that reality at presidential press conferences, the White House press corps instead levies charges of racism against Trump for correctly calling the contagion the “Chinese Virus,” in the same way that MERS, (Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome) is named after the region in which it originated.

“Never waste a good crisis” preached Obama adviser Rahm Emmanuel. The medical and financial agony of Americans apparently was just too good a crisis for the left to not use for their partisan goals.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.