Frontpage Editor unveils a harrowing and chilling tale. The post Video: Jamie Glazov Evening – ‘Obama’s True Legacy’ appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

At any moment you can be accused of blasphemy based on mere rumor - and beaten to death by a mob. The post Christians’ Constant Nightmare in Pakistan appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

How Israelis are preparing. The post In a War with Hezbollah, What Will Happen to Israel’s Electrical Grid? appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

And Hillary Clinton helped vandalize paintings around the world. The post Biden Backers Fund Vandalism of Stonehenge and the Constitution appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Those who care too much will eventually care enough to kill. The post Every Leftist Cause Begins as Humanitarianism and Ends as Terrorism appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

There was a lot of seethe tonight but little to no cope, as MSNBC host Joy Reid and U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) commiserated over the defeat of fellow Squad member Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) in the Democratic Primary. And, as you’d reasonably expect, the first culprit of Bowman’s defeat is AIPAC. Which in the context of this primary and MSNBC’s coverage thereof, is clearly shorthand for “the Jews”. Watch as Reid opens the show with a lamentation for Bowman and the money that got dumped on his head: MSNBC THE REIDOUT 6/26/24 7:36 PM JOY REID: All week we have told you to keep an eye on the Democratic primary in New York's 16th Congressional District, which covers parts of Westchester County and the northeast Bronx. That is because the most expensive House primary, in not just this cycle but in U.S. history, was under way to unseat Squad congressman Jamaal Bowman, one of the fiercest critics of Israel in Congress. Those efforts were successful yesterday partly through the efforts of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, which not only $14 and a half million dollars to beat Bowman, but also recruited the winning candidate: moderate Westchester county Executive George Latimer. Bowman is not only the first incumbent Democrat to lose a primary this election cycle, but also the first member of the House’s progressive Squad to be ousted from power since the group formed after the 2018 elections. It was then that Reid brought on Rep. Pressley. It is then that Reid and Presslwy entered into the recitation of a varied assortment of calamities that contributed to Bowman’s defeat. First off, of course, was the money:  AYANNA PRESSLEY: I think this unprecedented sum of money, $20 million, we cannot allow special interests, dark money, super PACS, to buy congressional seats. It is a threat to our democracy. Reid then goes on to cite redistricting. Then the money again. Then Pressley pivots to Citizens United. Then racism. Of course, there had to be a mention of racism. And then back to the money. The dark money.  Realize where we are, and the full circle moment that this primary represents. I’m old enough to remember when General Wesley Clark was excoriated for suggesting that “New York money people” pushed for war with Iran. Everybody understood what “New York money people” meant and what that implied. And Clark was rightly raked for using what was perceived to be coded antisemitic language. The public discourse was different then. 2007 comes across as a quaint era nowadays. Fast forward to 2024 and you have people openly campaigning against AIPAC, which is code for “Jews”, and no one bats an eye. And this explains a lot of why Bowman lost, even if the cloistered MSNBC talent pool would rather not talk about that. What ultimately lost Bowman his seat is his strident antisemitism and his denial of Hamas’ use of rape as a weapon of war. That, and his boorish demeanor as a member of Congress. The truest thing he ever said was uttered during a House hallway argument with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) over gun legislation: “I was screaming before you even got here”. That, ultimately is what fueled the money that was spent against him. That, and the blatant antisemitism.  Good riddance.  

An excavation of a settlement from Late Antiquity in Irschen, southern Austria, has uncovered a rare carved ivory pyx (a small round container used to carry Communion wafers or holy relics) from the 6th century. There are only 40 examples of this type of pyx known to survive in the world, and this the first found in its original archaeological context in Austria. In the Roman Empire, this area was part of the province of Noricum, but with the decline of the Western Empire, constant raids from barbarian tribes drove people out of the urbanized centers to seek safety in more remote, defensible positions. What is now Irschen was founded as a small settlement on the top of the Burgbichl hill in the 5th century. The summit can only be accessed from the north side as all the other sides are too steep to climb, which provided a natural defense against raids. The accessible north side was protected by a massive wall 4.6 feet wide. The settlement was abandoned around 610 A.D. after the nearby Battle of Aguntum in which Slavic forces clash against the local Germain Baiuvarii peoples. The Slavs won and the region was closed off from its Roman-era contact with the Mediterranean and Christianity as the new settlers had their own gods and would not be converted for centuries. The memory of the settlement was lost, but there were topographical features that suggested the presence of a settlement on the summit. Archaeologists from the University of Innsbruck began excavating the hilltop in 2016 and soon found confirmation that it was indeed the site of a settlement from Late Antiquity. In the 2022 dig season, the team discovered a marble box measuring about 8 by 12 inches with a lid covering the top opening. It was unearthed under the altar in the side chapel of one of the two early Christian churches discovered on the hilltop. Inside the box were the fragmented remains of an ivory pyx intricately carved with Biblical figures. The scenes include the hand of god delivering the laws to Moses on Mount Sinai and a man on a biga (a two-horsed chariot) being pulled up to heaven by a hand that emerges from the clouds. Archaeologists believe this is a depiction of the ascension of Christ. If so, this is the first known depiction of Christ ascending on a biga. Since its discovery, the 1,500-year-old, very fragile ivory reliquary has been conserved at the University of Innsbruck. “Ivory, especially ivory stored on the ground like in the marble shrine, absorbs moisture from its surroundings and is very soft and easily damaged in this state. In addition, uncontrolled drying out can lead to shrinkage and cracks and thus to damage that can no longer be repaired,” says Ulrike Töchterle, head of the restoration workshop in Innsbruck. Over the past two years, she has now conserved the individual pieces of the ivory pyx to such an extent that they can be scientifically analysed. “Due to the very high humidity of 90 per cent in the marble shrine immediately after salvage, the risk of condensation and mould formation was very high, and the contents could not be allowed to dry out too quickly. This meant we had to ensure a very careful and prolonged drying process.” The larger parts are deformed, which is why the pyx can no longer be restored to its original state – however, the researchers are working on a 3D reconstruction. While the archaeologists initially assumed that the remains of a saint – i.e. a relic in the classic sense of the word – were also found in the marble box, the layering of the fragments found in the shrine indicates that the ivory pyx was already broken in late antiquity and was buried in the altar. “The pyx was presumably also seen as sacred and was treated as such because it was in contact with a relic. The archaeological and art-historical significance of the pyx cannot be denied,” emphasises Gerald Grabherr. Researchers are investigating the origin of the marble and of the ivory. Using stable isotope analysis, they should be able to discover where the elephant whose tusks were used came from. The metal hinges of the pyx and the adhesives used are also undergoing compositional analysis. Small fragments of wood inside the box are being examined to determine whether it was part of the pyx — a clasp, for example — of perhaps the holy relic it contained.  This documentary video (in German with English captions) is a detailed overview of the historical context of the settlement and its excavation, including the discovery of conservation of the pyx.

WASHINGTON — On Monday, CNN This Morning anchor Kasie Hunt kicked Trump National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt off the air after Leavitt criticized CNN stars Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, the moderators of Thursday night’s presidential debate. Afterward Hunt tweeted, “You come on my show, you respect my colleagues. Period. I don’t care what side of the aisle you stand on, as my track record clearly shows.” File that under: Can dish it out, but can’t take it. A few short years ago, the watch phrase among journalists was, “Let’s have a conversation.” Now it’s, “Shut up, man.” The episode presented unneeded evidence that big media have tilted so far to the left that anchors can’t even see that there’s another angle. I’m old-school. I believe the answer to speech with which I disagree — and I frequently disagree with former President Donald Trump’s statements — is more speech. Don’t muzzle. Talk back. Sadly, with Trump running for the White House again, network biggies see it as their job not to report — but to purge. And, by the way, as News Nation’s Dan Abrams showed with a montage of Tapper likening Trump to Hitler and otherwise slamming Trump, Leavitt had a point. It’s pretty clear that the most biased journalists are blind to their own agendas. On CBS Sunday, Face the Nation moderator Margaret Brennan interviewed former CIA Deputy Director, now CBS News senior national security contributor, Mike Morell about a piece he co-authored for Foreign Affairs, “The Terrorism Warning Lights Are Blinking Red Again — Echoes of the Run-Up to 9/11.” Problem: In October 2020, Morell was one of 51 members of the Intelligence Community who signed a letter that warned a New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” It turned out, the New York Post story was accurate and the “intelligence” community got it wrong. Morell’s point on Sunday is that Washington lacks a sense of “urgency” as recent events augur a terrorist attack. Sadly, after signing the laptop letter, Morell’s credibility is impaired. He’s the wrong messenger. Mark Corallo, who worked in the Department of Justice under then President George W. Bush, said of Morell, and other signers, “They are professional, highly trained liars. They are also Democrat party apparatchiks. They will stop at nothing to retain power.” As for Face the Nation’s decision to give Morell a pliant platform, Corallo told me, “What I used to believe was the last line of defense in this free republic has failed us — that would be the free press.” Anything goes with Big News, Corallo suspects, if the stunt damages Trump. Corallo has no doubt that the signers knew at the time that the letter was bogus, because the missive included a caveat — the 51 signers offered that they didn’t know for sure that the laptop emails were Russian mischief — but felt emboldened because “such an operation would be consistent with Russian objectives.” That’s how weasels talk. “They haven’t even dropped one rung on the status ladder,” a former member of the intelligence community groused to me. The fact that Morell is on network TV, when other former intelligence colleagues who didn’t make false claims about the laptop story don’t get a prestige perch or payday, she asked, “What does that teach everyone else?” To my source, Morell’s network gig at CBS looks like a “self-licking ice cream cone.” Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Two Big Media Mistakes This Week Already appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — President Joe Biden announced this week that 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act has successfully lowered the cost of 64 drugs for seniors who are enrolled in Medicare. His administration is chalking it up as a major victory as the president heads into Thursday’s debate with a campaign that’s focused on bread-and-butter economic and cost-of-living issues.  Americans are frustrated by high prescription drug costs, so this could provide him with a political win. However, the complexities of drug prices are such that few voters likely have a clue about that reform and its impact on prescription prices. The law allows “Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain high cost drugs, as well as capping how much people with Medicare Part D spend on prescription drugs per year,” per a report in the Hill. Pharmaceutical companies have pursued legal action challenging its provisions that allow Medicare to negotiate with them for price reductions. If the companies don’t give in to the lower prices, they must not only exit this government-subsidized market, but also pay an excise tax on the drugs they sell elsewhere. Politico succinctly summarized the dilemma in an analysis last year: The pharmaceutical industry thinks that this scheme is a charade. Facing a ruinous excise tax, drug companies say that they have no choice but to “negotiate” with CMS. Likewise, they’ll have to accept a cut-rate price because no company can possibly afford to withdraw from Medicare and Medicaid, which together account for 45 percent of the nation’s annual spending on prescription drugs. This isn’t a true negotiation; instead, as pharmaceutical company Merck argues, it’s “tantamount to extortion.” Whatever the legal merits of the argument — or the political calculations involved in the legislation — this fracas highlights the difficulties in providing competitive pressures in a marketplace that is dominated by the government. Price controls quash innovation, as companies reduce their investments in life-saving drugs if they aren’t able to get a sufficient return. However, taxpayers pay these subsidies, and it would be wrong, as a Reason Foundation researcher notes, to “allow private companies to extract as much money as they can from taxpayers.” There’s no easy free-market solution to this conundrum, but politicians interested in actually reducing drug costs without stifling research and development could — if they were more interested in useful policy than campaign talking points — pick the low-hanging fruit. One of the lowest branches involves the decidedly non-sexy and complex topic of patent reform. Simply put, the misuse of patents — monopoly rights the government grants to inventors — reduces innovation in this field (and others) and ultimately drives up the cost of medicine. The first problem of the patent system, argues Forbes’ Avik Roy, is that the government officials who grant them must rely on subjective criteria: “In no other sector of the economy is the possession of property so dependent upon the subjective judgment of unelected officials. Because prescription drugs are so expensive, the decision to issue patents for trivial modifications of a major prescription drug can lead to $114 billion in revenue for the manufacturer of that drug, directly at the expense of patients and taxpayers.” So while a 20-year monopoly might be justified for a significant drug development, it’s less so to grant it to “those that make minor tweaks to a manufacturing process, or attempt to patent the use of a drug for a disease closely related to the original one.” Fair points. My R Street Institute colleague, technology and innovation director Wayne Brough, reports that pharmaceutical companies are adept at gaming the system by employing “complex patent strategies … to keep competitors and low-cost generics out of the market for as long as possible to maximize the profits of blockbuster drugs.” In just one example involving the cancer drug Revlimid, he notes that the company “filed for an additional 206 patents on the drug — 117 of which were approved,” resulting in the drug’s price increasing “from $6,000 per month in 2002 to $24,000 per month in 2022, resulting in a total estimated cost of $45 billion for Americans.” Adjusted for inflation, that’s still a boost of 4.5 times the original cost. Obviously, companies need the financial incentive to invest in the development of such ground-breaking pharmaceuticals, but not by abusing patent thickets. Then there’s the problem with patent trolls. Investopedia says a “troll files patent claims without any intention of ever developing a product or service. The end result is bad faith infringement threats and licensing demands that require companies to spend a significant amount of money to settle these claims without any addition to the public good.” Unfortunately, current proposals would make the problem far worse by expanding patent eligibility, overturning court cases that narrowed patents and reducing competition by enabling companies to patent extremely broad and ill-defined concepts. The legislation doesn’t target the main problems: trolling, patent thickets (a web of multiple patents protecting a single product), “evergreening” (filing patents over minor changes to, say, the color or packaging of the drug), and “product hopping” (new patents for reformulations of old drugs). Granted, these are complex issues that resist easy solutions, but addressing them could do far more to limit drug-price inflation — and create fewer disincentives to innovation — than the current easy-button approach of price controls and government mandates. Then again, I can’t imagine any politician building a successful campaign around such reforms, which offers the most obvious explanation about why such ideas rarely move forward. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. The post Stop Playing Politics with Drug Pricing appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.