CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Deutsche Bank agrees to pay $100M in penalties in bribery scandal


An exterior view of the twin tower headquarters of the 'Deutsche Bank' in Frankfurt Main, Germany, in 2018. Photo by Armando Babani/EPA-EFE


Jan. 9 (UPI) -- Deutsche Bank has entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors under which it will pay more than $100 million in penalties after allegedly violating anti-bribery laws.

Brooklyn federal prosecutors announced the agreement Friday.

Prosecutors allege the bank paid millions of dollars in "referral fees" to consultants in countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Italy and China that were actually bribes to fixers that gave the bank access to foreign officials.

The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission's investigation found that the bank made about $7 million in improper payments to fixers between 2009 and 2016, and made about $35 million from the resulting deals.

RELATED Private bankers for Trump, Kushner resign from Deutsche Bank

Per the agreement, the bank will avoid prosecution but will "cooperate fully" with other investigations.

The bank has been repeatedly penalized in recent years by federal prosecutors and regulators for money laundering and violating international sanctions, and is the subject of a separate investigation by Manhattan federal prosecutors regarding whether President Donald Trump misled or defrauded Deutsche Bank regarding his assets.

Private bankers at the bank who were responsible for lending to President Donald Trump and Jared Kushner resigned their roles in December.

Deutsche Bank has loaned Trump about $330 million in loans set to come due in 2023 and 2024.

"We take responsibility for these past actions, which took place between 2008 and 2017," said Deutsche Bank spokesman Dan Hunter. "Our thorough internal investigations, and full cooperation with the D.O.J. and S.E.C. investigations of these matters, reflect our transparency and determination to put these matters firmly in the past."

#ABOLISHDEATHPENALTY  #RIGHTTOLIFE

Mississippi judge drops case for man who spent 23 years on death row

Eddie Lee Howard Jr. spent 23 years in prison on a wrongful murder conviction. File Photo courtesy of the Mississippi Department of Corrections

Jan. 8 (UPI) -- A Mississippi court has dropped the murder charges for a man who spent 23 years on death row for a conviction based on discredited bite-mark evidence.

Eddie Lee Howard Jr., 67, had twice been convicted for the 1992 rape and murder of 87-year-old Georgia Kemp in Lowndes County. His 2000 conviction was based on testimony from dentists who said that marks on Kemp's body matched Howard's teeth.

A Lowndes County Circuit Court judge signed an order dismissing the case Thursday, more than four months after the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Howard.

Since Howard's original trial, the American Board of Forensic Odontology has revised its guidelines to prohibit dentists from testifying on bite-mark evidence and said such evidence isn't enough to reliably identify a perpetrator.

The Mississippi Innocence Project, which worked on Howard's case, said he was one of four people convicted of capital murder based on the forensic work of Drs. Steven Hayne and Michael West. One of the others, Levon Brooks, was exonerated after serving several years of a life sentence in 2008.

District Attorney Scott Colom said he had no choice but to seek to dismiss the case after the Mississippi Supreme Court's August ruling.

"After reading the supreme court's opinion, reading the trial transcripts from the two trials, reviewing the investigative files and case files of the case, I decided that we didn't have even remotely close to sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Howard beyond a reasonable doubt," Colom said, according to The Dispatch in Columbus and Starkville, Miss.

DNA evidence found at the scene of Kemp's death also couldn't be tied to Howard.

Howard was released from prison in December on his own recognizance.

Judge blocks sweeping Trump administration asylum rule

The federal judge said Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, lacked the authority to impose the new asylum restriction. File Photo by Justin Hamel/UPI | License Photo

Jan. 9 (UPI) -- A federal judge has blocked a new Trump administration rule that tightens standards by which immigration judges are allowed to grant asylum.

The Thursday order came three days before the amended rule was set to go into effect.

District Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California took issue with the proposed rule's "truncated" public comment period of 30 days. He also sided with plaintiffs -- immigration advocacy groups -- who said Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, lacked the authority to implement the rule.

Wolf has been serving as acting head of homeland security department since November 2019, replacing former acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan.

The Government Accountability Office in August said Wolf wasn't legally entitled to hold his position because he assumed the job under a succession plan crafted by McAleenan, who himself had no authority to hold his job under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

Trump never formally nominated McAleenan to be secretary. Trump formally nominated Wolf for the job later in August.

Donato said his is the fifth court that's ruled against Wolf's authority as head of the Cabinet department.

RELATED Federal judge in Texas to hear lawsuit seeking to dismantle DACA

"The government has recycled exactly the same legal and factual claims made in the prior cases, as if they had not been soundly rejected in well-reasoned opinions by several courts," the judge wrote.

"This is a troubling litigation strategy. In effect, the government keeps crashing the same car into a gate, hoping that someday it might break through.

Trump withdrew his nomination of Wolf on Thursday.

RELATED Michael Chiklis: 'Coyote' puts human face on migrant struggle

Immigration Equality, one of the plaintiffs in the case, welcomed Donato's ruling.

"Today's ruling halts the most sweeping illegal, anti-refugee volley of the Trump administration," said Bridget Crawford, legal director for the organization. "Asylum is an international human right. LGBTQ and HIV-positive refugees fleeing persecution will always be welcomed in the U.S."



upi.com/7066505

Study: Posts on Facebook big drivers of anti-vaccine resistance

By HealthDay News


An analysis of posts of Facebook about the HPV vaccine suggests the social media platform is often used to fuel anti-vaccine sentiment. File Photo by Photographee.eu/Shutterstock

As Americans await their COVID-19 shot, a new study of a different vaccine shows the power of Facebook posts in fueling "anti-vax" resistance to immunization.

The study included more than 10 years of public Facebook posts on the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine.

It found that nearly 40% of 6,500 HPV vaccine-related posts from 2006 to 2016 amplified a perceived risk. The data suggest the posts had momentum over time.

"We should not assume that only the disease is perceived as a risk, but when research supports it, that medical treatments and interventions might unfortunately also be perceived as risks," study author Monique Luisi said in a press release..

RELATED HPV vaccine 'may significantly' lower cervical cancer risk, study finds

"It's more likely that people are going to see things on social media, particularly on Facebook, that are not only negative about the HPV vaccine, but will also suggest the HPV vaccine could be harmful. It amplifies the fear that people may have about the vaccine, and we see that posts that amplify fear are more likely to trend than those that don't," said Luisi, an assistant professor at the University of Missouri School of Journalism.

Luisi said the findings could shed light on the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and distribution.

During the rollout, people will likely see a lot of negative information and that negative information will be what trends on social media, she said.

RELATED HPV vaccination rising among U.S. kids, many still unprotected

"If the public can anticipate this negative information, it will be interesting to see if that will make them less sensitive to the perceived risk of the vaccine," she noted.

Research must continue to address the perception of vaccine safety where the vaccine is perceived as a greater health threat than the virus or disease it prevents, Luisi added.

She said the spread of negative information about the HPV shot may lead people to have a false perception of it. Luisi recommended consulting with doctors to make an informed decision.

RELATED HPV test recommended for cervical cancer screening

"People are going to see what they are going to see on social media, so it's important to not only take what you see on social media, but also talk to a doctor or health care provider," she said. "Just because it's trending doesn't mean it's true."

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It can cause genital warts and cancer.

A vaccine to prevent it has been available since 2006, and the CDC has more than 12 years of data showing that it is safe and effective, according to the study.

However, HPV vaccination rates across the United States still remain low.

The vaccine is recommended for boys and girls between 9 and 14 years of age, and for people up to age 26 who haven't already gotten the vaccine or finished the series of shots.

The report was published this month in the journal Vaccine.More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about HPV.


Copyright 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

RIGHT WING SCOTUS RULES TWICE ON RIGHT TO LIFE
Supreme Court restores in-person requirement for obtaining abortion pills

The Supreme Court on Tuesday restored an FDA rule requiring people seeking abortion pills to acquire them in-person. File Photo by Pat Benic/UPI | License Photo

Jan. 12 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume enforcing a rule requiring abortion polls be obtained in person at approved healthcare facilities.

In a 6-3 ruling Tuesday, the court's conservative majority lifted a nationwide injunction that allowed people seeking abortion pills to receive them through mail or delivery due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Medical and advocacy groups challenged Food and Drug Administration rules requiring patients to obtain the medication -- prescribed for abortions in early pregnancy -- in-person despite the fact that it can be taken at home.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the court should defer to political agencies on such matters.

"The question before us is not whether the requirements for dispensing mifepristone impose an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion as a general matter. The question is instead whether the District Court properly ordered the Food and Drug Administration to lift those established requirements because of the court's own evaluation of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic," Roberts wrote.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, stating that U.S. laws have "long singled out abortions for more onerous treatment than other medical procedures that carry similar or greater risks."

"Like many of those laws, maintaining the FDA's in-person requirements for mifepristone during the pandemic not only treats abortion exceptionally, it imposes an unnecessary, irrational and unjustifiable undue burden on women seeking to exercise their right to choose," Sotomayor wrote. "One can only hope that the government will reconsider and exhibit greater care and empathy for women seeking some measure of control over their health and reproductive lives in these unsettling times."

RELATED Federal judge again blocks slate of abortion bans in Arkansas

Justice Stephen Breyer also dissented but did not join Sotomayor's opinion.

In October, before Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court, the Supreme Court rejected a request to lift the injunction, stating "a more comprehensive record" would aid its review and granting the judge who imposed the ban the opportunity to modify it to make it less restrictive.

Supreme Court clears way for Lisa Montgomery to be executed Thursday

Jan. 12 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court late Tuesday cleared the way for the only woman on federal death row to be executed.

Lisa Montgomery, 52, was scheduled to be executed by lethal injection Tuesday at the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Ind., for the 2004 killing of a pregnant woman.

But as the hours tick by, the country's highest court considered appeals in multiple cases -- including two in which Montgomery received stays of execution from lower courts.

Shortly before midnight, the Supreme Court issued two orders vacating those stays, decisions Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elean Kagan said they would have left in place.

RELATED Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine delays executions again

Kelley Henry, Montgomery's attorney, rebuked the Supreme Court's decision, stating "the craven bloodlust of a failed administration was on full display tonight."

"Everyone who participated in the execution of Lisa Montgomery should feel shame," she said.

Earlier in the day, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a stay in a case in which her lawyers said the Justice Department violated the Federal Death Penalty Act by rescheduling her execution after she received a stay in November.

RELATED U.S. executions in 2020 fewest in nearly 3 decades despite federal 'spree'

She was originally set for execution on Dec. 8, but two of Montgomery's attorneys who'd filed for clemency were diagnosed with COVID-19, which delayed the execution.

In another ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, a three-judge panel vacated a lower court's stay issued Monday. In that case, her attorneys argued Montgomery wasn't competent to be put to death under the Constitution.

"Mrs. Montgomery has brain damage and severe mental illness that was exacerbated by the lifetime of sexual torture she suffered at the hands of caretakers," Henry said in an emailed statement to UPI last week. "Mrs. Montgomery is mentally deteriorating and we are seeking an opportunity to prove her incompetence."

Montgomery was sentenced to death in 2007 for the 2004 death of Bobbie Jo Stinnett. Prosecutors said Montgomery visited Stinnett's home under the guise of purchasing a puppy. Once there, though, she strangled the woman, who was eight months pregnant, then cut the baby from her body. Montgomery tried to pass the newborn off as her own.

Police later recovered the baby and returned her safe to her father.

Montgomery's supporters said she should be spared the death penalty because she has severe mental illness after experiencing physical, emotional and sexual abuse as a child. They said her mother trafficked her as a teenager.

If executed, Montgomery would be the first person put death in the country this year. She's one of three executions scheduled for this week, including Corey Johnson on Thursday and Dustin Higgs on Friday.

On Tuesday, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked Johnson and Higgs' executions as they are both recovering from COVID-19.

UPI Reader Poll: Death penalty

Do you support the use of the death penalty in the United States?

 

'If Wall Street Really Believed in Defending Our Democracy,' Says Sanders, It Would End Political Donations... Forever

"The banks and corporations that have annihilated our social fabric, toppled governments, polluted our environment, and exploited us are now trying to get some good PR by pausing their political donations... Don't buy it."

by

Jake Johnson, staff writer

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon speaks at the Fortune Global Forum. (Photo: FORTUNE Global Forum/Flickr/cc)

Sen. Bernie Sanders sent a message late Monday to the Wall Street banks that are temporarily pausing their financial contributions to political campaigns amid public outrage over the role Republican lawmakers played in inciting the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol last week: Make the donation moratoriums permanent.

"If Wall Street really believed in defending our democracy, they would commit to never making another campaign donation—period," the Vermont senator tweeted in response to a Bloomberg report detailing how major U.S. financial institutions—including Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs—are "reassessing, reducing, and in many cases suspending their campaign contributions."

"Corporations are trying to launder their reputations by temporarily suspending small PAC donations to insurrectionist Republicans—but the real cash fueling the radical right is dark money."
—David Sirota, The Daily Poster

According to Bloomberg, "Morgan Stanley singled out members of Congress who opposed the move to certify President-elect Joe Biden's election win, pausing its contributions to them. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. will probably curtail donations to leaders who tried to block the election result as well. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. took a broader swipe, suspending all their donations for now."

Other large and profitable American corporations have similarly committed to adjusting their political giving in the wake of the mob attack, which was encouraged by Trump and abetted by Republican lawmakers who readily echoed the president's lies about the November election.

The companies' moves were met with skepticism from critics who warned that profit-motivated corporations are simply doing public relations to avoid being connected to seditionist lawmakers, not stepping back from influencing the political system out of genuine concern for the state of U.S. democracy.

"The banks and corporations that have annihilated our social fabric, toppled governments, polluted our environment, and exploited us are now trying to get some good PR by pausing their political donations," tweeted The Gravel Institute, a progressive think tank. "Their evil influence has not stopped in the slightest. Don't buy it."

As the New York Times pointed out Monday, the donation suspensions "coincide with the first quarter after a presidential election, which is typically light on fundraising anyway."

"Efforts by some companies to pause PAC donations to all lawmakers—those who voted to uphold the election as well as those who sought to overturn it—are raising eyebrows," the Times reported. "And companies can still give to 'dark money' groups that don't disclose their donors but often raise far more money than corporate PACs."

Emphasizing that point and outlining steps Democrats can take to curtail dark money, The Daily Poster's Andrew Perez and David Sirota wrote Monday that "if you are a billionaire or a corporation in America today, you can bankroll seditious politicians and the radical right-wing movement that staged last week’s violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol—and you can do so with impunity."

"Right now, an increasing portion of resources flooding into politics is going into dark money groups that do not have to disclose their donors," Sirota and Perez noted. "OpenSecrets estimated that dark money groups injected more than $750 million into the 2020 elections—and that does not account for other dark money that funds propaganda, misinformation, and astroturf organizing."

Corporations are trying to launder their reputations by temporarily suspending small PAC donations to insurrectionist Republicans - but the real cash fueling the radical right is dark money. Here are ways Dems can expose this dangerous financial network. https://t.co/HR2Ov5erqc

— David Sirota (@davidsirota) January 12, 2021

While some companies provided specific timelines for their donation pauses, many did not specify how long the suspensions will last, leaving an opening for a quiet return to political giving in the near future.

"What would probably prove more significant for American elections would be if these donation bans become more permanent, or if corporations dissolve their PACs entirely."
—Theodore Schleifer, Recode

As Popular Information reported earlier this week, Dow Inc. vowed that its pause of "all corporate and employee political action committee (PAC) contributions to any member of Congress who voted to object to the certification of the presidential election" will "remain in place for a period of one election cycle (two years for House members; up to six years for senators)."

JPMorgan Chase, meanwhile, said its suspension of donations to both Republicans and Democrats in Congress will only last six months. Citigroup's pause of all political contributions will last only until the end of the current quarter.

Theodore Schleifer, money and influence reporter for Recode, argued Monday that "beyond the symbolism, the impact of these corporations' decisions could prove relatively minor."

"What would probably prove more significant for American elections," Schleifer wrote, "would be if these donation bans become more permanent, or if corporations dissolve their PACs entirely; if companies' billionaire executives and board members pledge to follow their corporate policies in their own disclosed and undisclosed personal giving; or if they fundamentally reshaped their lobbying strategies to not engage with GOP legislators or the entire Republican Party in Washington."

"Last week could serve as a broader reset in how big business approaches Washington," added Schleifer. "But the pause in corporate PAC giving would just be the beginning."

Facebook, Amazon, others halt political spending after Capitol riot


Marriott halted donations to Republican officials, such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, (C) who voted last week against certifying President-Joe Biden's victory. Photo by Pat Benic/UPI | License Photo

Jan. 11 (UPI) -- Facebook and Amazon are among the companies that have halted political donations in the wake of Wednesday's deadly U.S. Capitol riot.

A mob of supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, delaying the count of the Electoral College votes to certify the election results. The count was completed by early Thursday morning, affirming President-elect Joe Biden's win. The insurrection left five people dead, including Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.

"Following last week's awful violence in D.C., we are pausing all of our PAC contributions for at least the current quarter, while we review our polices," Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone said in a statement to Politico.

Axios first reported on Facebook halting political action committee contributions and reviewing its practices following the U.S. Capitol attack.

Amazon went a step further by announcing the company would no longer contribute to U.S. Congress members who voted to try to stop President-elect Joe Biden's confirmation of victory by Congress after rioters stormed the Capitol.

"The Amazon PAC gives to congressional candidates on a bipartisan basis based upon the interest of our customers and our employees," an Amazon spokeswoman said Monday. "Given the unacceptable attempt to undermine a legitimate democratic process, the Amazon PAC has suspended contributions to any Member of Congress who voted to override the results of the US Presidential election. We intend to discuss our concerns directly with those Members we have previously supported and will evaluate their responses as we consider future PAC contributions."

Marriott also announced a pause in donations to 147 Republican U.S. representatives and senators who voted against certifying Biden's win.

The halt was prompted by "the destructive event at the Capitol to undermine a legitimate and fair election," Marriott said.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association similarly said it would end contributions "to those lawmakers who voted to undermine our democracy."

American Express said in a memo to employees Monday, it would halt contributions to lawmakers who voted "to subvert the presidential election results and disrupt the peaceful transition of power."

Hallmark's political action committee asked for Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., to return their donations. The Hallmark PAC contributed $7,000 to Hawley's campaign and $5,000 to Marshall's over the last two years.

"Hallmark believes the peaceful transition of power is part of the bedrock of our democratic system, and we abhor violence of any kind," Hallmark spokesman JiaoJiao Shen said in a statement Monday. "The recent actions of Senators Josh Hawley and Roger Marshall do not reflect our company's values."

Similar to Facebook, Microsoft said in a statement Monday it would freeze all political contributions "until after it assesses the implications of last week's events."

Microsoft said it's common for it to halt "its donations in the first quarter of a new Congress, but it will take additional steps this year to consider these recent events and consult with employees."

According to Politico, other corporate giants have also recently announced they will halt all PAC contributions, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup.

Tech companies in particular have faced criticism from Democratic lawmakers as Wednesday's riot at the U.S. Capitol was organized across online platforms and live streamed by rioters repeating Trump's baseless election fraud allegations.

Facebook and Instagram on Thursday banned Trump "indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks" until the "peaceful transition of power," to Biden is complete.

Twitter permanently suspended Trump's personal account Friday "due to the risk of further incitement of violence."

Parler, a social media site popular with Trump supporters, went offline early Monday following Amazon removing it from its web hosting service at midnight Sunday. Over the weekend, Google and Apple removed the Parler app from their application stores over failure to moderate posts inciting violence in the wake of the U.S. Capitol riot.

upi.com/7066895

PGA ends agreement to hold championship 

at Trump golf course



The PGA of America has announced it is canceling an agreement to hold its 2020 championship at a property owned by President Donald J. Trump, who is an avid golfer. Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo

Jan. 11 (UPI) -- PGA of America announced it has canceled its plans to hold the 2022 PGA Championship at outgoing President Donald Trump's New Jersey golf course after his supporters stormed the Capitol last week.

In a statement, PGA of America President Jim Richerson said the board Sunday night decided to "exercise its right" to terminate its agreement to hold the 2020 PGA Championship at Trump Bedminster.

"It's become clear that conducting the PGA Championship at Trump Bedminster would be detrimental to the PGA of America brand, it would put at risk the PGA's ability to deliver our many programs and sustain the longevity of our mission," Richerson said in a video statement. "It was a decision made to ensure the PGA of America and the PGA professionals can continue to lead and grow our great game for decades to come."

The decision to pull Trump Bedminster as its hosting site followed the president's supporters storming the Capitol building on Wednesday, resulting in at least five deaths, including that of Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died of injuries sustained in the assault, and of Ashli Babbit, a woman who was shot and killed by authorities after breaching the building.

In response, a spokesperson for the Trump Organization told ABC News that the PGA board was breaching its agreement, which has "no right to terminate."

"As an organization we have invested many, many millions of dollars in the 2022 PGA Championship at Trump National Golf Club, Bedminster," the spokesperson said. "We will continue to promote the game of golf on every level and remain focused on operating the finest golf courses anywhere in the world."

The decision by the PGA of America is not the first time a major golfing event was relocated from a property own by Trump, who is an avid golfer.

In 2016, the PGA Tour moved its World Golf Championship from Florida's Trump National Doral to Mexico City after the presidential candidate made inflammatory comments about Mexicans and immigrants.

Human rights report says Israel an 'apartheid state,' not a democracy

Palestinians and Israeli activists protest a plan by the Israeli government to annex parts of the West Bank, at the Almog Junction near Jericho in the West Bank on June 27, 2020.

 File Photo by Debbie Hill/UPI | License Photo

Jan. 12 (UPI) -- A human rights group said in a new analysis Tuesday that the Israeli government is not a parliamentary democracy, but rather practices an apartheid system that suppresses minority groups like Palestinians.

B'Tselem, which documents human rights abuses in Israel, argues in its report that the Israeli government is responsible for laws and practices designed to establish Jewish supremacy and sponsors violence against Palestinians.

It's the first time in its 32-year-history that B'Tselem has labeled Israel an "apartheid state."

The report, titled "This is Apartheid," criticizes Israel for governing Jewish and Palestinian territories differently.

"The Israeli regime has divided the area into several units that it defines and governs differently, according Palestinians different rights in each," it states. "This division is relevant to Palestinians only.

"The geographic space, which is contiguous for Jews, is a fragmented mosaic for Palestinians."

"This paper analyzes how the Israeli regime works to advance its goals in the entire area under its control," the report added.

"This document presents the principles that guide the regime, demonstrates how it implements them and points to the conclusion that emerges from all of this as to how the regime should be defined and what that means for human rights."

The report also accuses Israel of undermining Palestinians in occupied territories who wish to continue living in their native lands.

"Israel is not a democracy that has a temporary occupation attached to it," B'Tselem Executive Director Hagai El-Ad said. "It is one regime between the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and we must look at the full picture and see it for what it is: apartheid."

El-Ad added that connecting Israel with apartheid grew in part because of its 2018 Nation State Law, which sought to solidify Israel's identity as an ethnic national Jewish state that provides a homeland for Jewish people.

Critics, however, say the law has helped institutionalize discrimination against minority populations.

Eugene Kontorovich, head of the Kohelet Policy Forum's International Law Department, said the apartheid claim is similar to an antisemitic "blood libel." ZIONIST BULLSHIT

"Apartheid is an extraordinary accusation because there is an international crime called the crime of apartheid and an international treaty against the crime of apartheid," he told The Jerusalem Post.

Kontorovich noted that no nation, other than South Africa, has ever been labeled by the international community as an apartheid state.

upi.com/7067045

Israel unveils plan for 800 more settlements in disputed West Bank


Israeli settlements are seen in the West Bank on February 13. Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday plans will go forward to build hundreds more in the occupied territory. File Photo by Debbie Hill/UPI | License Photo

Jan. 11 (UPI) -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday announced new plans to build close to 1,000 new settlements in the occupied West Bank -- a highly contentious issue that is expected to meet U.S. opposition once President-elect Joe Biden takes office.

Netanyahu's office said there will be about 800 new settlements built in the West Bank, which Israel claimed in 1967 -- including about 100 in an area where a woman was killed only last month by a Palestinian attacker.

Netanyahu and defense minister Benny Gantz support the new construction.

Palestinians have long opposed Israel's claim to the territory in the West Bank and years of building new settlements there. The land is part of territory Palestinians claim for a future state.

U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has supported new Israeli settlements and annexation efforts in the West Bank, but the incoming Biden administration is expected to follow many Western allies in opposing the new construction.

"This is an irresponsible step," Yair Lapid, head of Israel's Yesh Atid Party, said, warning that the new settlements could create early tensions with the new U.S. leadership.

"The Biden administration has not yet taken office and the government is already leading us into an unnecessary confrontation," he said.

Gantz's defense ministry is expected to approve the settlement plans before Biden's inauguration next week.

Most of the international community considers the Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be illegal.

COVID-19 hospitalization rates for children

 rise in U.S., study finds

Children are being hospitalized with COVID-19 at an increasing rate, a new study has found. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo


Jan. 11 (UPI) -- The COVID-19 hospitalization rate for children across the United States increased by 800% over the course of six months between mid-May and mid-November of last year, according to a study published Monday by JAMA Pediatrics.

The analysis of data from 22 U.S. states revealed that trends in hospitalization rates for children infected with the new coronavirus nationally typically mirrored those of older adults, the researchers said.

However, while children are far less likely to be hospitalized compared to all adults, the trends are "concerning," given that much of the focus on the potential for severe illness from COVID-19 has been on the risks for seniors, they said.

"While children are at very low risk for severe illness from COVID-19, there is a misperception that there is no risk," study co-author Pinar Karaca-Mandic told UPI.

RELATED Doctors' group says open schools, with proper COVID-19 measures

"This study demonstrates that [the virus] has the potential to cause serious illness in children," said Karaca-Mandic, professor of healthcare risk management at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

Although children, teens and young adults have accounted for about one-fifth of the 22.4 million COVID-19 cases nationally, these age groups have made up a fraction of all hospitalizations and deaths, at least so far, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Fewer than 1% of all virus-related hospitalizations and deaths across the country involve people 24 years old and younger, the agency estimates.

RELATED Study: Face masks on adults have limited impact on kids' socialization

More than 129,000 people in the United States are hospitalized with the virus and more than 374,000 have died since the start of the pandemic, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

For this study, Karaca-Mandic and her colleagues analyzed data on more than 300,000 COVID-19-related hospitalizations in 22 states between May 15 and Nov. 15.

Just over 5,300 of these hospitalizations involved children, the researchers said.

RELATED Two-thirds of parents worry about long-term impact of pandemic on kids

However, although children continue to account for relatively few of those with severe illness from the virus, they were hospitalized at a rate of 17.2 per 100,000 children in the general population by Nov. 15, up from two per 100,000 six months earlier, according to the researchers.

In mid-November, South Dakota and Arizona had the highest rates of pediatric hospitalizations due to COVID-19 at 33.7 per 100,000 children in the general population and 32.8 per 100,000, the researchers said.

"Our study was not designed to analyze whether children fueled the spread of COVID-19," Karaca-Mandic said.

"However, in 19 of 21 states where we could make a comparison, the rate of growth in cumulative pediatric hospitalization rates was higher than the corresponding rate of growth in adult hospitalization," she said.

upi.com/7066828

Cancer deaths in U.S. down by nearly one-third in last 20 years, analysis finds



Improved diagnosis and treatment approaches have helped reduce cancer deaths in the United States, according to a new analysis. Photo by klbz/Pixabay

Jan. 12 (UPI) -- Deaths from cancer in the United States fell 31% between 1991 and 2018, according to an analysis published Tuesday by the American Cancer Society.

However, the report estimates that this year, nearly 1.9 million people will be diagnosed cancer and more than 600,000 will die from the disease.

The estimates are based on currently available data on cancer incidence and mortality from 2018 and do not account for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the society said.

"The impact of COVID-19 on cancer diagnoses and outcomes at the population level will be unknown for several years because of the time necessary for data collection, compilation, quality control and dissemination, report co-author Rebecca Siegel said in a statement.

RELATED For many cancer patients, diagnosis carries psychological 'silver lining'

"We anticipate that disruptions in access to cancer care in 2020 will lead to downstream increases in advanced stage diagnoses that may impede progress in reducing cancer mortality rates in the years to come," she said.

Cancer remains the second-leading cause of death in the United States, even though an estimated 3.2 million deaths have been averted from since 1991 thanks to reductions in smoking, earlier diagnosis and enhanced treatment, according to the report.

Significant gains have been made in four of the deadliest and most common cancer, namely lung, breast, colorectal and prostate, the report found.

RELATED Study: Coffee reduces risk for prostate cancer

Although lung cancer is still the most common cause of cancer death nationally, death rates for the disease fell 2.4% annually between 2009 and 2013 and 5% annually between 2014 and 2018, the data showed.

As a result, lung cancer accounted for 46% of the overall decline in cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 and spurred a record single-year drop of 2.4% between 2017 and 2018, Siegel and her colleagues found.

The reductions likely reflect better treatment for the most common subtype non-small cell lung cancer, which has seen survival rates improve by up to 25% since 2010.

RELATED Oral sex frequency, number of partners linked to HPV-related cancer risk in study

For all stages combined, survival is the highest for prostate cancer, at 98%; melanoma, 93%; and female breast cancer, 90%, the report found.

Survival is lowest for pancreatic cancer, at 10%; liver cancer, 20%; cancer of the esophagus, 20%; and lung cancer, 21%, the data showed.

Colorectal cancer overtook leukemia in 2018 as the second-leading cause of cancer death in men age 20 to 39.

In addition, about 11 people per day died of cervical cancer in 2018, roughly half of whom were 60 or younger, the data showed.

Cancer is the leading cause of death in Hispanic, Asian American and Alaska Native persons, the researchers said.

Although the Black-White disparity in overall cancer death has declined, the five-year survival rate for all cancers combined between 2010 and 2016 was 68% in White patients versus 63% in Black patients.

Survival rates are lower for Black people than for White people for every cancer type except pancreas, researchers said.

"It is concerning to see the persistent racial ... disparities for highly preventable cancers," Dr. William G. Cance, the American Cancer Society's chief medical and scientific officer, said in a statement.

"There is a continued need for increased investment in ... clinical research to create more advanced treatment options to help accelerate progress in the fight against cancer," he said.

U.S. has biggest drop in emissions since WWII due to COVID-19

COVID-19-related restrictions periodically left some normally crowded streets free of traffic throughout 2020. File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

Jan. 12 (UPI) -- Reduced travel in response to the COVID-19 pandemic last year resulted in the lowest level of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States in three decades, according to a preliminary analysis released Tuesday.

The Rhodium Group, an independent economics and policy research provider, said mitigation efforts to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus caused a "historic shock" to economic activity and ultimately caused a 10.3% drop in greenhouse gas emissions.

Most states issued stay-at-home orders early in 2020, banning non-essential businesses from being open to the public and encouraging work-from-home arrangements. With far fewer vehicles on the road for much of last year, far less greenhouse gas was expelled into the atmosphere.

Last year, the United States experienced the largest drop in emissions since just after World War II, bringing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions down to below 1990 levels. The next biggest drop since the 1940s was during the Great Recession of 2009, when emissions fell 6.3%.

RELATED 2020 ties for hottest year ever

The analysis determined that U.S. emissions in 2020 were 21% below 2005 levels, meaning the country's expected to exceed the Copenhagen Accord target of reducing emissions by 17% below 2005.

"However, 2020 should not in any way be considered a down payment toward the U.S. meeting its 2025 Paris Agreement target of 26-28% below 2005 levels," the Rhodium Group said.

"But without meaningful structural changes in the carbon intensity of the U.S. economy, emissions will likely rise again as well," the Rhodium Group said.

The analysis said that though there's been "significant economic damage and human suffering" associated with the ongoing pandemic, economic activity will pick back up in 2021 with the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine.