Month: July 2020

Once again, President Trump has outwitted his opponents and forced them to fight on a playing field tilted toward his goal. His executive order establishing a “National Garden of American Heroes” and his speech (transcript here; video here) during the July 4th Salute to America that revealed his first set of names for honoring as heroes has left the radical revolutionaries and their media and institutional allies sputtering in futile rage, making arguments that only reinforce Trump’s point.

1.  The new monument contrasts a builder versus destroyers. Polling shows that vast majorities of the public disapprove of the tearing down of statues. By standing as someone who is adding to our collective memories through new monuments, Trump stands on the side of creating things of value while his opponents are stuck defending those who subtract from our collective heritage. It also reminds everyone that Trump was and remains a builder.  The Executive Order explains:

To destroy a monument is to desecrate our common inheritance. These statues are not ours alone, to be discarded at the whim of those inflamed by fashionable political passions; they belong to generations that have come before us and to generations yet unborn. My Administration will not abide an assault on our collective national memory.

2. It focuses attention on the concept of role models. Every parent knows that role models are hugely important in teaching children how to behave, while even non-parents readily grasp that they also shape our culture and behavior. Cast in the light of value as a role model, slave holders like Washington and Jefferson stand out for their many virtues worthy of emulation because there is no possibility at all of mistakenly emulating their slave-holding, since slavery has been abolished.

3. It makes physically defending the monuments much easier by concentrating them within a defensible perimeter. The more attention that is focused on the garden as symbol against which to protest, the more difficult becomes the task of the destroyers.

4. It creates a national competition for hosting the monument. There will be major economic and cultural benefits to the lucky area that is named to host it. Not just the money spent constructing it, but the increase in tourism that will result. Local officials will be focused on the monument as a positive benefit for their constituents and will speak out in support of their arguments in favor of hosting it.  Fools like Mayor Frey of Minneapolis may well disdain the competition, but they and their constituents will see benefits flowing elsewhere. The competition will focus more of the national conversation on the concept of role models, and the desirability of honoring them.

5. It creates a national competition and discussion over who should be honored. As President Trump was discussing the first round of choices and the way in which future honorees will be chosen, I was reminded of a reality television competition like Celebrity Apprentice. I have long argued that as the creator of the most popular reality television program in the history of the medium, Trump is at a huge advantage over his opponents in scripting the national conversation as the election approaches, and we soon enter Act Three in the psychological drama that unfolds before our eyes on our video screens.

Trump’s July 4, 2020 speech (YouTube screen grb)

So those are just a few of the people we’ll be naming, and things are subject to change, but once we make that decision, those great names are going to be up there and they’re never coming down. They have just been an incredible group, and we are going to do this in a very democratic way, frankly. We’re going to take names and suggestions, we’re going to have committees, and we’re going to pick the greatest people that this country has ever known, the most respected people, the people that helped us the most and the people that we can look up to and that our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren can look up to into the future and they can say “Isn’t America just a tremendous place?” So, thank you. That’ll be very exciting.

6. People naturally love competition, whether in sports or any other field.  Let the critics carp all they want about various names already proposed or that will be proposed in the future.  Let the critics attack the list of those already identified:

John Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Daniel Boone, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Henry Clay, Davy Crockett, Frederick Douglass, Amelia Earhart, Benjamin Franklin, Billy Graham, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur, Dolley Madison, James Madison, Christa McAuliffe, Audie Murphy, George S. Patton, Jr., Ronald Reagan, Jackie Robinson, Betsy Ross, Antonin Scalia, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington, and Orville and Wilbur Wright.

7. Criticism only amplifies Trump’s basic point. The usual suspects in the media  already are carping, as for example in The New York Times today:

“Presidents certainly have a role in shaping national conversations about the meaning of our history. But this comes off as a desperate act of political grandstanding to his base,” said Kevin K. Gaines, a professor of social justice and civil rights at the University of Virginia. “Washington D.C. is already full of national monuments to some of the revered figures on Trump’s roll call of heroes.” (snip)

Mr. Gaines said the order “proposes a redundant trial balloon with just enough examples of notable African-Americans and women to promote a mythic, racist authoritarian view of the past that glorifies white settler violence.

“What most people of conscience would acknowledge as tragic aspects of the past — the stolen lands of Indian nations and the stolen lives and labor of enslaved Africans — Trump evidently wants us to celebrate,” he added.

Trump already has anticipated such angry denunciations by noting what everyone knows: nobody is perfect; we all have flaws. This forces the conversation to weigh context and the net comparison of virtues and flaws

These works of art call forth gratitude for the accomplishments and sacrifices of our exceptional fellow citizens who, despite their flaws, placed their virtues, their talents, and their lives in the service of our Nation.

8. The discussion will take place at a deliberate pace, without any tearing down, only about who should be honored with a new statue. Let those who want to argue that it is tragic that lands previously conquered by one or another of the Native American tribes were subsequently conquered by Americans do so. They must then argue that Neolithic levels of civilization, with life expectancies in the thirties and with widespread slavery and inhumane torture, are worth preserving. And that conquest by an Indian tribe was more legitimate than conquest by settlers from an industrial age civilization.  

9. It is very important that the competition over who should be honored will not be a zero-sum game. There is no arbitrary limit on the number of people to be honored, so there is not pitting of heroes against each other.

10. The open ended nature of the process encourages Americans to participate by nominating people or responding with arguments in favor of their choices.  Many, perhaps most Americans will be engaged by the discussion, perhaps in favor of people with whom they identify regionally, ethnically, religiously, or by nature of their personal interests. For example, I would nominate Kelly Johnson, perhaps the greatest aircraft designer in history and the founder of the famous Skunkworks at Lockheed Aircraft that produced the U-2, SR-71, and other game-changing military aircraft.  But that’s just me. Everyone else has their heroes,  and the more people that are engaged in thinking about who is heroic, the better. Art fans, music fans, chemistry geeks, computer experts, and fans of every single field of endeavor will be encouraged to nominate their favorites. All of them, whether consciously or not, are arguing that there are heroes worthy of honoring. Even people who would want to nominate Bill Ayers.  

All of these discussions keep people arguing about issues that work in Trump’s and America’s favor.

Once again, President Trump has outwitted his opponents and forced them to fight on a playing field tilted toward his goal. His executive order establishing a “National Garden of American Heroes” and his speech (transcript here; video here) during the July 4th Salute to America that revealed his first set of names for honoring as heroes has left the radical revolutionaries and their media and institutional allies sputtering in futile rage, making arguments that only reinforce Trump’s point.

1.  The new monument contrasts a builder versus destroyers. Polling shows that vast majorities of the public disapprove of the tearing down of statues. By standing as someone who is adding to our collective memories through new monuments, Trump stands on the side of creating things of value while his opponents are stuck defending those who subtract from our collective heritage. It also reminds everyone that Trump was and remains a builder.  The Executive Order explains:

To destroy a monument is to desecrate our common inheritance. These statues are not ours alone, to be discarded at the whim of those inflamed by fashionable political passions; they belong to generations that have come before us and to generations yet unborn. My Administration will not abide an assault on our collective national memory.

2. It focuses attention on the concept of role models. Every parent knows that role models are hugely important in teaching children how to behave, while even non-parents readily grasp that they also shape our culture and behavior. Cast in the light of value as a role model, slave holders like Washington and Jefferson stand out for their many virtues worthy of emulation because there is no possibility at all of mistakenly emulating their slave-holding, since slavery has been abolished.

3. It makes physically defending the monuments much easier by concentrating them within a defensible perimeter. The more attention that is focused on the garden as symbol against which to protest, the more difficult becomes the task of the destroyers.

4. It creates a national competition for hosting the monument. There will be major economic and cultural benefits to the lucky area that is named to host it. Not just the money spent constructing it, but the increase in tourism that will result. Local officials will be focused on the monument as a positive benefit for their constituents and will speak out in support of their arguments in favor of hosting it.  Fools like Mayor Frey of Minneapolis may well disdain the competition, but they and their constituents will see benefits flowing elsewhere. The competition will focus more of the national conversation on the concept of role models, and the desirability of honoring them.

5. It creates a national competition and discussion over who should be honored. As President Trump was discussing the first round of choices and the way in which future honorees will be chosen, I was reminded of a reality television competition like Celebrity Apprentice. I have long argued that as the creator of the most popular reality television program in the history of the medium, Trump is at a huge advantage over his opponents in scripting the national conversation as the election approaches, and we soon enter Act Three in the psychological drama that unfolds before our eyes on our video screens.

Trump’s July 4, 2020 speech (YouTube screen grb)

So those are just a few of the people we’ll be naming, and things are subject to change, but once we make that decision, those great names are going to be up there and they’re never coming down. They have just been an incredible group, and we are going to do this in a very democratic way, frankly. We’re going to take names and suggestions, we’re going to have committees, and we’re going to pick the greatest people that this country has ever known, the most respected people, the people that helped us the most and the people that we can look up to and that our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren can look up to into the future and they can say “Isn’t America just a tremendous place?” So, thank you. That’ll be very exciting.

6. People naturally love competition, whether in sports or any other field.  Let the critics carp all they want about various names already proposed or that will be proposed in the future.  Let the critics attack the list of those already identified:

John Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Daniel Boone, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Henry Clay, Davy Crockett, Frederick Douglass, Amelia Earhart, Benjamin Franklin, Billy Graham, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur, Dolley Madison, James Madison, Christa McAuliffe, Audie Murphy, George S. Patton, Jr., Ronald Reagan, Jackie Robinson, Betsy Ross, Antonin Scalia, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington, and Orville and Wilbur Wright.

7. Criticism only amplifies Trump’s basic point. The usual suspects in the media  already are carping, as for example in The New York Times today:

“Presidents certainly have a role in shaping national conversations about the meaning of our history. But this comes off as a desperate act of political grandstanding to his base,” said Kevin K. Gaines, a professor of social justice and civil rights at the University of Virginia. “Washington D.C. is already full of national monuments to some of the revered figures on Trump’s roll call of heroes.” (snip)

Mr. Gaines said the order “proposes a redundant trial balloon with just enough examples of notable African-Americans and women to promote a mythic, racist authoritarian view of the past that glorifies white settler violence.

“What most people of conscience would acknowledge as tragic aspects of the past — the stolen lands of Indian nations and the stolen lives and labor of enslaved Africans — Trump evidently wants us to celebrate,” he added.

Trump already has anticipated such angry denunciations by noting what everyone knows: nobody is perfect; we all have flaws. This forces the conversation to weigh context and the net comparison of virtues and flaws

These works of art call forth gratitude for the accomplishments and sacrifices of our exceptional fellow citizens who, despite their flaws, placed their virtues, their talents, and their lives in the service of our Nation.

8. The discussion will take place at a deliberate pace, without any tearing down, only about who should be honored with a new statue. Let those who want to argue that it is tragic that lands previously conquered by one or another of the Native American tribes were subsequently conquered by Americans do so. They must then argue that Neolithic levels of civilization, with life expectancies in the thirties and with widespread slavery and inhumane torture, are worth preserving. And that conquest by an Indian tribe was more legitimate than conquest by settlers from an industrial age civilization.  

9. It is very important that the competition over who should be honored will not be a zero-sum game. There is no arbitrary limit on the number of people to be honored, so there is not pitting of heroes against each other.

10. The open ended nature of the process encourages Americans to participate by nominating people or responding with arguments in favor of their choices.  Many, perhaps most Americans will be engaged by the discussion, perhaps in favor of people with whom they identify regionally, ethnically, religiously, or by nature of their personal interests. For example, I would nominate Kelly Johnson, perhaps the greatest aircraft designer in history and the founder of the famous Skunkworks at Lockheed Aircraft that produced the U-2, SR-71, and other game-changing military aircraft.  But that’s just me. Everyone else has their heroes,  and the more people that are engaged in thinking about who is heroic, the better. Art fans, music fans, chemistry geeks, computer experts, and fans of every single field of endeavor will be encouraged to nominate their favorites. All of them, whether consciously or not, are arguing that there are heroes worthy of honoring. Even people who would want to nominate Bill Ayers.  

All of these discussions keep people arguing about issues that work in Trump’s and America’s favor.

President Donald Trump declared in a fiery speech delivered at Mount Rushmore’s Independence Day celebration on Friday that “we only kneel to Almighty God.”

“We stand tall, we stand proud, and we only kneel to Almighty God,” Trump said to applause.

“This is who we are,” he continued. This is what we believe, and these are the values that will guide us as we strive to build an even better and greater future.”

Trump’s statement that Americans “only kneel to Almighty God” follows several instances of far-left protesters demanding police officers take a knee to demonstrate solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.

The president addressed the mounting tensions in the country by carefully laying out the left’s tactics, exposing their political weapon of cancel culture, “driving people from their jobs shaming dissenters and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees.”

“This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and to our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America,” he said.

“In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate board rooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance,” the president explained.

“If you do not speak its language, performance, rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished,” the commander-in-chief added. “Not gonna happens to us.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has mocked the decision by U.S. officials to fly a rainbow pride flag over the embassy in Moscow, saying it “tells you something about the people who work there.”

During a televised video conference on Friday, Putin was told that the American embassy had hung a rainbow flag on its facade for the first time to celebrate Pride Month in June.

“Who works in this building?” Putin asked the speaker, Sen. Alexei Pushkov, who responded, “Americans.”

“Let them celebrate. It tells you a certain something about the people who work there,” Putin added with a smile.

That same day, Putin signed amendments to the Russian Constitution backed by a national vote that includes a clause defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“It’s no big deal though,” the president said Friday. “We have spoken about this many times, and our position is clear,” adding that Russia does not discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

“Yes, we passed a law banning the propaganda of homosexuality among minors. So what? Let people grow up, become adults and then decide their own destinies,” he said.

He said, “Those who attack us on this basis are just trying to break down an open door.”

During the period of debate over amending the Constitution, Putin said he would not let the role of mother and father be subverted into “parent number 1” and “parent number 2.”

In early June, President Donald Trump banned American embassies from displaying Pride flags, but several embassies flew them anyway, including the U.S. Embassy to Italy in Rome.

On June 25, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow John Sullivan said in a video on Twitter that “our embassy is displaying the rainbow flag in solidarity” with gays while wishing Russians a “happy Pride.”

The U.S. Embassy to Moscow published a statement saying, “June is Pride Month and we celebrate that everyone deserves to live a life free from hatred, prejudice and persecution.”

“As Ambassador Sullivan has said, ‘LGBTI rights are human rights. And human rights are universal. It’s as simple as that,’” the statement concluded.

The British embassy in Moscow also flew a rainbow flag.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Russian Orthodox Church denounced the LGBT flag as disrespectful of Russians’ values.

Ed Davey, the acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, reported Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage to Kent Police for having a pint in a pub on Saturday.

Nigel Farage celebrated the reopening of the pubs in Britain with a pint of beer, saying that he was the “first customer in” at 12 o’clock and posting a picture on social media.

The post sparked a furious backlash from the left-wing Twitterati, as the Brexiteer had recently travelled to America to join President Donald Trump’s first political rally since the start of the Chinese coronavirus lockdown.

Ed Davey, the MP for Kingston and Surbiton and acting co-leader of the Liberal Democrats, went so far as to report him to the police for supposedly breaking the lockdown regulations, saying: “I’ve written to Kent Police asking them to investigate whether Nigel Farage has broken quarantine rules. He was in the USA on the evening of June 20th but was out and about earlier today.”

“Millions of people have had to abide by the rules, and he should as well,” Davey added.

Mr Davey went on to say in a statement: “There are clearly serious questions to answer for Nigel Farage. It is clear from his social media posts that he was in America on 20 June, and he was pictured at a Trump rally that evening.”

“Given the current requirements for visitors returning to the UK to isolate for 14 full days on their return, Nigel Farage appears to be in violation of the quarantine,” he went on.

“By choosing to go to the pub when it appears he should have been staying at home, Mr Farage is showing a flagrant disregard for the safety of people in his community,” Davey alleged.

Mr Farage denied the allegations, however: “To all those screaming and shouting about me going to the pub… I have been back from the USA for 2 weeks and I have been tested — the result was negative,” he said.

“Sorry to disappoint you. Cheers!” Farage trolled.

Follow Kurt on Twitter at @KurtZindulka

The World Health Organization (WHO) quietly updated a timeline this week to reflect that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) never reported its discovery of the coronavirus to the WHO and that the global health agency had to learn about it by itself, despite the WHO’s praise of Chinese transparency.

An old WHO timeline of the virus, published on its website, stated:

31 Dec 2019
Wuhan Municipal Health Commission, China, reported a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, Hubei Province. A novel coronavirus was eventually identified.

A note on the old timeline now states, “This statement is no longer maintained. An updated version was published on 29 June 2020.”

The updated WHO timeline reflects that WHO’s own office in China found open-source reports on the coronavirus and alerted the WHO’s Western Pacific Regional Office, and on January 1, WHO requested information from Chinese authorities. It states (emphasis added):

31 Dec 2019

WHO’s Country Office in the People’s Republic of China picked up a media statement by the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission from their website on cases of ‘viral pneumonia’ in Wuhan, People’s Republic of China.

The Country Office notified the International Health Regulations (IHR) focal point in the WHO Western Pacific Regional Office about the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission media statement of the cases and provided a translation of it.

WHO’s Epidemic Intelligence from Open Sources (EIOS) platform also picked up a media report on ProMED (a programme of the International Society for Infectious Diseases) about the same cluster of cases of “pneumonia of unknown cause”, in Wuhan.

Several health authorities from around the world contacted WHO seeking additional information.

1 January 2020

WHO requested information on the reported cluster of atypical pneumonia cases in Wuhan from the Chinese authorities.

WHO activated its Incident Management Support Team (IMST), as part of its emergency response framework, which ensures coordination of activities and response across the three levels of WHO (Headquarters, Regional, Country) for public health emergencies.

The update came after Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) released an interim report on its investigation of China’s response after it discovered cases of the coronavirus in Wuhan.

The Republican investigation discovered that China never notified WHO about the coronavirus outbreak.

The investigation discovered that on December 31, 2019, Chinese media reports of the virus began to appear online, including on the U.S.-based platform for early intelligence about infectious disease outbreaks. The WHO’s executive director, Dr. Michael Ryan, admitted he found out about the coronavirus outbreak on the platform.

Instead of being transparent, the CCP began to cover up the outbreak by censoring references to the virus on the Internet and in messaging platforms.

The WHO’s update is significant because most western mainstream media news outlets have reported that China told the WHO about the outbreak, as implied by the WHO in its earlier timeline. The WHO never corrected those media reports.

Meanwhile, China has also quietly dropped its claims that it told the WHO about the virus.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian admitted on June 24, 2020, during a press conference, “On January 3, China started to send regular updates to the WHO as well as other countries and regions, including the US.”

HFAC Lead Republican and China Task Force chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) said in a statement:

I’m glad to see the WHO and the Chinese Communist Party have both read my interim report on the origins of the pandemic and are finally admitting to the world the truth – the CCP never reported the virus outbreak to the WHO in violation of WHO regulations. The question now is whether the CCP will continue their false propaganda campaign that continues to claim they warned the world, or whether they will come clean and begin to work with the world health community to get to the bottom of this deadly pandemic.

HFAC Republicans are continuing their investigation into China and the WHO’s handling of the virus, and plan to issue a full report later this year.

Democrats — who are trying to focus blame on President Trump for the coronavirus during an election year — did not take part in the investigation in fear this would deflect blame away from Trump.

Follow Breitbart News’s Kristina Wong on Twitter or on Facebook.

Pop superstar Justin Bieber sent a message of thanks to Jesus Christ on Saturday for making him “loved, chosen, and forgiven” despite his years of indiscretions, and urged his millions of followers and fans to join him in embracing Christianity.

Posting on Instagram to his 130 million followers, Bieber shared a selfie of himself while urging fans to turn to Jesus during hard times.

He wrote:

Thank you Jesus for my life. Thank you for your forgiveness! Thank you for showing me I am enough! Thank you that I no longer have to carry shame but can walk with my chest up and head held high knowing I am loved, chosen, and forgiven! If you struggle with your past give it to Jesus! He isn’t burdened by it! He loves you and is honored to know all of little details good and bad in your life! He isn’t angry with you, he wants the best for you!

The 26-year-old then reposted his selfie onto his Instagram Story with the caption: “Jesus loves you [whether] you believe it or not.”

Bieber has long touted Jesus as an inspiration in his life, helping him to overcome his past use of drugs and broken relationships. In February, he similarly opened up about his relationship with God in an interview with Zane, in which Grammy-winner discussed the “free gift” of accepting Jesus into one’s life.

“The way I look at my relationship with God and with Jesus is, I’m not trying to earn God’s love by doing good things,” the Grammy-winner said at the time. “God has already loved me for who I am before I did anything to earn and deserve it.”

Despite not being a highly political figure, Bieber’s views on sex and abortion have also been shaped by his Christian faith. In an interview with Rolling Stone in 2011, he argued that people should not have sex with someone unless you love them and set out his opposition to abortion, describing it as “like killing a baby.”

Follow Ben Kew on Facebook, Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at bkew@breitbart.com.