Connect with us

Published

on

A Republican lawmaker is seeking to punish the perpetrators of police K9 deaths, and she’s also promoting a plan for officers to help get addicts off the streets. Those measures form part of the congresswoman’s efforts to stand up for law enforcement officers who she says deserve support from Americans, despite the left’s narratives against them.

Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) will soon introduce two bills in support of law enforcement, hoping to boost the morale of all law enforcement personnel in the process. The first she calls “a K9 protection bill.” The bill would allow “the federal framework to make the killing of a police K9 a felony,” the congresswoman told The Epoch Times.

Advertisement

Each time a canine is lost, Cammack said, it’s “tragic” and communities lose their “tremendous contribution” to keeping drugs and criminals off the streets. “A K9’s contribution to upholding law and order cannot be matched.”

The lawmaker said the second piece of legislation would help “marry the work that our law enforcement does in getting drugs off of the streets to how they are addressing the real challenges of addictions that people are facing.”

The bill is essentially an opioid amnesty program for individuals who are addicted and hoping to get clean, Cammack explained. Addicts can turn their drugs and themselves in to law enforcement to be placed into a rehabilitation facility without criminal charges. The legislation will be named after Chief Graham of the Ocala Police Department who started a similar program in Ocala, Florida, before he tragically died in a helicopter accident in 2020.

Advertisement

Cammack said her ultimate goal is to “help people fighting and battling addiction to rebuild their lives and get clean,” adding that “this really starts with the law enforcement component.” It is also the lawmaker’s desire to “get the community to come behind this particular individual to help bridge the gap and get him or her back on their feet.”

Specifically, Cammack said this would also involve helping an individual find work, develop skills, and seek mentorship. She is hopeful the two bills will be introduced later this summer.

Support of Law Enforcement

Cammack said her office’s support for law enforcement cannot be overstated. Much of her motivation is spurred on by “what’s happening across the United States, [specifically] a violent crime rate that is through the roof in both rural and urban America.” She added that the opioid and fentanyl crisis is also fueling her support for law enforcement.

Advertisement

“And the only way that we are going to stop the lawlessness in our communities is with law and order,” said Cammack. “Our men and women who wear the badge, they’re the ones who are upholding law and order in our communities.”

The lawmaker considers the left’s efforts to defund the police to be ludicrous. Taking the “border invasion” into account, she said, “anyone with common sense call tell you that you cannot protect our hometowns if you can’t defend the homeland. She added that “upholding law and order is the country’s first and last line of defense.”

With support for law enforcement fading in some areas around the country, Cammack said that some officers are feeling “an overwhelming sense of dejection, sadness, and frustration.”

Advertisement

“It all stems from the rhetoric, which has been followed closely by the action, of the ultra-liberal left to defund and dismantle our departments.”

This has had a far-reaching impact on the police force’s ability to operate effectively, she noted. “Sadly, even the pro-law enforcement community doesn’t make deputies immune from what’s happening around the rest of the country,” Cammack said. As a result, the retention rate of some police departments is suffering, she said, adding that in some areas, “getting people interested in the profession is like pulling teeth because it has been so marred by the left.”

J.M. Phelps

Follow

Advertisement

J.M. Phelps is a writer and researcher of both Islamist and Chinese threats.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

USA

‘An Angel in Disguise’: Strength Disguised as Weakness

Published

on

By

When we think of heroes, we think of strong, brave men like Alexander the Great or Charlemagne. Such men overcome weakness and vice and learn self-control. They face trials that test their worth and overcome the desolation and misery of evil.

Yet, in his short story “An Angel in Disguise,” T.S. Arthur proves that such virtues are not always found in the strongest or most courageous people. Sometimes the greatest love, bravery, and strength are found in the weakest among us.

Arthur presents crippled, little Maggie. With her mother dead and her siblings taken from her, Maggie can  only lie in bed. Arthur illustrates “the loneliness, the pain, the sorrow that must be on all her coming life.” Such a bitter situation might produce anger and ill temper, but she never curses her situation, even though none of the neighbors will take her, “a bed-ridden child.”

Advertisement

Yet Maggie’s innocence, perseverance, and absolute helpless state do affect one neighbor, Mr. Joe Thompson. The energy in Maggie’s frail figure touches and inspires him. He sees, as G.K. Chesterton says in “Moral Education in a Secular World,” that “a child is weaker than a man if it comes to a fight or to knowledge of the world; but there is nothing to show that the child is weaker in will or in desire.” Despite her physical frailty, Maggie is strong inside and her inner strength shines.

Maggie not only awakens tenderness in Mr. Thompson’s heart, but she also softens Mrs. Thompson’s angry heart. With a “vinegar-temper,” Mrs. Thompson is not “much given to self-denial for others’ good.” Through a selfish, intemperate, and idle life, Mrs. Thompson had grown sore, cold, and miserable. But, as Mr. Thompson brings Maggie home, he carries a light into the darkness of the desolate house.

Through Maggie’s sweetness, Joe gains the courage to stand against his wife’s temper and help her live more joyfully. Through Maggie’s light-filled presence, Mrs. Thompson rises out of the dark desolation of her selfish, intemperate life and begins to love and care for Maggie. Mrs. Thompson learns, as Thomas Aquinas says, that “to love is to will the good of the other.”

Advertisement

Chesterton perfectly describes the situation in “Heretics”: “Only the weak can be brave; and yet again, in practice, only those who can be brave can be trusted, in time of doubt, to be strong.” While others around her fall victim to doubt, Maggie rises to the challenge and finds strength and bravery in her weakness. She may be crippled, but she is strong enough to endure her plight and shows this strength to those around her.

Though her body might not have the physical strength of an Alexander the Great or Charlemagne, she matches their will and determination. Like them, Maggie leads others to live better, more loving lives. She bravely faces the trials, sorrows, and pain in her life and, ultimately, proves her worth.

Like Maggie, we can be strong, never letting despair or difficulty break us. When we adopt this loving yet fearless quality, we gain that strength. We can face our trials and, despite our weaknesses, prove our worth.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

USA

Fauci Finally Gets COVID: The Significance

Published

on

By

Commentary

What precisely happened in the month of February 2020, when Anthony Fauci and cohorts were plotting their pandemic response, is still a mystery. Jeremy Farrar, of the Wellcome Trust, in his book on the topic says that during these weeks, they went to burner phones, clandestine video calls, and warned family members that something terrible could happen to them.

Advertisement

Their top concern was the possibility of the lab leak from Wuhan. They needed to get to the bottom of it and prepare the spin. We know that the initial draft of the academic article denying the lab leak came out Feb. 4, 2020, later published in the Lancet on March 16. But what happened in these three weeks—apart from the mid-February NIH junket to China to learn how to control a virus—remains foggy.

But this much we do know: by March 2, 2020, Fauci had his game plan lined up. Michael Gerson of the Washington Post wrote him on that day and asked about the purpose of social distancing. This was weeks before most Americans had even heard this euphemism for forced human separation. Was the idea to wait for a vaccine, Gerson asked?

Fauci answered in a private email as follows:

Advertisement

“Social distancing is not really geared to wait for a vaccine. The major point is to prevent easy spread of infections in schools (closing them), crowded events such as theaters, stadiums (cancel events), work places (do teleworking where possible …. The goal of social distancing is to prevent a single person who is infected to readily spread to several others, which is facilitated by close contact in crowds. Close proximity of people will keep the R0 higher than 1 and even as high as 2 to 3. If we can get the R0 to less than 1, the epidemic will gradually decline and stop on its own without a vaccine.”

Epoch Times Photo

There we have it: the Fauci theory of how we get rid of the virus. We don’t need a vaccine. Just close things. Stay away from people. Don’t gather. Shut schools. Lock businesses and churches. All people stay away from all people. The R-naught will drop.

Then the virus will… and this is where the theory gets murky. Does it just vanish? Get bored? Get frustrated, give up, and vanish into the ether? And how long does this new social system of “social distancing” have to last? Years? Forever? And what happens once people start acting normally again?

This is very clearly crank science, one that confuses ex post data collection with causation itself and also seems to deny the workability of the human immune system. That such things would be written by a person in Fauci’s position is truly mind boggling. But the press went along, and still does after all this time.

Advertisement

What Fauci was imagining—and very few people picked up on it at the time—was the construction of a new social system. It was not just about this virus. It was about all pathogens and the whole functioning of society. He believed—or he decided to come to believe—that a re-engineering of the social order could successfully beat back common pathogens and bring about universal health.

He finally revealed this in his Aug. 15, 2020, article for Cell that received very little attention at all. He was on his own attempting to implement an entire new social system based on a new ideology.

Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence, from cities to homes to workplaces, to water and sewer systems, to recreational and gatherings venues. In such a transformation we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks for the emergence of infectious diseases. Chief among them are reducing crowding at homework, and in public places as well as minimizing environmental perturbations such as deforestation, intense urbanization, and intensive animal farming.

This article reveals the most important point. The pandemic response was not just about this one pathogen. It was about what amounts to a political, economic, social, and cultural revolution.

Advertisement

It’s not socialism or capitalism. It’s something else entirely, something very strange, like a Rousseauian technocracy, simultaneously primitive and high tech, as managed by a scientific elite, an untested dystopia worthy of the most terrifying literature in the English language.

No one has voted for such a thing. It is something Fauci and his friends dreamed up on their own and deployed all their enormous power to enact just as a test, until it fell apart. The United States and many parts of the world were in their grip for the better part of a year and two years in some places.

This is a scandal for the ages, one that far outstrips issues of tax-funded gain-of-function research, as important as that is. It’s even more important that reports that Fauci has been earning personal royalty payments from pharmaceutical companies that receive grants that he has personally approved. The real problem comes down to his power and the ability of elected representatives and courts to control him for many decades.

Advertisement

Regardless of Fauci’s millenarian vision, the course of the virus took the usual path but for one major exception: the waves of infection occurred based on class rank in society. There was a political hierarchy of infection that started with the working classes, moved to the bourgeoisie, hit the professional classes, then high-end journalists, and finally, at the very end came for the elite ruling class itself—Trudeau, Psaki, Ardern, Gates, and finally Fauci—regardless of their multiple vaccines.

And here is why Fauci’s COVID infection is significant, 28 months after the first lockdowns. It’s a sign and symbol that his entire theory of virus control was wrong. He got his way with policy and it did not work. The virus finally landed on him, as if to reenact Edgar Allan Poe’s fictional story of Prince Prospero in his castle that he believed would protect him.

And as a result of his exposure, Fauci will surely (unless his repeated injection of the same vaccine harmed the operation of his immune system) gain the natural immunity that is already possessed by 78 percent of kids and likely two thirds of the general population.

Advertisement

It should also alert us to three points of moral urgency:

  • We need to replace Fauci-style feudalism with a new theory of how to reconcile the freely functioning society with the presence of infectious disease, so that neither he nor people in his pay or sway can attempt this again.
  • We need to act to disable the unmitigated power of administrative-state bureaucrats to seize control of the machinery of government.
  • We need a new system to decentralize science away from privileged elites so that they can never again have monopoly control over what is considered to be the science much less posses the power to censor dissent.

These are the lessons, at least the start of them. This virus is either endemic or at least almost so, but we are left with astonishing social, cultural, and economic destruction from Fauci’s attempt to implement an experimental plan on the whole population not only in the United States but all over the world.

We will suffer for many years or generations from it. And yet, in the end, infection is individual and probably unavoidable for most people. The immune system adapts. That’s how we evolved to coexist. To pretend otherwise is the very essence of denying the science.

From the Brownstone Institute

Advertisement

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Follow

Jeffrey Tucker is founder and president of the Brownstone Institute. He is the author of five books, including “Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty.”
Advertisement

Continue Reading

USA

Babies as Young as 6 Months Could Get COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines From Tuesday

Published

on

By

After the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) authorized COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months of age, those children could get the shots as early as Tuesday, June 21.

The CDC on Saturday signed off on giving both Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to infants and children between 6 months and 5 years. It came after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel unanimously voted to authorize the use of the vaccines.

Advertisement

Because June 20 is the recently created “Juneteenth” federal holiday, officials in some U.S. municipalities released press releases saying that very young children can receive the vaccines Tuesday.

For example, officials in Santa Clara County—located in California’s Bay Area—said on June 17 that officials “will begin administering COVID-19 vaccinations for children ages 6 months to 5 years old beginning Tuesday, June 21, assuming the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides final approval and vaccine supplies arrive as scheduled.”

Earlier this month, Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House’s COVID-19 response coordinator, suggested that after the FDA and CDC advisory meetings, shipments of the first 10 million doses would start this weekend.

Advertisement

“We expect that vaccination will begin in earnest as early as June 21 and really roll on throughout that week,” Jha told reporters.

The FDA Friday authorized the Moderna vaccine for children aged six months to five years as well as Pfizer’s shot for children aged six months to four years. Pfizer’s vaccine is already authorized for children over the age of five.

After the authorizations were handed down, President Joe Biden said that in the coming week, “parents will be able to start scheduling appointments at places like pediatricians’ offices, children’s hospitals, and pharmacies” to obtain the mRNA shots.

Advertisement

“Appointments will ramp up as more doses are shipped out, and in the coming weeks, every parent who wants a vaccine will be able to get one,” Biden said in a statement As the vaccination program ramps up, Vaccines.gov will be live next week with vaccine availability and appointments increasing throughout the week.”

It’s not clear how many parents will actually have their young children and infants receive the shot. According to federal data, only about 29 percent of children aged 5 to 11 are considered fully vaccinated after the Pfizer vaccine was authorized in October 2021 for the age group.

Meanwhile, sporadic polls targeting parents of young kids suggest that the vast majority of parents of young children don’t want their kids to receive the shots. Last month, a Kaiser Family Foundation survey revealed that only 18 percent of American parents with kids in that age group are planning on vaccinating their children.

Advertisement

A slew of studies and data has shown that children and young children have by far the lowest COVID-19 mortality rates of any age group, with elderly people and immunocompromised individuals having the highest. And in March, the CDC quietly removed about 25 percent of COVID-19 deaths among individuals younger than 18 as some doctors have sounded the alarm about giving the vaccines to the youngest children.

Reuters contributed to this report. 

Jack Phillips

Follow

Advertisement

Jack Phillips is a breaking news reporter at The Epoch Times based in New York.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending