Home Blog Page 441

FBI releases newly declassified record on Sept. 11 attacks

0

By ERIC TUCKER

WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI late Saturday released a newly declassified document related to logistical support given to two of the Saudi hijackers in the run-up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The document details contacts the hijackers had with Saudi associates in the U.S. but does not provide proof that senior Saudi government officials were complicit in the plot.

Released on the 20th anniversary of the attacks, the document is the first investigative record to be disclosed since President Joe Biden ordered a declassification review of materials that for years have remained out of public view. The 16-page document is a summary of an FBI interview done in 2015 with a man who had frequent contact with Saudi nationals in the U.S. who supported the first hijackers to arrive in the country before the attacks.

Biden last week ordered the Justice Department and other agencies to conduct a declassification review and release what documents they can over the next six months. He had encountered pressure from victims’ families, who have long sought the records as they pursue a lawsuit in New York alleging that Saudi government officials supported the hijackers.

The Saudi government has long denied any involvement in the attacks. The Saudi Embassy in Washington has it supported the full declassification of all records as a way to “end the baseless allegations against the Kingdom once and for all.” The embassy said that any allegation that Saudi Arabia was complicit was “categorically false.”

The trove of documents are being released at a politically delicate time for the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, two nations that have forged a strategic — if difficult — alliance, particularly on counterterrorism matters. The Biden administration in February released an intelligence assessment implicating Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the 2018 killing of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi, but drew criticism from Democrats for avoiding a direct punishment of the crown prince himself.

Victims’ relatives cheered the document’s release as a significant step in their effort to connect the attacks to Saudi Arabia. Brett Eagleson, whose father, Bruce, was killed in the World Trade Center attack, said the release of the FBI material “accelerates our pursuit of truth and justice.”

Jim Kreindler, a lawyer for the victims’ relatives, said in a statement that “the findings and conclusions in this FBI investigation validate the arguments we have made in the litigation regarding the Saudi government’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

“This document, together with the public evidence gathered to date, provides a blueprint for how (al-Qaida) operated inside the US with the active, knowing support of the Saudi government,” he said.

That includes, he added, Saudi officials exchanging phone calls among themselves and al-Qaida operatives and then having “accidental meetings” with the hijackers while providing them with assistance to get settled and find flight schools.

Regarding Sept. 11, there has been speculation of official involvement since shortly after the attacks, when it was revealed that 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudis. Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaida at the time, was from a prominent family in the kingdom.

The U.S. investigated some Saudi diplomats and others with Saudi government ties who knew hijackers after they arrived in the U.S., according to documents that have already been declassified.

Still, the 9/11 Commission report in 2004 found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” the attacks that al-Qaida masterminded, though it noted Saudi-linked charities could have diverted money to the group.

Particular scrutiny has centered on the first two hijackers to arrive in the U.S., Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar and support they received.

In February 2000, shortly after their arrival in southern California, they encountered at a halal restaurant a Saudi national named Omar al-Bayoumi who helped them find and lease an apartment in San Diego, had ties to the Saudi government and had earlier attracted FBI scrutiny.

Bayoumi has described his restaurant meeting with Hazmi and Mihdhar as a “chance encounter,” and the FBI during its interview made multiple attempts to ascertain if that characterization was accurate or if it had actually been arranged in advance, according to the document.

The 2015 interview that forms the basis of the document was of a man who was applying for U.S. citizenship and who years earlier had repeated contacts with Saudi nationals who investigators said provided “significant logistical support” to several of the hijackers. Among his contacts was Bayoumi, according to the document.

The man’s identity is redacted throughout the document, but he is described as having worked at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles.

Also referenced in the document is Fahad al-Thumairy, at the time an accredited diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles who investigators say led an extremist faction at his mosque. The document says communications analysis identified a seven-minute phone call in 1999 from Thumairy’s phone to the Saudi Arabian family home phone of two brothers who became future detainees at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison.

Both Bayoumi and Thumairy left the U.S. weeks before the attacks.

Source: AP

Phyllis Shallman – Why People Aren’t Going Back to Work

0

It’s official—Americans aren’t going back to work.

Even though there were 10 million job openings in June of 2021.¹

If you’ve been out and about, you’ve seen firsthand that jobs aren’t getting filled.

You may have noticed the signs at your local grocery store. Or the longer wait at your favorite restaurant. Or slower service from businesses you depend on.

They all stem from the same source. Americans aren’t rushing back to work.

But why? The COVID-19 pandemic caused mass unemployment and havoc for millions of American families. Wouldn’t they want to start earning money again, ASAP?

It’s not the unemployment benefits holding them back. Those dried up months ago, and the numbers still haven’t budged.

And again, it’s not that there aren’t jobs. There are millions of opportunities out there!

Here’s an idea—many people have woken up to the fact that most jobs suck.

Most jobs leave you completely at the mercy of your boss. If they mismanage the business, your job’s in danger. If you want a bigger bonus, your job’s in danger. If another pandemic breaks out, your job’s in danger.

They give you no control over your hours, your income, your location, or your future.

Who would want to go back to that?

Instead, Americans are looking for a better opportunity. They want control of their future, their wealth, and their hours. They want to replace the insecurity of a 9 to 5 with more reliable sources of income.

If they see an opportunity that checks those boxes, they’ll be willing to re-enter the workforce.

Americans are looking for a better path. The million dollar question is, who will provide it for them?

¹ “Many Americans aren’t going back to work, but it’s not for the reason you might expect,” Paul Brandus, MarketWatch Aug 14, 2021, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/many-americans-arent-going-back-to-work-but-its-not-for-the-reason-you-might-expect-11628772985

² “What states are ending federal unemployment benefits early? See who has cut the extra $300 a week,” Charisse Jones, USA Today, Jul 1, 2021, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/07/01/unemployment-benefits-covid-federal-aid-ending-early-many-states/7815341002/

Rabbi Jonathan Gewirtz – I’ve Had a Dream

0

Operation Inspiration

Throughout history, dreamers have shared their visions with others. Sometimes it was in the guise of some sort of prophecy, while other times it was an attempt to mobilize people for a cause, for the betterment of Mankind.

Some of these people have been hailed as visionaries and others as lunatics. History and time would prove whether their dreams were reasonable, fanciful, or downright ridiculous. Some are famous, like Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech in Washington, where he said that he dreamed of a future when people would be judged by their deeds and values instead of their looks. This is a dream that sadly hasn’t materialized in either direction, though it would be a better situation for all of us if that’s how we operated.

Today, though, I want to share some actual dreams I had. Not dreams in terms of some grandiose plan for humanity, but dreams, no, nightmares, that kept me from getting rest. Why would I do that? Because I think there’s something in these dreams that may benefit my readers.

Before we get to that, let’s discuss a few points that Chazal have said about dreams. A friend, Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld, shared this very definitive perspective on dreams on Aish.com:

Judaism sees dreams as usually inconsequential but once in a while significant. The Gemara (Brachos 55-57) discusses dreams at length and appears to make some contradictory statements about them. On the one hand, the Gemara calls dreams 1/60th of prophecy (57b). Likewise, in the Torah people such as Joseph and Pharaoh experienced prophetic dreams. The Gemara further lists many types of dreams (e.g., where a person sees certain objects or experiences certain events) and explains their significance.

On the other hand, the Gemara writes that the interpretation of dreams is in the hands of the interpreter (55b), and that an unexplained dream has no significance at all – as an unread letter (55a). The implication is that dreams are certainly not prophetic. They do not mean anything at all on their own. They can, however, be interpreted – and their interpretation will come true.

Finally, the Gemara states that people are shown in dreams that which they were thinking about during the day (55b), and that even significant dreams contain their share of nonsense (55a).”

So, the answer to the question, “Are dreams important?” is an emphatic, definite, “Maybe.” But whether dreams are a nevuah, a subtle message from our souls, or simply what we were thinking about, if they drive us to do things that are good, then we are “interpreting” them for good and we can use them to achieve great things.

This is the same as anything we see, waking or otherwise, which can be used as a catalyst for change, or perhaps ignored as meaningless, which could be a waste. But enough about the potential, you want to hear what keeps me awake at night (in a manner of speaking.) Well, the dreams changed a bit from time to time, but the recurring fear and dread related to situations in which I was preparing for Shabbos.

In one dream, it was Shabbos morning and we were coming home from shul with guests. Suddenly I realized I had not made a cholent the day before. I scrambled to see what food we could find to serve everyone and my frantic searches came up empty-handed, causing me great anxiety and dread.

In another dream, it was Erev Shabbos, but only by moments. My wife was not home and I was trying to manage (in a kitchen much larger than my own, I must say) putting things on the blech, in the oven, and into the crockpot as Kabbolas Shabbos loomed ever closer.

Please don’t question my ability to start things cooking so close to Shabbos. It was a dream and maybe I was holding like the Mordechai in terms of raw foods right before Shabbos or maybe things were mostly cooked before. It was a dream and there’s always something false in them so work with me here.

Anyway, as I ran around the kitchen, friends of ours arrived and for some reason they decided they HAD to hang out in the kitchen, impeding my progress, though they were just trying to be friendly. The clock continued to tick mercilessly until I, still fast asleep, davened, “Please help me Ribono Shel Olam!!!!” At that moment, I suddenly realized it was just a dream and not really happening. A moment later I woke up.

I had not been thinking about Shabbos at that point and interpreting your own dream is iffy, but I think that perhaps these dreams stemmed from one of my most deep-set fears. Chazal tell us, “One who prepares before Shabbos will eat on Shabbos.” This refers to taking advantage of Olam Hazeh to build up a storehouse of spiritual nourishment for Olam Haba. We won’t be here forever, and we don’t even know when Shabbos will start exactly.

If I want to eat on Shabbos, i.e., have a plan for the time when I can no longer perform mitzvos for reward, either because Olam Haba is ready for me, or Moshiach comes and the Yetzer Hara is shechted, then it would be terrifying to wait and delay thinking I can get started later.

I’ve had a dream, my friends, that one day we will not wait to start coming closer to Hashem. That we will not be distracted by our friends or activities or “things.” But instead, we will focus on doing the most we can in every moment, and continually building our nest egg so that when Shabbos arrives in whatever form it will take, we will be able to relax and enjoy it.

 

© 2021 – All Rights Reserved

Did you enjoy this column? Feedback is welcome and appreciated. E-mail info@JewishSpeechWriter.com to share your thoughts. You never know when you may be the lamp that enlightens someone else.

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks zt”l – Consensus vs. Command? (Vayelech 5782)

What do you say to your successor? What advice do you give them? Vayelech is the place to look for the answer, because it is here that Moses finally hands the reins over to Joshua, and he and God both give him a blessing for the future. But they give different blessings.

Listen to them and they sound almost the same. Moses says “Be strong and of good courage, for you will come [tavo] with this people into the land” (Deut. 31:7). God says, “Be strong and of good courage, for you will bring [tavi] the Israelites into the land” (Deut. 31:23). Tavo or tavi, “come with” or “bring.” The words sound and seem similar. But the difference as understood by the Sages was total.

Here is how Rashi puts it:

Moses said to Joshua, “Make sure that the elders of the generation are with you. Always act according to their opinion and advice.” However, the Holy One blessed be He said to Joshua, “For you will bring the Israelites into the land I promised them” – meaning, “Bring them even against their will. It all depends on you. If necessary, take a stick and beat them over the head. There is only one leader for a generation, not two.”

These are the two extremes of leadership: consensus or command. Moses advised Joshua to pursue a policy of consultation and conciliation. What he was saying in effect was, “You don’t need to follow the people. You are the leader, not they. But you do need to work with the elders. They too are leaders. They constitute, in effect, your team. They need to feel that they are part of the decision-making process. They will not expect you always to agree with them. Often they will not agree with one another. But they do need to feel consulted.

“If they sense that you are not interested in their opinions, if the impression they have of you is of a person determined to do things his way regardless of everyone else because you know better, they will attempt to sabotage you. They will do you harm. They may not succeed. You may survive. But you will be injured. You will limp. Your standing among the people will be diminished. They will say, how can we respect one who is not respected by the elders?

“I speak from experience. The Korach rebellion was serious. It was not just Korach; it was also the Reubenites, and other leaders from the various tribes. And though the rebellion was cut short in the most dramatic way possible, we were all diminished and nothing was quite the same ever again. So: make sure that the elders of the generation are with you. If they are, you will succeed.”

God, according to the Sages, took the opposite approach. “The time has come to leave the wilderness, cross the Jordan, conquer the land and build the kind of society that honours the human beings I made in My image instead of enslaving and exploiting them. Don’t look for consensus. You will never find it. People’s interests are different. Their perspectives are not the same. Politics is an arena of conflict. I did not want it to be that way, but having given humanity the gift of freedom, I cannot take it back and impose My will by force. So you must show the people the way.

“Lead from the front. Be clear. Be consistent. Be strong. The last person who gave the people what they wanted was Aaron and what they wanted was a Golden Calf. That was nearly the end of the Jewish people. Consensus, in politics or business or even in pursuit of truth, is not leadership but the abdication of leadership. I chose you to be Moses’ successor because I believe in you. Therefore, believe in yourself. Tell the people what they must do, and tell them why.

“Be respectful of them. By all means, listen to them. But at the end of the day the responsibility is yours. Leaders lead. They do not follow. And believe me, though they may criticise you now they will eventually admire you. People want their leaders to know the way, go the way and show the way. They want them to be decisive. Always treat people with the utmost courtesy and respect. But if they do not behave toward you as you do toward them, if they oppose and try to frustrate what you are doing, there may be no choice but to take a stick and hit them on the head. There is only one leader in a generation. If everyone is empowered, there is no music, only noise; no achievement, only an endless committee meeting at which everyone speaks and no one listens.”

Those were, then and now, the two great options. But notice something odd. The person urging consensus is Moses. But Moses never acted by consensus. This is the man who almost had to drag the people out of Egypt, through the sea, and across a howling desert, the man who did things of his own initiative without even asking God.

This is the man who broke the Tablets of Stone hewn and engraved by God Himself. When did Moses ever lead by consensus? To be sure he had seventy elders, princes of tribes, and a devolved structure of administration with heads of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens, but though they helped him, they did not advise him nor did he seek their advice. What suddenly turned Moses into a peacenik, a lead-by-consensus man?

That is one problem. The other is the advice given by God Himself: lead from the front, even against their will. But that is not how God acted, as understood by the Sages. This is what they said on the words immediately prior to the creation of humanity, “Let us make man in our image” (Gen. 1:26):

“Let Us make man”: From here we learn the humility of the Holy One, blessed be He. Since man was created in the likeness of the angels, and they would envy him, He consulted them…
Even though they [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel (to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies), Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one.[1]

The Sages, puzzled by the plural, “Let us make man,” interpreted it to mean that God consulted with the angels. Despite the fact that the use of the word “us” was dangerous – it could be read as compromising the pure monotheism of Judaism – nonetheless the principle of consultation is so important that the Torah takes the risk of being open to misinterpretation. God consults, according to the Sages. “God does not act tyrannically toward His creatures.” (Avoda Zara 3a)

To be sure, the Sages said that at Sinai God suspended the mountain above the Israelites and said, “If you say ‘No,’ this will be your grave.” (Shabbat 88a) But this is not the plain sense of the verse. To the contrary, before he gave the Torah to Israel he commanded Moses to explain to the people what was being proposed (Ex. 19:4-6). And it was only when the people – “all the people together” (Ex. 19:8) “with one voice” (Ex. 24:3) – that the covenant was made. That is the biblical basis for the idea, in the American Declaration of Independence, that governments gain their authority from “the consent of the governed.” The very act of giving humans freedom means that God never forces us against our will. As Eisenhower once said, “Hitting people over the head is not leadership: it is assault.” So why was God here, as it were, speaking out of character?

The answer, it seems to me, is this: Both God and Moses wanted Joshua to know that true leadership cannot be a one-sided affair, be it the pursuit of consensus or command-and-control.  It must be a deft balance of both. They wanted Joshua to hear this in the most striking way, so each said what they were least expected to say.

Moses, whom everyone associated with strong, decisive leadership, in effect told Joshua, “Don’t forget to strive for consensus. Your task is not what mine was. I had to take people out of slavery. You have to lead them into a land of freedom. Freedom means taking people seriously. The leadership of a free people involves listening, respecting and striving for consensus wherever possible.”

God, who gave humans their freedom and never imposed Himself on people against their will, said, “Joshua, I am God; you are not. I have to respect people’s freedom. I have to let them go the way they are determined to go, even if it is wrong and self-destructive. But you are a human among humans and it is your task to show them the way that leads to justice, compassion and the good society. If the people do not agree with you, you have to teach them, persuade them, but ultimately you have to lead them, because if everyone does what is right in their own eyes, that is not freedom but chaos.”

In short, leadership is not simple. It is complex because it involves people and people are complex. You have to listen, and you have to lead. You have to strive for consensus but ultimately, if there is none, you must take the risk of deciding. Had they waited for consensus Lincoln, would never have ended slavery, Roosevelt and Churchill would never have led the free world to victory, and Ben Gurion would never have proclaimed the State of Israel.

It is not the job of leaders to give people what they want. It is the job of leaders to teach people what they ought to want. But at the same time they must involve people in the decision-making process. Key figures and constituencies must feel that they were consulted. Collaborative, consultative, listening leadership is essential in a free society. Otherwise, there is autocracy tempered by assassination.[2]

Leaders must be teachers but also learners. They must be visionaries and yet have time for the details. They must push people but never too far, too fast, or they will fail. They must speak to the better angels of our nature, teaching us to love not hate, forgive not seek revenge. They must always prefer the peaceful solution to the one that involves taking a stick and hitting people on the head, even though they are prepared to do so if there is no alternative. Leaders must be capable of more than one style of leadership. Otherwise, as Abraham Maslow said, “Those who only have a hammer treat every problem as if it were a nail.”[3]

Considering the effort, energy, stress and pain, why anyone should seek to be a leader would remain a mystery, were it not for this luminous truth: there is no better way to flood life with meaning than to have lifted others and helped them to a greatness they never knew they had; to have together with others righted some of the wrongs of this injured earth and its creatures; to have acted rather than waited for others to act, and to have brought others with you, for the greatest leader on earth or in heaven cannot lead alone.

These are what make leadership the greatest privilege by which any of us can be blessed. As Moses said to Joshua, “Happy are you to have merited leading the children of God.” (Rashi to Num. 27:18) The crown of leadership is invisible, yet you know who is wearing it and who is not. It is there, in front of you, waiting for you to put it on.[4] Wear it with pride and may all you do be blessed.


[1] Rashi to Genesis 1:27; Genesis Rabbah, 8.

[2] A phrase attributed to Voltaire but actually from German diplomat Georg Herbert zu Munster (1820–1902).

[3] The Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 15–16.

[4] Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:1.

‘Day of rage’ declared by Palestinian terror groups upset by prison crackdown

A Palestinian Foreign Ministry statement claims that Israel is “guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity”.

Terror groups including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have announced a “day of rage” for this Friday, encouraging Palestinians to take to the streets to demonstrate and violently confront Israeli security forces due to new prison policies.

“In light of the frenzied attack against our prisoners, we call on our Palestinian people to make Friday a day of Palestinian rage in the face of the arrogance of the occupation and its aggression against the prisoners,” read a statement from Hamas, which added that Palestinians should “head towards [checkpoints] and clash with the enemy army.”

Earlier this week, six prisoners, most of whom are affiliated with PIJ, escaped from Gilboa Prison after a series of embarrassing security blunders.

In response, Israel’s prisons commissioner has put forth new policies aimed at stepping up security.

Hundreds of PIJ prisoners are slated to be transferred from prisons in Israel’s north to the south. Additionally, members of the movement will be forbidden from sharing cells with one another.

Family visits for Palestinian security prisoners have been suspended indefinitely.

The announcement of the policies has enraged Palestinian terror groups, who called the measures “repressive” and provocative enough to spark “a new intifada.”

A source within the Palestinian Authority told the Jerusalem Post that “Israel is playing with fire. The issue of the prisoners is extremely sensitive. The situation is very dangerous.”

Wasel Abu Youssef, Secretary General of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), said the Palestinian people reject the “policy of harassment and Israeli violations against [the prisoners.]”

“What is required is a large popular rally in all [Palestinian] governorates, including Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, in support of the prisoners,” he told the Middle East Eye.

Ramallah-based PIJ official Sheikh Khader Adnan told Arabic-language media that Palestinians should “rejoice” over the escape of the “heroic” prisoners, adding that “the battle for the freedom of the prisoners is the battle of all Palestinians and the free people of the world.”

In a statement, the Palestinian Foreign Ministry called the new Israeli policies tantamount to “war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

Governors Immediately Push Back On ‘Unconstitutional’ Biden Vaccination Plan: ‘Will Fight Them To The Gates Of Hell’

0

Numerous governors have issued statements following Democrat President Joe Biden’s speech on Thursday signaling that they will strongly oppose his attempts to mandate vaccines.

Immediate reaction from governors:

  • Tate Reeves, Mississippi: “The President has no authority to require that Americans inject themselves because of their employment at a private business. The vaccine itself is life-saving, but this unconstitutional move is terrifying. This is still America, and we still believe in freedom from tyrants.”
  • Brian Kemp, Georgia: “I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden administration.”
  • Kristi Noem, South Dakota: “My legal team is standing by ready to file our lawsuit the minute @joebiden files his unconstitutional rule. This gross example of federal intrusion will not stand.”
  • Henry McMaster, South Carolina: “The American Dream has turned into a nightmare under President Biden and the radical Democrats. They have declared war against capitalism, thumbed their noses at the Constitution, and empowered our enemies abroad.Rest assured, we will fight them to the gates of hell to protect the liberty and livelihood of every South Carolinian.”
  • Doug Ducey, Arizona: “This is exactly the kind of big government overreach we have tried so hard to prevent in Arizona — now the Biden-Harris administration is hammering down on private businesses and individual freedoms in an unprecedented and dangerous way. This will never stand up in court.This dictatorial approach is wrong, un-American and will do far more harm than good. How many workers will be displaced? How many kids kept out of classrooms? How many businesses fined? The vaccine is and should be a choice. We must and will push back.”(Daily Wire).

Birthright to Resume Trips – No Quarantine in Israel for Those Fully Vaccinated

0

Participants will still have to do PCR and serological tests upon arrival.

Birthright Israel received confirmation from the Israeli Ministry of Health that it can resume its trips to Israel, Jewish News Syndicate has learned.

The first Birthright Israel trip since the start of the coronavirus pandemic took place in May, but the 10-day programs were stopped again in August due to new travel restrictions aimed at curbing the Delta variant of the virus.

To join a Birthright trip, participants must now be fully vaccinated with two or three shots of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, with no more than a six-month gap from the last shot and the trip’s departure date. Alternately, they can be fully vaccinated by one shot of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine with no more than a six-month gap from the shot until their trip’s departure.

Birthright Israel will not have to enforce a seven-day quarantine period for people who have completed their vaccination process within the past five months.

Those who have recovered from COVID-19 and received at least one FDA-approved vaccine, also no more than six months from the last shot until the trip’s departure date, can also join a trip.

A person is considered fully vaccinated seven days after receiving the final shot. Participants will still have to do PCR and serological tests when arriving in Israel and wait for PCR results before starting the trip.

(United with Israel).

After Newsom recall, California Democrats eye changes to state’s direct democracy system

0

Regardless of whether Gov. Gavin Newsom survives the Sept. 14 recall election, Democrats in the nation’s largest state are eying big changes to the recall system.

“I have talked to several key legislators who are ready to rip apart the recall process and put it back together,” Garry South, a Democratic consultant and former senior political adviser to Gray Davis, the governor recalled in 2003, told Fox News.

“Two of the last elected Democratic governors have been subjected to recall elections in the last 18 years.”

Some of the changes under consideration include a malfeasance standard, hiking the number of signatures required to qualify a recall for the ballot, and requiring more signatures from the party of the official targeted for recall.

State lawmakers have already considered bills that would ban paying people to gather signatures, one to require voters to read a list of a recall or referendum’s top contributors before signing a petition, and one allowing a politician facing a recall to also run as a replacement candidate.

If Newsom is recalled, conservative commentator Larry Elder leads among more than 40 replacement candidates – but has less than 30% in most polls. This could galvanize Democrats to push changes to the state constitution.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Newsom appointee who supervises elections, has called for a higher signature threshold and questioned whether a candidate with less than a majority of the vote should be able to win.

Under current rules, South said, the recall law is more advantageous to Republicans.

“This is not about the pandemic. This is not about homelessness. This is not about wildfires. This is not about The French Laundry,” South said. “Republicans haven’t won a statewide election since 2006. Republicans can’t win statewide straight up, so they have to use recall as a crowbar to pry open the back door. We should not have recall elections 14 months from a scheduled gubernatorial election.”

Beyond the recall, California is known for direct democracy through frequent ballot referendums, which have also occasionally irked Democrats with a two-thirds majority in the state legislature.

“Democrats in the legislature, since they gained supermajority status, have unleashed an unrelenting assault on direct democracy,” Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, a conservative advocacy group, told Fox News.

“The tools of direct democracy, put in place by an early progressive — Hiram Johnson — are a threat to the power structure and to an indolent legislature.”

Johnson was the progressive Republican governor in 1911 who helped push the recall provision into the state constitution.

Narrowing the grounds for recall and increasing the number of signatures needed would only be a way to make it more difficult for citizens to hold public officials accountable, Coupal said.

“Liberals and conservatives both like the referendum and recall,” Coupal said. “Even if they think the process is being abused, they won’t like a direct assault on it. Giving voters a choice is not a problem here. A lot of people are upset by the iron grip of one party.”

A July poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found 86% of respondents support having the recall. But 60% back only allowing an official to be recalled because of illegal or unethical activity, and 55% support raising the bar for signatures from 12% of the voters that voted in the last election to 25%. Further, the poll found 68% support having a runoff between the top two if none of the replacement candidates get more than 50% of the vote.

The state should consider a bipartisan commission to determine recall reforms, said Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California.

“Regardless of how [the recall election] turns out, it will take a lot of discussion and bipartisan support for changes,” Baldassare told Fox News. “My understanding is that any substantive changes requires voter approval. We have a two-thirds Democratic supermajority in the legislature. But changes should be bipartisan to have legitimacy with all of the voters.”

Of 20 states that allow voters to recall governors, most require a signature threshold of 25% of the number of voters that cast ballots in the previous governor’s race, according to Ballotpedia, compared to 12% in California. Still, California has a significantly larger voter base than most other states, so this perhaps isn’t an entirely apt comparison.

Besides California, only two states have ever had recall elections for governors: Wisconsin in 2011 and North Dakota in 1921. These states and most others allow recall for almost any reason. But Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island and Washington require misconduct in office, or physical or mental unfitness for office, according to Ballotpedia.

Coupal said a Newsom victory would make the changes more likely.

“If Newsom wins big, he may feel emboldened. If he barely hangs on, Democrats may feel they have to make changes to keep it from happening again,” Coupal said.

“It’s a tougher argument to make changes if recall does succeed. Then it looks like if they lose, they change the rules.”

(Fox News).

Sweeping New Vaccine Mandates For 100 Million Americans

0

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Thursday is announcing sweeping new federal vaccine requirements affecting as many as 100 million Americans in an all-out effort to increase COVID-19 vaccinations and curb the surging delta variant that is killing thousands each week and jeopardizing the nation’s economic recovery.

The expansive rules mandate that all employers with more than 100 workers require them to be vaccinated or test for the virus weekly, affecting about 80 million Americans. And the roughly 17 million workers at health facilities that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid also will have to be fully vaccinated.

Biden is also signing an executive order to require vaccination for employees of the executive branch and contractors who do business with the federal government — with no option to test out. That covers several million more workers.

Biden was to announce the new requirements in a Thursday afternoon address from the White House as part of a new “action plan” to address the latest rise in coronavirus cases and the stagnating pace of COVID-19 shots that has raised doubts among the public over his handling of the pandemic.

Just two months ago Biden prematurely declared the nation’s “independence” from the virus. Now, despite more than 208 million Americans having at least one dose of the vaccines, the U.S. is seeing about 300% more new COVID-19 infections a day, about two-and-a-half times more hospitalizations, and nearly twice the number of deaths compared to the same time last year.

Biden’s plans were previewed Thursday afternoon by White House press secretary Jen Psaki and other senior administration officials ahead of the speech.

After months of using promotions to drive the vaccination rate, Biden is taking a much firmer hand, as his aides blame people who have not yet received shots for the sharp rise in cases that is killing more than 1,000 people per day and imperiling a fragile economic rebound.

Psaki said Biden’s “overarching objective here is to reduce the number of unvaccinated Americans,” noting about 80 million adults remain unvaccinated.

An AP-NORC poll conducted in August found that 54% of Americans approved of Biden’s stewardship of the public health crisis, down from 66% the month before, driven by a drop in support from Republicans and political independents.

In addition to the vaccination requirements, Biden is moving to double federal fines for airline passengers who refuse to wear masks on flights or to maintain face covering requirements on federal property in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.

Biden was also to announce that the federal government will work to increase the supply of virus tests, and that the White House has secured concessions from retailers including Walmart, Amazon, and Kroger to sell at-home testing kits at cost beginning this week.

The administration is also to send additional federal support to assist schools in safely operating, including additional funding for testing. And Biden will call for large entertainment venues and arenas to require vaccinations or proof of a negative test for entry.

The requirement for large companies to mandate vaccinations or weekly testing for employees will be enacted through a forthcoming rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that carries penalties of $14,000 per violation, an administration official said. The White House did not immediately say when it would take effect, but said workers would have sufficient time to get vaccinated.

The rule would also require that large companies provide paid time off for vaccination.

Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will extend a vaccination requirement issued earlier this summer — for nursing home staff — to other healthcare settings including hospitals, home-health agencies and dialysis centers.

Separately, the Department of Health and Human Services will require vaccinations in Head Start Programs, as well as schools run by the Department of Defense and Bureau of Indian Education, affecting about 300,000 employees.

Biden’s order for executive branch workers and contractors includes exceptions for workers seeking religious or medical exemptions from vaccination, according to Psaki. Federal workers and contractors will have 75 days to get fully vaccinated. Workers who don’t comply will be referred to their agencies’ human resources departments for counseling and discipline, to include potential termination.

“We would like to be a model” to other organizations and business around country, Psaki said of the federal workforce. The AP-NORC poll found 55% of Americans in favor of requiring government workers to be fully vaccinated, compared with 21% opposed.

Biden has encouraged COVID-19 vaccine requirements in settings like schools, workplaces and university campuses, and the White House hopes the strengthened federal mandate will inspire more businesses to follow suit. On Thursday, the Los Angeles Board of Education was expected to vote on requiring all students 12 and older to be fully vaccinated in the the nation’s second-largest school district.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Health and Human Services, the Indian Health Service, and the National Institutes of Health have previously announced vaccine requirements for much of their staffs, and the Pentagon moved last month to require all servicemembers to get vaccinated. Combined, the White House estimates those requirements cover 2.5 million Americans. Thursday’s order is expected to impact nearly 2 million more federal workers and potentially millions of contractors.

More than 177 million are fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, but confirmed cases of the virus have shot up in recent weeks to an average of about 140,000 per day with on average about 1,000 Americans dying from the virus daily, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Most of the spread — and the vast majority of severe illness and death — is occurring among those not yet fully vaccinated against the virus. So-called breakthrough infections in vaccinated people occur, but tend to be far less dangerous.

“We cannot accept this to be the new normal,” said Dr. Leana Wen, a former Baltimore health commissioner who comments regularly on the pandemic.. If the pandemic continues unabated, it will mean 500,000 deaths a year. “Surely no one wants that.”

Wen has been urging the White House to take a stronger line on vaccine requirements, including the use of so-called vaccine “passports” for travel and workplace mandates that leave little wiggle room.

“I want to see the full power of the federal government here, and not more half measures,” she said. “I want to see a hard reset from the Biden administration, not more nibbling around the edges.”

Federal officials are moving ahead with plans to begin administering booster shots of the mRNA vaccines to bolster protection against the more transmissible delta variant of the virus. Last month Biden announced plans to make them available beginning on Sept. 20, but only the Pfizer vaccine will likely have received regulatory approval for a third dose by that time. Federal regulators are seeking additional data from Moderna that will likely delay its booster approval until October.

Officials are aiming to administer the booster shots about eight months after the second dose of the two-dose vaccines.

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com