New York Giants offensive lineman Jermaine Eluemunor fired back at fans on Sunday night who heckled Daniel Jones as he walked out of MetLife Stadium following a loss to the Minnesota Vikings.
Giants fans appeared to wait outside the stadium and called Jones “Danny Pennies,” along with boos, as he did not do much to help the team in the 28-6 loss against the Vikings.
Eluemunor understood the fans’ displeasure but said they crossed the line after Sunday’s game.
“Today didn’t go as expected I get it, but this is WACK AF,” he wrote on X. “As someone who’s dealt with and still fights depression and confidence issues this needs to stop.
“It’s okay be upset as a fan but to come to the player entrance and act this way is inhumane. We will be better, this needs to be better also.”
New York recorded 240 total yards on 11 drives and had just over 32 minutes of total possession. The offense was only getting 3.5 yards per play and turned the ball over twice.
The team really heard it when Jones threw a brutal pick six to Vikings linebacker Andrew Van Ginkel on what appeared to be a simple screen play. Jones looked directly to his right and stared down his receiver just enough for Van Ginkel to make the play.
Jones was 22-of-42 with 186 passing yards and five sacks. It was his first game back after suffering a season-ending knee injury last year. He has not thrown a touchdown pass since Sept. 17, 2023.
“Obviously not good enough,” Jones said of his performance after the loss. “Didn’t get in the end zone, scored six points. Didn’t create much rhythm and flow for ourselves.
“I’ve got to be better, certainly got to play better, give ourselves more chances to make plays and execute more consistently.”
Giants defensive lineman Dexter Lawrence was unhappy with the fan reaction.
“I don’t respect it, honestly,” Lawrence said of the boos, via SNY TV. “I get it, they want to see their team win. It’s just a rough patch. It is what it is.”
The Giants will have a chance to get in the win column next week on the road against the Washington Commanders.
Former NFL star Antonio Brown played into the social media controversy surrounding Brittany Mahomes on Sunday, as she was pictured with Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce over the weekend.
Mahomes, along with her husband Patrick Mahomes, joined Swift and Kelce at Flushing Meadows in New York City to watch Jannik Sinner win the U.S. Open over Taylor Fritz.
It was the first time Brittany Mahomes and Swift were spotted together since the entrepreneur drew ire for liking a post from former President Donald Trump and supportive comments of her decision.
Brown made a snide remark on a post on X.
“White People for Trump,” he wrote in a post along with Brittany Mahomes, Swift and Kelce.
Mahomes’ apparent social media like kickstarted a social media firestorm over the last few weeks. She first indicated her support for Trump on Aug. 13, when she liked Trump’s Instagram post that outlined the “2024 GOP platform.” The swimsuit model then appeared to respond to the criticism on her Instagram Stories.
“I mean honestly, To be a hater as an adult, you have to have some deep rooted issues you refuse to heal from childhood,” she wrote. “There’s no reason your brain is fully developed and you hate to see others doing well.”
She posted another cryptic message on her social media.
“Contrary to the tone of the world today….you can disagree with someone, and still love them. You can have differing views, and still be kind,” she wrote on Aug. 26. “Read that again!”
Brittany Mahomes was then caught liking supportive comments of her stance.
Trump then thanked her for her apparent support.
“I want to thank beautiful Brittany Mahomes for so strongly defending me, and the fact that MAGA is the greatest and most powerful Political Movement in the History of our now Failing Country,” Trump wrote.
“With Crime and Illegal Immigration totally out of control, INFLATION Ravaging all Americans, and a World that is laughing at the stupidity of our hapless “leaders,” it is nice to see someone who loves our Country, and wants to save it from DOOM. What a great couple – See you both at the Super Bowl!”
Swift fans appeared to be unhappy with the pop star’s friendship with Brittany Mahomes at the time, while all of it led to more concerns about a potential rift between the two on Thursday, when they were not pictured together.
However, it all seemed to be water under the bridge.
Iran on Monday continued its threat of a “nightmare” attack on Israel following the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in late July, as international concerns remain high over Tehran’s nuclear development program which has run unchecked for more than three years.
Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Hossein Salami said “the nightmare of Iran’s inevitable response is shaking Israel day and night,” reported the Jerusalem Post, citing Saudi-owned news outlet Al-Arabiya.
The commander reportedly claimed that Israeli leaders are anxious over the ambiguous threat of what will be a “painful and different” attack than “what you expec[t].”
Despite the ominous tone set by Salami, Iran has been levying similar threats for over a month at the Jewish state following the killing of Haniyeh during a visit to Tehran on July 31.
Iran has laid the blame squarely on Israel for the assassination, in which it claimed a precision strike missile was used, though Jerusalem has not taken credit for the killing.
The U.S., along with other Middle Eastern nations, have warned Tehran against attacking Israel amid fears that a broader regional war could break out, though concerns remain that Iran could look to launch retaliatory strikes through Hezbollah – the Lebanon-based terrorist organization it has backed for decades.
A member of Israel’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the Knesset, Nissim Vaturi, echoed these concerns on Monday and said he believes it is just “a matter of days” before war between Israel and Hezbollah breaks out in Lebanon.
Vaturi said Israel needs to take a provocative approach and pre-emptively strike Hezbollah’s strong holds in Lebanon through a series of airstrikes followed by ground invasion – a scenario experts have warned will cause casualty rates that could be higher than those that have incurred during the nearly one-year-long war in Gaza.
“I think it’s time to deal with the north,” he said, according to The Times of Israel. “Our patience has run out.
“There’s no other way,” he continued, adding that Beirut’s Dahiyeh suburb — a major stronghold for Hezbollah outside the capital city — “will look like Gaza.”
Iran has yet to specify how it intends to launch this long-awaited retaliatory strike against Israel, though its reported supply of ballistic missiles to the terrorist organization has kept security experts on heightened alert.
Iran is not believed to possess nuclear grade weaponry at this time, but a warning issued by the United Nations nuclear watchdog on Monday once again brought renewed attention to the fact that Tehran’s nuclear program has run unchecked for the last three and half years.
“It has been more than three and a half years since Iran stopped implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA,” Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Rafael Mariano Grossi told the agency’s board of directors. “Therefore, it is also over three and a half years since the Agency was able to conduct complementary access in Iran.
“Consequently, the Agency has lost continuity of knowledge in relation to the production and inventory of centrifuges, rotors and bellows, heavy water and uranium ore concentrate,” he added.
Grossi said that Iran is known to have increased its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium metals of not only 20% purity levels, but 60% – which is just shy of the steps needed to reach weapons grade uranium which is enriched to 90% purity.
“There has been no progress in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues,” he said, pointing to Iran’s false claims that it has declared all nuclear activities, materials and locations. “I call upon Iran to implement the Joint Statement through serious engagement with the Agency’s concrete proposals.”
Rossi said he called on new Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to abide by agreements made under a March 4, 2023 joint statement and urged the president to meet with him in the “not too distant future” so the pair could “establish a constructive dialogue that leads swiftly to real results.”
The European Union (EU) on Monday further accused Iran of providing short range ballistic missiles to Russia to aid its war effort against Ukraine, citing “credible” information provided by allied nations, reported Radio Free Europe.
The EU is reported to still be investigating the information, but EU spokesman Peter Stano said if Iran is discovered to have provided the escalatory arms to Moscow, the response would be “swift” and would include “new and significant restrictive measures against Iran.”
The Kremlin on Monday did not directly deny having been sent the missiles which are capable of carrying nuclear, chemical and conventional warheads.
“While he respected Ms. Clinton as “smart” and a hard worker, Mr. Trump plainly believes that Ms. Harris is unintelligent, advisers and allies say.”
I don’t think many of our readers will be surprised that Trump thinks poorly of Harris. I suspect that most of those folks will chalk this up to Trump’s long record of racial bigotry and misogyny (in fact, I expect to get a lot of that in comments responding to this post). While I am sure that those characteristics play a role in his assessment, I think there is another significant influence on the former President. After all, if the answer was as simple as misogyny, then why would Trump hold some respect for Hillary Clinton?
One possible explanation for Trump’s view of Clinton is that they had several past in-person interactions before the 2016 Presidential race. Given Trump’s emphasis on forming opinions through direct interaction, it wouldn’t surprise me if those meetings, however limited, shaped his perception of Clinton. The fact that their interactions started in the nineties, when Trump leaned more towards the Democratic party may also influence his assessment.
The debate will be the first time Trump and Harris will be together in a small room. To date, they have never spoken to one another. The closest physical proximity they have previously been in was when Harris attended Trump’s State of the Union address as a Senator. Unlike with Clinton, Trump has no direct interactions to use in building his opinion of Harris. So he is working from second-hand assessments. The question then becomes whose secondhand assessments?
He has tweeted about the Fox News show 88 times as president, including retweets of its account. Often, though, it’s clear that he’s watching the show because he tweets about what he saw shortly afterward. Both CNN and Matthew Gertz of the liberal group Media Matters have mastered the art of tying Trump’s early-morning tweets to the things he has seen on television. [source]
Long a voracious consumer of cable news, Trump has cut back how much he watches CNN and MSNBC in recent weeks, having sworn off the latter network’s Morning Joe after criticism from its hosts, according to a senior White House aide privy to the president’s viewing habits.Instead, the president now spends hours some mornings watching Fox News, switching occasionally to CNBC for business headlines, along with a daily diet of newspapers and press clippings, said the official, who asked not to be identified discussing private information. On the evenings when he doesn’t have a dinner or briefing, Trump will spend most of his TV-viewing time watching Fox News shows hosted by Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity, the aide said. [Bloomberg via The Week]
So, that was one of the things I was hoping to find out, as a reporter, because I couldn’t tell. Who’s driving this train?
And on any given day, it’s very hard to tell. What you will often see is something that’s on Fox then echoed by a tweet from the president. Then Fox is encouraged to do more of it.
It’s kind of — someone said to me, it’s — you could call it either a vicious circle or cycle or a virtuous circle or cycle. It’s a loop. It’s a feedback loop. And somewhere in there, in some ways, among the most important dynamics is the audience, because Fox is trying to capture the audience and make it constantly watch Fox.
And the president is trying to capture the same audience and make them vote for him. This is a segment of the American population. And the way they do it is the same. They try to make that segment of the American population angry.
So, they’re both playing really towards the audience. [source]
In the end, like old lovers falling back into past habits, they reconciled and worked through all the drama. Today, the symbiotic relationship is back on, for better or worse. Trump has become a regular fixture on Fox News, regularly calling into Fox and Friends to vent and being interviewed by Fox Hosts, including Sean Hannity and Mark Levin (in an interview in which Trump proclaimed he has every right to interfere in Presidential Elections… cool… cool). Without a doubt, Donald Trump is influencing the direction of Fox News. But regarding that PBS question, what about the reverse?
Call me a Soros-Funded-Anti-Free-Speech-Radical-Leftist-Writer, but it seems to me that Trump’s views on Harris are strongly shaped by Fox News opinion. It’s striking how the view that the Vice President is “not smart” (despite her noted accomplishments and ability to speak coherently on her policies) echoes what our conservative commenters write. More importantly, it tells how much those viewpoints echo the Fox News party line. For example, Fox News programming and guests have recently attacked Harris for having “nothing beyond ‘joy’,”for being “a big fake”, and, of course, being an avowed Bernie Sanders Marxist (except when she is trying to be more MAGA than Trump).
I think it’s clear to regular readers (or even readers of this post) that I’m not a Trump supporter. I find myself wondering, given his advanced age (he is the oldest candidate to be still running for President), what it means to elect a President so profoundly influenced by right-wing media. Some commenters will ask how this would differ from 2016 to 2020. It seems to this writer that the Former President’s susceptibility to media influence has only grown during the intervening years.
A project to install solar panels around the Mojave Desert has begun cutting down thousands of Joshua trees, much to the residents’ chagrin.
The Los Angeles Times reported several citizens across Boron and Desert Lake have begun noticing effects from the Aratina Solar Project, a 2,300-acre government-approved plan to produce clean energy through solar panels. The project is expected to produce 530 megawatts of renewable energy.
However, locals around the area voiced concerns not only about the loss of iconic landmarks but the devastation to the environment as well. Others warned about the threat of valley fever, a respiratory infection that could be caused by excessive dust from the construction.
“I don’t want another town to go through this,” resident Roy Richards said.
One nurse, Melanie Richardson, described it being “hard to even watch” the trees being cut down and hosted a rally on Saturday to counter the project.
“Nobody wants this to happen,” she said.
Joshua trees have ordinarily been a protected species of tree. Avantus, the developer behind the project, received an exemption from Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Fish and Game Commission to clear the trees in 2020.
Avantus has said that it has been working to maintain the natural wildlife and will cut down fewer trees than were previously approved by the government. Despite this, the company has failed to quell critics, particularly since energy from the solar panels will be sent to wealthier communities.
A petition against the project was launched earlier this summer and currently has over 52,000 signatures.
“Ancient Joshua Trees are going extinct, and we must save them. The Aratina Solar Project in Boron, California, is approved to destroy nearly 4,000 ancient Joshua Trees in this forest…These iconic trees have stood for centuries, providing habitat for numerous species and contributing to the unique biodiversity of our region,” the petition read.
“Joshua trees are already under threat from climate change and human activities,” it continued. “According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, these trees could lose 90% of their habitat by the end of this century if current trends continue. Allowing this project to proceed would accelerate their decline. We need sustainable energy solutions that do not come at the cost of irreplaceable natural treasures.”
With Vice President Kamala Harris hunkering down in swing-state Pennsylvania in the lead-up to her debate with former President Donald Trump this week, Fox News Digital asked people in Pittsburgh where they think she stands on key issues.
Lately, Harris has taken heat for appearing to waffle on issues like taxation – particularly on gratuities, after Trump made a similar campaign pledge to end the policy – as well as claiming she will secure the southern border.
Last week, Harris’ campaign confirmed to Fox News that her position had changed on several immigration-related policies, including decriminalizing illegal border crossings and closing detention centers.
Richard Walker of Pittsburgh said he believes Harris stands in favor of allowing fracking in places like Pennsylvania – as other states like New York currently have blanket moratoriums.
As for her stance on the nationalization of health care, Walker said he has not heard what her position is but remarked it should be more affordable than at present.
When asked whether she would be the best candidate to bring down the inflated prices of groceries and other commodities, Walker suggested she would be, but added he saw prices rise before she and President Biden took office.
Walker indicated the same about the border crisis, in that he believes Harris is trying to secure the border but that it has long been a problem.
He told Fox News Digital he is not sure whether Harris can win his home state, calling it a “toss-up” – but suggested she has a good shot at winning next week’s debate.
“I hope so,” he said.
On Penn Avenue, sporting a classic green and white Randall Cunningham jersey, Tyrone Murray joked that he might not seem like the typical Pittsburgher, given such attire.
However, he said he is from the Steel City and believes Harris will win statewide in November.
“I think the women are going to take over,” he said. “I think that’s the difference in her winning – women [votes] period.”
He appeared to agree with Walker that the border has long been a crisis, and that Harris is putting forth an effort.
As for the cost of consumer goods and whether Harris will help bring them down, he remarked, “They can’t go any higher.”
“Everything’s been going up since the virus hit. You know, it didn’t make any difference who was president.”
He went on to urge Harris to endorse an expansion of fracking, noting the economic and regional importance of American natural gas.
Waiting for his bus downtown, Ron – who declined to give his last name – said he believes Harris does support a secure southern border. In terms of fracking, Ron said he believes Harris is more in favor of fracking than not but supports restrictions and regulations on it. In terms of the debate, he said Harris has trouble with public speaking, but offered her a good shot at winning the debate and the election. “I think she’s better than the alternative,” he said.
Meanwhile, fellow Pittsburgher Vijay Kumar said he believes she leans more toward renewables than fracking or drilling for fossil fuels. Kumar said that while there is “always room for improvement” in securing the border, he believes Harris has tried to “ask people to follow the rules” when it comes to immigrating to the U.S. “I think she is doing a good job. If the question is like, is there something else that could be done? Definitely, yes.”
Off William Penn Place, near the Drury Plaza Hotel, Anita told Fox News Digital she believes Harris supports a secure border and proffered that she will win both the debate and Penn’s commonwealth in November.
“I think she’s going to do great [at the debate],” added Nancy, who was walking with her friend, Lavonte, nearby.
When asked what he thought Harris’ position is on the border, Lavonte instead blamed Congress for torpedoing a recent compromise border bill between Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla., and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz.
“They use it as a political football,” he said. “Congress needs to get their behinds together and pass a bill that’ll take care of that… You see what Trump did.”
Trump has been blamed for lobbying against the legislation.
Local resident Charlie Cane remarked that he believes Harris will win the debate next week, calling it the match-up of a “prosecutor versus a criminal.”
He added he believes she is the right candidate to bring down inflation in food and housing prices, while saying she “could do better” on border security.
Fox News’ Bill Melugin and Adam Shaw contributed to this report.
On Tuesday, September 10, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo will be testifying publicly before Congress for the first time regarding his COVID-19 nursing home policies and the March 25, 2020, directive that brought in over 9,000 coronavirus patients into care facilities across the state. Many of us will be very interested in the subcommittee’s findings and their report, which will be made public in the next few weeks.
Our families have been waiting years for this moment, and it’s hard to put into words what it will be like to finally be in the same room as the person who many of us believe had a hand in the deaths of our loved ones. I’ve said many times that had Gov. Cuomo expressed any kind of remorse for his actions, met with families or wrote condolence cards instead of chasing a $5 million dollar book deal while tens of thousands of New Yorkers were dying alone, we wouldn’t be where we are today: still waiting for answers and accountability.
When I told close friends that I would be heading to D.C., to watch Andrew Cuomo be questioned in front of congress, some asked how I was feeling. To be honest, I don’t know that I’ve truly processed those emotions. Over the last four years, I’ve been a very loud advocate, turning grief into action, writing essays, doing interviews and meeting with lawmakers to ask them to please conduct a fair bipartisan investigation into how our government handled this once and a lifetime pandemic.
Sadly, here in New York, it has never happened. But in Washington, D.C., there is an interest in finding answers, and I’m grateful to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic for taking on an issue that New York has long tried to bury.
I have gotten to know many other grieving families over the years. Our shared tragedies have brought us together, and we’ll be watching our former governor on Tuesday together.
I asked my sister-in-law Donna Johnson and my friends Vivian Zayas and Peter Arbeeny to share their feelings before we head to D.C. on Tuesday about finally being there, just a few feet away from the former governor who seemed to never care about our families or what we went through in the spring of 2020.
Here are their responses:
“Being in the same room with the son of the great Mario Cuomo, who personally met with my mother long ago and was person she admired. Mario inspired me to become a Democrat and when given the chance, I voted for his son Andrew Cuomo. Andrew should have accepted our family’s invitation to meet at our father’s house and apologize.
This congressional public hearing, brings me one step closer to my promise that I made my dad after his passing 4-1/2 years ago. I promised him that I would not visit the cemetery till we had an investigation into why we were lied to by the Cuomo administration.”
“Nearly five years have passed since my mother’s death, and I never imagined this day would come. I’ve fought tirelessly for this moment, through pain, through grief, and through countless setbacks. And now, to be just feet away from him—this man whose decisions took so much from me and so many others—fills me with a mix of emotions I can hardly describe. The anger I’ve carried, the sadness that never leaves, the determination that has fueled me, all collide in this one moment. But my resolve has never been stronger. I will look him in the eye, and he will know that I am still here, unyielding, fighting for the justice that my mother—and so many others—deserved.
My mother’s life mattered. Her death, like the thousands of other elderly who perished, could have been prevented. His mother was not more important than mine, and his decisions will not be buried with them. We, the families left behind, are just as defiant as he is—determined to seek justice for those who deserved far better. The elderly needed protection, and instead, they were left exposed and vulnerable. He failed them, and in doing so, he failed us.
Holding him accountable is necessary, as is holding everyone else accountable who took part in these decisions.”
“Although I am quite anxious since finding out we are going to be at the testimony of Andrew Cuomo in person, I have the horror of what my family lived through fresh in the front my mind. Don’t misunderstand me, it has always been in my mind. I just try to store it a little further back. I am also feeling discouraged because I have never heard the disgraced ex-governor tell the truth.
What I would like to see during this testimony is accountability, and truth for once. It is something we need to know.
As a senior myself, there are no guarantees I won’t end up in an Assisted Living or Rehabilitation Facility someday, and I need to know what decisions Andrew Cuomo made to be certain that history will never repeat itself.
It’s been 4 years of no accountability. The truth is long overdue.”
As for me, I think I will have to wait to share my feelings. Part of me wants to forgive Andrew Cuomo, because those who talk about forgiveness say it’s for the person who has been hurt more than the one that hurt them. But I’m not there yet. And I don’t think Andrew Cuomo is all of a sudden going to pretend he’s remorseful or empathetic.
Instead, I believe Andrew Cuomo will do as he always does: deflect, blame everyone else and lie to protect himself instead of what he should have done from the beginning: protecting our loved ones, which he pledged he would do through a once in a lifetime pandemic.
A group of retired generals is moving to defend Vice President Kamala Harris from criticism over the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan this week.
The group of 10 former generals and admirals includes Admiral Steve Abbot, a former advisor to George W. Bush; Gen. Lloyd W. Newton, and Gen. Larry R. Ellis, who had never endorsed a political candidate until this week.
“Vice President Kamala Harris is the best—and only—presidential candidate in this race who is fit to serve as our commander-in-chief,” the group wrote in a National Security Leaders for America letter, first obtained by Axios.
“She has demonstrated her ability to take on the most difficult national security challenges in the Situation Room and on the international stage, from rallying our allies against Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine to standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the Indo-Pacific against China’s provocative actions, to advancing U.S. leadership on space and artificial intelligence,” the letter continued.
The group went on to attack former President Trump for allegedly setting up President Biden and Harris to fail in Afghanistan. They say the Trump administration negotiated a deal “without involving the Afghan government” and released 5,000 Taliban fighters back onto the battlefield.
“He left President Biden and Vice President Harris with no plans to execute a withdrawal, and with little time to do so. This chaotic approach severely hindered the Biden-Harris Administration’s ability to execute the most orderly withdrawal possible and put our service members and our allies at risk. Nevertheless, President Biden with the support of Vice President Harris ended America’s longest war, oversaw the largest airlift in U.S. history, and brought our troops home,” the generals wrote.
Harris has faced heavy criticism for her involvement in the withdrawal since she became the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee last month. She famously stated that she was the “last” person in the room with Biden when the administration was calling the shots for the withdrawal.
Trump’s campaign has put the issue front and center in recent weeks, with parents and relatives of some U.S. soldiers killed during the withdrawal attacking Harris and endorsing the former president.
Trump is sure to raise the issue on Tuesday night, when he and Harris meet to debate for the first time.
A pair of reparations-related bills for the descendants of enslaved Black Americans failed to pass in the California legislature last week, but supporters say they’re not going down without a fight.
The two bills led by Democrats that would have greenlit reparations were considered key components of some lawmakers’ ambitious efforts to pass legislation aimed at atoning for what they said was a legacy of racist policies that drove disparities for Black people, from housing to education to health. Authored by Democratic state Sen. Steven Bradford of Inglewood, Senate Bill 1331 would have created a new state fund for reparations, while Senate Bill 1403 would have established a state agency to oversee these efforts and determine who would be eligible.
After hours of heated debate and protests last week, Democratic state lawmakers and the California Legislative Black Caucuschose to proceed without the bills. While the Democratic-led California legislaturedid pass a spate of other bills aimed at remedying past racial injustices, none of these would provide direct payments to African-Americans.
Reparations supporters, however, are vowing revenge, CalMatters reported. Some are reportedly weighing the idea of recalling Black caucus members and other state Democrats who blocked the bills from going through.
“They plan on showing up at town hall meetings in some of the legislators’ districts, and at least one group has filed an ethics complaint with the special committee on legislative ethics against the caucus. The complaint alleges corruption and improper influence played a role in the bills’ fates,” according to CalMatters.
“There has to be a political price to pay,” Chris Lodgson, who has been working with state lawmakers on reparations since 2019, told the nonprofit news organization.
“This hurts in a different way because what we saw was our own people stop our own people. That hits different,” he said.
California Legislative Black Caucus Chair Assemblymember Lori Wilson said Saturday that the Black Caucus pulled the bills, adding the proposals need more work.
“We knew from the very beginning that it was an uphill battle … And we also knew from the very beginning that it would be a multiyear effort,” Wilson told reporters.
Protests erupted outside the Capitol Saturday as reparation advocates demanded the lawmakers who held up the bills be held accountable.
“This type of betrayal cannot go unanswered,” the Coalition for a Just & Equitable California wrote on X. “There must be a political price to pay. Gone are the days when politicians of any race or party can disrespect Black Americans and expect no political consequences. We are not captured. We do not belong to any party or special interest. We are the living embodiment of our Ancestors who built this state and this country over 400 years and who are owed Reparations. We’re coming…No…We’re HERE, to get our checks and more.”
The California Legislative Black Caucus did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Fox News’ Bradford Bentz contributed to this report.
As a former DIA intelligence officer specializing in Russian war-fighting strategy and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s mindset, I recently had the honor to brief one of the U.S. combatant commands on major security threats to our homeland. This briefing and my interaction with high-ranking officers and their staff prompted me to pen this piece.
As the world has become increasingly unstable under the Biden-Harris presidency, the risk of the U.S. military having to fight a three-theater war has never been higher. The United States is already involved in two conflicts – the Russia-Ukraine one, by proxy, in Europe and another one in the Middle East, as Israel is defending itself against the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance. A war with China over Taiwan also may erupt as early as next year, according to a high-ranking U.S. military officer who heads up U.S. Air Mobility Command.
But how can America win three simultaneous wars if it has struggled to win one single war in a quarter of a century? Think Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. No decisive meaningful military victory has been achieved by U.S. forces in these conflicts, despite the fact that it has faced much smaller opponents who lack advanced weaponry and some don’t even have a regular army. That is despite the fact that, tactically, our military is the best war-fighting force in military history.
Here are the top three actions the Pentagon and the national security apparatus must take in order to deter wars or start winning them.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” This guidance comes from the renowned ancient Chinese strategist and general Sun Tzu. In his seminal work, “The Art of War,” the earliest known treatise on war and military science dating back to the fifth century B.C., Sun Tzu stressed the paramount importance of knowing your opponent when engaging in warfare.
To this day, contemporary Chinese and Russian military planners religiously adhere to Sun Tzu’s precepts. Their entire warfare philosophy centers on the elements of deception and surprise. To win means to deceive your enemy. But to outplay your opponent, you must first understand how he thinks and how he fights.
It’s my view that our military and intelligence lacks such understanding. Instead, the Pentagon relies on a one-size-fits-all approach, erroneously believing that superior weapons, advanced technology and masterful tactics will prevail in any war over any opposing force. Nowhere was this misguided belief more vividly disproven than in the U.S. failure in Afghanistan.
In December 2019, the so-called Afghanistan Papers, a trove of confidential government documents containing two thousand pages of impressions by four hundred direct participants in the war, ranging from generals to diplomats, revealed stunning facts. The Pentagon did not have the faintest idea about Afghanistan before invading it 2001 — the culture, mindset, and warfighting style of its adversary. And that is the simple reason for Washington’s abysmal performance in Afghanistan. “We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan—we didn’t know what we were doing,” Douglas Lute, a three-star Army general who served as the White House’s Afghan war czar during the Bush and Obama administrations, told government interviewers in 2015, “What are we trying to do here? We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.”
After 20 years, the result of this was more than 2 trillion dollars spent on the war, and 7,000 deaths of American and allied servicemen and women. The Biden administration withdrew our forces and the same murderous regime, the Taliban, is ruling the country. Except now, these barbarians have billions of dollars worth of our top secret military hardware.
Because our military is the best in the world in conventional warfare, no foreign power would dare challenge it in a head-to-head kinetic fight. Instead, our adversaries have developed asymmetric strategies to win a war against our military. These strategies seek to exploit vulnerabilities, such as over-reliance on technology. Indeed, we are dependent on satellites and access to the internet for every aspect of war-fighting and in our civilian life. Satellites are used for global navigation, water management, power grid monitoring, weather forecasting, broadband access and telecommunications for applications ranging from banking to education to telemedicine, among other things.
Russia and China’s military strategies include cyber strikes and anti-satellite attacks targeting our critical infrastructure, government networks and military systems. The Pentagon has known about the possibility of attacks on U.S. space systems since January 2001, when a commission led by the then Defense Secretary-designate Donald Rumsfeld issued a report warning about a space Pearl Harbor.
Similarly, the Pentagon has been aware of gaps in our cybersecurity since 1999, when the Russians breached multiple U.S. government and military agencies, including weapons labs, and exfiltrated massive amounts of sensitive data.
Yet, our satellites remain unprotected. Even our weapons arsenal, including major advanced systems such as the Patriot missile system, are vulnerable to cyberattacks, according to a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office audit.
Consequently, winning against China or Russia, both of whom have plans to inflict a Cyber Armageddon or a Space Pearl Harbor on our homeland, if we deploy forces into the theater to defend Taiwan or a former Soviet nation like Ukraine, would be highly problematic.
“No plan survives contact with the enemy” is one of the most misquoted military wisdoms, which belongs to Prussian Chief of General Staff Helmut von Moltke the Elder. He is known for serving as the architect of Prussian military supremacy in mid-19th century Europe.
What von Moltke actually said was far more nuanced. “No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength.” A diligent and skillful planner, he stressed the importance of having an adaptable plan, which can be modified in rapidly-changing conditions. The proper plan, in his view, must include multiple options, factoring in various possible outcomes. And that can only be achieved through thorough preparation.
Regretfully, I don’t believe such preparation exists in the Defense Department. In 2001, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, the Pentagon had no pre-existing plan. Operation Enduring Freedom, seeking to destroy al Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power, was therefore, based on reused elements of the CIA’s previous contingency plans for collaboration with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and some options hastily prepared by the U.S. military, including the Joint Special Operations Command.
The Pentagon’s lack of preparation and culturally ignorant approach to war has resulted in the failure to anticipate how the insurgents in Afghanistan (and subsequently in Iraq) would adapt, fight and stymie the world’s most sophisticated and technologically advanced military. The insurgents’ employment of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) enabled them, the weaker side, to gain advantage over U.S. forces. IEDs – which were responsible for 60% of all American fatalities and half of American casualties in Afghanistan – mitigated U.S. advantages in resources, technology, and ground combat. These homemade gadgets mangled our military hardware and maimed our service members.
To defeat even low-tech adversaries, U.S. planners must learn to out-improvise them, rather than count on the technological crutch of advanced weaponry. Outsmarting your opponent requires doing your homework on him prior to deploying onto the battlefield.
Defining ahead of time what victory looks like will help avoid defaulting to nation-building, senseless fighting and loss of U.S. lives for twenty years in a country like Afghanistan. It is called “the graveyard of empires” for a reason.
