Wednesday, May 25, 2022

OAN's Dan Ball tells Trump “the mainstream media should be charged ... with treason”

Trump: “You've done a great job, I have to say. I think you've done a great job.”


WRITTEN BY MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
PUBLISHED 05/24/22 


Citation From the May 23, 2022, edition of OAN's Real America with Dan Ball

DAN BALL (HOST): I know that you told me before, and some of your Secret Service guys said that you’re a fan of the program, so I know you watch, and you’ve heard me make the statement, and it might be a little bold and a little shocking, and I’ve taken a lot of heat from some of the wackos out there on the left. But I think the mainstream media should be charged – the folks that made the call at the top – with treason to this nation.

You want to talk about something that has done severe damage? It is the brainwashing and the lies and the omittance of stories by the mainstream media, and by the social media oligarchs as well. They have literally lied to and brainwashed over half this country, so, to me, they’re some of the most guilty ones. We expect politicians – not yourself included – to be liars. We’ve seen them lie, time and time again. But the press used to tell you the truth, and they don’t anymore. That’s why I’m glad to be here at One America News, where we tell the truth. Mr. President –

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And where you’ve done a great job, I have to say. I think you’ve done a great job.

BALL: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Let’s talk about 2000 Mules and election integrity as we’re facing these elections tomorrow night.


Hungary’s Orban says shows like Tucker Carlson’s should be broadcast ’24/7′

BY SARAH POLUS
05/22/22 

American television host and conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson is seen on screen delivering a speech at the CPAC conference in Budapest, Hungary, Thursday, May 19, 2022. Dozens of prominent conservatives from Europe, the United States and elsewhere have gathered in Hungary for the American Conservative Political Action Conference, being held in Europe for the first time. The two-day event represents a deepening of ties between the American right wing and the autocratic government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban. 
(Szilard Koszticsak/MTI via AP)

Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban said during a meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Hungary that Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show should be broadcast “24/7.”

The recommendation came as Orban laid out a plan for conservatives to gain and maintain power, according to The Guardian.

The GOP having its own media networks is the best way to fight the agenda of the left, he said. Orban and his supporters wield major influence over Hungarian media outlets, including state TV.

“Of course, the GOP has its associated media, but they do not compete with the dominance of the liberal press. Only friend Tucker Carlson places himself on the line without wavering,” he said, according to CNN.

“His program is the most watched,” Orban added. “What does it mean? It means programs like his should be broadcasted day and night. Or as you say 24/7.”

Carlson made a brief virtual appearance at the CPAC meeting in Budapest, during which he praised Hungary as “a free and decent and beautiful country that cares about its people, their families and the physical landscape.

CPAC will next hold events in Brazil and Israel before heading back to the U.S. for its Texas conference, slated for Aug. 4 to 7.

Orban reportedly invited Trump to Budapest in February, ahead of Hungary’s election in April, in which he won his fourth consecutive term as prime minister.

Carlson released a special earlier this year about Orban’s fight against political mega-donor and philanthropist George Soros, titled “Hungary vs. Soros: Fight for Civilization.”
Opinion
MAGA Republicans aren’t isolationist. They’re pro-Putin.



By Max BootColumnist|
May 24, 2022 

When it comes to isolationism in America, I have some good news and some bad news.

The good news is that the public — and Congress — still remains largely resistant to the long-discredited “America First” argument that we can hide from the world behind our two ocean moats. The periods in U.S. history when isolationism was resurgent, after 1898, were relatively brief and generally occurred after long wars: the 1920s-1930s (after World War I), the 1970s (after the Vietnam War), the 1990s (after the Cold War), and the 2010s (after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). But invariably a fresh crisis comes along to snap America out of its reverie: Pearl Harbor, the Iranian hostage crisis, 9/11, the rise of the Islamic State, and now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Each time that happens, most Americans realize that the costs of abdicating international leadership are greater than the cost of exercising it.

The Ukrainian crisis has followed that template. A Pew Research Center poll found that 75 percent of Americans support strict economic sanctions on Russia and 71 percent support sending weapons to Ukraine. Roughly a third say we are not providing enough aid — even though Congress has committed a whopping $54 billion since the invasion began. The latest tranche of aid, $40 billion, was just approved by overwhelming majorities — 81 to 11 in the Senate, 368 to 57 in the House. Not a single Democrat voted against the legislation, even though they have a Bernie Sanders-led noninterventionist wing. Every “nay” vote came from Republicans.

That brings us to the bad news: Isolationism — or is it Putinism? — remains disturbingly resilient within Republican ranks. In the Pew poll, more than twice as many Republicans as Democrats said that the United States is providing too much aid to Ukraine. Roughly a quarter of House Republicans and a fifth of Senate Republicans share that view. Some of the influential voices opposing aid to Ukraine include former president Donald Trump, Fox “News” host Tucker Carlson, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Heritage Action for America (the lobbying arm of the Heritage Foundation), and FreedomWorks (the Koch-supported advocacy organization).

The irony is that all of these right-wingers claim to be fans of Ronald Reagan. Yet they reject a modern-day version of the “Reagan doctrine,” which called for aiding “freedom fighters” resisting Soviet aggression.

It’s hard to take the nationalists’ arguments at face value. They claim that we can’t afford to aid Ukraine because we have to deal with pressing problems at home, such as a shortage of baby formula. But all of the U.S. aid to Ukraine represents just 1 percent of the federal budget. Where were all of these supposed fiscal conservatives when Trump was adding $7.8 trillion to the national debt

Many of the original “America Firsters” in 1940 and 1941 were actually pro-Nazi. Likewise, many of today’s MAGA militants are actually pro-Putin. They favor a hard line against leftist dictatorships such as those in Cuba, Venezuela and China, while advocating de facto appeasement of Russia’s right-wing dictatorship.

In 2018, seven Republican senators and one Republican House member — the Red Square Republicans, my colleague Dana Milbank called them — spent July 4 in Moscow. In 2019, Tucker Carlson said: “Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am.” In February, Trump called Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s preparations for invasion an act of “genius,” “savvy,” and “smart.” In April, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) excused the Russian attack by saying that the Kremlin invades only countries that “were part of Russia.” (Should Alaskans be worried?)

The attraction of Putin’s Russia for many on the right is the same as Viktor Orban’s Hungary (site of the recent Conservative Political Action Conference). They consider right-wing autocracies — with regressive policies on immigration, multiculturalism, LGBTQ rights, women’s rights and other culture war issues — as models for the United States to emulate.

Seeing Russia as an exemplar of “family values” involves, as Anne Applebaum pointed out in the Atlantic, a large dosage of self-deception. Russia actually has a region (Chechnya) governed by sharia law, very low levels of church attendance and an abortion rate twice as high as in the United States. But Putin has been skillful in playing to his American sympathizers by utilizing their own buzz phrases; he even claims that Russia is a victim of “cancel culture.”

Beyond shared beliefs, the MAGA affinity for Putinism is rooted in sordid self-interest: The Kremlin helped Trump win office in 2016 and is likely to aid him again if he runs in 2024. The GOP has become a cult of personality, and the cult leader not only admires Putin but enjoys a mutually beneficial relationship with him. So the cult followers fall into line.

The extent to which pro-Russia sentiment has become embedded within the MAGA movement means it’s hard to take much satisfaction from the rejection of isolationism among most Americans and even most Republicans. If Trump takes power again, Putin’s fellow travelers will again be in control of U.S. foreign policy — and Ukraine, NATO and the rest of the “Free World” will be out of luck.



Opinion by Max Boot
Max Boot is a Washington Post columnist, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of “The Road Not Taken: Edward Lansdale and the American Tragedy in Vietnam.”
CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
French police search McKinsey’s office in Paris over tax fraud investigation

McKinsey & Co. denied any wrongdoing and said it complies with French tax rules.

Four police officers, from the right, leave the building hosting McKinsey & Company France, on May 24, 2022 in Paris.
Michel Spingler / AP

May 24, 2022
By Dan De Luce and Reuters

French police raided the Paris office of the U.S. consulting firm McKinsey & Co. on Tuesday as part of investigation into suspected tax fraud, authorities and the firm said.

The financial prosecutor’s office launched a preliminary probe following a March report from the French Senate that alleged the consulting giant had not paid corporate taxes in France over the past decade.

McKinsey denied any wrongdoing, saying it complied with French tax laws and was cooperating with French authorities.

“We can confirm the Parquet National Financier visited on May 24 McKinsey’s Paris office where we have been cooperating in providing the requested information,” the company said in a statement.
A police officer, with red armband, stands in the building hosting McKinsey & Company France, on May 24, 2022 in Paris. 
Michel Spingler / AP

“McKinsey is cooperating fully with the French public authorities, as has always been the case. McKinsey reaffirms that the firm complies with applicable French tax and social security rules,” it said.

In a statement in April, McKinsey said it was surprised at the public focus on the company given that its work represented only 1 percent of government consulting spending.

McKinsey has come under scrutiny in Washington over its bankruptcy work, its consulting for opioid manufacturers and its work with state-owned enterprises in China and Russia.

Some lawmakers say the firm’s track record suggests possible conflicts of interest but McKinsey denies any wrongdoing and says it has strict rules to avoid any conflicts.

Government contracts for private consultants, including McKinsey & Co., became an issue in the April presidential election in France. Opposition critics on the left and right accused President Emmanuel Macron’s government of wasting taxpayers’ money on international consulting firms. Macron won the election.

The French Senate report said consultant companies had access to high-level officials and exerted influence that was often hidden from view. French government spending on consultants rose from 379 million euros ($405.57 million) in 2018 to 894 million euros in 2021, according to the report.

McKinsey has been operating in France since 1964 and its Paris office is located on the famed Champs-Elysees boulevard.

Pelosi Wonders Why Church Doesn't Punish Death Penalty Supporters

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Photo by Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Getty Images)

By    |   Tuesday, 24 May 2022 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., penalized by Roman Catholic Church Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco for her support for abortions, noted that the church doesn’t punish supporters of the death penalty.

Pelosi made her comments during a Tuesday interview on the  MSNBC show, “Morning Joe.” They came after the archbishop said she would be denied the sacrament of the Catholic Mass known as Holy Communion.

Pelosi was denied Communion because of "the grave evil she is perpetrating" by supporting abortion, the archbishop wrote in a letter released by the Archdiocese of San Francisco on Friday.

He also wrote that he has made "numerous attempts to speak with Speaker Pelosi" to help her understand "the danger to her own soul she is risking." Strongly hinting that Pelosi has not responded to him, the archbishop concluded, "She is not to be admitted to Holy Communion."

Pelosi now wonders why he hasn’t applied the same ban on Catholics who back the death penalty.

“I wonder about the death penalty, which I am opposed to,” she said. “So is the church, but they take no action against people who may not share their view.

“I come from a largely pro-life Italian-American Catholic family, so I respect people’s views about that. But don’t respect us foisting it onto others.”




GEORGE SOROS 

Remarks Delivered at the 2022 World Economic Forum in Davos

Since the last Davos meeting the course of history has changed dramatically. 

Russia invaded Ukraine. This has shaken Europe to its core. The European Union was established to prevent such a thing from happening. Even when the fighting stops as it eventually must, the situation will never revert to what it was before. 

The invasion may have been the beginning of the Third World War and our civilization may not survive it. That is the subject I will address this evening.

The invasion of Ukraine didn’t come out of the blue. The world has been increasingly engaged in a struggle between two systems of governance that are diametrically opposed to each other: open society and closed society. Let me define the difference as simply as I can. 

In an open society, the role of the state is to protect the freedom of the individual; in a closed society the role of the individual is to serve the rulers of the state.

Other issues that concern all of humanity – fighting pandemics and climate change, avoiding nuclear war, maintaining global institutions – have had to take a back seat to that struggle. That’s why I say our civilization may not survive. 

I became engaged in what I call political philanthropy in the 1980s. That was a time when a large part of the world was under Communist rule, and I wanted to help people who were outraged and fought against oppression. 

As the Soviet Union disintegrated, I established one foundation after another in rapid succession in what was then the Soviet empire. The effort turned out to be more successful than I expected. 

Those were exciting days. They also coincided with a period of personal financial success that allowed me to increase my annual giving from $3 million in 1984 to more than $300 million three years later. 

After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the tide began to turn against open societies. Repressive regimes are now in the ascendant and open societies are under siege. Today China and Russia present the greatest threat to open society. 

I have pondered long and hard why that should have happened. I found part of the answer in the rapid development of digital technology, especially artificial intelligence.

In theory, AI ought to be politically neutral: it can be used for good or bad. But in practice the effect is asymmetric. AI is particularly good at producing instruments of control that help repressive regimes and endanger open societies. Covid-19 also helped legitimize instruments of control because they are really useful in dealing with the virus. 

The rapid development of AI has gone hand in hand with the rise of social media and tech platforms. These conglomerates have come to dominate the global economy. They are multinational and their reach extends around the world.

These developments have had far-reaching consequences. They have sharpened the conflict between China and the United States. China has turned its tech platforms into national champions. The United States has been more hesitant because it has worried about their effect on the freedom of the individual. 

These different attitudes shed new light on the conflict between the two different systems of governance that the US and China represent. 

Xi Jinping’s China, which collects personal data for the surveillance and control of its citizens more aggressively than any other country in history, ought to benefit from these developments. But, as I shall explain later tonight, that is not the case. 

Let me now turn to recent developments, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping met on February 4th at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Winter Olympics. They issued a long statement announcing that the cooperation between them has “no limits”. Putin informed Xi of a “special military operation” in Ukraine, but it is unclear whether he told Xi that he had a full-scale attack on Ukraine in mind. US and UK military experts certainly told their Chinese counterparts what was in store. Xi approved, but asked Putin to wait until the conclusion of the winter Olympics. 

For his part, Xi resolved to hold the Olympics in spite of the Omicron variant that was just beginning to spread in China. The organizers went to great lengths to create an airtight bubble for the competitors and the Olympics concluded without a hitch.

But Omicron established itself in the community, first in Shanghai, China’s largest city and commercial hub. Now it is spreading to the rest of the country. Yet Xi persists with his Zero Covid policy. That has inflicted great hardships on Shanghai’s population, by forcing them into makeshift quarantine centers instead of allowing them to quarantine themselves at home. This has driven Shanghai to the verge of open rebellion. 

Many people are puzzled by this seemingly irrational approach, but I can give you the explanation: Xi harbors a guilty secret. He never told the Chinese people that they had been inoculated with a vaccine that was designed for the original Wuhan variant and offers very little protection against new variants. 

Xi can’t afford to come clean because he is at a very delicate moment in his career. His second term in office expires in the fall of 2022 and he wants to be appointed to an unprecedented third term, eventually making him ruler for life.

He has carefully choreographed a process that would allow him to fulfill his life’s ambition, and everything must be subordinated to this goal. 

In the meantime, Putin’s so-called “special military operation” didn’t unfold according to plan. He expected his army to be welcomed by the Russian speaking population of Ukraine as liberators. His soldiers carried with them their dress uniforms for a victory parade. But that is not what happened. 

Ukraine put up unexpectedly strong resistance and inflicted severe damage on the invading Russian army. The army was badly equipped and badly led and the soldiers became demoralized. The United States and the European Union rallied to Ukraine’s support and supplied it with armaments. With their help, Ukraine was able to defeat the much larger Russian army in the battle for Kyiv. 

Putin could not afford to accept defeat and changed his plans accordingly. He put General Vladimir Shamanov, well known for his cruelty in the siege of Grozny, in charge and ordered him to produce some success by May 9th when Victory Day was to be celebrated. 

But Putin had very little to celebrate. Shamanov concentrated his efforts on the port city of Mariupol which used to have 400,000 inhabitants. He reduced it to rubble, as he had done to Grozny but the Ukrainian defenders held out for 82 days and the siege cost the lives of thousands of civilians.

Moreover, the hasty withdrawal from Kyiv revealed the heinous atrocities that Putin’s army had committed on the civilian population in a suburb of Kyiv, Bucha. They are well-documented, and they have outraged those who saw the pictures on television. That did not include the people of Russia who had been kept in the dark about Putin’s “special military operation”.

The invasion of Ukraine has now entered a new phase which is much more challenging for the Ukrainian army. They must fight on open terrain where the numerical superiority of the Russian army is more difficult to overcome. 

The Ukrainians are doing their best, counterattacking and penetrating Russian territory. This has had the added benefit of bringing home to the Russian population what is really going on. 

The US has also done its best to reduce the financial gap between Russia and Ukraine by getting Congress to allocate an unprecedented $40 billion in military and financial aid to Ukraine. I can’t predict the outcome, but Ukraine certainly has a fighting chance. 

Recently, European leaders went even further. They wanted to use the invasion of Ukraine to promote greater European integration, so that what Putin is doing can never happen again. 

Enrico Letta, leader of Partito Democratico, proposed a plan for a partially federated Europe. The federal portion would cover key policy areas. 

In the federal core, no member state would have veto power. In the wider confederation member states could join “coalitions of the willing” or simply retain their veto power. Mario Draghi endorsed Letta’s plan.

Emmanuel Macron, in a significant broadening of his pro-European approach, advocated geographic expansion, and the need for the EU to prepare for it. Not only Ukraine but also Moldova and the Western Balkans should qualify for membership in the European Union. It will take a long time to work out the details, but Europe seems to be moving in the right direction. It has responded to the invasion of Ukraine with greater speed, unity and vigor than ever before in its history. After a hesitant start, Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, also has found a strong pro-European voice. 

But Europe’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels remains excessive, due largely to the mercantilist policies pursued by former Chancellor Angela Merkel. She had made special deals with Russia for the supply of gas and made China Germany’s largest export market. That made Germany the best performing economy in Europe but now there is a heavy price to pay. Germany’s economy needs to be reoriented. And that will take a long time.

Olaf Scholz was elected Chancellor because he promised to continue Merkel’s policies. But events forced him to abandon this promise. That didn’t come easy, because he had to break with the hallowed traditions of the Social Democrats. 

But when it comes to maintaining European unity, Scholz always seems to do the right thing in the end. He abandoned Nordstream 2, committed a 100 billion euros to defense and provided arms to Ukraine, breaking with a long-standing taboo. That is how the Western democracies responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

What do the two dictators Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have to show for themselves? They are tied together in an alliance that has no limits. They also have a lot in common. They rule by intimidation, and as a consequence they make mind-boggling mistakes. Putin expected to be welcomed in Ukraine as a liberator; Xi Jinping is sticking to a Zero Covid policy that can’t possibly be sustained. 

Putin seems to have recognized that he made a terrible mistake when he invaded Ukraine and he is now preparing the ground for negotiating a cease fire. But the cease fire is unattainable because he cannot be trusted. Putin would have to start peace negotiations which he will never do because it would be equivalent to resigning. 

The situation is confusing. A military expert who had been opposed to the invasion was allowed to go on Russian television to inform the public how bad the situation is. Later he swore allegiance to Putin. Interestingly, Xi Jinping continues to support Putin, but no longer without limits. 

This begins to explain why Xi Jinping is bound to fail. Giving Putin permission to launch an unsuccessful attack against Ukraine didn’t serve China’s best interests. China ought to be the senior partner in the alliance with Russia but Xi Jinping’s lack of assertiveness allowed Putin to usurp that position. But Xi’s worst mistake was to double down on his Zero Covid policy. 

The lockdowns had disastrous consequences. They pushed the Chinese economy into a free fall. It started in March, and it will continue to gather momentum until Xi reverses course – which he will never do because he can’t admit a mistake. Coming on top of the real estate crisis the damage will be so great that it will affect the global economy. With the disruption of supply chains, global inflation is liable to turn into global depression.

Yet, the weaker Putin gets the more unpredictable he becomes. The member states of the EU feel the pressure. They realize that Putin may not wait until they develop alternative sources of energy but turn off the taps on gas while it really hurts. 

The RePowerEu program announced last week reflects these fears. Olaf Scholz is particularly anxious because of the special deals that his predecessor Angela Merkel made with Russia. Mario Draghi is more courageous, although Italy’s gas dependency is almost as high as Germany’s. Europe’s cohesion will face a severe test but if it continues to maintain its unity, it could strengthen both Europe’s energy security and leadership on climate.

What about China? Xi Jinping has many enemies. Nobody dares to attack him directly because he has centralized all the instruments of surveillance and repression in his own hands, but it is well known that there is dissention within the Communist Party. It has become so sharp that it has found expression in articles that ordinary people can read.

Contrary to general expectations Xi Jinping may not get his coveted third term because of the mistakes he has made. But even if he does, the Politburo may not give him a free hand to select the members of the next Politburo. That would greatly reduce his power and influence and make it less likely that he will become ruler for life.

While the war rages, the fight against climate change has to take second place. Yet the experts tell us that we have already fallen far behind, and climate change is on the verge of becoming irreversible. That could be the end of our civilization. 

I find this prospect particularly frightening. Most of us accept the idea that we must eventually die but we take it for granted that our civilization will survive. 

Therefore, we must mobilize all our resources to bring the war to an early end. The best and perhaps only way to preserve our civilization is to defeat Putin as soon as possible. That’s the bottom line.

Thank you.




Palestine Asks ICC to Investigate Shireen Abu Akleh’s Killing

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Palestinian Foreign Ministry announced it has formally asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the killing of veteran Al-Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.

“We have documented [the crime] and submitted a file about it to the ICC prosecutor alongside other Israeli violations,” Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki told Anadolu news agency on Monday.

Al-Maliki called on The Hague-based court to add Abu Akleh’s death to other crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians to facilitate an official investigation and bring Israel to accountability.

On May 11, Abu Akleh, 51, was covering an Israeli military raid near the Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank when she was shot dead. Eyewitnesses and colleagues who were present at the scene said she was killed by Israeli forces.

“Palestinians say the killing of Abu Akleh is war crimes indeed. They have referred the case to the ICC in addition to the dozens of other cases that have been filed over the last year or so…,” said Al-Jazeera’s Nida Ibrahim, reporting from Ramallah in the occupied West Bank.

Al-Jazeera says Abu Akleh was “assassinated in cold blood” by Israeli forces. The news network and the Palestinians have called for an independent and impartial probe into the killing, which has attracted global condemnation.

Mustafa Barghouti, general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative, accused the ICC of a “double standard” in its handling of cases submitted by Palestinians.

“We have been providing information for the past 13 years but investigation has not been started yet. And in less than two months the ICC has sent 42 investigators to Ukraine,” Barghouti, a former Palestinian information minister, stated.

Barghouti added that there was a need for strong international pressure on the ICC to initiate its work and investigate the crimes, including the crime of killing Shireen Abu Akleh.

“What we also need here is real pressure on Israeli establishment, a serious effort to establish sanctions and punitive acts against Israel, not to allow it to continue to be above international law,” Barghouti continued.

Meanwhile, Israel’s military prosecutor has called on the army to conduct an in-depth investigation.

Al-Jazeera’s Ibrahim said that “this only means that the circles within the Israeli army are talking about the potential of opening an investigation.

“From our experience, it’s been very rare that the Israeli military opens investigations into killings of Palestinians and in the rare cases that it does, it almost never leads to an indictment," Ibrahim noted.

“When it does lead to an indictment, the sentence is usually light and Palestinians say it’s disproportionate to the crime. That’s why they’re hoping to get justice from the ICC,” Ibrahim added.

The Israeli media reported last week that the military had no plans to launch a criminal investigation into the killing of the Al-Jazeera journalist.

On Monday, the Israeli Army announced that if an Israeli soldier fired the lethal shot, it did not appear that the soldier was guilty of criminal misconduct.

“Given that Ms Abu Akleh was killed in the midst of an active combat zone, there can be no immediate suspicion of criminal activity absent further evidence,” said a statement citing Military Advocate Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi on Monday.

Tomer-Yerushalmi will ultimately be responsible for determining whether any individual soldier will face disciplinary action. She stressed that Israel does not yet know whether Abu Akleh, a Palestinian-American, was killed by stray Palestinian gunfire or by an Israeli bullet aimed at a Palestinian fighter.

“The inability to inspect the bullet, which is being held by the Palestinian Authority, continues to cast doubt on the circumstances of Ms Abu Akleh’s death,” the statement added.

The army has stated it had zeroed in on one incident where an Israeli soldier using “a telescopic scope” fired at a “Palestinian gunman”.

However, a new video that begins moments before the shooting shows relative calm and quiet with no sounds of fighting, corroborating witness reports that there were no clashes or “active combat zone” between Israeli forces and Palestinian fighters at the time of the Al-Jazeera reporter’s killing.

Al-Maliki, the Palestinian foreign minister, accused Israel of “exploiting the lack of accountability” by the international community to commit more violations against Palestinians.

“Israel must be held accountable for its crimes,” he noted, going on to slam the “weakness and inaction of the international community” towards the Israeli violations.

“The international community contributed to creating the Palestinian cause, and it must contribute to putting an end to this suffering,” he added.

Al-Maliki cited Israeli plans to build thousands of illegal settlement units in the Palestinian area of Masafer Yatta in the Southern occupied West Bank as an example of Israel’s latest violations against Palestinians.

He said the Palestinians there “are reliving the Nakba as Israel attempts to expel them from their homes”.

The Nakba, or “catastrophe”, refers to the 1948 forced expulsion of nearly 800,000 Palestinians from their homes in historical Palestine to make way for the creation of the state of Israel.

‘Fireball’ explosion killed 5 workers after Florida company ignored safety rules, feds say

Cassandre Coyer, The Charlotte Observer
May 20, 2022

Florida power company admitted its responsibility in a 2017 explosion that caused the death of five workers after several safety procedures were ignored.

On May 5, the Tampa Electric Company pleaded guilty to a charge of willfully violating Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards resulting in a death. The company could face a half-million dollar fine, court documents show.

“All of us at Tampa Electric hold the families of our late colleagues and coworkers in our hearts. We have accepted full responsibility, and we hold ourselves accountable as we continuously work to improve our safety programs and safety culture,” Archie Collins, president and chief executive officer at Tampa Electric, told McClatchy News in a statement.

“I want to thank our dedicated employees at Big Bend, and throughout the company, for their efforts to honor the memories of those lost and injured, as well as their commitment to provide our customers with safe, reliable electricity – while maintaining a safety-first mindset every minute of every day,” Collins said in the statement.

The electric company (TECO) operated several power plants in Florida, including Big Bend Station, located just south of Tampa in Hillsborough County, court documents state.

On June 29, 2017, in the hours leading up to the explosion at the power plant, employees were asked to carry out what is usually considered routine maintenance on a slag tank.

Big Bend housed four, large coal-fire furnaces, prosecutors said, three of which would create a “molten by-product known as ‘slag’” that could reach 1,000 degree Fahrenheit.

The slag would fall to the bottom of the boiler and eventually drain into either of the two “slag tanks” attached to the boilers, court documents state.

Prosecutors said the slag tanks were designed to be filled with water so when the molten slag came in contact with it, it would cool down and harden until it became brittle.

Once brittle, employees could safely pulverize and eject the slag.

That day, “hardened slag had accumulated at the top and the bottom of the slag tank and could not be removed,” according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida.

Prosecutors said instead of shutting down the furnace, TECO brought in a contractor to perform high-pressure water blasting to clear the slag while plant operations continued as normal, the release states.

Several workers were unsure of the correct procedure and were not able to get answers before starting the water blasting, court documents show. When OSHA asked nine TECO operators who worked on the day of the explosion whether they had seen the standard procedure before, only one said they had seen it done — and only once.

Prosecutors said a job briefing was required before starting the blasting work — but it was not held that day.

A meeting would have helped “TECO to recognize that they were dealing with an uncommon simultaneous blockage that posed a unique danger and that should have prompted TECO to take appropriate measures to forego the work and shut down the unit instead,” prosecutors said.

Instead, at about 3 p.m. employees started water blasting at the blocked slag tank, failing to follow numerous safety procedures, court documents show.

After only minutes of operating the blasting gun, the slag tank exploded, “violently” expelling steam.

“Witnesses described seeing ‘black and hot rocks’ and that it ‘looked like a volcano and a jet dragster. It was a fireball with molten slag coming out. It was liquid slag/lava on fire.’”

Five employees were killed in the explosion.

About an hour after the explosion, workers were able to find the appropriate procedure in the company’s digital “library” — but a manager of operations stated that they “normally don’t follow [them] to the letter” and “view them as a guide.”

“Had TECO complied with OSHA’s workplace safety standards, conducted a pre-job briefing and followed its own procedure, these senseless deaths could have been prevented,” U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg for the Middle District of Florida said in the release. “Our hearts go out to the victims’ families as well as other TECO employees and contractors impacted by this catastrophic event.”

Court documents state that following the incident, TECO negotiated confidential civil settlements with relatives of the employees killed in the explosion as well as with others harmed by it.

In its plea agreement, TECO committed to adopt “an effective program to prevent and detect violations of law” by the time of sentencing.

 KULTURKAMPF

Laying Siege to the Institutions

Why conservatives must go on the offensive against the elite-supported, toxic ideologies undermining American life
May 24, 2022
The Social Order

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on April 5, 2022, during a two-week teaching residency there as a Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism.

EXCERPT

The lesson I’ve drawn from reporting on institutions that promote ideologies such as critical race theory and radical gender theory is that they have been captured at the structural level and can’t be reformed from within. So the solution is not a long counter-march through the institutions. You can’t replace bad directors of diversity, equity, and inclusion with good ones. The ideology is baked in. That’s why I call for a siege strategy.

This means, first, that you must be aggressive. You must fight on terms that you define. In responding to opponents of the Florida bill, for instance, don’t argue against “teaching diversity and inclusion,” but against sexualizing young children. And don’t pull your punches. We will never win if we play by the rules set by the elites who are undermining our country. We can be polite and lose every battle, or we can be impolite and deliver results for the great majority of Americans who are fighting for their small businesses, fighting for their jobs, fighting for their families.

Second, you must mobilize popular support. This requires ripping the veil off what our institutions are doing through real investigation and reporting so that Americans can make informed choices. We live in an information society, and if we don’t get the truth out, we will never gain traction against the narratives being constantly refashioned and pushed by the Left.

Less than two years ago, an infinitesimal number of Americans knew about critical race theory. Through investigation and reporting, we’ve brought that number up to 75 percent. The public now opposes critical race theory by a two-to-one margin, and it is being hounded out of schools and other places. This kind of action is a model for dealing with every ideology and institution that is undermining the public good and America’s future.

Remember that institutions don’t choose these ideologies democratically—they don’t ask people or employees to vote for them. They impose them by fiat, through bureaucratic, not democratic rule. So it isn’t surprising that the institutions lose big when we force their agendas into the political arena. What politician or campaign manager in their right mind would ignore an issue that is supported by a two-to-one margin? So-called conservative politicians who do ignore such issues—or who oppose bringing them up out of a false sense of decorum—aren’t on the people’s and the country’s side.

With public institutions like K-12 education, another crucial step is to decentralize them. It is centralization and bureaucratization that makes it possible for a minority of activists to take control and impose their ideologies. Decentralizing means reducing federal and state controls in favor of local control—and it ultimately means something like universal school choice, placing power in parents’ hands. Too many parents today have no escape mechanism from substandard schools controlled by leftist ideologues. Universal school choice—meaning that public education funding goes directly to parents rather than schools—would fix that.

Conservatives have for too long been resistant to attacking the credibility of our institutions. Trust in institutions is a natural conservative tendency. But conservatives need to stop focusing on abstract concepts and open their eyes. Our institutions are dragging our country in a disastrous direction, actively undermining all that makes America great.

To some extent, the institutions are now destroying their own credibility. Look at the public-health bureaucracy and teachers’ unions, which acted in concert to shut down schools and keep children needlessly masked—and for far too long. As a result, there has been an explosion in homeschooling, as well as in the number of alternative K-12 schools such as the ones Hillsdale College is helping to launch around the country. What is needed is to build alternative or parallel institutions and businesses in all areas. There is no reason, for example, why plenty of high-production-value children’s entertainment can’t be produced outside the ideological confines of the Walt Disney Company.

In conclusion, we make a mistake in thinking about politics simply in terms of a Left-versus-Right dynamic. That dynamic is significant, but where the opportunity really lies today is in focusing on a top-versus-bottom dynamic. An elite class, representing a small number of people with influence in the knowledge-based institutions, are acting in their own interest and against the interest of the vast majority of the American people—those who are still attached to the idea that America is a force for good and who think, to take just one example, that young children should be protected from the imposition of radical gender ideology.

In terms of the top-versus-bottom dynamic, the choice today is between the American Revolution of 1776 and the leftist revolution of the 1960s. The first offers a continued unfolding of America’s founding principles of freedom and equality. The second ends up in nihilism and demoralization, just as the Weather Underground ended up in a bombed-out basement in Greenwich Village in the 1970s.

Even those of us who are temperamentally predisposed to defense must recognize that offense—laying siege to the institutions—is what is now demanded.

Poll: Majority of Americans Want Option to Work Remotely

(Photo by Geoff Caddick/AFP via Getty Images)

By Peter Malbin | Tuesday, 24 May 2022 

The vast majority of Americans whose job can be done remotely say it’s important that their employers allow them to work remotely as they want.

Millennials are the group most likely to want a remote option. A huge number (84%) of millennials say remote work is important compared to 66% of Gen Z, 75% of Gen X, and 68% of boomers.

These are some of the findings of an annual Axios Harris 100 poll.

Americans want to keep at least some of the work flexibility they've come to enjoy during the COVID-19 pandemic, Axios notes. The Axios survey finds that over half (56%) of workers say they are likely to move to a hybrid or remote job for more work flexibility.

Those who are already working remotely or in a hybrid model are much more likely to say remote work is important to them.

A vast majority of remote workers (93%) and of hybrid workers (89%) say it's important compared to only 57% of those who are back in an office, according to the Axios survey.

Most Americans (83%) say the pandemic proved many jobs can be done just as effectively remotely as in person, Axios reports.

Even though executives think differently and still would like their employees back in the office, they have had to abandon rigid attendance rules, according to The New York Times.

With COVID-19 cases rising rapidly in nearly every U.S. state, office occupancy has remained fairly flat, just above 40%, since late March, according to The New York Times.

Companies looking to recruit may need to consider remote work benefits over pay, according to Axios.

More than 40% of workers say they are likely to switch to a more flexible job even if it means taking a pay cut, including more than half (57%) of millennials and roughly half (49%) of Gen Z.

The Axios Harris Poll 100 is an annual survey to gauge the reputations of the most visible brands in the country.

It is based on a survey of 33,096 Americans in a nationally representative sample conducted March 11-April 3, 2022.