An Associated Press fact check confirms what Breitbart News reported earlier this week: that Democrat presidential candidates are falsely claiming that President Donald Trump cut funding and personnel needed to fight coronavirus.

On Tuesday, Breitbart News fact-checked “mostly false” claims by former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg during the Democrat debate in South Carolina. Bloomberg claimed that Trump had “fired” a pandemic specialist at the White House, and “defunded” the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The implication: Trump was to blame for the spread of coronavirus — even though there have been just over a dozen cases and no fatalities in the U.S.

The truth: the pandemic specialist had left voluntarily during a reorganization of the bloated National Security Council (NSC), and the CDC cuts — as the agency wound down its Ebola response — were only proposed, not enacted.

The AP confirmed Thursday, in an article titled “AP FACT CHECK: Democrats distort coronavirus readiness,” that much of what Democrats are saying about Trump’s response to the coronavirus challenge is simply not true:

Democratic presidential contenders are describing the federal infectious-disease bureaucracy as rudderless and ill-prepared for the coronavirus threat because of budget cuts and ham-handed leadership by President Donald Trump. That’s a distorted picture. For starters, Trump hasn’t succeeded in cutting the budget.

He’s proposed cuts but Congress ignored him and increased financing instead. The National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention aren’t suffering from budget cuts that never took effect.

…

Some public health experts say a bigger concern than White House budgets is the steady erosion of a CDC grant program for state and local public health emergency preparedness — the front lines in detecting and battling new disease. But that decline was set in motion by a congressional budget measure that predates Trump.

…

“The CDC’s response has been excellent, as it has been in the past,” said John Auerbach, president of the nonpartisan Trust for America’s Health, which works with government at all levels to improve the nation’s response to high-risk health crises. Some Democrats have charged that Trump decimated the nation’s public health leadership, but Auerbach said CDC’s top scientific ranks have remained stable during the past three years.

Read the full AP fact check here.

The changes in the Trump administration — the restructuring and the proposed CDC cuts — were overdue, as the Ebola crisis had faded. It was bad luck that a new public health crisis emerged at that precise moment.

But it was also fortunate that President Trump departed from protocol in one important way, widely criticized at the time: by shutting down travel from China, something the AP says is not typically done, he likely prevented a larger outbreak and bought the government precious time to prepare a response and educate the public.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

The Trump administration can withhold millions of dollars in law enforcement grants to force states to cooperate with U.S. immigration enforcement, a federal appeals court in New York ruled Wednesday in a decision that conflicted with three other federal appeals courts.

The ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan overturned a lower court’s decision ordering the administration to release funding to New York City and seven states — New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and Rhode Island.

The states and city sued the U.S. government after the Justice Department announced in 2017 that it would withhold grant money from cities and states until they gave federal immigration authorities access to jails and provide advance notice when someone in the country illegally is about to be released.

Before the change, cities and states seeking grant money were required only to show they were not preventing local law enforcement from communicating with federal authorities about the immigration status of people who were detained.

At the time, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said: “So-called ‘sanctuary’ policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes.”

TRENDING: Bernie Turns on Dem Audience After Getting Booed Over His Pro-Cuba Comments

In 2018, the Justice Department imposed additional conditions on the grant money, though challenges to those have not yet reached the appeals court in New York.

The 2nd Circuit said the plain language of relevant laws make clear that the U.S. attorney general can impose conditions on states and municipalities receiving money.

And it noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the federal government maintains broad power over states when it comes to immigration policies.

In the past two years, federal appeals courts in Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco have ruled against the federal government by upholding lower-court injunctions placed on the enforcement of some or all of the challenged conditions.

Do “sanctuary” policies make Americans less safe?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

“While mindful of the respect owed to our sister circuits, we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue,” the 2nd Circuit three-judge panel said in a decision written by Judge Reena Raggi.

“These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations,” the appeals court said.

“But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.”

The Justice Department praised the decision, issuing a statement calling it a “major victory for Americans” and saying it recognizes that the attorney general has authority to ensure that grant recipients are not thwarting federal law enforcement priorities.

The department added that the ruling’s effect will be limited because other courts have ruled the other way, giving the plaintiffs in the New York case the opportunity to point to those as reasons to ignore the new conditions.

RELATED: Cali Sheriff Bucks Sanctuary State Mandate, Complies with ICE Subpoena

Cody Wofsy, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, called the decision a “real outlier,” saying he believed the 2nd Circuit was the nation’s first court to side with the Trump administration on the issue.

“Over and over, courts have said the Department of Justice doesn’t have authority under governing statutes to impose these conditions,” he said.

“These conditions are part of the administration’s attempts to bully, cajole and coerce state and local governments into participating in federal immigration enforcement activities.”

Under the Constitution’s federalism principles and the 10th Amendment, Wofsy said, states and municipalities “are entitled to decline to become part of the administration’s deportation force.”

The appeals rulings pertain to the issuance of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.

Created in 2006, it is the vehicle through which Congress annually dispenses over $250 million in federal funding for state and local criminal justice efforts.

The Byrne Program was named for New York City Police Officer Edward Byrne, who at age 22 was shot to death while guarding the home of a Guyanese immigrant cooperating with authorities investigating drug trafficking.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

In a shocking move Tuesday, nearly every Democratic senator voted against requiring that medical care be provided to babies who survive abortions.

A cloture vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act garnered the support of 56 senators, compared to 41 who voted to block it.

All 53 GOP senators and three senators voted to proceed, while 41 Democrats voted no, meaning the measure fell short of the 60 votes needed for cloture, ending debate.

The bill requires, in part, that medical personnel “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child [who survives an abortion] as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

The proposed legislation includes some teeth of potential criminal and civil penalties, including up to five years in jail, for health care providers who fail to offer the requisite care.

TRENDING: Bernie Turns on Dem Audience After Getting Booed Over His Pro-Cuba Comments

Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who sponsored the bill, rightly observed from the Senate floor prior to Tuesday’s vote, “This ain’t hard stuff people.”

“Every one of us … should be able to say without any hesitation, ‘leaving babies to die is unacceptable,’” Sasse said. “There’s really no debate to be had here, which is why so many people who were planning to speak on the other side, decided not to speak this afternoon.”

“Every one of us should be able to say without any hesitation, ‘leaving babies to die is unacceptable.’

THIS AIN’T HARD STUFF, PEOPLE!!

This should be a 100 to zero no-brainer.”@SenSasse speaks on his bill to ensure care for infants born alive during abortion #EndInfanticide pic.twitter.com/HksvJl9HOs

— Susan B. Anthony List (@SBAList) February 25, 2020

Do you believe medical care should be legally required to babies who survive abortions?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

“This should be a 100 to zero no-brainer.”

In fact, the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002” was passed by unanimous consent and also sailed through the House on a voice vote.

That legislation did not specify the penalties for failing to provide the needed care.

CBN News congressional reporter Abigail Robertson pressed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on why Democrats opposed the legislation, given Sasse’s argument that current law prevents health care providers from killing babies born alive during abortions, but does not address the withholding of care.

“Right now, all that’s really prohibited is if a baby survives an abortion, you can’t take a pillow and put it over her face and smother her to death, but you can walk away from her…& leave her to die…”@SenSasse on why #BornAliveBill is needed https://t.co/EkfSD7EJd7 pic.twitter.com/uF24NB7Qra

— Abigail Robertson (@AbigailCBN) February 26, 2020

RELATED: During Debate, Norm Macdonald Shredded Pro-Abortion Dem Candidates on Killing Babies

“We voted on this before. It was defeated,” Schumer responded concerning the bill.

“There’s a law in 2002 that is on the books, current law, that covers everything Sasse is talking about. It’s a play to the hard right base. The American people don’t support it.”

Well, if the American people don’t support it, why did a majority of senators vote for it, including Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Doug Jones of Alabama?

A poll of 1,000 likely general election voters last February, conducted by the Republican firm McLaughlin & Associates, found that “77 percent of voters support legislation to ensure that a baby who survives a failed abortion be given the same medical treatment as any other baby born prematurely at the same age.”

The survey was commissioned by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List after New York state enacted legislation that revokes the requirement for medical care for babies who survive abortions.

The poll also came after comments by Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia advocated for a similar measure in his state.

Northam said that if a baby were born alive under the provisions of the proposed law, “the infant would be kept comfortable” while a discussion ensued between the mother and her physicians about whether to keep the child alive.

The Susan B. Anthony List’s national campaign chair, Jill Stanek, a former nurse who witnessed babies born alive during an abortion procedure and then left to die, said in a statement provided to The Western Journal, “It is appalling to see Democrats … vote against compassionate, common sense bills, including one that simply requires medical care for born children.”

Concerned Women for America president Penny Nance linked Planned Parenthood to Tuesday’s vote by Democrats.

“It is a very sad day for the unborn, and I pray God’s forgiveness over our country. Planned Parenthood and abortion extremists’ death grip have once again prevailed through the Democrat party,” Nance said in a statement to The Western Journal.

“It is unconscionable that Democrats stand on the side of authoritarian regimes like China and North Korea who condone the killing of unborn children until birth and leave unwanted newborns to die. Unfortunately that is where our country’s laws stand today,” she added.

The United States is one of seven countries that allow elective late-term abortions, according to the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute.

China, North Korea, Vietnam and Canada have no restrictions on when abortions can be performed during the pregnancy, while the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision bans any state from placing restrictions on abortions until the age of the baby’s viability outside the womb.

The court noted at that time that viability was believed to be around 28 weeks.

Medical technology has advanced since 1973, allowing babies born at 22 weeks to frequently survive.

I distinctly remember sitting in a House Judiciary Committee hearing on banning partial-birth (i.e. late term) abortion in the summer of 1995, while working as an intern on Capitol Hill.

One of the Democrats on the committee pushed then-Chairman Henry Hyde about what provision of the Constitution could such a ban could be enacted.

Hyde pointed to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, arguing that protecting life has been at the center of what the American government is all about.

Former President Ronald Reagan powerfully contended in a 1988 pro-life proclamation that America’s gift to the “world is twofold: the declaration, as a cardinal principle of all just law, of the God-given, unalienable rights possessed by every human being; and the example of our determination to secure those rights and to defend them against every challenge through the generations.”

“One of those unalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence affirms so eloquently, is the right to life. In the 15 years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, however, America’s unborn have been denied their right to life.”

Among the “tragic and unspeakable results,” Reagan said, has been the death of tens of millions of babies.

While Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, this tragedy will continue.

But now, in our time, Democrats support the “right” to not only kill the unborn, but also the right to allow the born to die.

It’s time to reclaim America’s heritage as a protector of life and remove any politician from office who is is not willing to uphold this most sacred right.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions for refusing to cooperate with immigration authorities in a decision that will likely trigger a Supreme Court review.

A number of cities have challenged the Justice Department policy that would withhold federal law enforcement grants from cities that refuse to cooperate with illegal immigration enforcement. The Second Circuit ruled against New York City’s challenge to the policy, but three other appeals courts have upheld injunctions that required the Trump administration to disperse the contested funds. The split between the circuit courts increases the likelihood that the issue will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, as justices generally take cases featuring questions over which multiple courts disagree.

"Today’s decision rightfully recognizes the lawful authority of the attorney general to ensure that Department of Justice grant recipients are not at the same time thwarting federal law enforcement priorities," a Justice Department spokesman said in a statement.

"The grant conditions here require states and cities that receive DOJ grants to share information about criminals in custody," the spokesman said. "The federal government uses this information to enforce national immigration laws—policies supported by successive Democrat and Republican administrations."

The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program distributes $250 million annually to support local law enforcement. The Justice Department in 2017 imposed three immigration-enforcement conditions on recipients of those funds. Beneficiaries were required to comply with a federal law that says government entities may not "prohibit, or in any way restrict" information-sharing with immigration authorities. The policy also required local authorities to give notice of an incarcerated alien’s release date on request, as well as ensure that federal immigration agents have access to jails and other facilities to question migrants or suspected aliens.

Sanctuary cities and states challenged those conditions in federal courts around the country. In Wednesday’s decision, the Second Circuit said "the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the attorney general to impose the challenged conditions." Those statutes require program recipients to maintain records that the attorney general "may reasonably require" and comply with "all other applicable federal laws."

As a general matter, the Second Circuit also said that the federal government has broad and preeminent power over immigration. That’s important because the states cannot impede or interfere with laws enacted by Congress, the court said.

"The Supreme Court recently made the same point in the immigration context," the decision reads, referring to a 2012 decision of the High Court. "While acknowledging a state’s ‘understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration,’ the Court held that the ‘state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.’"

Judge Reena Raggi wrote the decision for a unanimous panel, joined by Judges Ralph Winter and Jose Cabranes. The case is No. 19-267 New York v. U.S. Department of Justice.

The post In Victory For Trump, Appeals Court Says Feds Can Withhold Grants From Sanctuary Cities appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

On Tuesday Cuba’s official communist paper thanked Bernie Sanders for recognizing Fidel Castro’s great progress in education and healthcare.

The article appeared on the front page of the official communist website Granma.

Of course, what Bernie is saying is complete horse sh*t.
Cuba has two healthcare systems. One for the rich Marxist elites and another for the poverty stricken masses.

The Gateway Pundit reported on the Cuban healthcare system back in 2007 — with photos.

A Cuban toilet… In a Cuban hospital.

Cockroaches. Twenty-seven of them to be exact. All swept together after having been squashed by patients and patrons of “El Hospital Clinico Quirurgico de la Habana.”

And imagine having to take a loved one to the hospital and when you get there, this is what the common area looks like the above.

This is a closeup shot of the floors where patients are actually tended to.

Washbasin in the orthopedic room. (The Real Cuba)

And, a doctor’s office with a sign saying there are no prescriptions available.

Stefania at Free Thoughts also reported on the Cuban healthcare system back in 2007. The Gateway Pundit posted her words at the time. One of the major accomplishments of 1959 Castroite revolution has been turning once-world class hospitals of Cuba into places where not even pigs would ever enter. This is Cuban healthcare. For ordinary people, of course.

Thanks to Dr. Darsi Ferrer, who emailed us these pics took via cell phone camera in 3 hospitals in Havana: Miguel Enríquez Hospital, Octuber 10 (Diez de Octubre) Hospital and Julio Trigo Hospital.

What a nightmare.
This is what Bernie Sanders wants for America.

The post Marxist Bernie Sanders Promotes Cuban Health Care – Filthy Institutions Not Even Pigs Would Enter –WITH PHOTOS appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Footage was released this week showing police officer in Orlando walking into an elementary school and arresting a 6-year-old girl. The child, accused of having a “tantrum” and hitting her teachers, had her hands bound by zip ties – the officer said he would have used handcuffs but her wrists were too small – and was put in the back of a squad car while she cried and trembled in terror, pleading for another chance. The courageous cops, valiantly defending society from ill-tempered first graders, took the child to a detention center where her mug shot was taken and she was officially brought up on charges of criminal assault. Just to reiterate: she was 6-years-old.

The officer in charge can be heard in the body cam footage bragging that this “breaks his record” for the youngest child he’s ever arrested. In fact, he broke it twice that day because another 6-year-old was also hauled away to jail. This officer, Dennis Turner, apparently has a history of being a power drunk scumbag. He was investigated back in 2015 for tasing a man five times even though the suspect wasn’t actively resisting arrest. Reportedly, he was also arrested back in 1998 for aggravated assault of a child.

Turner has been fired for his actions at the school, but serious questions remain. For instance, how did a callous incompetent like Turner, twice put under internal investigation by his department, end up as a resource officer at an elementary school? And more broadly, is it really a good idea to criminalize childhood misbehavior? This may be an extreme example, but grade schools across the country have increasingly been treating discipline problems as legal infractions. Kids who lack emotional maturity – not because there’s something wrong with them, but merely because they’re kids – now face the possibility of a criminal record for behavior that would have simply landed their parents and grandparents in detention. The criminalization of schoolyard bullying is another example of this trend.

Children, especially in the elementary school ages, are not reasonable creatures. They do not possess the psychological capacity to express their emotions or control their actions the same way adults can. This, again, is not their fault. It’s just a natural facet of childhood. We were all unreasonable and emotional children once. Some of us still are. This doesn’t mean that misbehavior, disrespect, etc., should be tolerated or that disruptive children should be given free rein to do whatever they want, but it does mean that we can’t hold them to the same standard as adults. It may be assault for an adult to punch another adult. It is not assault when a child hits, any more than it’s theft when a toddler steals a Barbie doll from her daycare center. This is a matter of culpability. We used to understand that children have little of it.

But we are not just criminalizing childhood. Where it is not criminalized, it is medicalized. Over 7 million children in this country have been placed on psychiatric medication, and nearly half of those cases are ADHD. All in all, about 6 million children – well over half of them under the age of 11 – have been diagnosed with this phantom disorder. Boys are twice as likely to be diagnosed as girls. As I’ve argued extensively elsewhere, the ADHD diagnosis turns normal childhood behaviors into symptoms of mental illness. It may be true that these behaviors are difficult to deal with, especially in the school system, but that by no means makes them “disordered.” If the school system’s proper function depends on drugging millions of kids, then it seems to me that the system is disordered. The sickness is not in our kids but in our attitude toward them and our expectations of them. If millions of 9-year-old boys have trouble sitting at their desk for 8 hours a day, performing busy work, and regurgitating information onto Scantron sheets, perhaps we should consider the possibility that this is a very bad way of educating 9-year-old boys. Though it may indeed be the easiest way. For us, that is.

Our children aren’t mentally disordered. They aren’t criminals. And this generation of children isn’t very different from any generation before them. It’s just that those previous generations weren’t made into mental patients or fugitives if they made the mistake of acting their age. Kids were given time and space to be kids. Children today deserve the same consideration.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Left-wing CNN political commentator Ana Navarro ripped socialist Bernie Sanders following the Democrats’ debate on Tuesday over his continued praise of communist dictators, saying that there is “no f***ing bright side.”

Navarro’s remarks came after Sanders has repeatedly defended his praise of murderous Cuban communist dictator Fidel Castro this week by falsely claiming that he made the Cuban people literate – they already had a high literacy rate.

“I was born in Nicaragua. My parents live there. My husband was born in Cuba,” Navarro tweeted. “Castros & Ortega are corrupt, anti-American, murderous thugs. They jail, kill, torture, starve, beat, persecute political dissidents while enriching themselves. There is no f***ing bright side. Period.”

I was born in Nicaragua. My parents live there.
My husband was born in Cuba.
Castros & Ortega are corrupt, anti-American, murderous thugs. They jail, kill, torture, starve, beat, persecute political dissidents while enriching themselves.

There is no fucking bright side.

Period.

— Ana Navarro-Cárdenas (@ananavarro) February 26, 2020

Sanders reignited controversy over his fringe views this week during an interview on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” with Anderson Cooper that aired on Sunday night.

“Back in the 1980s, Sanders had some positive things to say about the former Soviet Union and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua,” Cooper said while narrating during the segment. “Here he is explaining why the Cuban people didn’t rise up and help the U.S. overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro: ‘…he educated their kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society, you know?’”

“We’re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba but you know, it’s unfair to simply say everything is bad,” Sanders responded. “You know? When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?”

“A lot of dissidents imprisoned in Cuba,” Cooper responded.

During the debate on Tuesday, Sanders again doubled down on his support for Castro, saying, “Of course you have a dictatorship in Cuba. What I said is what Barack Obama said in terms of Cuba, that Cuba made progress on education.”

The crowd booed.

Sanders yelled back, “Really?!”

The crowd booed even louder.

“Really? Literacy programs are bad?” Sanders fired back, again parroting debunked communist talking points.

Following the debate, Sanders again continued to defend his remarks during an interview with CBS News.

“On this issue of the potential political peril you and Democrats could suffer in Florida, Congresswoman Donna Shalala said come on down to Miami and meet with the people who have been affected by his regime,” CBS News’ Ed O’Keefe said. “Would you be willing to do that?”

“Cuba is a dictatorship, I’ve said that 8 million times,” Sanders said. “But that does not mean to say, as Obama pointed out, that even under a dictatorship, you can teach people to read and to write, that you can provide health care to all people.”

Sanders’ remarks were deemed so offensive that the Democratic Party and numerous politicians from the party condemned Sanders’ remarks.

The City of Miami, which has a large Cuban population, responded by announcing that it was holding an anti-communism concert.

“Sadly, even now, we see individuals defend and even promote communism and socialism,” Miami Mayor Francis Suarez said. “Just yesterday, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders glorified socialism in a 60 Minutes interview by defending elements of Castro’s regime.”

Suarez continued, “What Senator Sanders conveniently omitted from his colorful characterization of communist Cuba was Castro’s forceful and violent imposition of power, attacking human rights and freedom of speech, thereby minimizing the sacrifice of those who fought to break free from his suffocating hand.”

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

On Tuesday, President Trump issued a notice that the national emergency with respect to Cuba that was first instituted on March 1, 1996, almost exactly 34 years before, was being extended, as the Cuban government “has not demonstrated that it will refrain from the use of excessive force against United States vessels or aircraft that may engage in memorial activities or peaceful protest north of Cuba.”

Trump cited the initial 1996 proclamation, which was triggered by the “February 24, 1996, destruction by the Cuban government of two unarmed United States-registered civilian aircraft in international airspace north of Cuba.” The notice pointed out that the national emergency was expanded in 2004 and modified in 2016 and 2018.

On February 24, 1996, two of the Brothers to the Rescue Cessna aircraft were shot down by the Cuban Air Force. Brothers to the Rescue assisted Cuban emigrant rafters fleeing from the country.

Four pilots, Carlos Costa, Armando Alejandre, Jr., Mario de la Peña, and Pablo Morales, were killed. Both aircraft were outside Cuban airspace. The Brothers of the Rescue missions had reportedly dropped leaflets out of Cuban airspace that would be blown into Cuba. The ICAO report stated that the Commander of the Anti-Aircraft Defense of the Air Force of Cuba authorized pilots to shoot down any further flights whether or not they had entered Cuban airspace.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights reported:

While the two aircraft were still north of the 24th parallel, the Cuban Air Force ordered the scrambling of two military aircraft, a MiG-29 and a MiG-23, operating under the control of a military station on Cuban soil. The MiGs were carrying artillery, short-range missiles, bombs, and rockets, and they were flown by members of the FAC.  Extracts from the radio communications between the MiG-29 and the military control tower in Havana detail what transpired next:

MIG-29: OK, the objective is in sight; the objective is in sight. It is a small airplane. Copied; small airplane in sight.

MIG-29: OK, we have it in sight, we have it in sight.

MIG-29: The objective is in sight.

Military Control: Go ahead.

MIG-29: The objective is in sight.

Military Control: Airplane in sight.

MIG-29: Is it coming again?

MIG-29: It is a small airplane, a small airplane.

MIG-29: It is white; white.

Military Control: Color and registration of the airplane?

Military Control: Buddy.

MIG-29: Hey, the registration as well?

Military Control: What type and color?

MiG-29: It is white and blue.

MIG-29: White and blue, at low altitude, a small airplane.

MIG-29: Give me instructions.

MIG-29: Instructions!

MIG-29: Hey, give me authorization . . .

MIG-29: If we overfly it, things are going to get complicated. Let’s overfly it. There are some vessels coming that way, so I’m going to overfly it.

MIG-29: Talk to me; talk to me.

MIG-29: I’ve got a lock; I’ve got a lock.

MIG-29: We’re locked on. Give us the authorization.

MIG-29: It’s a Cessna 337. That one, that one. Hell, give us the authorization.

Military Control: Fire.

MIG-29: Hell, give us the authorization! We got it!

Military Control: Authorized to destroy.

MIG-29: We copy. We copy.

Military Control: Authorized to destroy.

MIG-29: Understood; I had already received it. Leave us alone for a minute.

Military Control: Don’t lose him.

MIG-29: First shot.

MIG-29: We blew his balls off! We blew his balls off!

MIG-29: Wait; look and see where he went down.

MIG-29: Yes! Yes! S***, we hit him! Jesus!

MIG-29: Mark the place where we took him down.

MIG-29: We’re on top of him. He won’t give us any more f***ing trouble.

Military Control: Congratulations to the pair of you.

MIG-29: Mark the place.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concluded, “The fact that weapons of war and combat-trained pilots were used against unarmed civilians shows not only how disproportionate the use of force was, but also the intent to end the lives of those individuals. It is claimed the extracts from the radio communications between the MiG-29 pilots and the military control tower indicate that they acted from a superior position and showed malice and scorn toward the human dignity of the victims.”

In 2014, the daughter of the pilot Armando Alejandre, Jr. appeared on Fox News and blasted the Obama Administration for its warming of relations with Cuba, Marlene Alejandre-Triana added, “I would never go to Cuba until everyone in Cuba is free as I am free in this country to say what I feel about what happened yesterday, to the press. To anyone, without the fear of being put in jail, beaten, have my family in danger. I would never go there.”

Asked by Cavuto if the warming of relations with Cuba was what the Obama administration stated was a step in getting there, she answered, “Raul Castro himself said yesterday that nothing was going to change and they conceded nothing.”

Trump’s notice on Tuesday read:

On March 1, 1996, by Proclamation 6867, a national emergency was declared to address the disturbance or threatened disturbance of international relations caused by the February 24, 1996, destruction by the Cuban government of two unarmed United States-registered civilian aircraft in international airspace north of Cuba.  On February 26, 2004, by Proclamation 7757, the national emergency was expanded to deny monetary and material support to the Cuban government.  On February 24, 2016, by Proclamation 9398, and on February 22, 2018, by Proclamation 9699, the national emergency was further modified based on continued disturbances or threatened disturbances of the international relations of the United States related to Cuba.  The Cuban government has not demonstrated that it will refrain from the use of excessive force against United States vessels or aircraft that may engage in memorial activities or peaceful protest north of Cuba.

In addition, the unauthorized entry of any United States-registered vessel into Cuban territorial waters continues to be detrimental to the foreign policy of the United States because such entry could facilitate a mass migration from Cuba.  It continues to be United States policy that a mass migration from Cuba would endanger the security of the United States by posing a disturbance or threatened disturbance of the international relations of the United States.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with respect to Cuba and the emergency authority relating to the regulation of the anchorage and movement of vessels set out in Proclamation 6867, as amended by Proclamation 7757, Proclamation 9398, and Proclamation 9699.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

As part of the U.S.-China Phase One Economic and Trade Agreement, China has lifted a ban on American poultry and other key imports, according to a statement Tuesday by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

This move confirms that President Donald Trump earned another victory for the U.S. in the ongoing trade war with China while simultaneously securing a much-needed boost for struggling American farmers.

Trump announced last month that “China will now welcome American beef, and pork, poultry, seafood, rice, dairy, infant formula, animal feed, biotechnology and much, much more.”

The new trade deal tears down barriers for U.S. farmers!

President Trump: “China will now welcome American beef, and pork, poultry, seafood, rice, dairy, infant formula, animal feed, biotechnology and much, much more.” pic.twitter.com/BVytzEvHoa

— Trump War Room – Text WOKE to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) January 15, 2020

TRENDING: Bernie Sanders Defends Fidel Castro, Ted Cruz Exposes the Absurdity with Biting Response

Besides allowing additional products to be imported, China also agreed to exclude or reduce certain tariffs on American imports in a measure to further stimulate trade between the nations.

Beijing recently has begun implementing the terms of its commitments as a demonstration of its desire to cooperate with the United States.

“President Trump signed the Phase One agreement a little more than a month ago and we are already seeing positive results,” U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement. “Under the President’s leadership, we will ensure the agreement is strictly enforced for the benefit of our workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses.”

In exchange for China’s concessions, the U.S. has agreed to halt the imposition of new tariffs and reduce existing tariffs on some Chinese goods.

Has Trump’s trade war with China yielded positive results?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

The country will also be taken off the list of nations that “manipulate their currencies,” according to the Washington Examiner.

When implemented, the second phase of the trade deal is expected to provide a further easing of tariffs on Chinese goods, CNBC reported.

This is just the latest in a string of good news to come out of Trump’s strong and unyielding pro-America trade policy with China.

As a result of imposing tariffs on imports from the country, this month was the first time in six years that the trade deficit with China decreased.

Even before this latest policy win, the president helped American farmers who struggled to keep up with their Asian competitors.

RELATED: ‘Promises Kept’: Trump Signs Trillion-Dollar Trade Deal While Democrats Focus on Impeachment

For decades, Chinese garlic growers were selling their wares below what it cost to grow the crop despite years of sanctions. It wasn’t until Trump’s tariffs were imposed that American farmers were able to be competitive, leading to a boon for domestic garlic growers.

Many Democrats don’t share the same support for farmers in the United States.

It was only last week that Democratic presidential hopeful and former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg was in hot water after a 2016 video resurfaced where he implied that farming was so easy that he could teach anyone to do it.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California sharply chastised Bloomberg on Twitter:

Mike Bloomberg clearly doesn’t understand a thing about what it takes to farm. But let’s face it—none of the candidates on the Left do. Their policies would shut down American farms and hurt hardworking farmers. https://t.co/J8orCqRsKv

— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) February 17, 2020

Bloomberg might think he understands how to farm, but it is glaringly obvious that he has no idea what it takes to support the farmers.

Trump’s trade war with China has resulted in a stronger U.S. economy, increased trade between the nations and now eased the burden on the American farmer.

The Heartland will not forget that in November.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com