Search This Blog

Thursday, March 14, 2024

NATO's 'Welfare' States: Treating The US As 'Room Service'

 by Pete Hoekstra via The Gatestone Institute,

Last month, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg conceded what former US President Donald Trump has been warning about for nearly a decade: America's allies are not paying their fair share -- as they had agreed -- for national defense. After four years in which Trump held our NATO allies accountable for funding their share of NATO's collective defense, US President Joe Biden has once again allowed many of them to pass significant burdens of NATO spending on to American taxpayers – threatening the security of the NATO alliance in the process.

The very nature of alliances is that they are a two-way street. Americans should rightly expect to realize benefits from U.S. participation in NATO, just as the citizens of other NATO nations can expect to benefit from their country's relationship with the United States.

Indeed, that was the original idea behind the North Atlantic Treaty Organization when it was founded in 1949. In the wake of WWII, 12 nations agreed to band together to guard against the threat of the Soviet Union, a number that has now grown to 32 with the recent addition of Sweden.

The NATO alliance today, however, more closely resembles an international welfare program than a true alliance, with most countries failing to meet their defense commitments and instead relying on the generosity of the United States.

As journalist Amir Taheri put it: "others... treat the US as a 'room service' reachable by pressing a button..."

In 2014, every NATO member agreed to allocate just 2% of their nation's gross domestic product (GDP) to defense spending. This minimum baseline target is crucial to ensuring military readiness in the face of growing threats from hostile nations such as China, Russia, North Korea and Iran.

A decade later, 19 out of 32 NATO member nations have failed to meet this goal. Moreover, most of those countries that have reached the 2% target, such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Greece, are smaller nations with smaller GDPs.

The United States, meanwhile, accounts for a staggering 70% of all NATO defense spending -- even though the combined GDP of the other 31 member nations is roughly equal to that of the United States. Germany, by far the richest NATO member behind the United States, allocates just 1.57% of its GDP to defense spending.

The combined population of these 31 NATO member states, at more than 620 million, also now dwarfs that of the United States, at 333 million. In other words, each American citizen is now effectively responsible for funding the national defense of two people in another NATO nation.

The situation in Europe today is far different than at the founding of NATO, when many nations were still relying on the Marshall Plan funding to be rebuilt. Our NATO allies have highly advanced economies and immensely capable citizens. American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize their national defense.

If NATO is to function as an effective deterrent to military aggression from Russia and other adversaries, there seriously needs to be a new commitment by every NATO member state to invest in a strong national defense. Yet, the failure of our European allies to meet their spending commitments means they are woefully unprepared from a military standpoint to defend their countries – thus endangering the United States as well as themselves by threatening to draw America into war unnecessarily because of European weakness.

President Trump wisely recognized this threat and accordingly made holding our NATO allies accountable a top priority of his foreign policy. Under his leadership, NATO member countries increased their defense spending by $350 billion.

President Biden has failed to continue the momentum Trump created. After our NATO allies' defense spending increased 4.6% in 2020, it dropped to only a 2% increase by 2022.

As U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands, in a meeting with Dutch business professionals, I would be asked about the emphasis the Trump administration was putting on the 2% number. People would remark that the Dutch had other priorities, such as healthcare, infrastructure and education. They said they considered the military threat to Europe as miniscule.

Other Dutch citizens asked at various times if Russia would really roll across the borders of Europe with tanks. They had a hard time believing that the Netherlands could ever be in danger. They seemed convinced Trump, and Americans in general, were being unreasonable, distraught and completely out of touch with the security situation in Europe.

A couple of years later, the world discovered the truth. Russia's President Vladimir Putin in fact appears extremely willing to roll his tanks into battle in Europe. After Trump was ridiculed by our NATO allies for demanding European countries do more to protect themselves, unfortunately history has proven him correct.

The United States and the world need an American president who is committed to ensuring our NATO allies share the burden of deterring conflict and attacks upon members of the alliance.

The magnificent Netherlands American Cemetery and Memorial in Margraten, in the Netherlands, is the final resting place for 8,288 American servicemen and where another 1,722, whose names are engraved on the Tablets of the Missing, are remembered.

The Dutch have a unique relationship with the cemetery. Every American grave since 1945 has been adopted by a Dutch family. It is a beautiful recognition of the personal sacrifices made for the sake of freedom and liberty – but also a stark reminder of the horrific cost of war and of the failure to deter it.

The strengthening of the NATO alliance by insisting on burden-sharing by all the member states was a hallmark policy of Trump's first term, and it most probably will be again if voters return him to the White House this November. All of America's leaders also need to embrace the reality that if our allies are unwilling to do more to keep the world safe and secure, we may need to reassess the relationship we have with them, and cease being "room service." Alliances are only alliances when the costs and benefits run both ways. Anything less, especially from the richest countries in Europe, is not only disrespectful, but an unacceptable breach of contract.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/natos-welfare-states-treating-us-room-service

Eunuchs in Lotusland? James O'Keefe interviews a top Pentagon official

 The Deep State is full of strange characters, but few are as strange as the one undercover journalist James O'Keefe picked out for a feature on Pentagon policymakers, a character named Jason Beck whose title is Associate Director, Total Force Requirements & Sourcing Policy at the Secretary of Defense's Office.

He spoke to O'Keefe with a full wokester menu of opening the border, disarming the population, abolishing the Second Amendment, abolishing the Electoral College, abolishing the Senate, and stacking the Supreme Court. His tone was repellently lackadaisical.

O'Keefe posed as a gay guy in a flowered shirt seeking a romantic relationship with the official from apparently a gay dating app in order to get him to open up:

It's an astonishing interview, given that Beck, whose LinkedIn lists him as a 2007 graduate of the Beltway's Catholic University of America, holds so much power at the Pentagon. 

According to the interview, his actual job seems to be public relations. He's the one who tells Pentagon officials what they are going to say at certain kinds congressional hearings, known as "posture hearings," such as the one I wrote about a couple days ago with Rep. Matt Gaetz on the topic of Haiti. O'Keefe featured footage from that particular hearing in his video:

O'KEEFE: Oh, you actually write the answers for the congressional questions and stuff?

BECK: Yeah.

BECK: When we're talking about posture hearings, it's usually very high level. 

 So when we hear strange things coming from the Pentagon, like not wanting to guard the border as we did during the Trump administration, or the evasive mumble-jumble of the woman who gave Gaetz the lousy answers on Haiti, which Gaetz surmised suggested a lack of preparation for a Haitian refugee flood, it's Beck who tells these people what to say.

He casually listed all the liberal lotusland tropes about disarming the population, about sending the National Guard in to do it as had been done with school desegregation with all those racists, about stacking the Supreme Court in order to allow Congress to do what it wanted without checks and balances, and above all to open the border.

BECK: I mean, the recent immigration bill fiasco was almost unbelievable. 

BECK: Yeah, it's bad.

O'KEEFE: Yeah.

BECK: It's really racist.

...cut...

BECK: You know, just lots of that talk about, like, (finger quotes) border security. 

O'KEEFE: Ummm... 

BECK: That kind of nonsense.

O'KEEFE: "Border security" ... what does that even mean?

BECK: It doesn't mean anything. 

BECK: It's just like throwing money and people at a problem that doesn't really exist.

...cut...

BECK: The only crisis is one that we've created. It's a humanitarian crisis, but it's not a security crisis.

O'KEEFE: And if anyone wants to come in, they can come in.

BECK: I don't see why not, frankly, Like why do we need quotas? Why not just have an open border?

...cut...

BECK: There's no Taliban coming in (chuckles) through Mexico. Like they just make that stuff out of whole cloth, you know?

...cut...

BECK: When has a terrorist ever come in?

O'Keefe then shifted to footage of an incoming illegal at the border who said we would all soon know who he was, suggesting a potential terrorist with plans to destroy the U.S.

It calls to mind that these people at the Pentagon, who are supposedly so authoritative in their judgment that the media swallows everything they say whole -- aren't so very knowledgable at all.

This guy described himself on his dating app as "not masc" despite his beard, and told O'Keefe that he had had bottom surgery, meaning, his plumbing is different and he said it "hurt" suggesting that he had had his privates cut off in some kind of mental illness, making him a eunuch.

That his statements are so ill informed, and that he is a Pentagon official giving answers to higher-ranking Pentagon officials suggests that the country is being very poorly served, because this guy clearly doesn't understand what defense is or what defense is for. Calling for an unguarded border, allowing anyone in who wants to come in, and making the blanket claim that there is no such thing as terrorists crossing our border, despite what the Border Patrol is finding, amounts to clearly culpable ignorance. It's sad, really, this is a guy who perceives no threats except from the right and means to oppress those whose views aren't the same as his with force. He also denies that there's a such thing as a terrorist crossing our border despite the evidence that there is.

So he's a eunuch in Lotusland, basically waiting to be surprised that evil is out there, which is a disastrous thing to see in a defense official with that kind of rank and power.

It suggests that the people above him who promoted him hold similar ideas and know just as little as he does, culminating in Joe Biden who often says he does what he is told.

Is the U.S. being run by these kind of people? Apparently, it is, meaning, no one should take seriously anything they say as they live in a leftwing academic silo with no new ideas getting in. And suddenly, it becomes clear why the Pentagon was so resistant to guarding the border when the idea was bruited around during the Trump administration as well as so insubordinate generally.

A look under the hood at how these people talk in private confirms that they don't know more, they know less than the rest of us. That's what makes O'Keefe's work valuable.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/eunuchs_in_lotusland_james_okeefe_interviews_a_top_pentagon_official.html

The Temporary Pier and the Question of Why

 Since Oct. 7, 2023, external humanitarian aid has primarily had to enter the Gaza Strip via the land crossing at Rafah, which is run by Egypt. 

Gen. Abdel Fatteh El-Sisi, the ruler of Egypt for the past decade, is as committed as Israel to the goal of keeping arms out of the hands of terrorists, so Israel trusts his government in Egypt to vet these shipments and ensure that armaments aren’t smuggled in among the convoys of food and beverages that cross every day.

Neither Israel nor Egypt have put a limit on the number of trucks that can enter at Rafah, and the Gaza Strip is not a particularly big place – it’s only about twice the size of Washington D.C., in fact.  One entrance with unlimited trucks is quite sufficient to bring in aid for such a small area.

But ever since Hamas’s horrific attacks on Israel on October 7 that started this long-needed police action, the global anti-Israel lobby has declared that they need another way to bring in humanitarian aid – one outside Egypt.  They need a seaport, they tell us, to bring in aid directly from the Mediterranean.

Why?

The answer is obvious.  The terrorists of Hamas and their fellow travelers have allies in Cyprus, Turkey, Greece, Iran, and the United Nations.  Anyone else who might ship cargo to Gaza would – intentionally – have weaker security checkpoints than Egypt has.  

There’s a reason, after all, why Israel hasn’t been allowing relief vessels to serve Gaza, and it dates back to long before October 7.  Israel has frequently caught weapons caches being smuggled into Gaza by sea in the past – always under the guise of humanitarian aid.

This isn’t Israel being mean or suspicious; this is Israel learning from experience, and acknowledging reality.

If the West wants to get food, medicine, and beverages into Gaza, all they have to do is send it to Rafah, and Egypt will make sure it gets there.

But Hamas doesn’t want Western food, medicine and beverages.  Hamas wants weapons.

Don’t believe me?  Read the news reports.  The Biden-Harris regime staged air drops of food and beverages the week of the State of the Union address, and what happened? Some of the food was destroyed because these allegedly starving refugees complained that the charity drops weren’t halal, and whatever Hamas could get its collective hands on, they sold on the black market – as they have done before.

This example, in fact, proves what we have been saying about Hamas and the people of Gaza for decades: these people are impoverished because it serves their masters’ purpose to have them starve.

All the heirs of the PLO – from Hamas to Fatah and all the also-rans too – have a gravy train in place.  As long as they can make the world feel sorry for the denizens of the Gaza Strip - and Judea and Samaria too - they can continue to get sympathy, press, and cash.

The palatial estates in Qatar and Switzerland in which the leaders of these organizations reside as absentee landlords don’t come cheap. They need donations, and the old story that “Israel is starving the poor refugees” never gets old.

The motives of Hamas are obvious, the security and effectiveness of the Egyptian checkpoint are plain; the foolishness of air-drops is practically indisputed.

So, the question remains: Why does the Biden-Harris regime support the terrorists further, by offering to use U.S. troop ships, U.S. engineers, and U.S. funds to break the siege and supply the terrorists via a temporary pier off the Mediterranean shore?

There can only be one reason. The Biden-Harris regime wants to strengthen Hamas, to even the playing field so that Hamas survives this period, strong enough to remain a permanent threat to Israel. And since Israel is seeing great success in its effort to neutralize Hamas, the Biden-Harris regime is getting desperate, and is willing to take an active role in propping up Hamas, in spite of everything.

So much for the special friendship between Israel and the United States that has endured for over half a century. So much for the American people’s great respect for the one honest republic in the Middle East, the only country in the region in which Jews, Christians and Arabs alike can vote in regular elections and even hold elective office themselves.  Despite all the many reasons why the United States should support Israel, the Biden-Harris regime is on the other side.

Some think it’s because of the so-called Palestinian demonstrations that sprang up after the October 7 attacks.

Some think it’s because of the hundreds of college committees that have been promoting their vile “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” programs, poisoning the minds of college students for years.

Some think it’s because 2024 Democrat campaigns are afraid they’ll lose the votes of the militant, anti-Israel racists of large Arab communities like Dearborn, Michigan and St. Paul, Minnesota.

Some think it’s because the U.N. favors the temporary port, and this regime always does what the U.N. wants, no matter how offensive.

However … perhaps we shouldn’t dismiss Occam’s Razor.

The minds of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Antony Blinken are hardly the diabolical deep thinkers of a spy novel or Hollywood movie.  Their motives are as plain as day on every other issue; why not this one?

Perhaps it’s time to consider the argument that the simplest answer might indeed be the correct one. 

Maybe the Biden-Harris regime is taking measures to support Hamas – the remote rulers of an impoverished refugee camp, long kept in suffering for the power and money it provides their leaders – because there’s just something about Hamas that the Biden-Harris crowd just happens to like.

John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based international transportation manager, trade compliance trainer and speaker. A one-time Milwaukee County Republican Party chairman, he has been writing a regular column for Illinois Review since 2009. Read his book on vote fraud (The Tales of Little Pavel) and his political satires on the current administration (Evening Soup with Basement Joe, Volumes I and II, and the recently released Volume Three.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/03/the_temporary_pier_and_the_question_of_why.html

Kamala Harris explains it all out for you on Gaza

 By Monica Showalter

Foreign policy ace Kamala Harris is back in the saddle, explaining to all us rube voters what Gaza is all about.

Which is one heck of a word salad.

Obviously, she's feeling the heat from the Hamas-cheering leftists of academia who are seen as vital to Democrats in their re-election bid, and the other heat from the pro-Israel wing of the Democrat party, which is an increasingly smaller segment but just as important to winning independents. So, if I am deciphering the garble correctly, she would like us to know that many things can be true at the same time.

That ought to get them all onboard the Democrat train.

It's wretched, though.

This is supposed to be America's foreign policy leader speaking and she obviously doesn't know a thing about what she's talking about. She doesn't know which side she's on and she lacks the capacity to form even an opinion on it, not being "a good study" as critics on the inside have alleged in the past.

So, here she is, presenting us with another word salad -- on a deadly serious issue -- and sending a message to our enemies and Israel's enemies, that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

You thought Joe's senility was a problem creating a lot of foreign policy failures? Try the stupid person's take on it, driven by electoral politics alone, and it only gets worse.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/kamala_harris_explains_it_all_out_for_you_on_gaza.html

'CMS Speeds Payments for Physicians Affected by Change Healthcare Cyberattack'

 More monetary relief is on the way for physicians and hospitals coping with last month's cyberattack on the nation's largest claims clearinghouse, according to a new initiative released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Change Healthcare's electronic data interchange (EDI) clearinghouse has been offline since February 21 after hacker group AlphV/BlackCat infiltrated the system using ransomware. The disruption affected pharmacy operations and providers' ability to receive payer reimbursements, file electronic claims, and verify eligibility.

Within 2 weeks, federal authorities and Change's parent company, UnitedHealth Group (UHG), announced efforts to tide providers over until their computer systems are restored. CMS encouraged Medicare Advantage organizations, Part D sponsors, Medicaid, and CHIP managed care plans to funnel funds to providers more quickly by temporarily removing or relaxing prior authorization and timely filing requirements.

UHG launched a loan program administered through Optum Financial Services, offering short-term interest-free cash advances to providers whose payer payments are processed through Change's EDI. The loan amount, which must be repaid, is based on average prior claims volume and how much a provider's payment distributions have been affected.

Still, the financial lifelines fell short of industry expectations. The American Hospital Association and American Medical Association pleaded for a more robust government response, like the advance payments that kept physicians and hospitals afloat during the pandemic.

In a series of LinkedIn posts, a Pennsylvania primary care physician called Optum's loan offering "ludicrous." Christine Meyer, MD, said her practice's daily insurance reimbursements dropped from $70,000 to the lowest ever — just $1600. "My practice is losing $500,000 in charges each month, and we were offered a $4000 (per month) loan," she said.

On March 9, CMS released details of its plan to expedite payments to individual providers experiencing claims processing delays related to the cyberattack.

The Change Healthcare/Optum Payment Disruption program allows eligible Part A and Part B providers to request accelerated and advance payments in "amounts representative of up to 30 days of claims payments."

The CMS fact sheet said the expedited payment amount is calculated using the monthly average of total Medicare claims paid between August 1 and October 31. Repayment will begin immediately, with funds repaid in full over 90 days through "automatic recoupment from Medicare claims." On day 91, a demand letter will be issued for any remaining balance, and interest penalties will be applied after 30 days.

CMS notes that "no flexibilities regarding repayment timelines" will be given, and providers receiving periodic interim payments are ineligible. Providers should apply through their respective Medicare Administrative Contractor.

In a statement about the relief program, the agency said it recognizes that Medicaid providers have also been affected by the cyberattack and urged Medicaid managed care plans to consider making prospective payments to providers.

Meanwhile, UHG inches toward system restoration. Despite Bitcoin activity suggesting the healthcare behemoth may have paid hackers a multimillion-dollar ransom, UHG said in an update Friday that electronic payment functionality won't resume until March 15. Pharmacy operations, including e-prescribing and claims and payment transmissions, are operating normally, but medical claims filing will likely remain unavailable until the week of March 18.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/cms-speeds-payments-physicians-affected-change-healthcare-2024a10004p3

Avidity Biosciences Has 'Complete Package' - Cantor

 Cantor Fitzgerald has initiated coverage on Avidity Biosciences Inc 

Get Free Report
, noting the company has the complete package, including a strong management team, a proven platform, a robust pipeline, and a blockbuster product in deldesiran (formerly AOC 1001) for Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1).

The analyst reports that Avidity has accumulated extensive biomarker and clinical data, significantly reducing the risks associated with their upcoming Phase 3 study. 

Additionally, Dyne Therapeutics Inc 

+ Free Alerts
, a competitor trailing by approximately 12 months, is also generating similar data using a comparable approach, thereby offering further validation. 

Despite the potential variability in biomarker data obtained from muscle biopsies, Avidity’s findings offer mechanistic support by demonstrating that del-desiran reduces DMPK RNA levels by 40-50% across various tested doses and has a dose-dependent effect on splicing mRNA.

Cantor analyst notes that Del-desiran focuses on addressing the core issue of disease progression, specifically targeting the toxic accumulation of the DMPK transcript. 

Phase 2 trials have demonstrated promising results, paving the way for a Phase 3 trial to commence in the second quarter of 2024. 

Based on these advancements, projections anticipate U.S. sales reaching $1.3 billion by 2031.

Cantor initiates with an Overweight rating and a price target of $60.

Avidity has two new clinical programs in Phase 1 development. One, AOC 1044, focuses on Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy that can be treated by skipping Exon 44, while the other, AOC 1020, targets facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD).

Cantor notes that both programs utilize the same delivery mechanism as del-desiran, aim to tackle well-understood biological pathways, and hold the promise of becoming the first approved therapies for currently underserved patient groups.

https://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ratings/analyst-color/24/03/37715125/neuromuscular-focused-avidity-biosciences-has-complete-package-analyst-predicts-ste

4 Years Later – The Toughest COVID Pill to Swallow

 Looking back over the past four years, the toughest Covid pill to swallow was watching our public health institutions abandon so much of what we knew about science and medical practice to manage the pandemic. Strategies and treatments that were proven to help people boost their immune response to viral infection and fight disease were ignored and attacked. Generic drug trials were designed to fail, and investigators reported positive results as negative findings instead. They did precisely the opposite for new antiviral drugs, using every available means to claim a benefit.

The results of multi-year studies published by Oxford University shows exactly how this worked. In March 2020, Oxford started conducting a series of Covid trials with repurposed generic drugs like ivermectin and expensive new antiviral drugs like molnupiravir. For molnupiravir, for example, investigators managed to register and randomize 25,000 patients a median of two days after symptoms—a herculean effort for any clinical trial. But for ivermectin, investigators included participants up to 14 days after onset of symptoms, when the disease would have reached a more severe stage. You may recall during this time, people with Covid symptoms were recommended to stay home and isolate for two full weeks. No treatment stood a chance of making a difference after 14 days.

Efforts to tip the scales did not stop there. For the ivermectin trial, there were reported long delays between registration and enrollment, and the ability to pick-up medication from a pharmacy was stopped, forcing patients to endure notoriously slow delivery times. They also limited the days that the trial was open. These moves were clearly intended to decrease participants’ chances of receiving early treatment with ivermectin, and thus the chance it would be found effective.

Other damaging actions also raise concerns. The study authors took a full 14 months to complete the trial, far exceeding the other arms. Then they took another 600 days before publishing. To explain this delay, they claimed they needed a one year of follow-up of the patients, something not mentioned in the original study protocol. Keep in mind the backdrop of a global public health emergency that warranted $5 trillion dollars of federal government spending.

If ivermectin had been found effective, surely there was a moral and professional obligation to alert the world, as Oxford did in June 2020 upon completion of their trial on corticosteroids. At the time, the world was only three months removed from Covid’s arrival, and in desperate search of answers.

But researchers sat on the data, waiting until this month to make it available—a full 9 months after the concocted one-year delay. It first appeared not in a high impact medical journal, but in the little-known “Journal of Infection,” the seventh ranked journal of infectious diseases.

After their attempts to delay failed, they published the findings in a lower-impact outlet. The result was not the searing headlines from the New York Times (“Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of Covid Hospitalization, Large Study Finds” blared the Gray Lady on March 30, 2022) but a far more muted rollout.

Even after stacking the deck, the data from the Oxford study showed ivermectin leads to faster recovery, reduced rates of hospitalization or death and reduction of long Covid symptoms. Now that the results are out, it’s clear that in addition to rigging the trials, the investigators also put a thumb on the scale in the presentation of results, minimizing ivermectin’s perceived benefit for patients and exaggerating molnupiravir. Unfortunately, it’s too little too late for millions of people. The “war on ivermectin” is over, as I argued in my book, and the truth tellers lost.

The solution is a new framework to test repurposed drugs and model the clinical benefits and cost savings of cheaper generic treatments on an ongoing basis. An independent group accountable to Congress could conduct sustained, systematic studies of repurposed drugs to complement FDA review, clinical practice, and the role of natural immunity in health. It won’t be easy, but if physicians, healthcare leaders, and politicians unite behind this call to cation, we can push the system towards greater accountability, prevent the manipulation we’ve seen throughout the pandemic, and help more people when the next outbreak hits.

Pierre Kory, MD is President and Chief Medical Officer and Paul Marik, MD is Chief Scientific Officer at the FLCCC Alliance.

https://www.realclearhealth.com/blog/2024/03/14/four_years_later__the_toughest_covid_pill_to_swallow_1018418.html