Dr. Fauci is warning Americans against gathering with friends and family for Thanksgiving given the resurgence of Covid-19 across much of the nation. He is urging Americans to consider doing Thanksgiving differently this year in order to protect one another.

I don’t know about you, but I just can’t. I *NEED* Thanksgiving. It’s been such a long, difficult year. I just want to gather for a day with family in gratefulness and relaxation.

I don’t say this because the virus doesn’t exist or because it doesn’t kill people. It is very real and has killed over 200,000 Americans. Heck, although the chances are very slim, I might die if/when I catch it. But, I want to live my life in the meantime, taking reasonable precautions, but still living life!

From CBS News:

The surge could be made worse as families across the country travel and gather for the holiday season. Fauci said some beloved traditions, like big Thanksgiving gatherings, may need to be avoided this year to keep people safe.

“That is unfortunately a risk, when you have people coming from out of town, gathering together in an indoor setting,” he said. “It is unfortunate, because that’s such a sacred part of American tradition — the family gathering around Thanksgiving. But that is a risk.”

Asked what his advice would be to Americans making plans for the November holiday, Fauci said they should evaluate the status of cases across the country.

“Given the fluid and dynamic nature of what’s going on right now in the spread and the uptick of infections, I think people should be very careful and prudent about social gatherings, particularly when members of the family might be at a risk because of their age or their underlying condition,” he said, adding, “You may have to bite the bullet and sacrifice that social gathering, unless you’re pretty certain that the people that you’re dealing with are not infected.”

He said that his own family’s Thanksgiving “is going to look very different this year.” He shared that his children, who live in three different states, have decided not to return home in order to protect his health, since at 79 years old he is considered at higher risk.

“They themselves, because of their concern for me and my age, have decided they’re not going to come home for Thanksgiving — even though all three of them want very much to come home for Thanksgiving.”

Are you altering your Thanksgiving plans due to Covid-19?

Here is the full interview for those of you interested in a lecture from Dr. Fauci.

Author: Jennie Cotrinski

Source: Chicks On Right: Dr. Fauci Warns Americans Against Thanksgiving Gatherings: “You may have to bite the bullet and sacrifice that social gathering”

Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill Thursday morning, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham and members Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley said they plan to issue a subpoena to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for immediate and emergency testimony about the platform’s censoring of stories related to Hunter and Joe Biden.

“This is election interference and we are 19 days out from an election. It has no precedence in American democracy. The Senate Judiciary Committee wants to know what the hell is going on. Chairman Lindsey Graham and I have discussed this at length and the Committee today will be noticing a markup on Tuesday to issue a subpoena to Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Friday, to come before this Committee and the American people and explain why Twitter is abusing their corporate power to silence the press and cover up allegations of corruption,” Cruz said. “Twitter and Facebook and big tech billionaires don’t get to censor political speech and actively interfere in the election. That’s what they’re doing right now.”

The New York Post published a story yesterday showing former Vice President Joe Biden met with a board member of Ukrainian company Burisma after being introduced by his son, Hunter Biden. The information is contrary to repeated statements by the Democratic presidential nominee that he never discussed Hunter Biden’s business dealings.

Despite having no experience in oil or gas, Hunter Biden was paid $83,000 per month to sit on Burisma’s board. The company was notoriously corrupt and at the time of his payments, then-Vice President Biden was in charge of the Ukrainian portfolio for President Obama’s administration.

“We’re going to finally have an accounting,” Graham said. “The power behind these platforms have been taken to a level that truly is dangerous.”

Senator Hawley also called for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify.

Author: Katie Pavlich

Source: Town Hall: BREAKING: After Censorship Fiasco, Twitter CEO Is Getting Subpoenaed for Emergency Testimony

Biden campaign national press secretary Jamal Brown cited Twitter’s recent censorship of a New York Post story potentially damaging to their campaign to claim that the story must be “false.”

“I also wanna ask you, Twitter has been under a little bit of fire for blocking tweets connected to the recent New York Post article about Hunter Biden’s connections in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s alleged involvement when he was vice president. What is your campaign’s response to this article and do you think Twitter is doing the right thing here?” a Cheddar host asked Brown, Thursday morning.

“Twitter’s response to the actual article itself makes clear that these purported allegations are false and are not true,” Brown responded.

“I’m glad to see social media companies like Twitter taking responsibility to limit misinformation,” added the Biden camp. press secretary.


Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) responded to the clip, “Wait – now [Joe Biden] is using [Twitter] as the factual authority on whether the [New York Post] story is accurate? Is this serious?”

“Incredible,” reacted Ben Shapiro. “So the deal is that Twitter wrongly censors an anti-Biden story to protect Biden, and then the Biden campaign cites Twitter’s protection as evidence that the story is a nothingburger.”

As noted by The Daily Wire, emails obtained by the New York Post allegedly show Biden son Hunter Biden leveraging his relationship with his father, who was serving as vice president at the time, to increase his pay at Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company.

“The email comes from a laptop computer that was dropped off at a computer repair store last April in Biden’s home state of Delaware,” The Daily Wire noted. “The person who brought the laptop into the store never paid for service and never retrieved the device. Federal law enforcement officials reportedly seized the laptop in December after the store owner alerted them to it, but not before the store owner made a copy of the hard drive.”

The New York Post reported:

Hunter Biden discussed leveraging his connection to his father in a bid to boost his pay from a Ukrainian natural-gas company, according to an e-mail he sent around the time he joined the firm’s corporate board.

In a lengthy memo to his then-business partner, Devon Archer, who already sat on the Burisma board, Biden repeatedly mentioned “my guy” while apparently referring to then-Vice President Joe Biden.

Under President Barack Obama, the elder Biden was the point person for US policy toward Ukraine, and he held a press conference there with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk on April 22, 2014.

Hunter Biden’s e-mail to Archer is dated a little more than a week earlier.

The report has come with pushback, including accusations of alleged “holes and red flags” and questions concerning how the information was obtained.

Author: Amanda Prestigiacomo

Source: Daily Wire: Biden Camp: Twitter Censored Damaging Biden Story, So It Must Be False; Praise Twitter Censorship

Renewable energy is cripplingly expensive, hopelessly unreliable, massacres wildlife, destroys landscapes, destabilises the grid, harms indigenous peoples, and causes climate change. But apart from that it’s great, says a meticulous review published in the scientific journal Energies by a team of Irish and U.S.-based researchers.

Actually, the part about renewable energy being ‘great’ is a joke but the rest is true. The scholarly review – Energy and Climate Policy – An Evaluation of Climate Change Expenditure 2011-2018 – is probably the most thorough meta-analysis published on the so-called ‘clean energy’ sector. Its conclusion, though neutrally expressed, could scarcely be more damning:

…The reader may wonder whether the current proposed “zero-carbon” energy transition policies based predominantly on wind- and solar-generated electricity are truly the panacea that promoters of these technologies indicate.

It will confirm all President Donald Trump’s worst suspicions about renewable ‘clean’ energy and about utopian projects like the Green New Deal. But it will make grim reading for Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, the Prince of Wales, David Attenborough, the Pope, Leo Di Caprio and the rest of the rag bag of public figures who have sought to burnish their caring, eco-friendly credentials by championing ‘renewable energy’ as the best way to save the planet.

In fact, the review authors demonstrate, renewables – mainly wind and solar – do little if anything to reduce carbon dioxide emissions but are very good at wasting eye-watering sums of taxpayers’ money.

Concern for climate change is one of the drivers of new, transitional energy policies oriented towards economic growth and energy security, along with reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and preservation of biodiversity. Since 2010, the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) has been publishing annual Global Landscape of Climate Finance reports. According to these reports, US$3660 billion has been spent on global climate change projects over the period 2011–2018. Fifty-five percent of this expenditure has gone to wind and solar energy. According to world energy reports, the contribution of wind and solar to world energy consumption has increased from 0.5% to 3% over this period. Meanwhile, coal, oil, and gas continue to supply 85% of the world’s energy consumption, with hydroelectricity and nuclear providing most of the remainder.

The report’s leader author Coilín ÓhAiseadha puts this expenditure in context:

“It cost the world $2 trillion to increase the share of energy generated by solar and wind from half a percent to three percent, and it took eight years to do it. What would it cost to increase that to 100%? And how long would it take?”

According to the review, wind and solar are bad for a number of reasons – not least among them being the harm they do to the environment.

One of the rationales used for wind power is that it reduces man made climate change. But, in fact, the study shows, it actually causes climate change at a local level, changing wind patterns, temperatures, precipitation, even causing flash flooding.

In particular, recent years’ research has produced considerable theoretical and empirical evidence that wind turbines can have significant local or regional effects on climate. For example, Abbasi et al. (2016) explain that “large-scale wind farms with tall wind turbines can have an influence on the weather, possibly on climate, due to the combined effects of the wind velocity deficit they create, changes in the atmospheric turbulence pattern they cause, and landscape roughness they enhance”.

Green technologies are also incredibly resource-greedy. Part of the problem is their feeble ‘power density’ – which is the measurement of the amount of land required to produce a fixed amount of energy. By far the most power-dense form of energy is natural gas, followed by nuclear, oil and coal. Fossil fuels can produce large amounts of energy requiring little land. Renewables, by contrast, need huge amounts of land to produce relatively tiny quantities of energy. Fossil fuels produce on average about 1000 times more power for any given land surface area.

Renewables also require large quantities of minerals. Merely for the UK to fulfil Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s dream of making all cars in Britain electric by 2030 would, according to a group of experts led by Professor Richard Herrington, Head of Earth Sciences at the Natural History Museum in London, require:

“…just under two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production during 2018 […] If we are to extrapolate this analysis to the currently projected estimate of 2 billion cars worldwide, based on 2018 figures, annual production would have to increase for neodymium and dysprosium by 70%, copper output would need to more than double and cobalt output would need to increase at least three and a half times for the entire period from now until 2050 to satisfy the demand”

This expansion in mining is likely to have serious adverse social and environmental impacts in the often impoverished countries where the rare minerals are found.

According to Medium:

Cobalt mining, required to make batteries for e-vehicles, has severe impacts on the health of women and children in mining communities, where the mining is often done in unregulated, small-scale, “artisanal” mines. Lithium extraction, also required for manufacturing batteries for e-vehicles, requires large quantities of water, and can cause pollution and shortages of fresh water for local communities.

As lead author, Coilín ÓhAiseadha, points out:

“There was worldwide coverage of the conflict between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Dakota Access Pipeline, but what about the impacts of cobalt mining on indigenous peoples in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and what about the impacts of lithium extraction on the peoples of the Atacama Desert? Remember the slogan they chanted at Standing Rock? Mni Wiconi! Water is life! Well, that applies whether you’re Standing Rock Sioux worried about an oil spill polluting the river, or you’re in the Atacama Desert worried about lithium mining polluting your groundwater.”

Even if they were as virtuous as their advocates claim, renewable technologies are hopelessly inadequate to the task of powering modern Western Civilisation.

As co-author Dr Ronan Connolly says:

“The average household expects their fridges and freezers to run continuously and to be able to turn on and off the lights on demand. Wind and solar promoters need to start admitting that they are not capable of providing this type of continuous and on-demand electricity supply on a national scale that modern societies are used to.”

They also make poor people poorer by forcing them to use expensive ‘clean’ energy when fossil fuels would be much cheaper and more effective.

We suggest that even within developed nations, policies to reduce CO2 emissions similarly are often at odds with improving the livelihoods of the less affluent in society.

For example, one policy tool which is often promoted as being potentially useful for reducing CO2 emissions is the implementation of “carbon taxes”. Carbon taxes can take many forms, but typically penalize the use of forms of energy that are associated with relatively high CO2 emissions. Researchers studying the socioeconomic implications of various carbon taxes in multiple countries have found that carbon taxes “tend to be regressive”, i.e., the burden tends to be greatest on the poorest households.

The report drily concludes that whether the goal is protecting biodiversity, securing a stable and reliable electricity supply, increase economic growth, or reducing CO2 emissions, the answer in every case is NOT renewables.

Yet, currently, of the $3.66 trillion spent on global climate change in the period 2011 and 2018, 55 percent was spent on wind and solar.

As the report notes:

‘This is a very large allocation for two energy sources which have many disadvantages.’

Author: James Delingpole

Source: Breitbart: Delingpole: Study Confirms Donald Trump Is Right – ‘Clean’ Energy Is the Worst

Pelosi rejected a $1.8 trillion offer from the White House

American voters are pointing the finger at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for Congress’ failure to pass a new coronavirus stimulus bill, according to a new poll.

The survey, conducted by YouGov Oct. 9-11 among 1,525 registered voters, found that 43% of voters said Pelosi is more to blame for the lack of progress on a stimulus package, while 40% blamed President Donald Trump. 17% of those surveyed were unsure.

By party affiliation, an overwhelming majority of Democrats blame Trump and an overwhelming majority of Republicans blame Pelosi. However, 45% of self-identified independents said Pelosi is more responsible for the failure to reach a deal, compared to 30% who said it was Trump’s fault. 25% of independents were unsure.

A new stimulus package to alleviate the economic recession caused by the coronavirus pandemic has been logjammed in Congress because of disagreements between Democrats and Republicans over how large the stimulus should be and what kinds of aid should be included in the bill.

Pelosi demands a $2.2 trillion stimulus that includes billions of dollars in direct aid to state and local governments to cover budget shortfalls made worse by the pandemic. President Trump on Oct. 6 announced he would end negotiations over the stimulus, accusing Pelosi of asking for “money that is in no way related to COVID-19” and saying he would revisit a stimulus package after the Nov. 3 election. Other Republicans have criticized the aid to state governments as a “bailout.”

But shortly after declaring negotiations dead, the president offered to sign a stand-alone bill providing Americans with another round of $1,200 stimulus checks.

Last Friday, the White House offered Democrats a $1.8 trillion compromise, a compromise that Pelosi swiftly rejected. Speaking on CNN, Pelosi said the American people’s needs “are not addressed in the president’s proposal.” She entered into a contentious exchange with host Wolf Blitzer, who pressed her on refusing the president’s deal.

“I hope you’ll ask the same question of the Republicans about why they don’t really want to meet the needs of the American people,” Pelosi said. “But let me say to those people because all of my colleagues — we represent these people … I know what their need are, I listen to them, and their needs are not addressed in the president’s proposal. So when you say to me, ‘Why don’t you accept theirs?’ Why don’t they accept ours?”

Blitzer pushed back on Pelosi, noting that some Democrats have called on her to take the president’s deal, and Pelosi fired back and accused him of being an “apologist” for the Republican opposition.

Author: Chris Pandolfo

Source: The Blaze: Poll: Most Americans blame Nancy Pelosi for failure to pass coronavirus stimulus

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tried to explain the concept of “originalism” to judge Amy Coney Barrett on Wednesday but ended up failing miserably and being crushed online.

In her hearings on Tuesday, Barrett, who will likely replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, mentioned that, like the late Justice Antonin Scalia, she has an “originalist” view of the Constitution, which, in essence, requires her to consider the document authors’ intent and the Constitution’s immediate historical context when interpreting the Constitution’s guarantees in light of a particular case.

For most jurists, that means limiting the protections of government to those clearly listed in the Constitution itself, in the Bill of Rights, and in subsequent amendments, but each originalist has his or her own definition.

“In English, that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law,” Barrett patiently explained to the Senate Tuesday, “and that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.”

For leftists, including Clinton, “originalism” was not a theory of judicial interpretation, but a chance to dunk on Barrett, and like many of her Democratic colleagues, Clinton misinterpreted Barrett’s ties to “originalism” as a demand that the Constitution remains as written, with no protection for women and minorities.

“At the time the Constitution was ratified, women couldn’t vote, much less be judges,” Clinton sniped.

She was quickly corrected. It turns out, originalists believe that the Constitution’s protections can be extended or changed through the amendment process because that leaves those decisions up to the people, not the judiciary.

No less than Justice Antonin Scalia’s son weighed in on the issue.

“Dear HRC staffers: originalists don’t believe the Constitution should never change; they just realize it’s the job not of judges but of citizens through their legislators to make those changes. See, for example, the 19th amendment,” Christopher Scalia tweeted, including a link to his father’s extensive writings on the subject.

Others questioned whether Clinton had been truly served during her time in law school and legal practice.

“OMgosh and she’s a lawyer. I know she isn’t this stupid, but how many in America are!” noted a professor on social media.

The “originalism means Barrett couldn’t vote” line is a popular one among leftists. “West Wing” actor Bradley Whitford, under the apparent impression that he served in a branch of government tried his own hand at badly explaining “originalism” to his followers.

“Unless you’re a fan of slavery, think women should have no rights at all, and that indigenous people are a different species that deserves to be eradicated, ‘originalism’ is an Orwellian doily wrapped around a morally bankrupt turd,” he said. He later added that he liked asking conservative women who ascribe to originalism whether they should be allowed to vote. Conservative women, of course, referred Whitford to the Nineteenth Amendment which originalists believe was duly enacted, expanding the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom at the behest of American voters.

Author: Emily Zanotti

Source: Daily Wire: Hillary Clinton Tries To Explain ‘Originalism’ To Amy Coney Barrett, Fails Miserably

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett corrected Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin multiple times throughout day three of her testimony Wednesday while the senator repeatedly misconstrued the federal judge’s prior rulings.

At the onset of his questioning, Durbin recited Barrett’s earlier testimony given during Sen. Diane Feinstein’s questioning where the California Democrat accused Barrett of preparing to allow the president to unilaterally delay a general election.

Durbin repeated Barrett’s answer that she did not want to provide “off-the-cuff answers like a pundit but rather approach matters with an open mind.”

“Is that still your response?” Durbin asked.

“I’ve given that response to every hypothetical that I’ve been asked in the hearings,” Barrett explained, for probably the hundredth time since the hearings began on Monday to comply with the “Ginsburg Rule” where Supreme Court nominees give no preview on how they might rule on the high bench on specific cases.

“I do that regardless of whether it’s easy or hard … I do that because it would be inappropriate for me to make a comment and I don’t think I’ve answered any legal hypotheticals in keeping with the Justice Ginsburg rule.”

Durbin pressed further, changing the question to a bizarre inquiry on whether the president has the right to deny any person the right to vote based on their race.

“Obviously there are many laws in effect,” Barrett explained to the Georgetown Law School graduate, that protect the citizen’s right to vote, such as the Equal Protection Clause, the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and the 15th Amendment.

When Durbin asked the question again, Barrett gave the same answer.

“I don’t know how else I can say it,” Barrett said. “You’ve asked a couple of different questions about what the president might be able to unilaterally do and I really think that I really can’t say anything more than I’m not going to answer hypotheticals.”

Moments later, Durbin tried to frame Barrett as declaring the right to vote a second-class right.

“You concluded that any felony can take away your right to vote, but only a violent felony can take away your right to purchase an AK-47,” Durbin said. “Why?”

“That’s distorting my position,” Barrett said.

What I said in that case, which is what Heller said and which is convention in all discussions of this to my knowledge is that the right to vote is fundamental, however it is an individual fundamental right that we possess, but we possess it as part of our civic responsibility for the common good. The same thing is true for the example of jury service. Whereas individual rights, and this is again a distinction that’s drawn in case law: individual rights benefit more the individual … Heller had nothing to do with the right to vote.

Author: Tristan Justice

Source: The Federalist: Amy Coney Barrett Explains How The Constitution Works To Georgetown Law Graduate Dick Durbin

Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett quickly corrected a suggestion by Democratic Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar Wednesday that Barrett had cut an implicit deal with President Donald Trump on Obamacare.

Klobuchar focused a line of questioning around the Affordable Care Act Wednesday afternoon, like Democratic California Sen Kamala Harris did Tuesday evening, pressing Barrett on whether Barrett knew when she was nominated that one of Trump’s campaign promises was to repeal Obamacare.

“As I said before, I’m aware that the president opposes the Affordable Care Act,” Barrett responded.

“Well, I know you are aware now,” Klobuchar said. “But were you aware back then? When you were nominated?”

“Senator Klobuchar, I think that the Republicans have kind of made that clear, it’s just been part of the book, public discourse,” the Supreme Court nominee responded.

“Is the answer yes, then,” Klobuchar pressed Barrett, who interrupted her.

“Well, Senator Klobuchar, all these questions you are suggesting that I have animus or that I cut a deal with the president,” Barrett told her. “And I was very clear yesterday that that isn’t what happened.”

Harris also said Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act and “all its protections hinge” on the outcome of the Barrett confirmation hearings.

“Republicans have spent a decade trying to destroy the Affordable Care Act,” the California Democrat said Tuesday evening. “Donald Trump named a Supreme Court justice who would tear down the Affordable Care Act.”

Harris, who is also presidential candidate Joe Biden’s running mate, noted that President Donald Trump has argued that the Affordable Care Act should be “struck in its entirety.” She said that the “Supreme Court could be just one vote away” from overturning Obamacare.

“In other words, the Affordable Care Act and all its protections hinge on this seat and the outcome of this hearing,” she said. “I believe it’s very important that the American people understand the issues at stake.”

Harris asked Barrett whether she was aware of Trump’s intention to nominate a justice who would overturn Obamacare. Barrett told the vice presidential candidate that she “never made a commitment” on this matter.

Author: Mary Margaret Olohan

Source: Daily Caller: ‘That Isn’t What Happened’: Barrett Pushes Back On Klobuchar Suggestion That She Cut A Deal With Trump

If you live in New York, let me be one of many to say I’m sorry, and I mean that in the context of what you have had to endure regarding the coronavirus. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been a horrifically ineffective and vindictive leader that has relied on politics instead of data consistently throughout this pandemic. That’s led to 32,000+ dead bodies, including well over 10,000 nursing home deaths, and the second-worst death rate in the country, second only to New Jersey.

In response, Cuomo has consistently chanted “science” over and over, as if it’s some magic, all-encompassing catch-all that changes all bad decisions into good decisions. In reality, his actions have been anything but scientific and now we have proof.

Leaked audio shows Cuomo admitting that his lockdown orders, specifically those targeting Jewish schools, are not based in science.

We already knew this, didn’t we? Closing schools, as I’ve written on many times, has always been one of the dumbest, least data-driven decisions a government can make. Spread among school-aged children is minute compared to adults. The virus is also less dangerous than the flu for those specific age groups. Closing schools simply blew up the economy while putting children in the worse position of constantly being around their family members outside of the mitigation being done when they are in school.

Cuomo knows all this, but the targeting of Jewish schools, which is just the most recent example, is yet another fear-driven tactic meant to keep people in line. Democrats want the populace to be terrified of the virus because they see political gain in that. There’s no other logical explanation for continuing to keep schools closed when other states have had them open for months with no real issues. Never mind all the countries around the world who have done the same.

Is this really what New Yorkers want? I actually think there could be a backlash coming. New York is actually a place that hasn’t been shy about electing Republicans despite always being heavily blue in presidential elections. Andrew Cuomo may think he has a bright political future ahead of him. I think he may have overplayed his hand though.

(Please follow me on Twitter! @bonchieredstate)

Author: Bonchie

Source: Red State: Leaked Audio: Gov. Andrew Cuomo Makes Major Admission About Lock Downs

National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien announced Wednesday two American hostages who were held in Yemen by Iranian backed Houthis have been released.

“The United States welcomes the release today of US citizens Sandra Loli and Mikael Gidada from Houthi custody in Yemen. We send our condolences to the family of Bilal Fateen whose remains will be repatriated as well. We extend our sincerest thanks to Sultan Haitham bin Tariq of Oman and King Salman of Saudi Arabia for their efforts to secure the release of our citizens,” O’Brien released in a statement. “President Trump continues to prioritize securing the release and repatriation of Americans held hostage abroad. We will not rest until those held are home with their loved ones. President Trump has brought home over 50 hostages and detainees from 22 countries since taking office.”

More details from Fox News:

A Royal Oman Air Force plane carrying the two Americans and the remains of a third flew out of Yemen’s Houthi-controlled capital of Sana’a, hours after the jet and a companion flight brought hundreds of militants back to the country following years stuck in Oman.

The deal secured freedom for Sandra Loli, an American humanitarian worker who was held hostage by the Houthis for about three years, and Mikael Gidada, a U.S. businessman who was held for about a year, said Kash Patel, a deputy assistant to President Trump who worked on the deal.

The pact also included the return of the remains of Bilal Fateen, a third American who had been held by the Houthis. U.S. officials provided only limited information on the three Americans but did say that they had been working urgently to secure the deal because Ms. Loli’s health was in decline. The deal also included delivery of medical aid for Yemen.

Meanwhile, the administration and Congress continue to work to bring remaining hostages held overseas home as soon as possible.

Author: Katie Pavlich

Source: Town Hall: The Trump Administration Just Brought Home Two More American Hostages

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!