Category: WTOP Blog

  • Vatican Rejects Gender Fluidity in New Catechetical Tetx

    F997FE72-8063-4ABB-B4FA-76B42B860645ROME — People’s “gender identity” is given to them by God and is directly tied to their biological sex, the Vatican has declared in a major catechetical text published this week.

    A fundamental problem with modern gender theory is that it denies a core biblical truth, namely that God creates human beings “male and female,” states the new, 300-page Directory for Catechesis published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization.

    “Gender identity, according to this position, is no longer an original fact that the person must embrace and fill with meaning, but a social construction that is decided independently, totally detached from biological sex,” the document warns.

    A sound anthropology is based on a recognition of the truth of human nature, the text insists, which is not the product of human will but of divine creation.

    In modern gender theory, the person “denies his nature and decides that he creates it himself,” the text continues. “According to the biblical account of creation, however, man was created by God as male and female.”

    This does not negate real psychological problems of gender dysphoria, the Vatican acknowledges, but these issues should not lead to a denial of human nature.

    “The Church is well aware of the complexity of personal situations that are lived sometimes in a conflictive way,” the document states. “She does not judge people, but offers to accompany them always and in any situation.”

    “Nonetheless, she is aware that, from a perspective of faith, sexuality is not only a physical fact, but a personal reality, a value entrusted to the responsibility of the person,” the Vatican declares. “In this way, sexual identity and existential experience must be a response to God’s original call.”

    The new Directory echoes the sharp criticism of gender theory voiced by Pope Francis over the years, which has earned him the derision of many LGBT activists.

    In 2016, the pope published a lengthy teaching text on marriage and the family called The Joy of Love (Amoris Laetitia) in which he underscored the unique value of motherhood and fatherhood, neither of which is dispensable or replaceable with a unisex version of “parent.”

    In that document, Francis slammed gender theory for its denial of “the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman,” and for its dream of “a society without sexual differences.”

    “An appreciation of our body as male or female,” he said, is “necessary for our own self-awareness in an encounter with others different from ourselves.” Efforts to cancel out sexual differences based in anatomy are a symptom of a sick society that “no longer knows how to deal” with sexual differentiation, he wrote.

    The following year the pope issued a similar condemnation, denouncing what he called the “unisex utopia” of the LGBT lobby.
    ~Braibart News

    ~~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/vatican-rejects-gender-fluidity-in-new-catechetical-tetx/ = this posting

    Share
  • Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Today’s Supreme Court Ruling on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

    Today’s decision represents an important victory for the fundamental principle that government officials should be accountable to the American people.  The Constitution vests the power of the executive branch solely in the President without any limitation on his ability to remove leaders of executive agencies.  As Alexander Hamilton so eloquently argued in Federalist 70, unity in the executive branch is essential for providing the President with the authority needed for the effective administration of government and to make the President fully accountable to the electorate every four years for the management of the executive branch, which inherently includes the appointment and removal of government officials.

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), established by the Dodd-Frank Act, was instead designed based on a distrust of the American people’s ability to participate in their government.  The CFPB is exempt from the congressional appropriations process, because CFPB’s creators did not trust democratically-elected representatives with funding the agency.  Similarly, the CFPB’s single director was insulated from removal by the President, because the CFPB’s creators did not trust Presidential elections.  In practice, the CFPB was designed to prevent the American people, to the maximum extent possible, from exercising oversight over CFPB’s sole director, who was granted vast authority over the financial lives of every American.  While the President has full confidence in the current director of the CFPB and believes that she has fully upheld her statutory duties, the President also believes that no official should hold such immense powers without, at least, being directly accountable to a democratically-elected President regardless of party affiliation.

    Accordingly, today’s decision helps restore to Americans power over their government that the Dodd-Frank Act took away to protect entrenched and unelected bureaucrats in Washington. It respects and preserves the role of American voters in our constitutional system and should stand as an important precedent for ensuring that our Republic remains a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-todays-supreme-court-ruling-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/

    ~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/statement-from-the-press-secretary-regarding-todays-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/  = this posting

     

    Share
  • Executive Order on Modernizing and Reforming the Assessment and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and sections 1104(a)(1), 3301, and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section1.  Purpose.  The foundation of our professional merit-based civil service is the principle that employment and advancement rest on the ability of individuals to fulfill their responsibilities in service to the American public.  Accordingly, Federal Government employment opportunities should be filled based on merit.  Policies or practices that undermine public confidence in the hiring process undermine confidence in both the civil service and the Government.

    America’s private employers have modernized their recruitment practices to better identify and secure talent through skills- and competency-based hiring.  As the modern workforce evolves, the Federal Government requires a more efficient approach to hiring.  Employers adopting skills- and competency-based hiring recognize that an overreliance on college degrees excludes capable candidates and undermines labor-market efficiencies.  Degree-based hiring is especially likely to exclude qualified candidates for jobs related to emerging technologies and those with weak connections between educational attainment and the skills or competencies required to perform them.  Moreover, unnecessary obstacles to opportunity disproportionately burden low-income Americans and decrease economic mobility.

    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) oversees most aspects of the civilian Federal workforce, including creating and maintaining the General Schedule classification system and determining the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements for Federal jobs.  Executive departments and agencies (agencies), however, are responsible for vetting and selecting specific candidates to fill particular job openings consistent with statutory requirements and OPM rules and guidance, including applicable minimum educational requirements.  Currently, for most Federal jobs, traditional education — high school, college, or graduate-level — rather than experiential learning is either an absolute requirement or the only path to consideration for candidates without many years of experience.  As a result, Federal hiring practices currently lag behind those of private sector leaders in securing talent based on skills and competency.

    My Administration is committed to modernizing and reforming civil service hiring through improved identification of skills requirements and effective assessments of the skills job seekers possess.  We encourage these same practices in the private sector.  Modernizing our country’s processes for identifying and hiring talent will provide America a more inclusive and demand-driven labor force.

    Through the work of the National Council for the American Worker and the American Workforce Policy Advisory Board, my Administration is fulfilling its commitment to expand employment opportunities for workers.  The increased adoption of apprenticeship programs by American employers, the creation of Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs, and the implementation of Federal hiring reforms, including those in this order, represent important steps toward providing more Americans with pathways to family-sustaining careers.  In addition, the Principles on Workforce Freedom and Mobility announced by my Administration in January 2020 detail reforms that will expand opportunities and eliminate unnecessary education costs for job seekers.  This order builds on the broader work of my Administration to expand opportunity and create a more inclusive 21st-century economy.

    This order directs important, merit-based reforms that will replace degree-based hiring with skills- and competency-based hiring and will hold the civil service to a higher standard — ensuring that the individuals most capable of performing the roles and responsibilities required of a specific position are those hired for that position — that is more in line with the principles on which the merit system rests.

    Sec. 2.  Revision of Job Classification and Qualification Standards.  (a)  The Director of OPM, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and the heads of agencies, shall review and revise all job classification and qualification standards for positions within the competitive service, as necessary and consistent with subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of this section.  All changes to job classification and qualification standards shall be made available to the public within 120 days of the date of this order and go into effect within 180 days of the date of this order.

    (i)   An agency may prescribe a minimum educational requirement for employment in the Federal competitive service only when a minimum educational qualification is legally required to perform the duties of the position in the State or locality where those duties are to be performed.

    (ii)  Unless an agency is determining a candidate’s satisfaction of a legally required minimum educational requirement, an agency may consider education in determining a candidate’s satisfaction of some other minimum qualification only if the candidate’s education directly reflects the competencies necessary to satisfy that qualification and perform the duties of the position.

    (b)  Position descriptions and job postings published by agencies for positions within the competitive service should be based on the specific skills and competencies required to perform those jobs.

    Sec. 3.  Improving the Use of Assessments in the Federal Hiring Process.  (a)  In addition to the other requirements of this order, the Director of OPM shall work with the heads of all agencies to ensure that, within 180 days of the date of this order, for positions within the competitive service, agencies assess candidates in a manner that does not rely solely on educational attainment to determine the extent to which candidates possess relevant knowledge, skills, competencies, and abilities.  The heads of all agencies shall develop or identify such assessment practices.

    (b)  In assessing candidates, agencies shall not rely solely on candidates’ self-evaluations of their stated abilities.  Applicants must clear other assessment hurdles in order to be certified for consideration.

    (c)  Agencies shall continually evaluate the effectiveness of different assessment strategies to promote and protect the quality and integrity of their hiring processes.

    Sec. 4.  Definitions.  For purposes of this order:
    (a)  the term “assessment” refers to any valid and reliable method of collecting information on an individual for the purposes of making a decision about qualification, hiring, placement, promotion, referral, or entry into programs leading to advancement;

    (b)  the term “competitive service” has the meaning specified by section 2102 of title 5, United States Code;

    (c)  the term “education” refers to Post High-School Education as that term is defined in the OPM General Schedule Qualification Policies; and

    (d)  the term “qualification” means the minimum requirements necessary to perform work of a particular position or occupation successfully and safely.

    Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    DONALD J. TRUMP

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    June 26, 2020.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-modernizing-reforming-assessment-hiring-federal-job-candidates/

    ~~~~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/executive-order-on-modernizing-and-reforming-the-assessment-and-hiring-of-federal-job-candidates/  = this posting

     

    Share
  • The Chinese Communist Party’s Ideology and Global Ambitions

    Well, thank you Governor.  That was an extraordinarily kind introduction and for thinking of Kayla and her parents. We had them at the State of the Union. That was a very special occasion for the President and for all of us as Americans. What happened to Kayla should never happen to anyone, especially Americans. Thank you for remembering her today and for the support you have given her family.  It is great to be here in Phoenix. Congratulations on the TSMC factory that is coming to Arizona.  I can tell you there are 49 other governors that are a little jealous of Governor Ducey at this point. What a tremendous accomplishment for your administration and it’s great for our national security to bring our supply chain home, especially when we are dealing with critical technology, computer chips, dual-use chips, that are not only important to our civilian world—the phones we use, the computers we use, the dishwashers, the refrigerators we use—but also to our military.  You have some great aerospace companies who are doing work in Arizona that are going to benefit from having their suppliers closer to home. Congratulations to the people of Arizona.

    It is wonderful to be here at the Arizona Commerce Authority. Congratulations to you as well for the excellent support you gave the governor and his administration in not only bringing the Taiwanese here but also many other manufacturing companies returning to America are coming to Arizona—great weather, sunshine.  It is wonderful again to be back here on the west coast.  Other folks around the world are coming to Arizona and the American West to see there is a whole other part to this country outside of Washington, D.C. and New York. As manufacturing returns to this country, Arizona will be at the top of their list. So congratulations, Governor.

    I bring you greetings from the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. I know he was here yesterday.  It is privilege to follow in his wake.  I think there is some other good news; you will be having the Vice President of the United States Mike Pence, my close friend, whose office is down the hall, will be here next week.

    I appreciate the kind invitation to come discuss an issue of great importance to American national security with you, Governor and your colleagues here in Arizona:—the challenge the Chinese Communist Party poses to the United States and our allies is of critical importance to us right now. My remarks are the first of several speeches senior Administration officials will give on this matter over the next few weeks. You will soon hear from Secretary of State Pompeo, Attorney General Barr, and FBI Director Chris Wray on the subject.

    America, under President Trump’s leadership, has finally awoken to the threat the Chinese Communist Party’s actions and the threat they pose to our very way of life. For decades, conventional wisdom in both U.S. political parties, the business community, academia, and media, has held that it was only a matter of time before China would become more liberal, first economically and, then, politically. The more we opened our markets to China, the thinking went, the more we invested capital in China, the more we trained PRC bureaucrats, scientists, engineers, and even military officers, the more China would become like us.

    It was under this premise that we welcomed China into the World Trade Organization in 2001 with vast concessions and trade privileges. We downplayed China’s gross human rights abuses, including Tiananmen Square. We turned a blind eye to China’s widespread technology theft that eviscerated entire sectors of the American economy.

    As China grew richer and stronger, we believed, the Chinese Communist Party would liberalize to meet the rising democratic aspirations of its people.  This was a bold, quintessentially American idea, born of our innate optimism and by the experience of our triumph over Soviet Communism.  Unfortunately, it turned out to be very naïve.

    We could not have been more wrong—and this miscalculation is the greatest failure of American foreign policy since the 1930s. How did we make such a mistake? How did we fail to understand the nature of the Chinese Communist Party?

    The answer is simple: because we did not pay heed to the CCP’s ideology. Instead of listening to what CCP leaders were saying and reading what they wrote in their key documents, we closed our ears and our eyes. We believed what we wanted to believe—that the Party members were communist in name only.

    Let us be clear, the Chinese Communist Party is a Marxist-Leninist organization. The Party General Secretary Xi Jinping sees himself as Josef Stalin’s successor. In fact, as the journalist and former Australian government official John Garnaut has noted, the Chinese Communist Party is the last “ruling communist party that never split with Stalin, with the partial exception of North Korea.” [1] Yes, Stalin – the man whose brutal dictatorship and disastrous policies killed roughly 20 million Russians and others through famine, forced collectivization, executions, and labor camps. As interpreted and practiced by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, communism is a totalitarian ideology.

    Under communism, individuals are merely a means to be used toward the achievement of the ends of the collective nation state. Thus, individuals can be easily sacrificed for the nation state’s goals.  Individuals do not have inherent value under Marxism-Leninism. They exist to serve the state; the state does not exist to serve them.

    These ideas sound remote and outdated to us. They are, after all, old ideas—they were born a century and a half ago in Europe. They were implemented a century ago by Russia, and then discarded 30 years ago as the most costly failed political experiment in history. But in China, these ideas remain as fundamental to the Chinese Communist Party as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do to us as Americans.

    The Chinese Communist Party seeks total control over the people’s lives. This means economic control, it means political control, it means physical control, and, perhaps most importantly, it means thought control.

    “In Classical Chinese statecraft,” Garnaut has noted, “there are two tools for gaining and maintaining control over ‘the mountains and the rivers’: the first is wu (武), weapons and violence, and the second is wen (文), language and culture. Chinese leaders have always believed that power derives from controlling both the physical battlefield and the cultural domain.” [2] “For Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Xi,” Garnaut writes, “words are not vehicles of reason and persuasion. They are bullets. Words are for defining, isolating, and destroying opponents.” [3]

    Propaganda plays a central political role for the CCP. Beijing’s efforts to dominate political thought are stated openly and pursued aggressively. In 1989, the party began organizing itself around ‘ideological security,’ a term repeated frequently since then by CCP leaders. More recently, in April 2013, the Party issued a policy on what they call the “current state of ideology.” [4] It held that there should be, “absolutely no opportunity or outlets for incorrect thinking or viewpoints to spread.” [5]

    So within China, this approach means mandatory study sessions on Communist ideology and the required download and use of smartphone apps that teach so-called “Xi Jinping Thought.” It means complete control of all state media. Outside sources of information are banned—from foreign newspapers to Twitter, Facebook, and WhatsApp. All content generated within China is censored. It means jailing everyone from citizen bloggers, reporters, and lawyers to activists and religious believers for expressing any views contrary to the Party line.

    And indeed, just recently, between January 1 and April 4 of this year, nearly 500 individuals were charged with crimes just for speaking out about the Wuhan coronavirus, its effects upon the Party, and the Party’s cover-up of the disease. [6]

    The Chinese Communist Party reinterprets religious texts, including the Bible, to support communist party ideology. It locks up millions of Muslim Uyghurs and other minorities in reeducation camps where they are subjected to political indoctrination and forced labor, while their children are raised in Party-run orphanages. This process annihilates family, religion, culture, language, and heritage of the people who are caught up in these camps. Under the Chinese Communist Party, information is tightly controlled and expression is constantly surveilled, so that it can be quashed or shaped by the state.

    Americans should be concerned. We should not be concerned only for the Chinese people but for ourselves. Xi Jinping’s ambitions for ideological control are not limited to his own people. The CCP’s stated goal is to create a “Community of Common Destiny for Mankind,” and to remake the world according to the CCP. The effort to control thought beyond the borders of China is well under way.

    Over the past decade, the Party has invested billions of dollars into overseas propaganda operations to great effect.[7] The CCP has moved to eliminate ‘unfriendly’ Chinese language media outlets worldwide, and is close to succeeding. Nearly every Chinese language news outlet in the U.S. is either owned by, or works closely with the Party—and it is making inroads into English language media as well. There are more than a dozen radio stations in cities across the country where Americans hear subtle pro-Beijing propaganda on their FM radio.

    Recently, Chinese propaganda persuaded so many Americans that a U.S. solider had brought the coronavirus to Wuhan—as opposed to Wuhan sending the virus to the rest of the world (a complete fabrication by the CCP) that this soldier and her family needed a personal security detail to protect them from death threats. This situation occurred in Maryland.

    On TikTok, a Chinese-owned social media platform with over 40 million American users—probably a lot of your kids and younger colleagues– accounts criticizing CCP policies are routinely removed or deleted.

    Last week, Twitter announced the suspension of more than 23,000 CCP linked accounts for spreading propaganda on Hong Kong and COVID-19. This latest suspension was in addition to last August’s removal of more than 150,000 CCP linked accounts that were used to spread anti-American disinformation and generate the illusion of popular support for Beijing’s policies in the United States.  These are just the accounts Twitter caught. How many are still out there undetected?

    In March, the CCP expelled American journalists working for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, almost fully eliminating independent reporting from within China on the Wuhan virus.

    In addition to influencing what information American citizens receive regarding China, the CCP is increasingly using its leverage to police American speech. When the University of California at San Diego hosted the Dalai Lama as a commencement speaker in 2017, Beijing banned Chinese students from visiting UCSD on government funds.

    When the general manager of the Houston Rockets tweeted his support for the peaceful Hong Kong protesters, the CCP announced its team’s games would not be shown on Chinese TV and used its economic power to pressure others in basketball, including star players, to criticize the tweet on behalf of Beijing.

    Under pressure from the CCP, Marriott, and American, Delta, and United Airlines all removed references to Taiwan from their corporate websites. Mercedes Benz even apologized for posting an inspirational quote from the Dalai Lama on social media.

    Beijing has used its financial might and market access to pressure Hollywood into self-censorship, incentivizing directors and producers to avoid topics that might not make it past the country’s censors in China. For example, the Japanese and Taiwanese flags were dropped from Tom Cruise’s flight jacket in the upcoming Top Gun sequel “Maverick.” MGM digitally changed the identities, post-production, of the invading military from China to North Korea in the “Red Dawn” remake.

    The CCP is seeking leverage over individual Americans as well. The Party is collecting your most intimate data—your words, your actions, your purchases, your whereabouts, your health records, your social media posts, your texts, and mapping your network of friends, family, and acquaintances.

    The CCP accomplishes this goal, in part, by subsidizing hardware, software, telecommunications, and even genetics companies. As a result, corporations such as Huawei and ZTE undercut competitors on price and install their equipment around the globe at a loss. This has the side effect of putting out of business American manufacturers of telecom hardware and has made it very difficult for Nokia and Ericsson.  Why do they do it? Because it is not telecom hardware or software profits the CCP are after, it is your data.  They use “backdoors” built into the products to obtain that data.

    When the Chinese Communist Party cannot buy your data, it steals it. In 2014, the CCP hacked Anthem insurance, collecting sensitive information on 80 million Americans. In 2015, the CCP hacked the Office of Personnel Management, which holds security clearance information, acquiring sensitive data on 20 million Americans who work for the federal government. In 2017, it hacked Equifax, obtaining the names, birthdates, social security numbers, and credit scores of 145 million Americans.

    In 2019, the CCP hacked Marriot, gathering information on 383 million guests, including their passport numbers.  And, in 2016, a Chinese company even bought the dating app Grindr to harvest its data, including the HIV status of users, before the U.S. government forced a divestiture on national security grounds.  These are just a few of the instances we know about.

    How will the Chinese Communist Party use this data? In the same way it uses data within China’s borders: to target, to flatter, to cajole, to influence, to coerce, and to even blackmail individuals to say and do things that serve the Party’s interests. This is ‘micro targeting’ beyond an advertiser’s wildest dreams. China, unlike advertisers, will not be stopped by government regulations. The Chinese Communist Party simply wants to know everything about you—just as it likes to know almost everything about every individual living in China.

    In addition to propaganda and influence operations, the Chinese Communist Party  uses trade to coerce compliance with its dictates. When Australia called for an independent investigation of the coronavirus’ origins and spread, the Chinese Communist Party threatened to stop buying Australian agricultural products and to prevent Chinese students and tourists from traveling to Australia. When Australia refused to relent, Beijing put these threats into force, imposing an 80% tariff on Australian barley exports.

    International organizations are also part of China’s plan. China has sought leadership positions within many global bodies. China now heads four out of fifteen UN specialized agencies, more than the U.S., UK, France, and Russia, the other members of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, combined. The PRC uses these leaders to force the international bodies to parrot Beijing’s talking points and to install Chinese telecommunications equipment in their facilities.

    For example, since Zhao Houlin of the International Telecommunications Union took his post he began to aggressively promote Huawei sales. Secretary-General Fang Liu of the International Civil Aviation Organization has blocked Taiwan’s participation in General Assembly meetings and covered up a Chinese hack of the organization. The Party has used China’s membership on the UN Human Rights Council to prevent criticism of its abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

    The CCP’s reach extends to heads of international organizations who are not themselves Chinese officials.  Under Beijing’s thumb, and at an unacceptable cost to human life, Director-General Tedros of the World Health Organization dutifully used Chinese talking points on the Wuhan virus. As late as mid-January, he claimed there was no human-to-human transmission of the disease. He opposed international travel restrictions. At the same time, Tedros praised China’s own domestic travel restrictions on Wuhan residents. In other words, they could travel overseas, but they could not travel and potentially take the virus to Beijing or Shanghai. These CCP tactics in international organizations, as we have seen with the coronavirus, are a major cause of concern not just for the United States, but to the world.

    The good news is that under President Trump’s leadership, we know what the CCP is doing, we are calling it out, and we are taking decisive action to counter it across the board. [8]

    First, President Trump prevented certain companies that answer to the CCP’s intelligence and security apparatus—such as Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei—from accessing our personal and private data. [9] The Administration also imposed restrictions on U.S. semiconductor technology from going to Huawei.[10]

    Second, the State Department designated the U.S. operations of 9 Chinese state-controlled propaganda outlets as foreign missions.[11]These organizations are the mouthpieces of the Chinese Communist Party. This designation places reporting requirements and visa restrictions on these so-called media outlets.

    Third, President Trump imposed export restrictions on 21 Chinese government entities and 16 Chinese companies complicit in China’s campaign of repression, mass arbitrary detention, forced labor and high-technology surveillance against Uyghurs and other minorities, and we have blocked officials complicit in these abuses from travelling to the United States. [12] The Administration has also stopped the illegal import of goods produced by Chinese companies known to use Uyghur forced labor.[13]

    Fourth, President Trump left the United Nations Human Rights Council to protest its cooptation by China.[14] He has terminated the U.S. relationship with the World Health Organization, because its response to the pandemic showed that it is beholden to China.[15]Instead of funding the corrupt WHO in Geneva with over $400 million per year, the United States and its generous taxpayers will send that money directly to where it is needed most—frontline healthcare workers serving in developing countries around the world.

    Fifth, President Trump limited the People’s Liberation Army’s ability to use student visa programs to place its officers and employees in our colleges and universities to steal U.S. technology, intellectual property, and information.[16]

    Sixth, the President moved to halt the investment of U.S. federal employee retirement funds into PRC companies, including Chinese military contractors and manufacturers of surveillance equipment used to oppress religious minorities. [17]He is examining the opaque accounting practices of Chinese companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges. [18]

    This week, the Defense Department is submitting to Congress a list of People’s Liberation Army-linked companies with operations in the United States so that the American people are fully informed about exactly with whom they are doing business.

    Now, these steps are just the start as America corrects 40 years of a one-sided, unfair relationship with China that has severely affected our nation’s economic and, recently, political well-being. Just like the tariffs that were imposed by the President on unfair trade practices early in his Administration, there is more to come.

    President Trump understands that lasting peace comes through strength. We are the strongest nation on earth, and we will not bend to the CCP. As the foregoing actions demonstrate, the Trump Administration is countering CCP malign activity. The Trump Administration will speak out and reveal what the Chinese Communist Party believes, and what it is planning—not just for China and Hong Kong and Taiwan, but for the world.

    Together with our allies and partners, we will resist the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to manipulate our people and our governments, damage our economies, and undermine our sovereignty. The days of American passivity and naivety regarding the People’s Republic of China are over.

    We will stay true to our principles—especially freedom of speech—which stand in stark contrast to the Marxist-Leninist ideology embraced by the CCP. Under President Trump’s leadership, we will encourage diversity of thought, resist efforts to police speech or encourage self-censorship, protect Americans’ personal data, and above all, continue to proclaim that all women and men are entitled by right of God to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness.

    As I close, let me be clear – we have deep respect and admiration for the Chinese people. The United States has a long history of friendship with the Chinese nation. But the Chinese Communist Party does not equal China or her people.

    To the Chinese Communist Party, I say, as the recent Phase One trade deal has shown, it is possible for our governments to have a productive relationship. We want good relationships with China, but we do not want relations on the terms currently on offer from Beijing.

    As Americans, I am certain that we will rise to successfully meet the challenge presented by the Chinese Communist Party, just as we have responded to all the great crises over our history. President Trump is leading the way. And like President Trump, I firmly believe that our best days as a country remain ahead of us.

    Again, thank you for joining me here today. It is a privilege to be here in Phoenix, Arizona.  May God bless you and may God bless the United States of America.


    [1] John Garnaut, “Engineers of the Soul: Ideology in Xi Jinping’s China,” January 16, 2019, https://sinocism.com/p/engineers-of-the-soul-ideology-in

    [2] John Garnaut, “Engineers of the Soul: Ideology in Xi Jinping’s China,” January 16, 2019, https://sinocism.com/p/engineers-of-the-soul-ideology-in

    [3] John Garnaut, “Engineers of the Soul: Ideology in Xi Jinping’s China,” January 16, 2019, https://sinocism.com/p/engineers-of-the-soul-ideology-in

    [4] “Document 9: A ChinaFile Translation,” November 8, 2013, https://www.chinafile.com/document-9-chinafile-translation

    [5] “Document 9: A ChinaFile Translation,” November 8, 2013, https://www.chinafile.com/document-9-chinafile-translation

    [6] Bradford Betz, “China has arrested hundreds for speaking out about coronavirus, reports show,” May 13, 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/world/china-arrested-hundreds-speaking-out-coronavirus/

    [7] Hoover Institution, 2018, “Chinese Influence & American Interests: Promoting Constructive Vigilance,” https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/chineseinfluence_americaninterests_fullreport_web.pdf

    [8] White House, “United States Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China,” May 20, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/U.S.-Strategic-Approach-to-The-Peoples-Republic-of-China-Report-5.20.20.pdf

    [9] White House, “Executive Order on Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain,” May 15, 2019, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-securing-information-communications-technology-services-supply-chain/ and White House, “Executive Order on Establishing the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector,” April 4, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-establishing-committee-assessment-foreign-participation-united-states-telecommunications-services-sector/

    [10] Department of Commerce, “Commerce Addresses Huawei’s Efforts to Undermine Entity List, Restricts Products Designed and Produced with U.S. Technologies,” May 15, 2020, https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/05/commerce-addresses-huaweis-efforts-undermine-entity-list-restricts

    [11] Department of State, “Designation of Additional Chinese Media Entities as Foreign Missions,” June 22, 2020, https://www.state.gov/designation-of-additional-chinese-media-entities-as-foreign-missions/

    [12] White House, “United States Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China,” May 20, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/U.S.-Strategic-Approach-to-The-Peoples-Republic-of-China-Report-5.20.20.pdf; also see Department of Commerce, “Commerce Department to Add Nine Chinese Entities Related to Human Rights Abuses in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region to the Entity List,” May 22, 2020, https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/05/commerce-department-add-nine-chinese-entities-related-human-rights

    [13] U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, “CBP Issues Detention Order on Hair Products Manufactured with Force Labor in China,” May 1, 2020, https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-issues-detention-order-hair-products-manufactured-forced-labor; also see June 17, 2020, https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-issues-detention-order-hair-products-manufactured-forced-labor-0 and October 1, 2019,

    [14] White House, “President Donald J. Trump is Standing Up for Human Rights at the U.N.,” June 21, 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-standing-human-rights-u-n/

    [15] White House, “Remarks by President Trump on Actions Against China,” May 30, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-actions-china/

    [16] White House, “Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry as Nonimmigrants of Certain Students and Researchers from the People’s Republic of China,” May 29, 2020,  https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-nonimmigrants-certain-students-researchers-peoples-republic-china/

    [17] Blake Burman, “Trump orders federal retirement money invested in Chinese equities to be pulled,” May 11, 2020, https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/trump-orders-federal-retirement-money-invested-in-chinese-equities-to-be-pulled<

    [18] White House, “Remarks by President Trump on Actions Against China,” May 30, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-actions-china/

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/chinese-communist-partys-ideology-global-ambitions/

    ~~~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/the-chinese-communist-partys-ideology-and-global-ambitions/  = this posting

     

    Share
  • Executive Order on Strengthening the Child Welfare System for America’s Children

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section1.  Purpose.  Every child deserves a family.  Our States and communities have both a legal obligation, and the privilege, to care for our Nation’s most vulnerable children.

    The best foster care system is one that is not needed in the first place.  My Administration has been focused on prevention strategies that keep children safe while strengthening families so that children do not enter foster care unnecessarily.  Last year, and for only the second time since 2011, the number of children in the foster care system declined, and for the third year in a row, the number of children entering foster care has declined.

    But challenges remain.  Too many young people who are in our foster care system wait years before finding the permanency of family.  More than 400,000 children are currently in foster care.  Of those, more than 124,000 children are waiting for adoption, with nearly 6 out of 10 (58.4 percent) having already become legally eligible for adoption.

    More than 50 percent of the children waiting for adoption have been in foster care — without the security and constancy of a permanent family — for 2 years or more.  The need for stability and timely permanency is particularly acute for children 9 years and older, children in sibling groups, and those with intellectual or physical disabilities.

    Even worse, too many young men and women age out of foster care having never found a permanent, stable family.  In recent years, approximately 20,000 young people have aged out of foster care each year in the United States.  Research has shown that young people who age out of the foster care system are likely to experience significant, and significantly increased, life challenges — 40 percent of such young people studied experienced homelessness; 50 percent were unemployed at age 24; 25 percent experienced post-traumatic stress disorder; and 71 percent became pregnant by age 21.  These are unacceptable outcomes.

    Several factors have contributed to the number of children who wait in foster care for extended periods.  First, State and local child welfare agencies often do not have robust partnerships with private community organizations, including faith-based organizations.  Second, those who step up to be resource families for children in foster care — including kin, guardians, foster parents, and adoptive parents — may lack adequate support.  Third, too often the processes and systems meant to help children and families in crisis have instead created bureaucratic barriers that make it more difficult for these children and families to get the help they need.

    It is the goal of the United States to promote a child welfare system that reduces the need to place children into foster care; achieves safe permanency for those children who must come into foster care, and does so more quickly and more effectively; places appropriate focus on children who are waiting for adoption, especially those who are 9 years and older, are in sibling groups, or have disabilities; and decreases the proportion of young adults who age out of the foster care system.

    Children from all backgrounds have the potential to become successful and thriving adults.  Yet without a committed, loving family that can provide encouragement, stability, and a lifelong connection, some children may never receive the support needed to realize that potential.

    This order will help to empower families who answer the call to open their hearts and homes to children who need them.  My Administration is committed to helping give as many children as possible the stability and support that family provides by dramatically improving our child welfare system.

    Sec. 2.  Encouraging Robust Partnerships Between State Agencies and Public, Private, Faith-based, and Community Organizations.  (a)  In order to facilitate close partnerships between State agencies and nongovernmental organizations, including public, private, faith-based, and community groups, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) shall provide increased public access to accurate, up-to-date information relevant to strengthening the child welfare system, including by:

    (i)    Publishing data to aid in the recruitment of community support.  Within 1 year of the date of this order and each year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, a report that provides information about typical patterns of entry, recent available counts of children in foster care, and counts of children waiting for adoption.  To the extent appropriate and consistent with applicable law, including all privacy laws, this data will be disaggregated by county or other sub-State level, child age, placement type, and prior time in care.

    (ii)   Collecting needed data to preserve sibling connections.

    (A)  Within 2 years of the date of this order, the Secretary shall collect information from appropriate State and local agencies on the number of children in foster care who have siblings in foster care and who are not currently placed with their siblings.

    (B)  Within 3 years of the date of this order, to support the goal of keeping siblings together (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(31)(A)), the Secretary shall develop data analysis methods to report on the experience of children entering care in sibling groups, and the extent to which they are placed together.  The Secretary’s analysis shall also assess the extent to which siblings who are legally eligible for adoption achieve permanency together.

    (iii)  Expanding the number of homes for children and youth.

    (A)  Within 2 years of the date of this order, the Secretary shall develop a more rigorous and systematic approach to collecting State administrative data as part of the Child and Family Services Review required by section 1123A of the Social Security Act (the “Act”) (42 U.S.C. 1320a–2a).  Data collected shall include:

    (1)  demographic information for children in foster care and waiting for adoption;

    (2)  the number of currently available foster families and their demographic information;

    (3)  the average foster parent retention rate and average length of time foster parents remain certified;

    (4)  a target number of foster homes needed to meet the needs of children in foster care; and

    (5)  the average length of time it takes to complete foster and adoptive home certification.

    (B)  The Secretary shall ensure, to the extent consistent with applicable law, that States report to the Secretary regarding strategies for coordinating with nongovernmental organizations, including faith-based and community organizations, to recruit and support foster and adoptive families.

    (b)  Within 1 year of the date of this order, the Secretary shall issue guidance to Federal, State, and local agencies on partnering with nongovernmental organizations.  This guidance shall include best practices for information sharing, providing needed services to families to support prevention of children entering foster care, family preservation, foster and adoptive home recruitment and retention, respite care, post-placement family support, and support for older youth.  This guidance shall also make clear that faith-based organizations are eligible for partnerships under title IV-E of the Act (42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.), on an equal basis, consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution.

    Sec. 3.  Improving Access to Adequate Resources for Caregivers and Youth.  While many public, private, faith based, and community resources and other sources of support exist, many American caregivers still lack connection with and access to adequate resources.  Within 1 year of the date of this order, the Secretary shall equip caregivers and those in care to meet their unique challenges, by:

    (a)  Expanding educational options.  To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall use all existing technical assistance resources to promote dissemination and State implementation of the National Training and Development Curriculum, including, when appropriate, in non-classroom environments.

    (b)  Increasing the availability of trauma-informed training.  The Secretary shall provide an enhanced, web-based, learning-management platform to house the information generated by the National Adoption Competency Mental Health Training Initiative.  Access to this web-based training material will be provided free of charge for all child welfare and mental health practitioners.

    (c)  Supporting guardianship.  The Secretary shall provide information to States regarding the importance and availability of funds to increase guardianship through the title IV-E Guardianship Assistance Program (42 U.S.C. 673), which provides Federal reimbursement for payments to guardians and for associated administrative costs.  This information shall include which States have already opted into the program.

    (d)  Enhancing support for kinship care and youth exiting foster care.  The Secretary shall establish a plan to address barriers to accessing existing Federal assistance and benefits for eligible individuals.

    Sec. 4.  Ensuring Equality of Treatment and Access for all Families.  The Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 (the “Multiethnic Placement Act”) (Public Law 103-382), as amended, prohibits agencies from denying to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or a foster parent on the basis of race, color, or national origin (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(18)(A)); prohibits agencies from delaying or denying the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care on the basis of race, color, or national origin (id. 671(a)(18)(B)); and requires agencies to diligently recruit a diverse base of foster and adoptive parents to better reflect the racial and ethnic makeup of children in out-of-home care (id. 662(b)(7)).  To further the goals of the Multiethnic Placement Act, the Secretary shall:

    (a)  within 6 months of the date of this order, initiate a study regarding the implementation of these requirements nationwide;

    (b)  within 1 year of the date of this order, update guidance, as necessary, regarding implementation of the Multiethnic Placement Act; and

    (c)  within 1 year of the date of this order, publish guidance regarding the rights of parents, prospective parents, and children with disabilities (including intellectual, developmental, or physical disabilities).

    Sec. 5.  Improving Processes to Prevent Unnecessary Removal and Secure Permanency for Children.  (a)  Federal Review of Reasonable Effort Determinations and Timeliness Requirements.

    (i)    Within 2 years of the date of this order, the Secretary shall require that both the title IV-E reviews conducted pursuant to 45 CFR 1356.71 and the Child and Family Services Reviews conducted pursuant to 45 CFR 1355.31–1355.36 specifically and adequately assess the following requirements:

    (A)  reasonable efforts to prevent removal;

    (B)  filing a petition for Termination of Parental Rights within established statutory timelines and court processing of such petition, unless statutory exemptions apply;

    (C)  reasonable efforts to finalize permanency plans; and

    (D)  completion of relevant required family search and notifications and how such efforts are reviewed by courts.

    (ii)   In cases in which it is determined that statutorily required timelines and efforts have not been satisfied, the Secretary shall make use of existing authority in making eligibility determinations and disallowances consistent with section 1123A(b)(3)(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-2a(b)(3)(4)).

    (iii)  Within 2 years of the date of this order, the Secretary shall develop metrics to track permanency outcomes in each State and measure State performance over time.

    (iv)   Within 6 months of the date of this order, the Secretary shall provide guidance to States regarding flexibility in the use of Federal funds to support and encourage high-quality legal representation for parents and children, including pre-petition representation, in their efforts to prevent the removal of children from their families, safely reunify children and parents, finalize permanency, and ensure that their voices are heard and their rights are protected.  The Secretary shall also ensure collection of data regarding State use of Federal funds for this purpose.

    (b)  Risk and Safety Assessments.

    (i)   Within 18 months of the date of this order, the Secretary shall collect States’ individual standards for conducting risk and safety assessments required under section 106(b)(2)(B)(iv) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106(b)(2)(B)(iv)).

    (ii)  Within 2 years of the date of this order, the Secretary shall outline reasonable best practice standards for risk and safety assessments, including how to address domestic violence and substance abuse.

    Sec. 6.  Indian Child Welfare Act.  Nothing in this order shall alter the implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act or replace the tribal consultation process.

    Sec. 7.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    DONALD J. TRUMP

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    June 24, 2020.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-strengthening-child-welfare-system-americas-children/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/executive-order-on-strengthening-the-child-welfare-system-for-americas-children/  = this posting

     

    Share
  • Mind Blowing with Larry Bishop about Black Americans

    Mind Blowing with Larry Bishop about Black Americans

    2D4E5AC0-BB83-4A89-AF2F-E72D79C0B592_4_5005_c

    http://wetheonepeople.com/mind-blowing-with-larry-bishop-about-black-americans/ = this posting

    Share
  • Something Strange is Happening in Seattle

    38DD556E-D1B3-40E5-90E2-58AAE2D8698C_4_5005_c

    This video covers the strange events that have been taking place in Seattle, Washington over the last week.

    http://wetheonepeople.com/something-strange-is-happening-in-seattle/ = this posting

    Share
  • Executive Order on Blocking Property Of Certain Persons Associated With The International Criminal Court

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

    I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the situation with respect to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its illegitimate assertions of jurisdiction over personnel of the United States and certain of its allies, including the ICC Prosecutor’s investigation into actions allegedly committed by United States military, intelligence, and other personnel in or relating to Afghanistan, threatens to subject current and former United States Government and allied officials to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest. These actions on the part of the ICC, in turn, threaten to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States and impede the critical national security and foreign policy work of United States Government and allied officials, and thereby threaten the national security and foreign policy of the United States. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, has never accepted ICC jurisdiction over its personnel, and has consistently rejected ICC assertions of jurisdiction over United States personnel. Furthermore, in 2002, the United States Congress enacted the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (22 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.) which rejected the ICC’s overbroad, non-consensual assertions of jurisdiction. The United States remains committed to accountability and to the peaceful cultivation of international order, but the ICC and parties to the Rome Statute must respect the decisions of the United States and other countries not to subject their personnel to the ICC’s jurisdiction, consistent with their respective sovereign prerogatives. The United States seeks to impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICC’s transgressions, which may include the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members. The entry of such aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States and denying them entry will further demonstrate the resolve of the United States in opposing the ICC’s overreach by seeking to exercise jurisdiction over personnel of the United States and our allies, as well as personnel of countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction.

    I therefore determine that any attempt by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States, or of personnel of countries that are United States allies and who are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby determine and order:

    Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
    (i) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General:
    (A) to have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States;
    (B) to have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any personnel of a country that is an ally of the United States without the consent of that country’s government;
    (C) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsection (a)(i)(A) or (a)(i)(B) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
    (D) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
    (b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.

    Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1(a) of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1(a) of this order.

    Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1(a) of this order include:
    (a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1(a) of this order; and
    (b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

    Sec. 4. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order, as well as immediate family members of such aliens, or aliens determined by the Secretary of State to be employed by, or acting as an agent of, the ICC, would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, is hereby suspended, except where the Secretary of State determines that the entry of the person into the United States would not be contrary to the interests of the United States, including when the Secretary so determines, based on a recommendation of the Attorney General, that the person’s entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives. In exercising this responsibility, the Secretary of State shall consult the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to admissibility or inadmissibility within the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions). The Secretary of State shall have the responsibility for implementing this section pursuant to such conditions and procedures as the Secretary has established or may establish pursuant to Proclamation 8693.

    Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
    (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

    Sec. 6. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.

    Sec. 7. For the purposes of this order:
    (a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
    (b) the term “entity” means a government or instrumentality of such government, partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization, including an international organization;
    (c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
    (d) the term “United States personnel” means any current or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States, any current or former elected or appointed official of the United States Government, and any other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government;
    (e) the term “personnel of a country that is an ally of the United States” means any current or former military personnel, current or former elected or appointed official, or other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of a government of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member country or a “major non-NATO ally”, as that term is defined by section 2013(7) of the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (22 U.S.C. 7432(7)); and
    (f) the term “immediate family member” means spouses and children.

    Sec. 8. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to section 1 of this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.

    Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury. All departments and agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.

    Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

    Sec. 11. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
    (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
    (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
    (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
    (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    DONALD J. TRUMP

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    June 11, 2020.

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/executive-order-on-blocking-property-of-certain-persons-associated-with-the-international-criminal-court/  = this posting

     

    Share
  • Mob Interviews Dr Sherri Tenpenny| The Eugenics Vaxtrap

    C70491A4-F8AC-4AB9-A205-4A8F747AD9AF_4_5005_c

    MOB Interviews Dr Sherri Tenpenny | The Eugenics Vaxtrap

    In this essential interview, the brilliant and courageous Dr Sherri Tenpenny lays out the irrefutable facts about the dangers posed by the mandatory vaxing agenda. Find out why Dr Tenpenny has spent 40,000 hours over the past 20 years researching the problems caused by injecting up to 200 hundred chemicals per shot into the human body, along with the vaccine-viruses which cause the very illness they are supposed to prevent. Dr Tenpenny also discusses the horrifying fact that 6,000 children died in a recent vaxing trial in the Philippines. Find out more information about the dangers of vaxing: https://www.drtenpenny.com https://www.vaccineu.com Subscribe To The Bernician: https://www.thebernician.net Follow The Bernician on Social Media: @thebernician All Rights Reserved under the protection of the Treaty of Universal Community Trust.

    Share
  • Socialists Throw 2020 Back at 1960’S and 1980’S—But Outcome Favoring Trump Remains the Same

    FB36F6B0-E6EA-40E5-9CC5-2624D8F700F0_4_5005_cAn illuminating new Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) report circulating in the Kremlin today discussing issues relating to the Norilsk Nickel crisis, the world’s near only source for palladium, a rare earth metal that is becoming rarer by the day, welcomed the statement made by United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo yesterday saying: “Despite disagreements, the United States stands ready to assist Russia to mitigate this environmental disaster and offer our technical expertise”—a statement Secretary Pompeo followed by his then comparing Communist China’s policy with regard to Hong Kong to the actions of Nazi Germany during World War II—a highly significant comparison of Communist China to the National Socialist German Workers Party (commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party) made by Secretary Pompeo when viewed in the light of the Black Lives Matter movement gaining momentum worldwide—specially because the socialist tactic of using racial division to sow discord and create chaos was invented by the Nazis, who then deployed it around the world using their Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts—are best known as “Himmler’s Black Legion” for their being led by one of the most powerful men in Nazi Germany and a main architect of the Holocaust named Heinrich Himmler—whose loyal Nazi forces in America were a white supremacist terror organization known as the “Black Legion”—whom the Nazis deployed in the US during the early years of World War II in a bid to discredit, and hopefully defeat President Franklin Roosevelt—a deployment that saw Black Legion forces being used to ignite the deadly 1943 Detroit Race Riot to cripple US war production—and though failing, saw this socialist racial tactic then being used by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to sow discord in America—who during the 1960’s fomented, secretly funded and supported mass protests in the United States in a bid to destroy Republican Party leader President Richard Nixon—and during the 1980’s fomented, secretly funded and supported mass protests in the United States in a bid to destroy Republican Party leader President Ronald Reagan—the end results of which saw President Nixon being elected to office in 1968, and winning 49 out of 50 States in his 1972 reelection—while President Reagan was elected to office in 1980, and won 49 out of 50 States in his 1984 reelection, too—thus proving, beyond all doubt, that whether it be 1960’s or 1980’s type mass protests these socialists are igniting in an attempt to destroy Republican Partyleader President Donald Trump, the facts show history is favoring him, not them.

    From 1943…

    …into the 1960’s…

    …through the 1980’s…

    …and now 2020, socialist ignited racial divisions keep tearing America apart.

     According to this report, during the 1947-1991 time period known as the Cold War, the greatest fear expressed among all of the top socialist-communist leaders of the Soviet Union was against the Republican Party—a conservative political organization in the United States whose members of support a capitalistic system championing individual freedom, private property and small government, while at the same time they support massive military budgets to protect their nation and its ideals—as opposed to socialist ideology that dictates a communal society stripped of individualism where all property is owned by a massive government overseeing every aspect human life, but that needs a massive police and military presence in order to keep its citizens subjugated.

    In the earliest days of the Cold War, this report details, the Committee for State Security (most commonly known as the KGB), began an extensive examination of the tactics used by Nazi Germany to see if any of them could be used against the Republican Party—one of which they shockingly discovered the Nazis had adopted in whole from the political organization in the United States known as the Democrat Party—a Democrat Party that supported and nourished into prominence what is called “The Eugenics Movement”, which divided human beings into “superior” and “inferior” categories—and based upon, saw the Democrat Party enacting government policies to place “inferior” black peoples into ghettos where their numbers could be controlled in order to keep them from “infecting” mainstream society—a policy practiced to the extreme by the Nazi Germans, who placed their “inferior” peoples (mainly Jewish) into ghettos, too—from which these “inferior” peoples were transported to death camps where they were then exterminated—a practice not favored, however, by top Democrat Party eugenics movement leader Margaret Sanger, who advocated a longer time period in order to exterminate “inferior” races—whose preferred method of “inferior” race genocide was killing babies in their mothers’ wombs—and to achieve saw Sanger creating the world’s largest baby-killing organization known as Planned Parenthood—which today remains the number one killer of black lives in the United States.

     In a further examination of the genocidal race hatred existing in the Democrat Party, this report continues, Committee for State Security intelligence analysts discovered the “Achilles’ Heel” of the Republican Party— a weakness in spite of overall strength, which can lead to downfall—and was evidenced in the fact that nearly all of the black peoples’ communities in America were ruled over by the Democrat Party—a Democrat Party controlled by white wealthy socialist elites already having sympathy for the Soviet Union and communist causes—and so despises “inferior” black peoples, they imprison them in the massive city ghettos they control with an iron grip—give them barely enough subsistence to survive on—deny them good schools and health services while building up massive police forces to control them—and most vilely of all, saw the Clinton Regime flooding these improvised black ghettos with crack cocaine in the 1990’s—after which the Democrat Party passed the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act” that threw black peoples in prison for life if found with crack cocaine—while white elite wealthy peoples caught with an equal amount of cocaine powder got slaps on the wrist—but most critically noticed about by Committee for State Security intelligence analysts, were all crimes committed against black peoples by the Democrat Party, but the Republican Party is blamed for.

     With the Ministry having yesterday documented the facts showing that immediately upon taking office, President Trump forced through the US Congresshis First Step Act that ended the Democrat Party mass incarceration of black peoples, this report concludes, President Trump then swiftly moved to give these now thousands of freed black peoples high paying jobs with his creation of Opportunity Zones in black and minority communities that private companies received massive tax breaks for creating these jobs in—actions that in just three years saw black unemployment hitting historic record lows—and in rapidly recovering from the coronavirus pandemic, blacks have, also, recovered their jobs at rate more than ten times the rise of the population—facts that explain why President Trump’s approval rating among likely black voters has just soared to the staggering level of 41%— and also why if you’ve opened up Twitter since Friday and searched the word “racist”, and then selected the “people” tab, President Trump’s Twitter account tops the list—with this being caused because enraged socialist Democrat Partysupporting leftist tech giant Twitter changed their algorithm to make his so—but if so can only mean one thing, President Trump is the only racist in history who doesn’t know how to be a racist—and who might want to brush up on how to be true racist by reading the thoughts of Democrat Party black genocide heroine Margaret Sanger—such as her saying about the negro baby problem: “I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’, admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes”—while remembering her admonition to Democrats that: “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”.

    By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers. www.whatdoesitmean.com

    ~~~~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/socialists-throw-2020-back-at-1960s-and-1980s-but-outcome-favoring-trump-remains-the-same/ = this posting

    Share
  • Mr. Steven Bannon Reads the New Federal State of China Declaration. 史蒂文·班农先生宣读《新中国联邦宣

    24ADC810-37B1-4CD8-80F9-85C2428824CC_4_5005_cBOOM. BOOM! The Chinese people have spoken!

    The Chinese people are taking their country back!

    Let there be freedom, responsibility, honor, respect, and love for the Chinese people, and ALL the people of our planet. For ALL the creation.1C825FCF-E3C6-4EFA-8198-C9B31F08BE28_4_5005_c

    Congratulations China, for you are brave, and we the American people send you much courage, and much love. Be safe! Be brave! <heart>

    http://wetheonepeople.com/mr-steven-bannon-reads-the-new-federal-state-of-china-declaration- = this posting

    Share
  • Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

    Section1.  Policy.  Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.  Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

    In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.  They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

    The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.  Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

    Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

    As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

    Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.  Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

    Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias.  As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet.  As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets.  Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

    At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.  One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance.  It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.  Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights.  They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

    As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice.  We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

    Sec. 2.  Protections Against Online Censorship.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

    Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.  The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”  47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3).  The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

    In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.  Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

    (b)  To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.  In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

    (i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

    (ii)  the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

    (A)  deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

    (B)  taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

    (iii)  any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

    Sec. 3.  Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech.  (a)  The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.  Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

    (b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

    (c)  The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

    Sec. 4.  Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.  The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”  Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017).  Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders.  These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate.  Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

    (b)  In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship.  In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints.  The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

    (c)  The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code.  Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

    (d)  For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order.  The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

    Sec. 5.  State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws.  (a)  The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

    (b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

    (i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

    (ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

    (iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

    (iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

    (v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

    Sec. 6.  Legislation.  The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

    Sec. 7.  Definition.  For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

    Sec. 8.  General Provisions. (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i)    the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii)   the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/executive-order-on-preventing-online-censorship/ = this posting

    Share