Jordan shut down its airspace in advance. Israel closed its schools and educational centers in anticipation. And, as predicted, Iran launched missiles at Israel on Saturday, using a combination of drones and other aircraft. Iran also captured a Portuguese ship in the shipping lanes of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, saying the ship has ties to Israel.
The aggression was in retaliation for Israel’s attack on Iran’s embassy in Syria two weeks ago, when Israel took out top terrorists with a missile strike. Israel is attacking Iran because it is one of the prime sponsors of terrorism and underwrites the Hamas fighters that started the war on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
“Iran launched UAVs from within its territory toward Israel a short while ago. The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] is on high alert and is constantly monitoring the operational situation. The IDF Aerial Defense Array is on high alert, along with IAF fighter jets and Israeli Navy vessels that are on a defense mission in Israeli air and naval space. The IDF is monitoring all targets,” the Israel Defense Forces said.
A day earlier, a reported 40 launches were identified crossing from Lebanese territory, some of which were intercepted, the IDF said.
On Friday, during an address to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network group, President Biden said his message to Iran is “don’t” attack Israel, but had just predicted an attack would come “sooner than later.”
FlightRadar.com showed that the Israeli “doomsday plane” had left the country’s airspace and may have Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on board.
“Iran will bear the consequences for choosing to escalate the situation any further,” said IDF Spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari in a broadcast statement:
“Iran will bear the consequences for choosing to escalate the situation any further.”
Watch IDF Spokesperson RAdm. Daniel Hagari’s statement regarding Iranian involvement in the war and its effect on the Middle East: pic.twitter.com/AdaJB2WtJd
It’s the 18th victory at the Supreme Court for the Pacific Legal Foundation. A decision announced Friday was also a victory for property owners.
The case involved a California man who wanted to put a small manufactured house on a rural vacant lot, where he and his wife could raise their grandson. He was slapped with a $23,000 traffic mitigation fee by the local El Dorado County in 2016.
George Sheetz challenged the fee and said it was unconstitutional.
The justices were unanimous in their decision in Sheetz v. El Dorado County, saying that government fees must have a “roughly proportional” to the impact that the proposed action is likely to have.
The Court held that fees also known as “legislative exactions” must satisfy the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions — meaning they must be closely related and proportional to any adverse public impacts caused by development and no more, Pacific Legal Foundation explained.
The county’s argument was that Sheetz was required to pay the fee to address existing and future road deficiencies.
“Holding building permits hostage in exchange for excessive development fees is obviously extortion,” said Paul Beard, partner at Pierson Ferdinand and co-counsel in the case. “We are thrilled that the Court agreed and put a stop to a blatant attempt to skirt the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against taking private property without just compensation.”
“Thus, the County imposed the fee without any evidence tying George’s new home to any specific public costs or impacts,” the nonprofit legal group said.
The Court returned the case to the Ninth Circuit to determine if $23,000 is “an exaction subject to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. If so, the lower court must determine whether the fee was disproportionate to the traffic impact caused by a modest manufactured home in a rural area, and thus, unconstitutional,” Pacific Legal Foundation explained.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the opinion: “In sum, there is no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The Takings Clause applies equally to both—which means that it prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.”
The Alaska Senate passed Senate Bill 88, legislation that would revive a pension plan that was retired by the Legislature in 2006, when it became clear that such pensions were unsustainable for the State budget. Newer hires in public employee jobs were put into 401(k) contribution plans that built retirement accounts for their later years.
SB 88’s sponsors are Big Government Democrats and nominal Republicans, including Sens. Cathy Giessel, Click Bishop, Gary Stevens, Jesse Kiehl, Scott Kawasaki, Loki Tobin, Bill Wielechowski, Elvi Gray-Jackson, Forrest Dunbar, Matt Claman, and Donny Olson. They are backed by the biggest unions in the state, including ASEA and AFL-CIO.
On the House side, sponsors are Reps. Ashley Carrick, Cal Schrage, Andy Josephson, Jennie Armstrong, Alyse Galvin, Rebecca Himschoot, Andrew Gray, and Cliff Groh, all Big-Government Democrats or “independents” who use the nonpartisan label for cover.
That bill, transmitted to the House on Feb. 2, is now in the House State Affairs Committee.
Meanwhile, in Illinois, a harbinger of what awaits other states that go deeper into pensions. A proposed Tier 2 pension change may cost taxpayers billions of dollars at a time when the Illinois state pension plan is already on the verge of collapse.
According to theIllinois Policy Institute, pensions with funding ratios under 60% are deeply troubled and plans with funding ratios under 40% are likely to be past the point of no return.
Illinois, at 44% funding ratio, is home to the nation’s worst pension crisis and Chicago alone faces more pension debt than 44 states. And the reason? Much of it is due to galloping pay raises for public employees.
State Rep. Blaine Wilhour, R-Beecher City, told The Center Square that the early conversations were about fixing Tier 2 to ensure it didn’t get employees hurt by the “safe harbor” rule, a requirement in which some public employees do not have to pay into Social Security, since they’re covered by pension plans that are equivalent to Social Security benefits.
“I suspected at the time [the conversation] would transform into a massive pension enhancement the taxpayers simply can’t afford,” Wilhour told The Center Square. “We passed through the pensions committee a couple bills that are going to put billions of dollars onto the taxpayer when property taxes are already out of control. Let’s be honest about the conversation we are having. Are we trying to fix the Tier 2 system or are we trying to do a massive pension enhancement?”
Wilhour said nobody has been able to show lawmakers where a single pensioner is going to fall below safe harbor. State Rep. Stephanie Kifowit, D-Oswego, said there was expert testimony last summer.
“We had extensive subject matter hearings regarding safe harbor last summer and there were examples from both the Teacher Retirement System and State University Retirement System of individuals that would trigger safe harbor,” Kifowit told The Center Square. “So his [Wilhour’s] statement is technically false. I’m not sure what he’s basing it on. We had expert testimony that said we would trigger the safe harbor provision with regards to individuals that are retiring as soon as this year or next year.”
Illinois has an unfunded pension liability of $143 billion. Just two years ago it was $120 billion.
To compare, the State of Alaska’s unfunded pension liability is $6.7 billion, whereas two years ago it was $4.48 billion. Even with its pension plan closed over 15 years ago, its obligation continues to those pensioners who were in the system. In the early days of the Alaska Tier 1 pension, workers could retire and begin drawing their pensions at age 50. Some pensioners drew large pensions for nearly half of their lives.
That’s not the pension plan being proposed by SB 88, however. This is a modified pension plan, but it still contains the fiscal risks that other set pension plans carry. SB 88 would amend the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Alaska and the teachers’ retirement system to give certain employees the option to choose between the defined benefit and defined contribution plans of these retirement systems. The bill offers increased benefit payments to some disabled members or those aged 60 or older.
“We need to put efficiency back into state government by reducing the constant churn of employees,” said Senate Majority Leader Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage and the bill’s prime sponsor. She believes by returning to defined benefits, more employees will stay in government work, and thus, government will be more efficient.
Another Alaska bill seeking changes for state worker retirements is House Bill 302, which would improve the defined contribution benefits currently offered to the state’s teachers, police, and firefighters.
HB 302 would boost state contributions into the defined contribution accounts of public safety workers, and it would give public school teachers access to the Supplemental Benefit System-Annuity Plan, which other government workers in the state have access to.
But both SB 88 and HB 302 are in the House State Affairs Committee, with Sunday, April 14 being the 90th day of the Legislature this year, and only one month to go until the House speaker and Senate president must gavel out on the 121st day, leaving any unfinished work to either die or be taken up in a special session.
Contributions from both Must Read Alaska and The Center Square are in this news story.
It’s a blow to school choice and a slap in the face of educational freedom: An Alaska Superior Court judge has made a stunning ruling against the State of Alaska in a case involving how the state financially helps families with funding for correspondence schools.
The lawsuit filed in 2023 sought to ban the use of state allotments for private or religious education. The judge agreed, and ruled that “AS 14.03.300-.310 must be struck down as unconstitutional in their entirety.” The statutes in question authorize all public correspondence school programs in the state.
The State of Alaska will appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court, Must Read Alaska has learned.
The ruling impacts 24,518 students, fully 17.3% of all Alaska enrollment in the 28 districts that have programs. It impacts the $119,559,805 these districts get in state funding.
If this ruling were to stand, there would be no public correspondence school options in Alaska and families currently in correspondence school would be forced to pay for what is otherwise public schooling out of their own pockets.
But the ruling is not in effect yet. Parents and school districts do not have to close down correspondence schools; the State Department of Law will ask for a stay until this is sorted out.
The case was filed last year by a group backed by the National Education Association-Alaska, with liberal activist attorney Scott Kendall (Alaskans for Better Elections fame) as one of the lawyers suing the state.
The plaintiffs were parents of students in public schools who were not using state-approved correspondence programs but offended that others use them and are reimbursed by state funds. The defendant was Acting Education Commissioner Heidi Teshner.
Students enrolled in an approved state correspondence program can use the annual allotment to homeschool or instruction provided by a private school, with allotments running between $2,000 and $4,000. It allows parents to opt their children out of troubled, sometimes violent, and provably low-performing public schools in Alaska.
“This suit challenges AS 14.03.300-.310, which is being used to reimburse parents for thousands of dollars in private educational institution services using public funds thereby indirectly funding private education in violation of Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution,” the lawsuit said.
The funding for correspondence programs came from Senate Bill 100 in 2013, sponsored by then-Sen. Mike Dunleavy. In his sponsor statement back then, Dunleavy wrote, “[m]ost [correspondence programs] provide a student allotment to purchase educational services or materials to meet the student’s Individual Learning Plan (ILP). Under SB 100, a parent may purchase services and materials from a private or religious organization with a student’s allotment to meet the student’s ILP.”
SB 100 was introduced as part of a legislative package which included Senate‘ Joint Resolution 9 (“SJR 9”), which contained two proposed amendments to the Alaska State Constitution. The first amendment proposed deleting the final sentence of Article VII, Section I of the Alaska State Constitution which provides, “[n]o money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” In 2014, successfully sponsored a bill that further enabled parents to be reimbursed for nonpublic education.
Judge Adolf Zeman ruled that there was an acknowledgement back in 2013 and later in 2014 that the change would require a constitutional amendment.
Zeman ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state to pay for educational services from private organization using private funds, because it is in contravention of Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution.
The plaintiffs suggested that the matter could be remedied if the state simply strikes the words “private, or religious” from the statute and require people to purchase the educational support from the state. The judge appeared to agree, but he went much further in an example of judicial activism: In a case that only asked for the allotments to be changed, he threw out the entire correspondence program.
Judge Zeman wrote, “If the legislature believes these expenditures are necessary — then it is up to them to craft constitutional legislation to serve that purpose — that is not this Court’s role.”
Alaska Statute 14.03.300(a) provides that under a “correspondence study program” an individual learning plan is developed in collaboration with the student, the parent or guardian of the student, a certified teacher assigned to the student, and other individuals involved in the student’s learning plan. To meet instructional expenses, AS 14.03.310(a) allows a district to provide an annual student allotment to a parent or guardian of a student enrolled in the correspondence study program. A parent or guardian may purchase nonsectarian services and materials from a public, private, or religious organization with a student allotment if they are consistent with the ‘individual learning plan. AS 14.03.310(b).
This story will be updated as more details are known.
My good friend in Kiev (former Soviet Union), Slava Pilman, was a promising and struggling artist of visual art. In the early 1970s, he admired Western modern art of the mid-19th and early 20th centuries, including Impressionism (Claude Monet, Vincent Van Gogh), Cubism (Pablo Picasso), Surrealism (Salvador Dali), Fauvism (Henri Matisse), Expressionism (Edvard Munch) and several other styles of modern art; but he had no passion and tolerance for the Socialist Realism style.
From about the 1930s to the late 1980s, Socialist Realism was the official cultural doctrine of the Soviet Union. This style mandated an idealized representation of life and cultural traditions under socialism in literature and the visual arts. The doctrine was first proclaimed by the First Congress of Soviet Writers in 1934, which approved the standardized method for Soviet cultural production in all media.
Soon after the October Socialist Revolution in Russia in 1917, Vladimir Lenin laid down his thoughts on what purpose visual art must serve working masses. He believed that it was important that visual art was no longer a domain of the upper classes and the bourgeoisie. He stated that, “… art belongs to the people. It must leave its deepest roots in the very thick of the working masses.”
Writers and artists were required to follow the party line on style, especially under Joseph Stalin’s political rule (1922-1953). Moscow University and Moscow Metro are clear symbols of Stalinist’s architecture style. Then, socialist realism was seen as the means of educating people, so any deviance was often punishable by the NKVD/KGB (Soviet Secret Police) with varying harsh outcomes.
During the Nikita Khrushchev era (1957-1964), literature and visual art were still stagnant. Khrushchev declared: “As long as I am President of the Council of Ministers, we are going to support genuine art. We aren’t going to give a kopeck [cent] for pictures painted by jackasses. History can be our judge. For the time being history has put us at the head of this state, and we have to answer for everything that goes on in it.”
Leonid Brezhnev’s stagnant political era (1964-1982) in the Soviet Union continued to be sanctioned by only one artistic style—Socialist Realism. Paintings and sculptures emphasized idealized figures heroically enduring hardships and overcoming unjust opposition on a relentless crusade for progress and prosperity toward “delusional” communism.
So, Slava Pilman, as well as many other intellectuals in the Soviet Union, was trapped in the illusive socialist reality. I kept advising Slava to compromise and adjust his artistic style to the existing socialist environment, “Slava, paint cows, peasants and workers, otherwise you will starve to death.” Slava’s usual response was, “I am a free artist, and I will paint what I see and think, not what they want me to see and think.” “Slava, you are free from a job,” I reminded him, “… and you are going to die in the Gulag (Soviet labor camp) as a free man.”
I left the Soviet Union on March 16, 1977 under the status of a political refugee; and I lost track of my friend Slava Pilman. One day, however, Slava’s predicament re-appeared in my memories when in 1986 the Soviet delegation visited Juneau. Then, I was teaching archaeology, history and Russian Studies at the University of Alaska Southeast; I was frequently called to translate/assist for various delegations from the Soviet Union, visiting Alaska.
That delegation consisted of six high-ranking Soviet officials; it was sponsored by the Rotary International. My close friend, the late Bill Ruddy and his wife Kathy Kolhorst hosted and guided this group. Vladimir Nadein, a letters editor of the Izvestiya (News) newspaper was one of the guests in this group. Then, Izvestiya was the second largest newspaper after Pravda (Truth) in the Soviet Union, with a circulation of several million copies, which context was tightly controlled by the Communist Party “watch dogs and gate keepers.”
One day, Nadein asked me, “Sasha (Alexander), is there any way we can visit the State Archives? I am curious if we can locate any existing first-hand documents related to the Alaska-Siberia Lend-Lease Program during WWII.” Per his request, I took him to the State Library and in about 10 minutes the librarian brought us several original documents of the ALSIB program. “Remarkable,” Nadein proclaimed. “It would take months just to get permission to request the information in our State archives.” He examined the documents with a great interest and took some notes.
In fact, the editors of the major newspapers in the former Soviet Union, for the most part, were political appointees, with the connection to the State Secret Police. Their job was to suppress freedom of speech and advocate socialist propaganda.
I have never expected that today’s progressive American media, including our own Juneau Empire, would resemble far-left Soviet style practices—poorly edited publications, unchecked primary sources, and, periodically, publication of poorly written, misleading, and fabricated articles. No surprise that newspapers in Alaska (e.g., Juneau Empire since arrival of a current editor in June/July of 2023) are losing their readership.
As one of the commentators of my article “Plagiarism vs. Fabrication” published in Must Read Alaska on April 6 observed: “Every day, I wonder and despair about the condition of the media. I’ve always said, ‘why isn’t lying against the law?’ It is so common, not only in the media, but in our government, which has failed us miserably.” Sad!
Alexander B. Dolitsky was born and raised in Kiev in the former Soviet Union. He received an M.A. in history from Kiev Pedagogical Institute, Ukraine, in 1976; an M.A. in anthropology and archaeology from Brown University in 1983; and was enroled in the Ph.D. program in Anthropology at Bryn Mawr College from 1983 to 1985, where he was also a lecturer in the Russian Center. In the U.S.S.R., he was a social studies teacher for three years, and an archaeologist for five years for the Ukranian Academy of Sciences. In 1978, he settled in the United States. Dolitsky visited Alaska for the first time in 1981, while conducting field research for graduate school at Brown. He lived first in Sitka in 1985 and then settled in Juneau in 1986. From 1985 to 1987, he was a U.S. Forest Service archaeologist and social scientist. He was an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Russian Studies at the University of Alaska Southeast from 1985 to 1999; Social Studies Instructor at the Alyeska Central School, Alaska Department of Education from 1988 to 2006; and has been the Director of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center (see www.aksrc.homestead.com) from 1990 to present. He has conducted about 30 field studies in various areas of the former Soviet Union (including Siberia), Central Asia, South America, Eastern Europe and the United States (including Alaska). Dolitsky has been a lecturer on the World Discoverer, Spirit of Oceanus, andClipper Odyssey vessels in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. He was the Project Manager for the WWII Alaska-Siberia Lend Lease Memorial, which was erected in Fairbanks in 2006. He has published extensively in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology, and ethnography. His more recent publications include Fairy Tales and Myths of the Bering Strait Chukchi, Ancient Tales of Kamchatka; Tales and Legends of the Yupik Eskimos of Siberia; Old Russia in Modern America: Russian Old Believers in Alaska; Allies in Wartime: The Alaska-Siberia Airway During WWII; Spirit of the Siberian Tiger: Folktales of the Russian Far East; Living Wisdom of the Far North: Tales and Legends from Chukotka and Alaska; Pipeline to Russia; The Alaska-Siberia Air Route in WWII; and Old Russia in Modern America: Living Traditions of the Russian Old Believers; Ancient Tales of Chukotka, and Ancient Tales of Kamchatka.
Puget Sound Energy, the state’s largest utility provider, is facing a significant energy shortage by the end of the decade unless it finds more resources. One of its officials recently acknowledged the plan could initially include natural gas.
According to a recent presentation to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, PSE’s Vice President for Clean Energy Strategy and Planning Josh Jacobs said that the utility could have a 2,700 megawatt capacity shortage by 2030.
Among the reasons for the energy shortage is a provision under the Clean Energy Transformation Act of 2019 prohibiting utilities from using electricity derived from coal-fire plants starting in 2025. According to Jacobs, it will represent a loss of 750 megawatts in electrical power moving forward that will need to be replaced with something else.
Coal is among several energy sources, such as natural gas, that has been the target of efforts to “decarbonize” the state’s energy sector. While natural gas could be kept around to aid the transition away from carbon-emitting electricity sources, new houses may not be able to use it for cooking and heating if an updated building code currently under legal challenge is upheld.
Jacobs told the council that resource adequacy is “certainly a theme within the walls of PSE.”
Overall, in just six years the utility will need to expand its current energy capacity by 6,700 megawatts to comply with CETA and meet demand, which Jacobs described as a “daunting challenge” because it “is more generation than we’ve invested in over the last 100 years.”
Although PSE could utilize energy sources that allow for four-hour storage, Jacobs said “we need to pair with something that’s longer.” While wind and solar energy has been added to PSE’s portfolio, relying on them to meet demand puts the system’s reliability at risk.
Potentially among more reliable resources is nuclear power. PSE is currently working on a feasibility study for a small modular nuclear reactor facility, while also working with Form Energy on a 10-megawatt iron-air long duration battery storage facility.
However, Jacobs warned the council that some of the technologies they’re investing in won’t go online by the time the energy demands arrive. To close the gap, he said they may need “hybrid-peaking resources that help us today but have a pathway to a sustainable future. We may need to look at resources that start on natural gas, or a percentage of natural gas, blend it with hydrogen, (and) backed it up with renewable diesel.”
Concerns about regional energy resource adequacy have been raised numerous times in the years following CETA’s passage in 2019. At a 2021 resource adequacy meeting between the State Department of Commerce and the Utilities and Transportation Commission, Benton County PUD General Manager Rick Dunn told them that the state faces an enormous energy gap that could threaten system stability in a way not seen since the 2000-2001 Western energy crisis.
An E3 study released the same year CETA was enacted warned that the entire Pacific Northwest faced a 7,000 megawatt near-term capacity shortage by 2025 and up to 10,000 megawatts by 2030, noting that “planned resource additions do not fill this gap.”
Jury selection is set to begin Monday in the first-ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president.
Former President Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts related to charges he paid hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels through a lawyer and covered it up as a legal expense before being elected president.
Trump has attempted to delay the start of the New York state trial several times, including three longshot tactics judges rejected this week.
What charges does Trump face in the New York hush money case?
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records related to money paid to Daniels and another woman, former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Bragg has alleged Trump broke New York law when he falsified with the intent to commit or conceal another crime.
Prosecutors allege Trump falsified internal records kept by his company, hiding the true nature of payments that involve Daniels ($130,000), McDougal ($150,000), and Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen ($420,000). Prosecutors allege the money was logged as legal expenses, not reimbursements. Both Cohen and Daniels are expected to testify.
Cohen is expected to be a key witness in the trial. Daniels has said she expects to testify.
Former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., Bragg’s predecessor, did not bring the case to trial.
What happens on Monday?
Prosecutors, defense attorneys and Donald Trump are expected to be present when the trial before Judge Juan Merchan gets started Monday. The first step will be picking a jury, a process that could take a week or more depending on how things progress. The trial is expected to last six to eight weeks.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys will select 12 jurors and six alternates from a pool of potentially hundreds of people. Each juror will answer 42 questions designed to determine if they can be impartial in the high-profile trial of a polarizing former president. The jurors will remain anonymous because of security concerns.
Once a jury is seated, it’s on to opening statements, where prosecutors and defense attorneys will get to address the jury about what they plan to show during the trial.
What is Trump’s defense to the charges?
Trump has maintained he did nothing wrong and has accused Bragg of bringing a politically motivated case involving conduct in 2016 during a presidential election year as Trump faces incumbent President Joe Biden in a rematch of the 2020 election.
Trump has spoken out against the judge, the district attorney and others involved in the case repeatedly. Trump’s comments prompted a gag order from the judge who said Trump can’t talk publicly about certain people involved in the case and their families.
“The White House Thugs should not be allowed to have these dangerous and unfair Biden Trials during my campaign for President. All of them, civil and criminal, could have been brought more than three years ago. It is an illegal attack on a Political Opponent. It is Communism at its worst, and Election Interference at its Best. No such thing has ever happened in our Country before,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social this week. “On Monday I will be forced to sit, GAGGED, before a HIGHLY CONFLICTED & CORRUPT JUDGE, whose hatred for me has no bounds. All of these New York and D.C. ‘Judges’ and Prosecutors have the same MINDSET. Nobody but this Soros Prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, wanted to take this ridiculous case. All legal scholars say it is a sham. BIDEN’S DOJ IS RUNNING THE CASE. Just think of it, these animals want to put the former President of the United States (who got more votes than any sitting President!), & the PARTY’S REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, IN JAIL, for doing absolutely nothing wrong. It is a RUSH TO THE FINISH. SO UNFAIR!”
Will Trump take the stand?
That’s not clear yet. Trump said last month that he’d be willing to testify at trial if needed.
Could Trump go to jail?
It’s too early to tell what will happen if Trump is convicted. Under New York state law, falsifying business records in the first degree is a Class E felony that carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison.
Trump’s age and lack of any prior criminal convictions could work in his favor at sentencing if he’s convicted. His attacks on the judge could have the opposite effect at sentencing. Before sentencing, the judge would look at sentencing guidelines, recommendations from prosecutors and any other pre-sentence reports.
In late March, Trump said that he wasn’t worried about a conviction when asked if he thought a conviction could hurt his chances of returning to the White House.
“It could also make me more popular because the people know it’s a scam,” he said. “It’s a Biden trial, there is no trial, there’s a Biden trial.”
Whatever happens during the trial, Trump will be protected by the U.S. Secret Service.
Even if convicted and sentenced to jail, Trump could continue his campaign to re-take the White House.
“The Constitution does not bar felons from serving as President,” said Richard Hasen, professor of law and political science at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Trump could not pardon himself from any state charges, Hasen said.
Years ago, the late President Ronald Reagan famously said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
Those words ring true when we look at the government’s past Covid response and its continued response.
Glenn H. Reynolds authored an article for the New York Post where he acknowledged he had been a covidian at the beginning of this pandemic and now realizes he made a mistake. (For context, Reynolds is a distinguished professor of law at the University of Tennessee).
Reynolds stated the initial death rates announced in the news were in a range of 4% to 10% which was the reason for his concern.
But then he learned the mortality rate was much lower and deaths were mostly seen in those who were obese, had heart failure or diabetes, or were elderly — or had a combination of these conditions. He added these deaths were probably accentuated by the over-aggressive use of ventilators.
Reynolds also realized that neither the lockdowns nor maskings did any good—although “they caused a lot of trauma, inconvenience and colossal economic destruction”.
He also cited how New York Gov. Mario Cuomo moved contagious people back into nursing homes where there were a lot of vulnerable people. Reynolds’ conclusion was how the government responded to Covid was probably worse than the disease itself.
The public health bureaucrats didn’t consider that all their draconian actions would cause a horrible effect on society, jobs, education, and mental health, to name a few. Their only focus was to “stop the spread” —not that anything they did really accomplished that. Four years later Covid is still alive and well; and the government is continuing to peddle the same old solutions that didn’t work the last time around.
And they wonder why we don’t trust them.
Four years later the damage is remarkable and the people responsible for that damage haven’t been held accountable. To make it worse, many of them flouted the rules they forced on us by going to dinner parties, fund raisers, ignoring social distancing and those dang mask mandates that were good for the peons, but somehow not needed for the elite unless being used for virtue signaling.
Scott W. Atlas, Steve H. Hanke, Philip G. Kerpen, and Casey B. Mulligan published a four-year post Covid retrospectivereview. These researchers wrote this report “from a balanced perspective that includes health, economic, educational, and civil liberty considerations.”
Perhaps you remember Dr. Atlas. He had been an advisor to then-President Donald Trump and was on the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx did not agree with him and said he was passing out “dangerous” misinformation. They said they could not work with him.
Dr. Atlas was against lockdowns, questioned mask wearing, and pushed for kids to be able to return to school. He resigned from his position. In retrospect, looks like he might have been right. At the time his thoughts were considered heresy.
The 10 key lessons Atlas and others came up with look very similar to other lists we have recently seen. They are as follows:
Lesson #1: Leaders Should Calm Public Fears, Not Stoke Them. This should be number one as all others that followed were based purely on this idea of making people afraid. Sadly, what would have been more helpful would be to calm fears and allow normal social functioning as much as possible.
Lesson #2: Lockdowns Do Not Work to Substantially Reduce Deathor to Stop Viral Circulation. There are non-covid excess deaths caused by these lockdowns and panic of about 100,000 per year in the United States—with zero seen in the non-lockdown country of Sweden.
In a peer-reviewed literature review concerning lockdowns by Herby, Jonung, and Hanke, they found “lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality.” Social distancing, however, may have helped.
So, it would seem a better strategy would have been to tell us the truth, let us know about the real risks and allow us to make our own decision. That was not an option.
Lesson #3: Lockdowns and Social Isolation Had Negative Consequences that Far Outweighed Benefits. According to the World Bank, “Mobility restrictions, lockdowns, and other public health measures…produced the largest global economic crisis in more than a century.” Besides all the ones previously identified, the impact on employment was huge. Over 49 million Americans were put out of work with two million still out of work in July 2022 according to Bureau of Labor Statistics survey data.
The National Bureau of Economic Research looked at the long-term impact of Covid on unemployment and its effects on life expectancy and mortality rates.
Covid effects were two to five times higher than other unemployment episodes—and will lead to “8 million additional deaths over the next fifteen years”. They believe the effect will be higher in women and in Afro-Americans.
Lesson #4: Government Should Not Pay People More Not to Work. Once it forced people out of work and created a crisis, Congress decided to give $600 per week unemployment bonuses early in the pandemic, even though they were warned the consequence of that decision would lead to “prolonged unemployment and associated economic underperformance.”
Once that bonus ended, unemployment rates plunged.
Lesson #5: Shutting Down Schools Was a Major Policy Mistake WithTragic Effects on Children, Especially the Poor. It was known as early as spring/summer of 2020 we should have left schools open. Children weren’t that affected by Covid and didn’t seem to be spreading it. “But teacher unions pressured authorities to close schools.”
No one can argue the negative effect this had on our children in school districts that succumbed to the teacher unions’ demands. No in-person learning led to a serious decrease in children’s test scores, kids dropping out of school, drug abuse, mental illness, suicide thoughts and unfortunately “300,000 cases of child abuse unreported in spring 2020.” The greatest harm was done to lower income and minority students.
Lesson #6: Masks Were of Little or No Value and Possibly Harmful. No high-quality information existed in the spring of 2020 to support masking. Randomized trials of masking for the flu showed masks were ineffective for protecting you and stopping the spread. Rather than doing studies to determine the effectiveness of masking, the government overstated the benefits even when data to the contrary was produced. The mindset that you need to mask still exists today and is already starting to make its rounds again.
Lesson #7: Government Should Not Suppress Dissent or Police the Boundaries of Science. Boy is this a big one! No dissent was allowed. No difference of opinion was tolerated. There was a horrible interplay among the MSM, Big Tech, so-called trust the science and public health community. There was censorship on opposing ideas at every level of society. This was totally anti-science.
Anthony Fauci, Director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases made it impossible to get a different message out other than the one “they” had agreed to. And to make it worse, they failed to “run high-quality trials of repurposed drugs and non-pharmaceutical interventions.” This would include repurposed drugs such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.
Lesson #8: The Real Hospital Story Was Underutilization. What the authors meant by this is with very few exceptions medical procedures during this time frame were canceled and people canceled potentially lifesaving medical care out of fear of going to the hospital. This was viewed by the authors as a probably significant contributor to non-COVID excessive deaths in the US.
Lesson #9: Protect the Most Vulnerable. The main goal should have been to protect the most vulnerable instead of a broad brush that included the entire population. This could have led to prioritization of limited resources. And I believe there would have been much less fear in the general population.
Lesson #10: Warp Speed: Deregulate But Don’t Mandate. Yes, we developed multiple monoclonal antibody treatments and vaccines in record time, but there were multiple failures. The government only had one solution and NIH failed to look at randomized trials of low-cost repurposed drugs. Then the government got involved in deciding who would get the monoclonal antibodies and that “created chronic shortages and politicized distribution decisions”.
Nor was the safety of the new vaccines thoroughly evaluated–with an overstatement of the benefits being the driving force for deployment. We had an all-out “vax everyone” campaign including mandates that undermined informed consent.
Conclusion: Limit Government Emergency Powers and Earn Back Public Trust. Many possible solutions were suggested by the authors that included action from Congress concerning future pandemics. However, the bottom line was this: “Unless and until key institutions openly acknowledge that lockdowns, school closures, and mask/vaccine mandates were catastrophic errors that will not be repeated in the future, the American people will – and should – withhold their trust.”
I’m not sensing that’s the direction our government is taking now or in the future. Nor do I trust it to do so. Trust must be earned. And for me, it’s not happening any time soon.
Linda Boyle, RN, MSN, DM, was formerly the chief nurse for the 3rd Medical Group, JBER, and was the interim director of the Alaska VA. Most recently, she served as Director for Central Alabama VA Healthcare System. She is the director of the Alaska Covid Alliance.
President Donald Trump’s trust in Former State Sen. Jerry Ward to oversee his campaigns in both 2016 and 2020 underscores Ward’s extensive experience and unwavering dedication to public service.
Jerry is asking for your vote to become chairman of the Alaskan Republican Party. Ward’s journey from his service in the Seabees in combat in Vietnam to his successful ventures in the real estate sector showcases his profound commitment to leadership and conservative values.
Ward’s common-sense approach supports Republican principles. Elected to the Alaska House of Representatives in 1982, he diligently represented the party’s interests, eventually securing victories in elections to the Alaska State Senate in 1996 and 2000. Throughout his tenure, Ward has strived to represent all Alaskans in his governance and policy making, demonstrating his prowess in both areas.
Ward’s involvement in community organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion underscores his commitment to veterans and their families.
Ward intends to implement rules within the Republican Party that enhance the transparency and communication to rank-and-file Republicans within the Alaska Republican Party. Communication will engage younger voters and underrepresented communities to embrace the values of the Republican party. Additionally, Jerry Ward highlights the need to address concerns about party leadership and its alignment with the values of its members.
Looking ahead, Ward sets four main objectives for his tenure as chairman of the Alaska Republican Party:
1. He aims to continue supporting President Trump’s reelection efforts in Alaska.
2. He pledges to repeal Ranked Choice Voting, ensuring its defeat in 2024.
3. Ward intends to strengthen the party’s fundraising and networking capabilities by collaborating with national partners, laying the foundation for future generations of Alaskan Republicans.
4. He is committed to putting a Republican in our Congressional seat on November 5th.
Jerry Ward’s leadership embodies a promise of a brighter tomorrow for Alaska. With his wealth of experience, resolute determination, and commitment to conservative values, Ward stands ready to steer the Republican Party towards a future where freedom and representation flourish once more.
