Gaza hospital director reveals secret Hamas base as death toll nears 20,000
The director of a northern Gaza hospital admitted under interrogation that Hamas turned his Jabaliya facility into a key military hub used to launch attacks against Israel and imprison hostages.
In a video released by the Israeli Defence Force, the Hamas-linked head of the Kamal Adwan hospital told interrogators that Hamas had offices in the building and that 16 hospital doctors, nurses and paramedics served in the militant Al Qassam Brigades.
Ahmed Kahlot, who claimed to be a lieutenant colonel in Hamas since 2010, made the admission under interrogation by the Shin Bet intelligence agency. It was unknown what interrogation conditions or questioning led to the apparent confession.
“They hide in hospitals because they believe that hospitals are a safe place,” Kahlot told the Shin Bet interrogator.
“They will not be harmed if they are inside a hospital.”
He added that members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Al-Quds Brigades were also employed in the hospital.
The IDF seized about 90 prisoners and weapons after Israeli troops took control of the hospital on December 12. Some of those captured participated in the October 7 massacre, according to an IDF statement, with at least one hostage taken back to the hospital.
“There are places for senior officials. They also brought a kidnapped soldier there,” he said, according to a The Times of Israel translation.
“There is a designated space for interrogations, internal security and special security. They all have private phone lines within the hospital.
“The leaders of Hamas are cowards,” he said. “They left us in the field while they’re hiding in concealed places. They destroyed us.”
The Hamas terror organisation claims at least 19,667 people had been killed in the Israel-Hamas war in the Palestinian territory since October 7.
According to the ministry, 52,586 people in Gaza have been wounded in more than two months of fighting.
Israel’s says 132 troops have been killed in Gaza since its ground invasion began in late October.
The figures have not been independently verified.
**********************************************
The Fight Against Gender Ideology Needs Strong Parents, Leaders, and Laws
Many detransitioners share that their parents...are told by doctors that social transition and medical interventions are the only way to protect their child.
The fight against gender ideology requires strong and courageous leaders who do not hesitate to use the legal power of the purse and the sword.
At Wednesday night’s GOP debate, presidential candidates Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Ron DeSantis faced off over numerous key issues, including the growing conflict with China, the high cost of living—and the fight against gender ideology. DeSantis, who passed multiple bills in Florida protecting children from gender ideology, hammered Haley and Christie on their seemingly hands-off legal approach.
In her appearance on CBS Mornings this week, Haley declined to take a stance on the federal role in protecting minors from medicalized gender treatments, instead deferring to parents. “What care should be on the table?” asked the host, “What should the law allow?” In response, Haley argued that “the law should stay out of it, and parents should handle it… And then when that child becomes 18, if they want to make more of a permanent change, they can do that.” It’s unclear if Haley is in favor of cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers—interventions that can cause irreversible damage to a developing body—with a parent’s approval.
Despite her soft answer on this issue, elsewhere Nikki Haley has indicated that she favors a federal ban on so-called sex change surgeries for minors. She also opposes taxpayer funding for transition surgeries.
Given her pro-woman platform, she signed the Concerned Women for America’s pledge to enforce sex-binary distinctions. Haley firmly committed to protect women in law and in women’s shelters, sports, prisons, and education. Her answer on women’s sports is particularly strong, calling the infiltration of male athletes “the women’s issue of our time.”
Still, DeSantis did not wait long in last night’s debate before criticizing her statement that the “law should stay out of it.”
In response to Haley’s initial rebuttal, DeSantis said,
She didn’t respond to the criticism; it wasn’t about the Parents Rights in Education bill. It was about prohibiting sex change operations on minors, they do puberty blockers, these are irreversible. Talk to Chloe Cole—she went through this, now [that] she’s an adult, she’s warning against it. She may never be able to have kids again. That is what Nikki Haley opposed.
DeSantis continued saying,
She said the law shouldn’t get involved in that, and I just asked you if you’re somebody that’s going to be the President of the United States, and you can’t stand up against child abuse, how are you going to be able to stand up for anything?”
Haley’s response illustrates the primary difference between her approach and DeSantis’s. “I never said that,” Haley responded. “I never said that. I said that if you have to be 18 to get a tattoo, you should have to be 18 to have anything done to change your gender.”
To some degree, it appears that DeSantis and others on social media may be misrepresenting Haley. Still, her “leave it to the parents” approach misses the point that doctors and a financially motivated pharmaceutical industry are among the biggest offenders in the fight against gender ideology.
Many detransitioners share that their parents—who in many cases are scared, working with limited medical resources, or whose second language is English—are told by doctors that social transition and medical interventions are the only way to protect their child. In many cases, as with Chloe Cole, the children are struggling with autism, poor mental health, sexual assault, or discomfort during puberty.
By saying the law should stay out of it, Nikki Haley is effectively giving doctors free reign to take advantage of vulnerable parents and children. Many doctors encourage cross-sex hormones, gender mutilating surgeries, or puberty blockers under the false claim that the latter is safe and reversible.
There is a big difference between a limited government and a weak government. Nikki Haley’s preference for the law to “stay out of it” puts the very parents and children she aims to protect at greater risk. We need the states and the federal government to protect the rights of both parents and children. Unless we have both, parents could lose custody of their children if they do not affirm their child’s stated “gender identity.” This is already happening in states like California.
The uncomfortable truth, too, is that some parents encourage their children to transition. As DeSantis argued in response to Chris Christie last night, “as a parent, you do not have the right to abuse your kids.” Parents have the right to use their God-ordained freedom for the best interests of their child; something parents are best equipped to understand and do. Still, the Bible places limits on such authority if they command someone to sin (Ephesians 6:1). The law should, too.
The fight against gender ideology requires strong and courageous leaders who do not hesitate to use the legal power of the purse and the sword to hold bad actors accountable for their actions.
***************************************************
Why Inflation Hits Poor Americans Hardest
The difference in the composition of assets across the wealth distribution creates an uneven net inflation effect.
Accounting for these undesirable interactions shows that inflation hits poorest Americans the hardest, acting as a silent tax on those least able to pay it.
Eighty-two percent of Americans say that price increases are their biggest source of financial stress, according to a recent Financial Times–Michigan Ross poll. Only 14 percent, meantime, say that they are better off financially since President Joe Biden took office. Yet new data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances show that median household net worth grew 37 percent between 2019 and 2022, reaching the survey’s historical high. These seemingly contradictory data have commentators struggling to explain why strong wealth growth hasn’t translated into strong poll ratings for the president.
A new NBER working paper from Edward Wolff digs into the complex dynamics between inflation and wealth and helps resolve the paradox. While Wolff’s analysis is based on household data from 1983 to 2019, it is useful for understanding the popular reaction to the recent burst of high inflation.
Wolff’s results show that the “inflation tax”—defined as the difference between the nominal and real growth in income—falls unevenly across the rich, the middle class, and the working class because of differences in their asset composition. Some households near the median and at the top of the wealth distribution see a net benefit from inflation, while those with low wealth miss out on any opportunities to offset inflation’s costs.
Wolff tracks a new measure called net inflation gain, which divides household assets and liabilities between those that fall in value and those that rise in value due to inflation. Household assets that fall in value include wages, salaries, and other income sources set in dollar amounts. When the value of the dollar goes down, the real purchasing power of those income streams drops. That fall in value also hits liquid assets, which are short-term savings for upcoming spending. The drop in purchasing power is the most visible and recognizable effect of inflation.
Household assets that rise in value include real estate and business equity. The flip side of the dollar’s drop in value is that the same real assets can be sold for more dollars. That counts for businesses that produce real goods and services, and for the equity owners who get profits from those businesses. Households that own stock indirectly through mutual funds and pension plans benefit from this dynamic, as well.
Household debts that fall in value include student loans, mortgages, and consumer debt. When the dollar declines, debts with fixed dollar amounts are repaid in dollars that are worth less and thus cost the household less. Whether a household considers inflation a net positive or a net negative, therefore, depends on its net asset position, itself largely dependent on income.
Think about moving up the wealth distribution in four stages. At the first stage are those with low incomes and low net worth, who spend everything they make while taking on small amounts of debt and assets. To the extent that such households have assets, they are mostly cash.
In the second stage, the move to the middle class, households have sufficient income to take on larger debt to start building assets. Wealth here consists primarily of residential real estate. The middle three quintiles of the wealth distribution have 64 percent of their assets in their principal residences, financed by debt worth 28 percent of their assets.
Holding that high leverage is a calculated risk, though, so as households move to the third wealth stage, they pay down their debts and reduce leverage. While the middle three quintiles carry total debt worth 36 percent of assets, those between the 80th and 99th percentiles carry debt worth only 9 percent of assets.
At the highest levels of income and wealth, households start to accumulate significant assets without debt. The top 1 percent holds about 75 percent of its assets in stocks, securities, and unincorporated business equity, while carrying debt worth only 2 percent of assets.
The difference in the composition of assets across the wealth distribution creates an uneven net inflation effect. The inflation tax behaves as you might expect, increasing with each move to a higher wealth bracket. The inflation gain, on the other hand, displays an irregular pattern. Wolff shows that households in the bottom two quintiles gained little from inflation and suffered a net loss, but that Americans between the 40th and 80th percentiles benefitted, and the middle quintile experienced the most pronounced gain. With an inflation gain of $72,400 and a loss of $32,600, the middle quintile netted nearly $40,000 from inflation during the 1983–2019 period. The middle quintile sees this net inflation gain because of its high leverage: it owns assets that appreciate with inflation, financed by debt that depreciates with inflation. Households between the 80th and 99th percentiles, however, have less relative debt and thus were harmed on net by inflation.
But examining the top quintile reveals another interesting wrinkle: the top 1 percent of households had a net inflation gain of $63,400. So, while inflation saps the value of income and liquid savings, past a certain threshold of assets a household can become a net beneficiary from inflation.
The calculation of net inflation gain shows the power of real assets as a hedge against inflation. Unfortunately, many in the bottom two-fifths of the population haven’t earned enough to accumulate real assets and take shelter from the inflation tax.
The dynamics of net inflation gain help to explain the reaction to Bidenomics. While some in the middle class have happily watched the real value of their mortgages and student loans fall while their home values have risen, those on more modest incomes trying to stretch paychecks to afford rent, gas, and food see no silver lining. Inflation worsens the gap between the working class and the middle class.
Wolff’s working paper illustrates why more Americans need to start building wealth through owning capital assets. The housing market is more important than the stock market at the first rung of the wealth ladder because houses have relatively stable values and make good collateral for first-time borrowers. Ensuring a good supply of starter homes will help more Americans build assets and find protection from inflation.
Moreover, Wolff’s analysis shows the problems that arise when the government uses inflation to pay for spending beyond its tax revenue. The inflation tax distorts asset markets, revises the value of written contracts, and eats away at the real value of liquid savings. Accounting for these undesirable interactions shows that inflation hits poorest Americans the hardest, acting as a silent tax on those least able to pay it.
https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/why-inflation-hits-poor-americans-hardest
****************************************************Tennessee AG Promises Legal Action If Biden Admin Finalizes Transgender Foster Care Rule
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti says he “absolutely” will sue President Joe Biden’s administration if the Department of Health and Human Services finalizes a rule imposing gender ideology on foster parents.
“I’ll absolutely sue here if they go forward with this rule,” Skrmetti, a Republican, told The Daily Signal in an interview Wednesday. “Absolutely. We are not shy about suing to stop federal overreach.”
HHS’ Administration for Children and Families proposed a new rule Sept. 28 on “Safe and Appropriate Foster Care Placement Requirements” and allowed Americans to submit public comments by Nov. 27. Skrmetti submitted a comment, and 16 other state attorneys general signed on to it.
The HHS rule applies the idea that any lack of “affirmation” of a child’s self-declared gender identity constitutes a form of child abuse in foster care placements.
Before agencies place a child with a foster parent, known as a “provider,” that person must “establish an environment free of hostility, mistreatment, or abuse based on the child’s LGBTQI+ status”; receive training “to be prepared with the appropriate knowledge and skills to provide for the needs of the child related to the child’s self-identified sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression”; and must be able to “facilitate the child’s access to age-appropriate resources, services, and activities that support their health and well-being.”
The rule requires foster care providers to grant children access to LGBTQ reading materials, opportunities to socialize with “LGBTQI+ peers,” an ability to dress according to “self-declared gender identity and expression,” and access to transgender medical interventions such as hormone therapy and surgeries.
As attorney general of Tennessee, Skrmetti flagged numerous problems with the rule in his interview with The Daily Signal.
“Any failure to affirm gender identity should be treated with the same alacrity as allegations of physical abuse,” Skrmetti said, explaining the rule. “The natural outcome of that is you’re diverting resources and the state’s not going to be in a position to provide as much of a response to actual physical abuse. It’s steering the state away from protecting kids.”
Skrmetti’s written comment outlines three major legal difficulties with the rule. He argues that the rule exceeds HHS’ legal authority as established by Congress, trampling on states’ broad authority in family law. He also argues that the rule is “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Finally, he notes various constitutional problems with the rule, such as violating the First Amendment’s free speech and free exercise clauses.
“A lot of people who participate in foster care do so because it’s a way of living out their faith,” Skrmetti told The Daily Signal. By asking people to “adopt the language and affirm the commitments of gender ideology, the federal government’s asking them to turn away from their religious beliefs,” he said.
Skrmetti’s formal comment on the rule notes that Tennessee contracts with or maintains relationships with faith-based agencies that serve over 400 foster children in the state.
“The commitments that people need to make in terms of pronouns, in terms of acknowledging that this is an ontological change and that people are their subjective belief and that there’s no objective grounding, is inconsistent with the idea of—in the Christian tradition—biblical creation,” the state’s attorney general noted.
Skrmetti’s public comment lays out a road map for a potential lawsuit challenging the rule, a lawsuit that the attorney general told The Daily Signal he would “absolutely” file should HHS finalize it.
“Family law has always been a state issue,” he said. “The states have developed a rich body of family law dealing with issues like foster care. This is a really heavy-handed intrusion by the federal government in pursuit of a political end but at the expense of kids. So constitutionally, there’s a structural problem with a federal agency making law in an area where the states should be making the law, and where the states have been making the law.”
The attorney general also noted that Tennessee, among other states, has banned experimental medical interventions that transgender activists refer to as “gender-affirming care.”
The Tennessee Legislature, he said, “considered the potential risks and the potential benefits, and—as a number of European countries have done—they determined that the risks of allowing kids to have access to these treatments, even puberty blockers, create the potential for long-term, lifelong negative effects, and the evidence just isn’t there to support the medical benefit of making these treatments broadly available.”
Skrmetti noted that many who formerly identified as transgender now desist from that identity, becoming “detransitioners.”
Although pro-transgender activist groups have filed a lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s ban of such treatments for minors, the attorney general noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the law.
“The Constitution doesn’t require an experimental medical exception,” Skrmetti quipped.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment