Leave it to unions and liberal politicians to suppress a good thing, in this case, New York City tourism. And then to replicate the errors.

Although the 62 million tourists who visited New York City last year didn’t quite beat the number of tourists the Big Apple attracted before the pandemic, the economic impact of tourism hit record highs, not adjusted for the worst inflation in 40 years, generating an estimated $74 billion overall and $48 billion in direct spending. Nearly 1 in 10 workers in the city, the single most visited destination in America, is employed by the tourism industry, and tourism generates an estimated $7 billion in local tax revenue and $5 billion in revenue to Albany.

But New York City hotel rooms average around $300 a night, more expensive than any others in the nation except those in Boston, and the problem seems to be getting worse the more that leftist policies are implemented.

Sheltering 65,000 migrants in the sanctuary city has meant sequestering 16,500 hotel rooms. Already, 1 in 5 hotel rooms is being used for this revenue-draining rather than revenue-generating purpose, with the city paying well below market rate. This puts upward pressure on prices for the rest of the rooms while making it harder for the hotels to pay their bills.

Now, city lawmakers want to double down on the problem, with Councilwoman Julie Menin proposing to ban hotels from contracting out certain services and force them to employ unionized workers on staff.

The proposed bill would require hotels to pay $200 a year for a license and, more perniciously, mandate that all of them “directly employ all core and critical employees.” It would ban “contracting to any third parties for core and critical employees” unless “a majority of all core and critical employees … are covered by a valid, active, and unexpired collective bargaining agreement” with a union. The bill specifically defines “core” and “critical” employees as those whose job classifications are related to “housekeeping, front desk, front service,” “engineering,” and “food preparation, food service, or security.”

All told, this would require nearly 10% of the city’s workers to be unionized overnight. Most of the city’s 700 hotels are not unionized, so the bill has been likened to a “nuclear bomb” that would flatten the industry by Vijay Dandapani, president and CEO of the Hotel Association of New York City.

Kevin Carey, interim president and CEO of the American Hotel and Lodging Association, noted that the bill would “ruin the ability of many small-business hotels to maintain consistent operations in this tough labor market.” The ratio of people looking for jobs versus job openings remained at the lowest rate ever recorded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics into 2023, with at least five jobs open for every four people looking for work as of this May.

Although the bill’s supporters claim its main purpose is to secure sanitation and safety standards at hotels, it’s better understood as a new front in a national effort to kill the gig economy and revive union membership, which is the Democratic Party’s most prized source of funds. Menin’s bill arrived as the National Labor Relations Board admitted defeat over the Biden administration’s failed “joint employer” attempt that would have held prime contractors and franchisors liable when subcontractors or franchisees were sued.

The NLRB rule would have vastly expanded union membership to include temporary workers from staffing agencies and put hotels in legal jeopardy for the actions of those agencies. It seems not coincidental that Menin replaced the joint employer rule with her own local mechanism immediately.

A prohibitively expensive vacation in the city that never sleeps isn’t even the biggest risk of the New York City bill. Rather, it is part of a larger national effort to use left-wing states to make bad, big-government ideas into the norm and then nationalize them. California’s economically self-cutting strategy to criminalize gig workers, from Uber drivers to Hollywood screenwriters, has been retrofitted into the national war on the right to work. Congressional Democrats repeatedly push for the “Protecting the Right to Organize Act,” the so-called “PRO” Act. Only a Senate filibuster has kept this gig-job-killing legislation from becoming law.

California’s AB5, a state version of the PRO Act, resulted in a 10.5% decrease in self-employment and a 4.4% decrease in overall employment for all affected industries without increasing W-2 employment. That hasn’t stopped President Joe Biden and his party’s next nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, from wholeheartedly endorsing the disaster of the national bill.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

There’s no reason to believe that the hotel licensing bill wouldn’t become a national model in the same vein. It would drive prices out of reach of many tourists, hampering direct employment and tax revenue to the city and state. But the Left has never let little matters of economic reality, dollars, cents, and good sense get in the way of its war on the right to work.

Contractual arrangements between a hotel and someone who wishes to work for it should be none of the government’s business. But the meddling Left always pretends to believe it knows better how work should be done than the people actually doing the work. It never minds its own business.

2024-07-27 04:01:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3100950%2Funions-new-york-democrats-move-hobble-citys-tourism%2F?w=600&h=450, Leave it to unions and liberal politicians to suppress a good thing, in this case, New York City tourism. And then to replicate the errors. Although the 62 million tourists who visited New York City last year didn’t quite beat the number of tourists the Big Apple attracted before the pandemic, the economic impact of,

Leave it to unions and liberal politicians to suppress a good thing, in this case, New York City tourism. And then to replicate the errors.

Although the 62 million tourists who visited New York City last year didn’t quite beat the number of tourists the Big Apple attracted before the pandemic, the economic impact of tourism hit record highs, not adjusted for the worst inflation in 40 years, generating an estimated $74 billion overall and $48 billion in direct spending. Nearly 1 in 10 workers in the city, the single most visited destination in America, is employed by the tourism industry, and tourism generates an estimated $7 billion in local tax revenue and $5 billion in revenue to Albany.

But New York City hotel rooms average around $300 a night, more expensive than any others in the nation except those in Boston, and the problem seems to be getting worse the more that leftist policies are implemented.

Sheltering 65,000 migrants in the sanctuary city has meant sequestering 16,500 hotel rooms. Already, 1 in 5 hotel rooms is being used for this revenue-draining rather than revenue-generating purpose, with the city paying well below market rate. This puts upward pressure on prices for the rest of the rooms while making it harder for the hotels to pay their bills.

Now, city lawmakers want to double down on the problem, with Councilwoman Julie Menin proposing to ban hotels from contracting out certain services and force them to employ unionized workers on staff.

The proposed bill would require hotels to pay $200 a year for a license and, more perniciously, mandate that all of them “directly employ all core and critical employees.” It would ban “contracting to any third parties for core and critical employees” unless “a majority of all core and critical employees … are covered by a valid, active, and unexpired collective bargaining agreement” with a union. The bill specifically defines “core” and “critical” employees as those whose job classifications are related to “housekeeping, front desk, front service,” “engineering,” and “food preparation, food service, or security.”

All told, this would require nearly 10% of the city’s workers to be unionized overnight. Most of the city’s 700 hotels are not unionized, so the bill has been likened to a “nuclear bomb” that would flatten the industry by Vijay Dandapani, president and CEO of the Hotel Association of New York City.

Kevin Carey, interim president and CEO of the American Hotel and Lodging Association, noted that the bill would “ruin the ability of many small-business hotels to maintain consistent operations in this tough labor market.” The ratio of people looking for jobs versus job openings remained at the lowest rate ever recorded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics into 2023, with at least five jobs open for every four people looking for work as of this May.

Although the bill’s supporters claim its main purpose is to secure sanitation and safety standards at hotels, it’s better understood as a new front in a national effort to kill the gig economy and revive union membership, which is the Democratic Party’s most prized source of funds. Menin’s bill arrived as the National Labor Relations Board admitted defeat over the Biden administration’s failed “joint employer” attempt that would have held prime contractors and franchisors liable when subcontractors or franchisees were sued.

The NLRB rule would have vastly expanded union membership to include temporary workers from staffing agencies and put hotels in legal jeopardy for the actions of those agencies. It seems not coincidental that Menin replaced the joint employer rule with her own local mechanism immediately.

A prohibitively expensive vacation in the city that never sleeps isn’t even the biggest risk of the New York City bill. Rather, it is part of a larger national effort to use left-wing states to make bad, big-government ideas into the norm and then nationalize them. California’s economically self-cutting strategy to criminalize gig workers, from Uber drivers to Hollywood screenwriters, has been retrofitted into the national war on the right to work. Congressional Democrats repeatedly push for the “Protecting the Right to Organize Act,” the so-called “PRO” Act. Only a Senate filibuster has kept this gig-job-killing legislation from becoming law.

California’s AB5, a state version of the PRO Act, resulted in a 10.5% decrease in self-employment and a 4.4% decrease in overall employment for all affected industries without increasing W-2 employment. That hasn’t stopped President Joe Biden and his party’s next nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, from wholeheartedly endorsing the disaster of the national bill.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

There’s no reason to believe that the hotel licensing bill wouldn’t become a national model in the same vein. It would drive prices out of reach of many tourists, hampering direct employment and tax revenue to the city and state. But the Left has never let little matters of economic reality, dollars, cents, and good sense get in the way of its war on the right to work.

Contractual arrangements between a hotel and someone who wishes to work for it should be none of the government’s business. But the meddling Left always pretends to believe it knows better how work should be done than the people actually doing the work. It never minds its own business.

, Leave it to unions and liberal politicians to suppress a good thing, in this case, New York City tourism. And then to replicate the errors. Although the 62 million tourists who visited New York City last year didn’t quite beat the number of tourists the Big Apple attracted before the pandemic, the economic impact of tourism hit record highs, not adjusted for the worst inflation in 40 years, generating an estimated $74 billion overall and $48 billion in direct spending. Nearly 1 in 10 workers in the city, the single most visited destination in America, is employed by the tourism industry, and tourism generates an estimated $7 billion in local tax revenue and $5 billion in revenue to Albany. But New York City hotel rooms average around $300 a night, more expensive than any others in the nation except those in Boston, and the problem seems to be getting worse the more that leftist policies are implemented. Sheltering 65,000 migrants in the sanctuary city has meant sequestering 16,500 hotel rooms. Already, 1 in 5 hotel rooms is being used for this revenue-draining rather than revenue-generating purpose, with the city paying well below market rate. This puts upward pressure on prices for the rest of the rooms while making it harder for the hotels to pay their bills. Now, city lawmakers want to double down on the problem, with Councilwoman Julie Menin proposing to ban hotels from contracting out certain services and force them to employ unionized workers on staff. The proposed bill would require hotels to pay $200 a year for a license and, more perniciously, mandate that all of them “directly employ all core and critical employees.” It would ban “contracting to any third parties for core and critical employees” unless “a majority of all core and critical employees … are covered by a valid, active, and unexpired collective bargaining agreement” with a union. The bill specifically defines “core” and “critical” employees as those whose job classifications are related to “housekeeping, front desk, front service,” “engineering,” and “food preparation, food service, or security.” All told, this would require nearly 10% of the city’s workers to be unionized overnight. Most of the city’s 700 hotels are not unionized, so the bill has been likened to a “nuclear bomb” that would flatten the industry by Vijay Dandapani, president and CEO of the Hotel Association of New York City. Kevin Carey, interim president and CEO of the American Hotel and Lodging Association, noted that the bill would “ruin the ability of many small-business hotels to maintain consistent operations in this tough labor market.” The ratio of people looking for jobs versus job openings remained at the lowest rate ever recorded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics into 2023, with at least five jobs open for every four people looking for work as of this May. Although the bill’s supporters claim its main purpose is to secure sanitation and safety standards at hotels, it’s better understood as a new front in a national effort to kill the gig economy and revive union membership, which is the Democratic Party’s most prized source of funds. Menin’s bill arrived as the National Labor Relations Board admitted defeat over the Biden administration’s failed “joint employer” attempt that would have held prime contractors and franchisors liable when subcontractors or franchisees were sued. The NLRB rule would have vastly expanded union membership to include temporary workers from staffing agencies and put hotels in legal jeopardy for the actions of those agencies. It seems not coincidental that Menin replaced the joint employer rule with her own local mechanism immediately. A prohibitively expensive vacation in the city that never sleeps isn’t even the biggest risk of the New York City bill. Rather, it is part of a larger national effort to use left-wing states to make bad, big-government ideas into the norm and then nationalize them. California’s economically self-cutting strategy to criminalize gig workers, from Uber drivers to Hollywood screenwriters, has been retrofitted into the national war on the right to work. Congressional Democrats repeatedly push for the “Protecting the Right to Organize Act,” the so-called “PRO” Act. Only a Senate filibuster has kept this gig-job-killing legislation from becoming law. California’s AB5, a state version of the PRO Act, resulted in a 10.5% decrease in self-employment and a 4.4% decrease in overall employment for all affected industries without increasing W-2 employment. That hasn’t stopped President Joe Biden and his party’s next nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, from wholeheartedly endorsing the disaster of the national bill. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER There’s no reason to believe that the hotel licensing bill wouldn’t become a national model in the same vein. It would drive prices out of reach of many tourists, hampering direct employment and tax revenue to the city and state. But the Left has never let little matters of economic reality, dollars, cents, and good sense get in the way of its war on the right to work. Contractual arrangements between a hotel and someone who wishes to work for it should be none of the government’s business. But the meddling Left always pretends to believe it knows better how work should be done than the people actually doing the work. It never minds its own business., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/new-york-city.jpg.optimal.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

The wildly diverging partisan reactions to Wednesday’s Capitol Hill appearance by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu show that the Left has neither a moral compass nor a sense of U.S. national interests in the Middle East.

Netanyahu is a divisive figure in his own land and worldwide, but even his personal detractors here should welcome him as the duly elected leader of one of America’s most important allies.

Just as it would be unacceptable for U.S. elected leaders to boycott or protest any Prime Minister of Great Britain, regardless of ideological differences, as long as that great nation remains an ally and a representative democracy, so too is it wrongheaded to maltreat an Israeli leader. Israel remains a beacon of democracy and human rights in a part of the world otherwise hostile to those practices, and it collaborates with the United States, to the great benefit of our nation’s interests, in ways too numerous to count.

Yet President Joe Biden long has treated Netanyahu with disrespect, and Kamala Harris shamefully refused the vice president’s traditional role of presiding when a foreign ally addresses Congress. Some left-wing House and Senate members were even worse. For example, Jerrold Nadler, one of the most senior Democrats in the House, had the effrontery to call Netanyahu “the worst leader in Jewish history since the Maccabean king who invited the Romans into Jerusalem over 2100 years ago.”

Both Netanyahu and Israel have been subjected to widespread left-wing excoriation in the aftermath of Hamas terrorism and for their international posture in general. As definitively documented by West Point’s John Spencer, Israel’s efforts in Gaza, compared to other instances of urban warfare, have been remarkably restrained and humane, with a historically low percentage of civilian casualties. Israel has done so while responding to an unprovoked and barbaric attack from an enemy that openly boasts about using women and children as human shields.

It was an attack, the world should remember, not by a people Israel has abused, but by people whom Israel has long provided water and power and billions of dollars of humanitarian aid, assistance that Hamas terrorists redirect from their own people to use instead for terrorism.

Of all Israeli leaders since that brave nation’s founding, Netanyahu has been the one most friendly to the U.S. He spent many of his formative years as a child and a young man here, and he long has expressed love for this nation and usually has backed that up with concrete action. He also is a peacemaker, having worked for years, to great effect, to put in place the alliances with Arab nations that were formalized in the Abraham Accords, arguably the most far-reaching peace agreements in the history of the Middle East.

It is likely that those accords would have been publicly proclaimed sooner if the Obama-Biden administration’s hostility to Israel had not gotten in the way.

Once Joe Biden himself became president, he picked up where Barack Obama left off, treating Netanyahu with open disrespect. And except for a single week of strong support for Israel immediately after Hamas’s terrorist attack last fall, Biden repeatedly has worked to hamstring Israel’s justified response rather than doing more to enable it to eradicate Hamas, all while Biden also gives short shrift to American hostages held in Gaza.

More inexcusably, both the Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris administrations have consistently bent down to the ayatollahs of Iran, the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism and a self-avowed enemy of both the U.S. and Israel. It is Iran that finances and largely directs the terrorists of both Hamas and Hezbollah, each of them dedicated to wiping Israel from the globe and eventually to taking down the U.S., which they persist in calling the “Great Satan.”

The Obama-Biden administration entered a foolhardy deal with Iran related to Iran’s nuclear power, and the Biden administration repeatedly and inexplicably has released back to Iran billions of dollars of cash and other assets, even as Iran’s provocations continue. And even though Iran sponsored close to 200 attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, Biden has responded only with near-pusillanimous, supposedly (but barely) “proportionate” retaliation against Iranian-backed militants.

Now Secretary of State Antony Blinken says Iran is less than two weeks away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb, despite Biden’s adherence to the pathetic “agreement” that was supposed to keep Iran’s nuclear work restricted only to energy production, not weapons.

There’s still no word on what Biden’s plans are in response to this bombshell (literally) revelation. But don’t fear: Team Biden remains dedicated to treating Netanyahu, not Iran, as the real malefactor in the Middle East, with Harris’ snub of Netanyahu’s speech being an outrageously childish gesture and an unforgivable breach of protocol. In a classy move, Netanyahu himself said what is surely a greater number of complimentary words about Biden, personally, in this one speech than Biden has said about Netanyahu in 40 years.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

In pushing the demonization of Netanyahu, Harris clearly is courting this nation’s radical-chic university types and the left-wing Arab American community in swing-state Michigan, thus hoping to energize her natural base in the anti-American Left. She is courting those who Netanyahu rightly described as “Iran’s useful idiots.”

All other people, though, should resent Harris’s anti-Israel posturing and her administration’s weak-kneed kowtowing to Iran. And be willing to vote accordingly.

2024-07-25 04:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Feditorials%2F3098253%2Fnetanyahu-israel-outclass-biden-harris-iran-axis%2F?w=600&h=450, The wildly diverging partisan reactions to Wednesday’s Capitol Hill appearance by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu show that the Left has neither a moral compass nor a sense of U.S. national interests in the Middle East. Netanyahu is a divisive figure in his own land and worldwide, but even his personal detractors here should welcome him as the duly elected,

The wildly diverging partisan reactions to Wednesday’s Capitol Hill appearance by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu show that the Left has neither a moral compass nor a sense of U.S. national interests in the Middle East.

Netanyahu is a divisive figure in his own land and worldwide, but even his personal detractors here should welcome him as the duly elected leader of one of America’s most important allies.

Just as it would be unacceptable for U.S. elected leaders to boycott or protest any Prime Minister of Great Britain, regardless of ideological differences, as long as that great nation remains an ally and a representative democracy, so too is it wrongheaded to maltreat an Israeli leader. Israel remains a beacon of democracy and human rights in a part of the world otherwise hostile to those practices, and it collaborates with the United States, to the great benefit of our nation’s interests, in ways too numerous to count.

Yet President Joe Biden long has treated Netanyahu with disrespect, and Kamala Harris shamefully refused the vice president’s traditional role of presiding when a foreign ally addresses Congress. Some left-wing House and Senate members were even worse. For example, Jerrold Nadler, one of the most senior Democrats in the House, had the effrontery to call Netanyahu “the worst leader in Jewish history since the Maccabean king who invited the Romans into Jerusalem over 2100 years ago.”

Both Netanyahu and Israel have been subjected to widespread left-wing excoriation in the aftermath of Hamas terrorism and for their international posture in general. As definitively documented by West Point’s John Spencer, Israel’s efforts in Gaza, compared to other instances of urban warfare, have been remarkably restrained and humane, with a historically low percentage of civilian casualties. Israel has done so while responding to an unprovoked and barbaric attack from an enemy that openly boasts about using women and children as human shields.

It was an attack, the world should remember, not by a people Israel has abused, but by people whom Israel has long provided water and power and billions of dollars of humanitarian aid, assistance that Hamas terrorists redirect from their own people to use instead for terrorism.

Of all Israeli leaders since that brave nation’s founding, Netanyahu has been the one most friendly to the U.S. He spent many of his formative years as a child and a young man here, and he long has expressed love for this nation and usually has backed that up with concrete action. He also is a peacemaker, having worked for years, to great effect, to put in place the alliances with Arab nations that were formalized in the Abraham Accords, arguably the most far-reaching peace agreements in the history of the Middle East.

It is likely that those accords would have been publicly proclaimed sooner if the Obama-Biden administration’s hostility to Israel had not gotten in the way.

Once Joe Biden himself became president, he picked up where Barack Obama left off, treating Netanyahu with open disrespect. And except for a single week of strong support for Israel immediately after Hamas’s terrorist attack last fall, Biden repeatedly has worked to hamstring Israel’s justified response rather than doing more to enable it to eradicate Hamas, all while Biden also gives short shrift to American hostages held in Gaza.

More inexcusably, both the Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris administrations have consistently bent down to the ayatollahs of Iran, the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism and a self-avowed enemy of both the U.S. and Israel. It is Iran that finances and largely directs the terrorists of both Hamas and Hezbollah, each of them dedicated to wiping Israel from the globe and eventually to taking down the U.S., which they persist in calling the “Great Satan.”

The Obama-Biden administration entered a foolhardy deal with Iran related to Iran’s nuclear power, and the Biden administration repeatedly and inexplicably has released back to Iran billions of dollars of cash and other assets, even as Iran’s provocations continue. And even though Iran sponsored close to 200 attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, Biden has responded only with near-pusillanimous, supposedly (but barely) “proportionate” retaliation against Iranian-backed militants.

Now Secretary of State Antony Blinken says Iran is less than two weeks away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb, despite Biden’s adherence to the pathetic “agreement” that was supposed to keep Iran’s nuclear work restricted only to energy production, not weapons.

There’s still no word on what Biden’s plans are in response to this bombshell (literally) revelation. But don’t fear: Team Biden remains dedicated to treating Netanyahu, not Iran, as the real malefactor in the Middle East, with Harris’ snub of Netanyahu’s speech being an outrageously childish gesture and an unforgivable breach of protocol. In a classy move, Netanyahu himself said what is surely a greater number of complimentary words about Biden, personally, in this one speech than Biden has said about Netanyahu in 40 years.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

In pushing the demonization of Netanyahu, Harris clearly is courting this nation’s radical-chic university types and the left-wing Arab American community in swing-state Michigan, thus hoping to energize her natural base in the anti-American Left. She is courting those who Netanyahu rightly described as “Iran’s useful idiots.”

All other people, though, should resent Harris’s anti-Israel posturing and her administration’s weak-kneed kowtowing to Iran. And be willing to vote accordingly.

, The wildly diverging partisan reactions to Wednesday’s Capitol Hill appearance by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu show that the Left has neither a moral compass nor a sense of U.S. national interests in the Middle East. Netanyahu is a divisive figure in his own land and worldwide, but even his personal detractors here should welcome him as the duly elected leader of one of America’s most important allies. Just as it would be unacceptable for U.S. elected leaders to boycott or protest any Prime Minister of Great Britain, regardless of ideological differences, as long as that great nation remains an ally and a representative democracy, so too is it wrongheaded to maltreat an Israeli leader. Israel remains a beacon of democracy and human rights in a part of the world otherwise hostile to those practices, and it collaborates with the United States, to the great benefit of our nation’s interests, in ways too numerous to count. Yet President Joe Biden long has treated Netanyahu with disrespect, and Kamala Harris shamefully refused the vice president’s traditional role of presiding when a foreign ally addresses Congress. Some left-wing House and Senate members were even worse. For example, Jerrold Nadler, one of the most senior Democrats in the House, had the effrontery to call Netanyahu “the worst leader in Jewish history since the Maccabean king who invited the Romans into Jerusalem over 2100 years ago.” Both Netanyahu and Israel have been subjected to widespread left-wing excoriation in the aftermath of Hamas terrorism and for their international posture in general. As definitively documented by West Point’s John Spencer, Israel’s efforts in Gaza, compared to other instances of urban warfare, have been remarkably restrained and humane, with a historically low percentage of civilian casualties. Israel has done so while responding to an unprovoked and barbaric attack from an enemy that openly boasts about using women and children as human shields. It was an attack, the world should remember, not by a people Israel has abused, but by people whom Israel has long provided water and power and billions of dollars of humanitarian aid, assistance that Hamas terrorists redirect from their own people to use instead for terrorism. Of all Israeli leaders since that brave nation’s founding, Netanyahu has been the one most friendly to the U.S. He spent many of his formative years as a child and a young man here, and he long has expressed love for this nation and usually has backed that up with concrete action. He also is a peacemaker, having worked for years, to great effect, to put in place the alliances with Arab nations that were formalized in the Abraham Accords, arguably the most far-reaching peace agreements in the history of the Middle East. It is likely that those accords would have been publicly proclaimed sooner if the Obama-Biden administration’s hostility to Israel had not gotten in the way. Once Joe Biden himself became president, he picked up where Barack Obama left off, treating Netanyahu with open disrespect. And except for a single week of strong support for Israel immediately after Hamas’s terrorist attack last fall, Biden repeatedly has worked to hamstring Israel’s justified response rather than doing more to enable it to eradicate Hamas, all while Biden also gives short shrift to American hostages held in Gaza. More inexcusably, both the Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris administrations have consistently bent down to the ayatollahs of Iran, the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism and a self-avowed enemy of both the U.S. and Israel. It is Iran that finances and largely directs the terrorists of both Hamas and Hezbollah, each of them dedicated to wiping Israel from the globe and eventually to taking down the U.S., which they persist in calling the “Great Satan.” The Obama-Biden administration entered a foolhardy deal with Iran related to Iran’s nuclear power, and the Biden administration repeatedly and inexplicably has released back to Iran billions of dollars of cash and other assets, even as Iran’s provocations continue. And even though Iran sponsored close to 200 attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, Biden has responded only with near-pusillanimous, supposedly (but barely) “proportionate” retaliation against Iranian-backed militants. Now Secretary of State Antony Blinken says Iran is less than two weeks away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb, despite Biden’s adherence to the pathetic “agreement” that was supposed to keep Iran’s nuclear work restricted only to energy production, not weapons. There’s still no word on what Biden’s plans are in response to this bombshell (literally) revelation. But don’t fear: Team Biden remains dedicated to treating Netanyahu, not Iran, as the real malefactor in the Middle East, with Harris’ snub of Netanyahu’s speech being an outrageously childish gesture and an unforgivable breach of protocol. In a classy move, Netanyahu himself said what is surely a greater number of complimentary words about Biden, personally, in this one speech than Biden has said about Netanyahu in 40 years. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER In pushing the demonization of Netanyahu, Harris clearly is courting this nation’s radical-chic university types and the left-wing Arab American community in swing-state Michigan, thus hoping to energize her natural base in the anti-American Left. She is courting those who Netanyahu rightly described as “Iran’s useful idiots.” All other people, though, should resent Harris’s anti-Israel posturing and her administration’s weak-kneed kowtowing to Iran. And be willing to vote accordingly., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/CONGRESS-NETANYAHU-524136.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

Democrats, in substituting a lucid 59-year-old for a fading 81-year-old, also replaced a career pragmatist with a lifelong left-wing ideologue.

Vice President Kamala Harris, now that she is the Democrats’ presumptive nominee, should be forced to answer for her decades of extremist positions on foreign policy, race, abortion, and the environment, among others. Does she still hold these views? If not, what changed her mind?

Harris, by some measures, was the leftmost member of the Senate, even more extreme than avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and the least bipartisan Democrat in her brief stint there. She co-sponsored a bill to socialize all healthcare in America (“Medicare for All,” they call it) and explicitly said private insurance should be illegal. Under fire, she moderated, saying she might tolerate a private insurance industry co-existing in her favored socialized healthcare scheme.

Her environmentalist record is also extremist. “There’s no question,” Harris stated in 2019. “I’m in favor of banning fracking.” Fracking is the most important part of American energy exploration, which has been the single greatest check on Biden-Harris inflation. Her extremist view would not only make us dependent on Russia, Venezuela, or the Middle East for oil and gas, but it would also wreck our economy.

The Green New Deal is a radical agenda aimed not only at replacing all reliable energy with renewables but at reshaping our entire society into a utopian left-wing dreamworld. Harris, of course, was one of 11 original co-sponsors, placing her at the left end of the party.

On abortion, Harris is an absolutist and a zealot. She vehemently refuses to grant any rights to the unborn at any stage in fetal development. She co-sponsored a bill to legalize abortion “without limitations.” She prosecuted a pro-life activist for exposing Planned Parenthood’s trade in human body parts.

“Radical” is an apt word for Harris’s activism. She raised money for arrested rioters whose politics she supported. As riots raged in the summer of 2020, with fire and property damage and violent threats, Harris cheered them on.

On immigration, she argued that illegal entry shouldn’t be a crime and blamed the border crisis on vague “root causes” besides her administration’s own pointless and clueless policies.

She has signaled her Israel position by boycotting the speech of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, aligning herself with the likes of far-left Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) rather than the mainstream of her party.

We grant that politicians evolve their views. Sometimes they grow up and grow wiser. Sometimes changing circumstances dictate changing positions. Sometimes what makes sense for a lawmaker doesn’t translate to an executive.

So Harris should be allowed to explain the extreme views she has articulated or indicated over the years. To that end, every journalist who has the opportunity should ask her about these stances that are way outside the mainstream.

Would she try to socialize medicine? Would she try to outlaw private health insurance? Would she ban fracking? Would she fight to keep third-trimester abortion legal? Does she support the arson of 2020 as a legitimate expression of dissatisfaction? Does she regret her administration’s early immigration actions? What, exactly, does she think Israel ought to do with Hamas?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

If she still holds her extreme views, it would be a service to the electorate to bring that to light. In fact, it would be a service to Democrats to bring it to light before the delegates vote in Chicago next month.

And if she has changed her mind, which we hope she has, she should explain her evolution. Even then, her long record of radicalism will make any moves toward the center almost impossible to believe.

2024-07-24 04:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Feditorials%2F3095975%2Fkamala-the-extremist%2F?w=600&h=450, Democrats, in substituting a lucid 59-year-old for a fading 81-year-old, also replaced a career pragmatist with a lifelong left-wing ideologue. Vice President Kamala Harris, now that she is the Democrats’ presumptive nominee, should be forced to answer for her decades of extremist positions on foreign policy, race, abortion, and the environment, among others. Does she,

Democrats, in substituting a lucid 59-year-old for a fading 81-year-old, also replaced a career pragmatist with a lifelong left-wing ideologue.

Vice President Kamala Harris, now that she is the Democrats’ presumptive nominee, should be forced to answer for her decades of extremist positions on foreign policy, race, abortion, and the environment, among others. Does she still hold these views? If not, what changed her mind?

Harris, by some measures, was the leftmost member of the Senate, even more extreme than avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and the least bipartisan Democrat in her brief stint there. She co-sponsored a bill to socialize all healthcare in America (“Medicare for All,” they call it) and explicitly said private insurance should be illegal. Under fire, she moderated, saying she might tolerate a private insurance industry co-existing in her favored socialized healthcare scheme.

Her environmentalist record is also extremist. “There’s no question,” Harris stated in 2019. “I’m in favor of banning fracking.” Fracking is the most important part of American energy exploration, which has been the single greatest check on Biden-Harris inflation. Her extremist view would not only make us dependent on Russia, Venezuela, or the Middle East for oil and gas, but it would also wreck our economy.

The Green New Deal is a radical agenda aimed not only at replacing all reliable energy with renewables but at reshaping our entire society into a utopian left-wing dreamworld. Harris, of course, was one of 11 original co-sponsors, placing her at the left end of the party.

On abortion, Harris is an absolutist and a zealot. She vehemently refuses to grant any rights to the unborn at any stage in fetal development. She co-sponsored a bill to legalize abortion “without limitations.” She prosecuted a pro-life activist for exposing Planned Parenthood’s trade in human body parts.

“Radical” is an apt word for Harris’s activism. She raised money for arrested rioters whose politics she supported. As riots raged in the summer of 2020, with fire and property damage and violent threats, Harris cheered them on.

On immigration, she argued that illegal entry shouldn’t be a crime and blamed the border crisis on vague “root causes” besides her administration’s own pointless and clueless policies.

She has signaled her Israel position by boycotting the speech of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, aligning herself with the likes of far-left Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) rather than the mainstream of her party.

We grant that politicians evolve their views. Sometimes they grow up and grow wiser. Sometimes changing circumstances dictate changing positions. Sometimes what makes sense for a lawmaker doesn’t translate to an executive.

So Harris should be allowed to explain the extreme views she has articulated or indicated over the years. To that end, every journalist who has the opportunity should ask her about these stances that are way outside the mainstream.

Would she try to socialize medicine? Would she try to outlaw private health insurance? Would she ban fracking? Would she fight to keep third-trimester abortion legal? Does she support the arson of 2020 as a legitimate expression of dissatisfaction? Does she regret her administration’s early immigration actions? What, exactly, does she think Israel ought to do with Hamas?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

If she still holds her extreme views, it would be a service to the electorate to bring that to light. In fact, it would be a service to Democrats to bring it to light before the delegates vote in Chicago next month.

And if she has changed her mind, which we hope she has, she should explain her evolution. Even then, her long record of radicalism will make any moves toward the center almost impossible to believe.

, Democrats, in substituting a lucid 59-year-old for a fading 81-year-old, also replaced a career pragmatist with a lifelong left-wing ideologue. Vice President Kamala Harris, now that she is the Democrats’ presumptive nominee, should be forced to answer for her decades of extremist positions on foreign policy, race, abortion, and the environment, among others. Does she still hold these views? If not, what changed her mind? Harris, by some measures, was the leftmost member of the Senate, even more extreme than avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and the least bipartisan Democrat in her brief stint there. She co-sponsored a bill to socialize all healthcare in America (“Medicare for All,” they call it) and explicitly said private insurance should be illegal. Under fire, she moderated, saying she might tolerate a private insurance industry co-existing in her favored socialized healthcare scheme. Her environmentalist record is also extremist. “There’s no question,” Harris stated in 2019. “I’m in favor of banning fracking.” Fracking is the most important part of American energy exploration, which has been the single greatest check on Biden-Harris inflation. Her extremist view would not only make us dependent on Russia, Venezuela, or the Middle East for oil and gas, but it would also wreck our economy. The Green New Deal is a radical agenda aimed not only at replacing all reliable energy with renewables but at reshaping our entire society into a utopian left-wing dreamworld. Harris, of course, was one of 11 original co-sponsors, placing her at the left end of the party. On abortion, Harris is an absolutist and a zealot. She vehemently refuses to grant any rights to the unborn at any stage in fetal development. She co-sponsored a bill to legalize abortion “without limitations.” She prosecuted a pro-life activist for exposing Planned Parenthood’s trade in human body parts. “Radical” is an apt word for Harris’s activism. She raised money for arrested rioters whose politics she supported. As riots raged in the summer of 2020, with fire and property damage and violent threats, Harris cheered them on. On immigration, she argued that illegal entry shouldn’t be a crime and blamed the border crisis on vague “root causes” besides her administration’s own pointless and clueless policies. She has signaled her Israel position by boycotting the speech of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, aligning herself with the likes of far-left Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) rather than the mainstream of her party. We grant that politicians evolve their views. Sometimes they grow up and grow wiser. Sometimes changing circumstances dictate changing positions. Sometimes what makes sense for a lawmaker doesn’t translate to an executive. So Harris should be allowed to explain the extreme views she has articulated or indicated over the years. To that end, every journalist who has the opportunity should ask her about these stances that are way outside the mainstream. Would she try to socialize medicine? Would she try to outlaw private health insurance? Would she ban fracking? Would she fight to keep third-trimester abortion legal? Does she support the arson of 2020 as a legitimate expression of dissatisfaction? Does she regret her administration’s early immigration actions? What, exactly, does she think Israel ought to do with Hamas? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER If she still holds her extreme views, it would be a service to the electorate to bring that to light. In fact, it would be a service to Democrats to bring it to light before the delegates vote in Chicago next month. And if she has changed her mind, which we hope she has, she should explain her evolution. Even then, her long record of radicalism will make any moves toward the center almost impossible to believe., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/kamala-harris-extremist.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

The border crisis, on par with inflation, is perhaps the worst domestic failure of the Biden-Harris administration. It is the result of dumb policymaking and chronic inattention.

So it is startling that, having forced out the incumbent president who is their leader, Democrats appear bent on filling the vacuum with their lamentable border czar.

In March 2021, two months after taking office, President Joe Biden could no longer pretend there was no border crisis. He and his party sure tried, just as they tried to pretend for three years that there was nothing wrong with Biden’s health and mental capacities. But spin and media bias can mask reality for only so long.

Needing to do something to suggest remedial action at the border, Biden turned to his woke-box-checking sidekick. “Harris to lead administration’s efforts to stem migration at border,” proclaimed the headlines.

When asked when she planned to visit the border, Harris sometimes laughed at the notion or deflected: “We also need to deal with the root causes.”

Root causes are worth addressing but are often a way of avoiding doing the unpalatable obvious, such as restoring the successful border policies of former President Donald Trump. And coming from liberal Democrats, root causes talk is usually an excuse for lax enforcement. Coming from the Biden-Harris administration, it was jaw-dropping hypocrisy. The root cause of the border crisis was the collection of Biden’s Day 1 executive actions.

On Jan. 20, he ended Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy and halted deportations. Illegal crossings immediately jumped by a third to more than 100,000 the following month.

The administration then adopted Harris’s preferred policy of decriminalizing illegal entry, which induced yet more illegal crossings. The consequences of this Biden-Harris policy are overwhelmed border towns, overcrowded detention facilities, and migrants dying as they travel north, drawn by the magnet of the Biden-Harris policies.

Harris saw the border problem as mostly an issue of negotiations with Central American governments, but she couldn’t bring herself to endorse Trump’s best bit of diplomacy, the “Remain in Mexico” policy.

In over three years helming federal efforts at the border, Harris could have used this effective tool crafted by her predecessors but refused to do so because “Trump derangement syndrome” made her and the boss she worked for incapable of doing what worked.

She had one job, and she failed. Now Democrats want to promote her.

At risk of sounding cynical, Harris may have had nothing to do with the border, being merely an empty suit put in place to give the impression that the administration was trying to fix a problem it was in truth ignoring. It’s possible the White House assigned her the border portfolio because she had the right resume — coming from a border state, having a law enforcement background, and yet hewing closely to the Left’s open-border race-centered ideology. She certainly had no expertise or interest in the topic.

The last two chiefs of the Border Patrol, Jason Owens and Raul Ortiz, say Harris never once met with them. These two have run the Border Patrol since August 2021, which is more than 80% of the Biden-Harris administration.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

If this reading is right, and Harris was kept away from decision-making on the border, it means the Biden White House didn’t trust her judgment or ability.

Harris either presided over a fantastically stupid border policy or was not trusted to have a say. Either way, it does not inspire confidence in her executive abilities.

2024-07-23 04:01:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Feditorials%2F3094439%2Fkamala-harris-failed-border-czar-to-presidential-nominee%2F?w=600&h=450, The border crisis, on par with inflation, is perhaps the worst domestic failure of the Biden-Harris administration. It is the result of dumb policymaking and chronic inattention. So it is startling that, having forced out the incumbent president who is their leader, Democrats appear bent on filling the vacuum with their lamentable border czar. In,

The border crisis, on par with inflation, is perhaps the worst domestic failure of the Biden-Harris administration. It is the result of dumb policymaking and chronic inattention.

So it is startling that, having forced out the incumbent president who is their leader, Democrats appear bent on filling the vacuum with their lamentable border czar.

In March 2021, two months after taking office, President Joe Biden could no longer pretend there was no border crisis. He and his party sure tried, just as they tried to pretend for three years that there was nothing wrong with Biden’s health and mental capacities. But spin and media bias can mask reality for only so long.

Needing to do something to suggest remedial action at the border, Biden turned to his woke-box-checking sidekick. “Harris to lead administration’s efforts to stem migration at border,” proclaimed the headlines.

When asked when she planned to visit the border, Harris sometimes laughed at the notion or deflected: “We also need to deal with the root causes.”

Root causes are worth addressing but are often a way of avoiding doing the unpalatable obvious, such as restoring the successful border policies of former President Donald Trump. And coming from liberal Democrats, root causes talk is usually an excuse for lax enforcement. Coming from the Biden-Harris administration, it was jaw-dropping hypocrisy. The root cause of the border crisis was the collection of Biden’s Day 1 executive actions.

On Jan. 20, he ended Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy and halted deportations. Illegal crossings immediately jumped by a third to more than 100,000 the following month.

The administration then adopted Harris’s preferred policy of decriminalizing illegal entry, which induced yet more illegal crossings. The consequences of this Biden-Harris policy are overwhelmed border towns, overcrowded detention facilities, and migrants dying as they travel north, drawn by the magnet of the Biden-Harris policies.

Harris saw the border problem as mostly an issue of negotiations with Central American governments, but she couldn’t bring herself to endorse Trump’s best bit of diplomacy, the “Remain in Mexico” policy.

In over three years helming federal efforts at the border, Harris could have used this effective tool crafted by her predecessors but refused to do so because “Trump derangement syndrome” made her and the boss she worked for incapable of doing what worked.

She had one job, and she failed. Now Democrats want to promote her.

At risk of sounding cynical, Harris may have had nothing to do with the border, being merely an empty suit put in place to give the impression that the administration was trying to fix a problem it was in truth ignoring. It’s possible the White House assigned her the border portfolio because she had the right resume — coming from a border state, having a law enforcement background, and yet hewing closely to the Left’s open-border race-centered ideology. She certainly had no expertise or interest in the topic.

The last two chiefs of the Border Patrol, Jason Owens and Raul Ortiz, say Harris never once met with them. These two have run the Border Patrol since August 2021, which is more than 80% of the Biden-Harris administration.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

If this reading is right, and Harris was kept away from decision-making on the border, it means the Biden White House didn’t trust her judgment or ability.

Harris either presided over a fantastically stupid border policy or was not trusted to have a say. Either way, it does not inspire confidence in her executive abilities.

, The border crisis, on par with inflation, is perhaps the worst domestic failure of the Biden-Harris administration. It is the result of dumb policymaking and chronic inattention. So it is startling that, having forced out the incumbent president who is their leader, Democrats appear bent on filling the vacuum with their lamentable border czar. In March 2021, two months after taking office, President Joe Biden could no longer pretend there was no border crisis. He and his party sure tried, just as they tried to pretend for three years that there was nothing wrong with Biden’s health and mental capacities. But spin and media bias can mask reality for only so long. Needing to do something to suggest remedial action at the border, Biden turned to his woke-box-checking sidekick. “Harris to lead administration’s efforts to stem migration at border,” proclaimed the headlines. When asked when she planned to visit the border, Harris sometimes laughed at the notion or deflected: “We also need to deal with the root causes.” Root causes are worth addressing but are often a way of avoiding doing the unpalatable obvious, such as restoring the successful border policies of former President Donald Trump. And coming from liberal Democrats, root causes talk is usually an excuse for lax enforcement. Coming from the Biden-Harris administration, it was jaw-dropping hypocrisy. The root cause of the border crisis was the collection of Biden’s Day 1 executive actions. On Jan. 20, he ended Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy and halted deportations. Illegal crossings immediately jumped by a third to more than 100,000 the following month. The administration then adopted Harris’s preferred policy of decriminalizing illegal entry, which induced yet more illegal crossings. The consequences of this Biden-Harris policy are overwhelmed border towns, overcrowded detention facilities, and migrants dying as they travel north, drawn by the magnet of the Biden-Harris policies. Harris saw the border problem as mostly an issue of negotiations with Central American governments, but she couldn’t bring herself to endorse Trump’s best bit of diplomacy, the “Remain in Mexico” policy. In over three years helming federal efforts at the border, Harris could have used this effective tool crafted by her predecessors but refused to do so because “Trump derangement syndrome” made her and the boss she worked for incapable of doing what worked. She had one job, and she failed. Now Democrats want to promote her. At risk of sounding cynical, Harris may have had nothing to do with the border, being merely an empty suit put in place to give the impression that the administration was trying to fix a problem it was in truth ignoring. It’s possible the White House assigned her the border portfolio because she had the right resume — coming from a border state, having a law enforcement background, and yet hewing closely to the Left’s open-border race-centered ideology. She certainly had no expertise or interest in the topic. The last two chiefs of the Border Patrol, Jason Owens and Raul Ortiz, say Harris never once met with them. These two have run the Border Patrol since August 2021, which is more than 80% of the Biden-Harris administration. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER If this reading is right, and Harris was kept away from decision-making on the border, it means the Biden White House didn’t trust her judgment or ability. Harris either presided over a fantastically stupid border policy or was not trusted to have a say. Either way, it does not inspire confidence in her executive abilities., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Harris-campaign-55.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

The U.S. Secret Service was, until last Saturday, widely seen as the world’s preeminent protective security agency. The intensity of training and range of capability it delivers to its protective mission remains unparalleled. But the near assassination of former president and GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump shatters this reputation and is a disaster for the agency. The Secret Service is facing its greatest crisis since at least the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Protection is difficult and stressful. Secret Service officers and agents must anticipate a vast range of prospective threats. They must consider whether a political donor, campaign aide, or police officer with clearance to be near a protectee might actually be an assassin in disguise. 

They must consider whether the approaching supporter with a bulky jacket has strange fashion taste for summer weather or is concealing a suicide bomb. They must guard against air, drone, mortar, missile, and chemical weapons attacks. They must shield every potential point of access to the person being protected. They must build in redundancies so that one security failure does not lead to ultimate failure.

It’s also true that some of the criticism the Secret Service has faced since last Saturday’s events is unfair. This is especially true of criticism directed against female Secret Service agents and the response of Trump’s protective detail. But other criticisms are legitimate and imperative.

First, how was would-be assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks able to evade the Secret Service even after officers saw him acting suspiciously just outside the building from the roof of which he later shot Trump? Why were police or Secret Service officers not assigned to prevent access to that roof? Why was communication between personnel around the rally and the Secret Service command post so bad?

Seeing as Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle was at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, she should have made herself available to answer these questions.

Instead, she hid from the scrutiny. At the RNC, Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), John Barrasso (R-WY), and James Lankford (R-OK) tried to question Cheatle. She refused to answer, absurdly claiming that doing so would ruin the party for RNC guests. She should have answered basic questions rather than run away from them.

Cheatle seems set to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday, but she has missed a big opportunity to repair damage, and has indeed compounded it. She was at the RNC to oversee convention security measures and show how seriously she considers last Saturday’s incident. Why couldn’t she spare an hour for a full press conference so the public could learn the facts about an incident on which it has a substantial right to know? There would have been questions Cheatle could not answer, but stating that candidly is better than evasion and deflection. And she surely could have taken questions from Congress members. As a former career Secret Service agent, Cheatle surely knows that a perception of credible security is nearly as important as the practice of it.

Congress now moves to conduct critical oversight, and five questions require immediate asking and answering.

First, how did Crooks get to the roof without being noticed? Why were early reports of his suspicious behavior, including his observed possession of a telescopic sight, not followed up as highly concerning? Even though no rifle was seen, the telescopic sight should have produced an assumption that he might be a sniper.

Second, what went wrong with Secret Service command post and other communications? Why, when witnesses pointed out to police officers that Crooks was climbing a ladder with a rifle was Trump’s Secret Service detail not immediately notified?

Third, to how many protectees is the Secret Service currently assigned? This matters because the number of full-time protectees has grown in recent years, worsening strains on resources. This has led to a morale crisis and workforce attrition. That has further worsened the Secret Service’s protective supply-demand equation. Congressional action may be required to reduce the president’s role in deciding who should be entitled to 24/7 protection. Secret Service protection should be provided based on threat assessment, not the desire for a chauffeur service of earpiece-wearing agents.

Fourth, how has Cheatle’s heavy prioritization of diversity, equity, and inclusion affected the Secret Service’s recruitment and workforce? Congress should demand access to application and hiring records to see if staff were hired because they checked DEI boxes. Considering the Biden administration’s fetish for DEI and the importance of the Secret Service’s mission, it demands attention.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Fifth, what steps are being taken to ensure an incident of last Saturday’s kind does not reoccur?

A former and likely future American president was very nearly assassinated by a lone gunman who was seen exhibiting suspicious behavior long before he fired his first shot. Questions must be asked and answers must be forthcoming — now.

2024-07-22 04:01:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Feditorials%2F3089348%2Fsecret-service-director-must-answer-these-questions-now%2F?w=600&h=450, The U.S. Secret Service was, until last Saturday, widely seen as the world’s preeminent protective security agency. The intensity of training and range of capability it delivers to its protective mission remains unparalleled. But the near assassination of former president and GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump shatters this reputation and is a disaster for the,

The U.S. Secret Service was, until last Saturday, widely seen as the world’s preeminent protective security agency. The intensity of training and range of capability it delivers to its protective mission remains unparalleled. But the near assassination of former president and GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump shatters this reputation and is a disaster for the agency. The Secret Service is facing its greatest crisis since at least the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Protection is difficult and stressful. Secret Service officers and agents must anticipate a vast range of prospective threats. They must consider whether a political donor, campaign aide, or police officer with clearance to be near a protectee might actually be an assassin in disguise. 

They must consider whether the approaching supporter with a bulky jacket has strange fashion taste for summer weather or is concealing a suicide bomb. They must guard against air, drone, mortar, missile, and chemical weapons attacks. They must shield every potential point of access to the person being protected. They must build in redundancies so that one security failure does not lead to ultimate failure.

It’s also true that some of the criticism the Secret Service has faced since last Saturday’s events is unfair. This is especially true of criticism directed against female Secret Service agents and the response of Trump’s protective detail. But other criticisms are legitimate and imperative.

First, how was would-be assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks able to evade the Secret Service even after officers saw him acting suspiciously just outside the building from the roof of which he later shot Trump? Why were police or Secret Service officers not assigned to prevent access to that roof? Why was communication between personnel around the rally and the Secret Service command post so bad?

Seeing as Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle was at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, she should have made herself available to answer these questions.

Instead, she hid from the scrutiny. At the RNC, Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), John Barrasso (R-WY), and James Lankford (R-OK) tried to question Cheatle. She refused to answer, absurdly claiming that doing so would ruin the party for RNC guests. She should have answered basic questions rather than run away from them.

Cheatle seems set to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday, but she has missed a big opportunity to repair damage, and has indeed compounded it. She was at the RNC to oversee convention security measures and show how seriously she considers last Saturday’s incident. Why couldn’t she spare an hour for a full press conference so the public could learn the facts about an incident on which it has a substantial right to know? There would have been questions Cheatle could not answer, but stating that candidly is better than evasion and deflection. And she surely could have taken questions from Congress members. As a former career Secret Service agent, Cheatle surely knows that a perception of credible security is nearly as important as the practice of it.

Congress now moves to conduct critical oversight, and five questions require immediate asking and answering.

First, how did Crooks get to the roof without being noticed? Why were early reports of his suspicious behavior, including his observed possession of a telescopic sight, not followed up as highly concerning? Even though no rifle was seen, the telescopic sight should have produced an assumption that he might be a sniper.

Second, what went wrong with Secret Service command post and other communications? Why, when witnesses pointed out to police officers that Crooks was climbing a ladder with a rifle was Trump’s Secret Service detail not immediately notified?

Third, to how many protectees is the Secret Service currently assigned? This matters because the number of full-time protectees has grown in recent years, worsening strains on resources. This has led to a morale crisis and workforce attrition. That has further worsened the Secret Service’s protective supply-demand equation. Congressional action may be required to reduce the president’s role in deciding who should be entitled to 24/7 protection. Secret Service protection should be provided based on threat assessment, not the desire for a chauffeur service of earpiece-wearing agents.

Fourth, how has Cheatle’s heavy prioritization of diversity, equity, and inclusion affected the Secret Service’s recruitment and workforce? Congress should demand access to application and hiring records to see if staff were hired because they checked DEI boxes. Considering the Biden administration’s fetish for DEI and the importance of the Secret Service’s mission, it demands attention.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Fifth, what steps are being taken to ensure an incident of last Saturday’s kind does not reoccur?

A former and likely future American president was very nearly assassinated by a lone gunman who was seen exhibiting suspicious behavior long before he fired his first shot. Questions must be asked and answers must be forthcoming — now.

, The U.S. Secret Service was, until last Saturday, widely seen as the world’s preeminent protective security agency. The intensity of training and range of capability it delivers to its protective mission remains unparalleled. But the near assassination of former president and GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump shatters this reputation and is a disaster for the agency. The Secret Service is facing its greatest crisis since at least the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Protection is difficult and stressful. Secret Service officers and agents must anticipate a vast range of prospective threats. They must consider whether a political donor, campaign aide, or police officer with clearance to be near a protectee might actually be an assassin in disguise.  They must consider whether the approaching supporter with a bulky jacket has strange fashion taste for summer weather or is concealing a suicide bomb. They must guard against air, drone, mortar, missile, and chemical weapons attacks. They must shield every potential point of access to the person being protected. They must build in redundancies so that one security failure does not lead to ultimate failure. It’s also true that some of the criticism the Secret Service has faced since last Saturday’s events is unfair. This is especially true of criticism directed against female Secret Service agents and the response of Trump’s protective detail. But other criticisms are legitimate and imperative. First, how was would-be assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks able to evade the Secret Service even after officers saw him acting suspiciously just outside the building from the roof of which he later shot Trump? Why were police or Secret Service officers not assigned to prevent access to that roof? Why was communication between personnel around the rally and the Secret Service command post so bad? Seeing as Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle was at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, she should have made herself available to answer these questions. Instead, she hid from the scrutiny. At the RNC, Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), John Barrasso (R-WY), and James Lankford (R-OK) tried to question Cheatle. She refused to answer, absurdly claiming that doing so would ruin the party for RNC guests. She should have answered basic questions rather than run away from them. Cheatle seems set to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday, but she has missed a big opportunity to repair damage, and has indeed compounded it. She was at the RNC to oversee convention security measures and show how seriously she considers last Saturday’s incident. Why couldn’t she spare an hour for a full press conference so the public could learn the facts about an incident on which it has a substantial right to know? There would have been questions Cheatle could not answer, but stating that candidly is better than evasion and deflection. And she surely could have taken questions from Congress members. As a former career Secret Service agent, Cheatle surely knows that a perception of credible security is nearly as important as the practice of it. Congress now moves to conduct critical oversight, and five questions require immediate asking and answering. First, how did Crooks get to the roof without being noticed? Why were early reports of his suspicious behavior, including his observed possession of a telescopic sight, not followed up as highly concerning? Even though no rifle was seen, the telescopic sight should have produced an assumption that he might be a sniper. Second, what went wrong with Secret Service command post and other communications? Why, when witnesses pointed out to police officers that Crooks was climbing a ladder with a rifle was Trump’s Secret Service detail not immediately notified? Third, to how many protectees is the Secret Service currently assigned? This matters because the number of full-time protectees has grown in recent years, worsening strains on resources. This has led to a morale crisis and workforce attrition. That has further worsened the Secret Service’s protective supply-demand equation. Congressional action may be required to reduce the president’s role in deciding who should be entitled to 24/7 protection. Secret Service protection should be provided based on threat assessment, not the desire for a chauffeur service of earpiece-wearing agents. Fourth, how has Cheatle’s heavy prioritization of diversity, equity, and inclusion affected the Secret Service’s recruitment and workforce? Congress should demand access to application and hiring records to see if staff were hired because they checked DEI boxes. Considering the Biden administration’s fetish for DEI and the importance of the Secret Service’s mission, it demands attention. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Fifth, what steps are being taken to ensure an incident of last Saturday’s kind does not reoccur? A former and likely future American president was very nearly assassinated by a lone gunman who was seen exhibiting suspicious behavior long before he fired his first shot. Questions must be asked and answers must be forthcoming — now., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/kimberly-cheatle-secret-service-1.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

As Hurricane Beryl was bearing down on Houston, President Joe Biden told a crowd at the Washington, D.C., Emergency Operations Center that “extreme heat is the No. 1 weather-related killer in the United States.” He went on to blame “extreme weather events” such as hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes on climate change before concluding that ignoring it is “deadly and dangerous and irresponsible.”

Hyping the harms of climate change has been a scare tactic of the Democratic Party for decades, helping to make Generation Z the most depressed and least optimistic generation ever. But almost everything Democrats say about climate change is a lie, which is why it is the perfect topic for Part 3 in our series, inspired by the lies Democrats told about Biden’s mental condition, “What else are the Democrats lying about?”

Climate change is real. The world’s average temperature is rising. It is just not rising as fast as Democrats claim and is not causing the damage Democrats say it is.

Take Biden’s statement about heat, deaths, and extreme weather events. Not one claim in that paragraph is true. In the U.S., extreme cold kills twice the number of people as extreme heat. Internationally, the numbers are even more stark, with extreme cold claiming nine times as many victims as extreme heat. 

Turning to “extreme weather events,” hurricane frequency and intensity have not increased since 1900. Floods have not increased in frequency or intensity since 1950, and tornadoes have not increased in frequency or intensity since 1950 either. 

When then-University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke testified to these facts before Congress in 2015, Democrats tried to do to him what they did to anyone who dared speak the truth about Biden’s mental condition before his disastrous debate against former President Donald Trump. They bullied and harassed him, even trying to get him fired. But Pielke had science to back him up, and Democrats eventually gave up their witch hunt against him.

The Democratic Party’s lies about climate change don’t end there. In 2009, former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap over the Arctic Ocean would melt by 2014. He was wrong. The ice cap is still there. In 2009, the Obama administration predicted that the glaciers in Montana’s Glacier National Park would disappear entirely by 2020. Guess what? Obama was wrong. The glaciers are still there.

Democrats and their media allies have been predicting environmental doom for more than 50 years. As early as the 1960s, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich was predicting famine, drought, and dead oceans within a decade. He, too, was famously wrong.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The real mystery isn’t why Democrats keep lying about the climate — they lie because it gives them an excuse to exert more government control over all of us — but why so many voters keep believing them.

Considering that those voters most likely to fall for the Democrats’ climate lies are also the youngest voters, it is possible that they simply have not been around long enough to know that nothing Democrats say about climate change ever comes true. If only there was a way for all of us to speed up the learning process.

Left-wing legal scholars and editorials at big national papers have suggested that the executive branch can no longer regulate water, land, and air quality because of a June 28 Supreme Court decision. In truth, the court simply returned the state of administrative procedure law to what it was before 1984. The truth is that the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are still in full effect, as are the regulations spawned from them to protect the environment. 

Similarly, after Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed special counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case this week, the same legal left critics want you to believe the Justice Department has been stripped of its ability to enforce federal law. Again, don’t believe them. Cannon’s 93-page opinion is a master class in the application of constitutional and administrative law. Aspiring lawyers should study it as a model of unbiased jurisprudence.

Cannon begins her opinion where she should, with the text of the Constitution, which in this case is Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2, otherwise known as the appointments clause. “Officers of the United States,” the clause reads, whether “inferior” or “principal,” must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. It continues, “Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in heads of departments.” 

“The Appointments Clause is more than a matter of etiquette or protocol,” Cannon wrote, quoting Supreme Court precedent, “it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.” “Indeed,” Cannon continued writing for herself, “it is rooted in the separation of powers fundamental to our system of government and to the limitations built into that structure—all of which aim to prevent one branch from aggrandizing itself at the expense of another.”

Having identified the constitutional basis for the appointment of officers, Cannon reviewed the statutory powers granted to the president and attorney general by Congress — most importantly, 28 USC Section 541, which enables the president to appoint “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district,” and 28 USC Section 543, which explicitly enables the attorney general to “appoint attorneys to assist United States attorneys when the public interest so requires.”

These statutes show that Congress knew how to vest the president and attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys and assistant attorneys when they wanted. Importantly, Smith acknowledged that neither of these statutes can serve as a legal basis for his special counsel office.

Instead, he identified four other statutes passed by Congress that he claims constitute a legal basis for the existence of his office, but Cannon methodically reviews the text and history of each and convincingly establishes that none were intended to grant the attorney general a new source of appointment power.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The rejection of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s power to appoint Smith as a special counsel does not limit the federal government’s ability to enforce the Espionage Act or any other federal law. As these pages have said before, former President Donald Trump is on tape admitting he mishandled classified documents. But that doesn’t mean President Joe Biden may step outside the Constitution to prosecute Trump. The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida is Senate approved and empowered to prosecute the same case that Smith did. As Cannon’s opinion shows, Garland can even appoint Smith as an assistant to help with the case.

What Garland and Biden may not do is create an independent office of special counsel that is neither inherent in Article 2 nor authorized by Congress through its Article 1 powers.

Former President Donald Trump had many strong vice presidential options available to him. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) could have helped him among Hispanic voters. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) could have helped him with suburban women. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley could have helped him solidify establishment Republicans. And Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) could have expanded the map, adding Virginia, where recent polls have Biden and Trump tied, to a growing list of possible pickups for the Republican Party.

But Trump chose a different path. Instead of trying to incrementally increase his odds of victory this year, he opted to underscore the direction that he will take the Republican Party in the next four years, and influence the course it will be on for a generation. The selection of Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) doubles down on the ticket’s appeal to blue-collar workers. Trump has an instinctive grasp of core elements in an agenda to Make America Great Again. Vance’s vision, while being well aligned with Trump’s, is also more detailed in terms of ideology and policy details. Trump chose a running mate not to achieve some sort of ideal balance but to gain a genuine lieutenant in the movement the former president has created.

Vance is not a perfect choice, but he has a compelling resume that is worth reciting. After a difficult childhood that included a broken home and a mother addicted to drugs, Vance pulled his life together with the help of his grandparents, enlisted in the Marines, and served a tour in Iraq, all before graduating from the Ohio State University.

From there, he went to Yale Law School and had a brief but successful venture capital career before penning a bestselling autobiography, Hillbilly Elegy, that catapulted him into a record-breaking $200 million Senate race against 10-term Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), whom he defeated by 6 points. What Vance lacks on the campaign trail, he makes up for in the television studio, and he is likely to prove more than Vice President Kamala Harris can handle in their debate. He could well embarrass her for her “idea voyages” and incoherent sentences.

Vance has said things that alarm the Democratic and Republican foreign policy establishments, particularly his oft-quoted remark, “I got to be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.” This was an undiplomatic admission, to say the least, but, taken out of context, it ignores Vance’s belief that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s advance into Ukraine “is not in our interest.” In other words, he is less concerned about Ukraine, per se, than about what a failure to prevent Russian victory would mean for American global leadership and national security. While Vance does not share the optimistic view held by a shrinking minority that Ukraine can regain its 2014 borders, he does believe that halting Russian aggression is necessary. He is arguably realistic about what that will require.

Vance’s comments on what he would have done had he been vice president on Jan. 6, 2021, are less defensible. Whatever censorship may have been coordinated by the Democratic Party, Big Tech, and their media allies before Election Day, that does not change what was legally required of then-Vice President Mike Pence on the day election results were to be certified. Vance may believe Biden would have ultimately been named president anyway after a larger debate was had, but by his own admission, such a decision would have plunged the country into a “constitutional crisis.” One hopes that when faced with such stakes in real life, Vance would choose the same path Pence did.

Leaving Jan. 6 in the past, where Republican primary voters have left it, Vance is a natural vehicle for Trump’s brand of national conservative populism translated into a governing agenda.

Trump and Vance both seek a strong, prosperous, and populous United States that can project economic, military, and cultural might into future generations.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Both men believe this will require secure borders, tight labor markets, strategic trading partnerships, and a regulatory environment that prioritizes investment, new construction, and reindustrialization over climate catastrophizing.

All that is very much in their favor.

It has been obvious to the vast majority of the public, and more recently even to most Democrats, that President Joe Biden is incapable of leading the country. But it is not as though Democrats don’t have much better candidates to replace him. This was painfully clear in the contrast between the way Biden treated the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump and the way it was handled by Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

Biden and Shapiro took time, as was right, to honor Corey Comperatore, who, in Biden’s words, “was a husband, a father, a volunteer firefighter, and a hero.” Comperatore was killed while sheltering his family from bullets fired by the shooter trying to kill Trump.

But Biden left out a crucial detail about Comperatore that is relevant to this combustible moment in our politics, which was not missed by Shapiro, who said, “Corey was an avid supporter of the former president and was so excited to be there last night with him in the community. Corey died a hero … Corey was the very best of us. May his memory be a blessing.”

It is vital to the political health of our nation that we have politicians sufficiently statesmanlike that they can see someone both as a “hero” and an “avid supporter” of the leader of the opposing party. Not all political opponents are villains, indeed most are not; they just disagree on politics. But that is not the way Biden operates. His whole election campaign is based on a fictional black-and-white picture of this election being between good and evil. Acknowledging the humanity of someone on the other side is antithetical to his entire reelection strategy. The fundamental premise of Biden’s political future, as short-lived as it appears to be, is that not just Trump, but all “MAGA Republicans,” including Comperatore, are, in Biden’s words, “a threat to this country.”

“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” the president said in Philadelphia less than two years ago. Or more recently, Biden said, “Donald Trump is a genuine threat to this nation. He’s a threat to our freedom, he’s a threat to our democracy, and he’s literally a threat to all we stand for as a nation.” Last week, he told donors, “it’s time to put Trump in the bull’s-eye.”

If anyone needs to tone down their rhetoric it is Biden. But at no point in his speech Sunday did he admit he was part of the problem or attempt to humanize supporters of Trump. 

We still do not know what motivated Trump’s would-be assassin, but both Biden and Shapiro recognize a desire among voters to “take down the temperature and rise above the hateful rhetoric that exists,” as Shapiro put it.

That can happen only if Biden shows leadership and stops irresponsibly calling Trump an existential threat to our nation. Even many of those who say it so often know it is not true. As Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) said in a statement following the shooting, “This election should not be misleadingly portrayed as a no-holds-barred struggle between democracy or authoritarianism.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Elections have consequences. If Biden wins, the federal government will grow bigger and spend more money and more illegal immigrants will be allowed into the country. If Trump wins, there will be less spending on tax credits and green energy investments and the border will be shut down. Depending on your political beliefs, one of these outcomes is more appealing than the other. But under both, our nation will survive and regular elections will continue as scheduled. Democracy is not on the ballot.

Our country needs more Democrats like Shapiro and Golden. Unfortunately, we are still stuck with Biden.

Facing a recall campaign from residents upset about crime, Oakland Mayor Sheng Tao released data this April purporting to show that crime was down in his city by 33%. This number was quickly embraced by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), who claimed his decision to send the California Highway Patrol into the city was paying off, and the story was dutifully reported without examination by local media.

But the numbers are all lies. First noted by a citizen activist and then confirmed by the San Francisco Chronicle, it turns out the Oakland Police Department compared fully counted crime data from 2023 to partially counted data from 2024. The crime drop wasn’t real. It was crass false accounting.

This is just a token of the lies Democrats tell about crime. Following the June 27 exposure of the biggest political lie of this generation, that President Joe Biden is sharp as a tack and fit for the office of president, the Washington Examiner asked, “What else are the Democrats lying about?” In the coming weeks, we will provide some answers to that question in a series of editorials exploring a range of blue party falsehoods. All the lies are purposeful efforts to dupe voters, treat them as fools, and secure reelection to continue ruining America and its states and cities with abjectly incompetent and often malevolent government.

The authorities in Washington maintain two data series on crime: the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program and the Bureau of Justice Statistics’s National Crime Victimization Survey. The FBI data, in theory, track every crime reported to local police departments. The DOJ survey bypasses law enforcement and goes straight to the people, reaching 240,000 respondents every year (for comparison’s sake, an average presidential horse race poll only reaches about 2,000 people).

For decades, these two data series largely confirmed each other, demonstrating that each was fairly accurate. When crime went up or down in the FBI numbers, it went in the same direction in the DOJ numbers. But then something changed in 2021 after President Joe Biden entered the White House. The FBI numbers started to report much lower levels of crime than the DOJ. Part of this is almost certainly due to new onerous requirements the FBI put on local law enforcement. As a result of a new and cumbersome reporting system, far fewer departments submit data. In 2019, 89% of local entities covering 97% of the population did so, but in 2021, just 63% covering 65% of the population did so. Large cities controlled by Democrats, including Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City, all failed to submit any data at all.

The FBI data pick up crime only when it is reported to police. In San Francisco, many retailers have stopped reporting thefts entirely because there is no point. The police will not catch the thieves, and left-wing prosecutors refuse to prosecute. In some cases, Democrats even threaten the populace to dissuade them from reporting crimes. A Target store in Sacramento was threatened with a nuisance violation if it continued to report thefts from the store. No wonder crime is officially down in Newsom’s California.

But it is, in truth, much higher than it was, as all of us can tell from our experiences and those of people we know.

According to the latest Gallup poll, 92% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats think crime is increasing. But the FBI claims it is falling. Not so, says the DOJ. According to the latest DOJ numbers, the violent victimization rate rose 40% from 2021 to 2022. That same DOJ report found that in 2022, just 42% of violent victimizations were reported to police.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

For over a decade, the Democratic Party has thrown its lot in with George Soros and the pro-criminal prosecutors he funds through his “Color of Change” activist organization. Not to be outdone, Biden has turned the southern border into a turnstile releasing millions of violent crime-committing illegal immigrants into the country.

The public rightfully feels that Biden and the Democrats have not restored order from the lawlessness of the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020. Democrats can cherry-pick and manipulate crime statistics to make the case that crime is down, but voters won’t believe them, nor should they. For it is a massive Democratic lie.