bonginoreport--2020-07-17--Judge Andrew P. Napolitano: A Brief History of the Freedom of Speech in America

`` I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it . ''
— Voltaire ( 1694-1778 ) When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence , he included in it a list of the colonists ' grievances with the British government .
Notably absent were any complaints that the British government infringed upon the freedom of speech .
In those days , speech was as acerbic as it is today .
If words were aimed at Parliament , all words were lawful .
If they were aimed directly and personally at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Declaration — they constituted treason .
Needless to say , Jefferson and the 55 others who signed the Declaration would all have been hanged for treasonous speech had the British prevailed .
Of course , the colonists won the war , and , six years afterward , the 13 states ratified the Constitution .
Two years after ratification , the Constitution was amended by adding the Bill of Rights .
The first ratified amendment prohibited Congress from doing what the colonists never seriously complained about the British government doing — infringing upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who drafted the Bill of Rights , insisted upon referring to speech as `` the '' freedom of speech , so as to emphasize that it preexisted the government .
If you could have asked Madison where he believed the freedom of speech came from , he 'd have said it was one of the inalienable rights Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration .
Stated differently , each of the signatories of the Declaration and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights manifested in writing their unambiguous belief that the freedom of speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every human .
It does not come from the government .
It comes from within us .
It can not be taken away by legislation or executive command .
Yet , a mere seven years later , during the presidency of John Adams , Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts , which punished speech critical of the government .
So , how could the same generation — in some cases the same human beings — that prohibited congressional infringement upon speech have enacted a statute that punished speech ?
To the some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted a big government as we have today — infringing upon the freedom of speech meant silencing it before it was uttered .
Today , this is called prior restraint , and the Supreme Court has essentially outlawed it .
To the antifederalists — or Democratic-Republicans , as they called themselves — the First Amendment prohibited Congress from interfering with or punishing any speech .
Adams ' Department of Justice indicted and prosecuted and convicted antifederalists — among them a congressman — for their critical speech .
When Jefferson won the presidency and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Federalists repealed the speech suppression parts of the Alien and Sedition Acts on the eve of their departure from congressional control , lest it be used against them .
During the Civil War , President Abraham Lincoln locked up hundreds of journalists in the North who were critical of his war efforts .
During World War I , President Woodrow Wilson — whom my alma mater Princeton University is trying to erase from its memory — arrested folks for reading the Declaration of Independence aloud or singing German beer hall songs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more important than preserving the First Amendment , and Wilson argued that the First Amendment only restrained Congress , not the president .
Both arguments have since been rejected by the courts .
In the 1950s , the feds successfully prosecuted Cold War dissenters on the theory that their speech was dangerous and might have a tendency to violence .
Some of the victims of this torturous rationale died in prison .
The government 's respect for speech has waxed and waned .
It is at its lowest ebb during wartime .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges the government 's use of force to kill — is often the most important and timely speech .
It was not until 1969 , in a case called Brandenburg v. Ohio , that the Supreme Court gave us a modern definition of the freedom of speech .
Brandenburg harangued a crowd in Hamilton County , Ohio and urged them to march to Washington and take back the federal government from Blacks and Jews , whom he argued were in control .
He was convicted in an Ohio state court of criminal syndicalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to arouse others to violence .
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed his conviction and held that all innocuous speech is absolutely protected , and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to rebut it .
The same Supreme Court had just ruled in Times v. Sullivan that the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage and protect open , wide , robust , even caustic and unbridled speech .
The speech we love needs no protection .
The speech we hate does .
The government has no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ framers understood , all persons have a natural right to think as we wish and to say and publish whatever we think .
Even hateful , hurtful and harmful speech is protected speech .
Yet , in perilous times like the present , we have seen efforts to use the courts to block the publication of unflattering books .
We have seen state governors use the police to protect gatherings of protestors with whose message they agreed and to disburse critical protestors .
We have seen mobs silence speakers while the police did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous business because there will be no end to it .
The remedy for hateful or threatening speech is not silence or punishments ; it is more speech — speech that challenges the speaker .
Why do folks in government want to silence their opponents ?
They fear an undermining of their power .
The dissenters might make more appealing arguments than they do .
St. Augustine taught that nearly all in government want to tell others how to live .
How about we all say whatever we want and the government leaves @ @ @

"I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." — Voltaire (1694-1778)
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he included in it a list of the colonists' grievances with the British government. Notably absent were any complaints that the British government infringed upon the freedom of speech.
In those days, speech was as acerbic as it is today. If words were aimed at Parliament, all words were lawful. If they were aimed directly and personally at the king — as Jefferson's were in the Declaration — they constituted treason.
Needless to say, Jefferson and the 55 others who signed the Declaration would all have been hanged for treasonous speech had the British prevailed.
Of course, the colonists won the war, and, six years afterward, the 13 states ratified the Constitution. Two years after ratification, the Constitution was amended by adding the Bill of Rights. The first ratified amendment prohibited Congress from doing what the colonists never seriously complained about the British government doing — infringing upon the freedom of speech.
James Madison, who drafted the Bill of Rights, insisted upon referring to speech as "the" freedom of speech, so as to emphasize that it preexisted the government. If you could have asked Madison where he believed the freedom of speech came from, he'd have said it was one of the inalienable rights Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration.
Stated differently, each of the signatories of the Declaration and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights manifested in writing their unambiguous belief that the freedom of speech is a natural right — personal to every human. It does not come from the government. It comes from within us. It cannot be taken away by legislation or executive command.
Yet, a mere seven years later, during the presidency of John Adams, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which punished speech critical of the government.
So, how could the same generation — in some cases the same human beings — that prohibited congressional infringement upon speech have enacted a statute that punished speech?
To the some of the framers — the Federalists who wanted a big government as we have today — infringing upon the freedom of speech meant silencing it before it was uttered. Today, this is called prior restraint, and the Supreme Court has essentially outlawed it.
To the antifederalists — or Democratic-Republicans, as they called themselves — the First Amendment prohibited Congress from interfering with or punishing any speech.
Adams' Department of Justice indicted and prosecuted and convicted antifederalists — among them a congressman — for their critical speech.
When Jefferson won the presidency and the antifederalists won control of Congress, the Federalists repealed the speech suppression parts of the Alien and Sedition Acts on the eve of their departure from congressional control, lest it be used against them.
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln locked up hundreds of journalists in the North who were critical of his war efforts. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson — whom my alma mater Princeton University is trying to erase from its memory — arrested folks for reading the Declaration of Independence aloud or singing German beer hall songs.
Lincoln argued that preserving the Union was more important than preserving the First Amendment, and Wilson argued that the First Amendment only restrained Congress, not the president. Both arguments have since been rejected by the courts.
In the 1950s, the feds successfully prosecuted Cold War dissenters on the theory that their speech was dangerous and might have a tendency to violence. Some of the victims of this torturous rationale died in prison.
The government's respect for speech has waxed and waned. It is at its lowest ebb during wartime. Of course, dissent during wartime — which challenges the government's use of force to kill — is often the most important and timely speech.
It was not until 1969, in a case called Brandenburg v. Ohio, that the Supreme Court gave us a modern definition of the freedom of speech. Brandenburg harangued a crowd in Hamilton County, Ohio and urged them to march to Washington and take back the federal government from Blacks and Jews, whom he argued were in control. He was convicted in an Ohio state court of criminal syndicalism — basically, the use of speech to arouse others to violence.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed his conviction and held that all innocuous speech is absolutely protected, and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to rebut it. The same Supreme Court had just ruled in Times v. Sullivan that the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage and protect open, wide, robust, even caustic and unbridled speech.
The speech we love needs no protection. The speech we hate does. The government has no authority to evaluate speech. As the framers understood, all persons have a natural right to think as we wish and to say and publish whatever we think. Even hateful, hurtful and harmful speech is protected speech.
Yet, in perilous times like the present, we have seen efforts to use the courts to block the publication of unflattering books. We have seen state governors use the police to protect gatherings of protestors with whose message they agreed and to disburse critical protestors. We have seen mobs silence speakers while the police did nothing.
Punishing speech is the most dangerous business because there will be no end to it. The remedy for hateful or threatening speech is not silence or punishments; it is more speech — speech that challenges the speaker.
Why do folks in government want to silence their opponents? They fear an undermining of their power. The dissenters might make more appealing arguments than they do. St. Augustine taught that nearly all in government want to tell others how to live.
How about we all say whatever we want and the government leaves us alone?


bonginoreport--2020-07-17--Victor Davis Hanson: The NFL Is On the Brink

The National Football League celebrated its 100th anniversary last year .
This should be a time of self-congratulation for the brutal sport , which has no similar counterpart outside the United States .
The NFL 's megaprofits dwarf those of other professional sports in the U.S .
The Super Bowl , not the World Series , is America 's national sports event .
The league has survived all sorts of crises in the past .
It was one of the first professional sports to integrate its teams , doing so in the 1920s .
But the integration unfortunately ceased , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mid-'40s , becoming one of the last sports leagues to embrace fully a racially-blind meritocracy .
The NFL successfully absorbed the rival American Football League in 1966 .
So far , the NFL has avoided federal safety regulations that could curb the incidence of physical trauma inherent in the sport .
The league 's owners are a cross-section of America 's most successful entrepreneurs and old-money families -- many of them politically well-connected .
Yet the NFL is in deep trouble like never before .
In 2016 , San Francisco 49ers quarterback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national anthem .
He claimed he was protesting the treatment of African Americans .
Kaepernick was an odd revolutionary .
His mother is white , his father is an African American of Ghanaian-Nigerian ancestry , and he was raised by a middle-class white couple .
Kaepernick 's only prior controversy was being accused by another player of using the N-word .
He denied it but was still fined by the league .
Kaepernick 's rejection of `` The Star-Spangled Banner '' eventually spread throughout the NFL .
Even though he was a backup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Soon he was a corporate ad man pitching Nike sneakers .
Then game attendance fell .
So did television viewership .
Apparently , lots of fans had no desire to spend their Sundays watching 20-something multimillionaires lecture them that the American flag was not worth honoring .
In 2018 , the league belatedly banned players from kneeling for the national anthem .
By then , Kaepernick had left football and become a megaphone for even more corporate sponsors .
Now the NFL is in the news amid national protests and violence following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands of police .
The inspirational song `` Lift Every Voice and Sing '' -- also known as the Black national anthem -- will be played before every game of the first week of the season .
The league is considering letting players wear protest insignia on their helmets or jerseys .
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell apologized to players for not listening to them about racism .
Yet the NFL capitulation poses fundamental problems for the league .
It has now essentially green-lighted the sort of activism that in the last few years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NFL owners and head coaches are almost all white .
But nearly three-quarters of the players are black .
Those who play the game obviously want to see more diversity in coaching and ownership .
In a culture so obsessed with identity politics , is it the players or the owners and coaches ( or both ) who do not `` look like America '' ?
Given that about 13 percent of the U.S. population is Black , and given that the Black Lives Matter movement embraces concepts like proportional representation , today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Social activists might argue that the league should mentor and recruit more Latinos , Asian Americans and Native Americans to better reflect their percentages of our diverse national population .
Perhaps an NFL compromise could ensure that 30 percent of coaches and owners are nonwhite , thus reflecting current U.S. demography .
But then , in reciprocity , the players would match such mandatory demographic diversity -- leading to Native Americans , Latinos , Asians , whites and those of mixed ancestry accounting for 87 percent of the player population .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive model of proportional representation could also apply to overrepresented white athletes in hockey , tennis , golf and swimming -- sports faulted by identity politics groups as being unfairly overrepresented by whites .
Obviously , such racial gerrymandering will not happen because fans value meritocracy over ethnic affiliations .
Or at least they did .
If the multibillion-dollar NFL decides that multimillionaire players have no obligation to stand to honor a collective national anthem , and that there will be separate anthems and politicized uniforms , then millions of Americans will quietly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that silent protest will make the 2016-17 anthem protest look like child 's play .

The National Football League celebrated its 100th anniversary last year. This should be a time of self-congratulation for the brutal sport, which has no similar counterpart outside the United States.
The NFL's megaprofits dwarf those of other professional sports in the U.S. The Super Bowl, not the World Series, is America's national sports event.
The league has survived all sorts of crises in the past. It was one of the first professional sports to integrate its teams, doing so in the 1920s. But the integration unfortunately ceased, and the NFL didn't reintegrate until the mid-'40s, becoming one of the last sports leagues to embrace fully a racially-blind meritocracy.
The NFL successfully absorbed the rival American Football League in 1966. So far, the NFL has avoided federal safety regulations that could curb the incidence of physical trauma inherent in the sport.
The league's owners are a cross-section of America's most successful entrepreneurs and old-money families -- many of them politically well-connected.
Yet the NFL is in deep trouble like never before.
In 2016, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the national anthem. He claimed he was protesting the treatment of African Americans.
Kaepernick was an odd revolutionary. His mother is white, his father is an African American of Ghanaian-Nigerian ancestry, and he was raised by a middle-class white couple. Kaepernick's only prior controversy was being accused by another player of using the N-word. He denied it but was still fined by the league.
Kaepernick's rejection of "The Star-Spangled Banner" eventually spread throughout the NFL. Even though he was a backup quarterback, Kaepernick became a resistance idol. Soon he was a corporate ad man pitching Nike sneakers.
Then game attendance fell. So did television viewership. Apparently, lots of fans had no desire to spend their Sundays watching 20-something multimillionaires lecture them that the American flag was not worth honoring.
In 2018, the league belatedly banned players from kneeling for the national anthem. By then, Kaepernick had left football and become a megaphone for even more corporate sponsors.
Now the NFL is in the news amid national protests and violence following the killing of George Floyd at the hands of police.
The inspirational song "Lift Every Voice and Sing" -- also known as the Black national anthem -- will be played before every game of the first week of the season. The league is considering letting players wear protest insignia on their helmets or jerseys. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell apologized to players for not listening to them about racism.
Yet the NFL capitulation poses fundamental problems for the league. It has now essentially green-lighted the sort of activism that in the last few years has been eating away its profits.
NFL owners and head coaches are almost all white. But nearly three-quarters of the players are black. Those who play the game obviously want to see more diversity in coaching and ownership.
In a culture so obsessed with identity politics, is it the players or the owners and coaches (or both) who do not "look like America"?
Given that about 13 percent of the U.S. population is Black, and given that the Black Lives Matter movement embraces concepts like proportional representation, today's NFL teams hardly qualify as diverse. Social activists might argue that the league should mentor and recruit more Latinos, Asian Americans and Native Americans to better reflect their percentages of our diverse national population.
Perhaps an NFL compromise could ensure that 30 percent of coaches and owners are nonwhite, thus reflecting current U.S. demography. But then, in reciprocity, the players would match such mandatory demographic diversity -- leading to Native Americans, Latinos, Asians, whites and those of mixed ancestry accounting for 87 percent of the player population. The NBA might also take note.
This progressive model of proportional representation could also apply to overrepresented white athletes in hockey, tennis, golf and swimming -- sports faulted by identity politics groups as being unfairly overrepresented by whites.
Obviously, such racial gerrymandering will not happen because fans value meritocracy over ethnic affiliations.
Or at least they did.
If the multibillion-dollar NFL decides that multimillionaire players have no obligation to stand to honor a collective national anthem, and that there will be separate anthems and politicized uniforms, then millions of Americans will quietly shrug and change the channel.
And that silent protest will make the 2016-17 anthem protest look like child's play.


bonginoreport--2020-07-17--Derek Hunter: Shut It Down (Just For A Week)

Imagine if you could time travel back to the year 1989 and , aside from telling yourself to buy certain stocks at various times , you tell people about the technology we have in 2020 .
What do you think they ’ d think about everyone having access to all the world ’ s information on a small touchscreen phone in their pockets ?
They ’ d likely think everyone has gotten much smarter and people were more in touch than ever before .
As we all know , they ’ d be horribly wrong .
You ’ d have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the phone part of that phone would likely be the least used feature on it .
It ’ d be difficult for people , used to waiting until someone got home before actually being able to talk with them , to understand why people don ’ t talk anymore .
Trading speaking for texts would seem stupid .
But it is what it is .
After a little while , they ’ d likely understand it .
What they wouldn ’ t understand is social media .
Not because the concept is so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have them looking at you like you had an arm growing out of your forehead .
“ You mean you can connect with far-away family , long lost friends and nearly everyone on the planet , and all people do is whine how unfair everything is , complain that they ’ re a victim and try to get people fired ?
” they ’ d ask , and would be justified in doing so .
Social media is ironically named because nothing has done more to make people anti-social .
Whether so many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have the means by which to express themselves on a mass scale , or whether access to that mass scale turned otherwise decent people into cancel-monsters , doesn ’ t matter .
The result is the same .
When people were able to go out to dinner , concerts , etc.
, they spent more time filming the band than watching it so they could post it to their Facebook page , or snapping pictures of their meals and sending them to Instagram .
Because if you don ’ t post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you really have it ?
Social media has exposed something in many people ’ s brains that access to the accumulated knowledge of our species can ’ t override or distract from .
The desire to get a reaction , any reaction , from something people post gave birth to the “ social media celebrity , ” as sure a sign of the apocalypse as we ’ ve ever seen .
When you write about social media it inevitably turns to bias from the companies .
I get it , and have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Conquest ’ s Law declared , “ Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will , sooner or later , become left-wing.
” Absolute power corrupts , after all , absolutely .
All these companies have moved further and further to the left , shadow- or outright-banning conservatives at will .
What to do about that is an argument for another column , but it ’ s irrelevant to this one .
This is about what they ’ ve done to many of us , or at least too many of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether responsible or not , have become hubs for the worst parts of human nature .
It was always there , but they gave it a home .
Now miserable people spend their days hunting for scalps and scrambling to find any way to twist something said into something that can get someone banned , fired or both .
It doesn ’ t matter who the person is or what their politics are anymore -- social media is fast becoming a pool of starved , frenzied , cannibalistic piranha .
Maybe that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or maybe it ’ s all some of us are capable of being .
But I don ’ t think so .
So I propose this to Facebook , Twitter , Instagram , and whatever else is out there that I don ’ t know about : take a week off .
That ’ s right , take a week .
Spend some time with friends or family , or do whatever it is you ’ d do if you had the time .
Shut down for seven days .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or two in the middle of the night , so surely you can do it for a week .
It would force people to be people again , if only temporarily .
We need a reminder of what it is to be a person , a decent person , and interact with real people ( even socially distanced ) .
It would also force the worst people to live with themselves for a while , to marinate in the rage-fire fueled by instant feedback from people they ’ ll never meet but hate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , desperate for attention , think about what they ’ re willing to do to get that attention .
And it might make people use their phones as phones again , to call people and have conversations , even if they ’ re only about how they miss trolling people .
A voluntary week off wouldn ’ t work .
I ’ ve seen enough episodes of “ Intervention ” to know forced cold turkey is the only way to beat the habit .
After that week , switch back on and see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -- maybe people will only have seven days of vitriol stored up and unleash it .
But maybe they won ’ t be such jerks , even if only for a short while .
The culture is addicted to this garbage .
The heads of the social media sites are leftists , and left-wing radicals use them to coordinate their actions through the site .
But couldn ’ t we all use a week off from that , too ?
So , how about this : the first week of September , flip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the 12th , find something else to do .
Allow no tweets , no status updates , no pictures , no videos , nothing .
I doubt this will happen -- there ’ s too much money to be made -- but just imagine it .
It would be like traveling back in time -- back to when people spoke to each other , paid attention to the moment and didn ’ t give a damn if anyone else knew what they were doing or what they thought about it or anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ d have to ask .
Living like humans again , if only for a week .
Just imagine it .
Derek Hunter is the host of a free daily podcast ( subscribe ! )
, host of a daily radio show on WCBM in Maryland , and author of the book , Outrage , INC. , which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses .
Follow him on Twitter at @ DerekAHunter and on Parler at @ DerekHunter .

Imagine if you could time travel back to the year 1989 and, aside from telling yourself to buy certain stocks at various times, you tell people about the technology we have in 2020. What do you think they’d think about everyone having access to all the world’s information on a small touchscreen phone in their pockets? They’d likely think everyone has gotten much smarter and people were more in touch than ever before. As we all know, they’d be horribly wrong.
You’d have a hard time explaining to them that the phone part of that phone would likely be the least used feature on it. It’d be difficult for people, used to waiting until someone got home before actually being able to talk with them, to understand why people don’t talk anymore. Trading speaking for texts would seem stupid. But it is what it is. After a little while, they’d likely understand it.
What they wouldn’t understand is social media. Not because the concept is so bizarre, but because the impact would have them looking at you like you had an arm growing out of your forehead.
“You mean you can connect with far-away family, long lost friends and nearly everyone on the planet, and all people do is whine how unfair everything is, complain that they’re a victim and try to get people fired?” they’d ask, and would be justified in doing so.
Social media is ironically named because nothing has done more to make people anti-social. Whether so many people were jerks before and just didn’t have the means by which to express themselves on a mass scale, or whether access to that mass scale turned otherwise decent people into cancel-monsters, doesn’t matter. The result is the same.
When people were able to go out to dinner, concerts, etc., they spent more time filming the band than watching it so they could post it to their Facebook page, or snapping pictures of their meals and sending them to Instagram. Because if you don’t post a picture of your dinner, did you really have it?
Social media has exposed something in many people’s brains that access to the accumulated knowledge of our species can’t override or distract from. The desire to get a reaction, any reaction, from something people post gave birth to the “social media celebrity,” as sure a sign of the apocalypse as we’ve ever seen.
When you write about social media it inevitably turns to bias from the companies. I get it, and have been the subject of it. Naturally, as Conquest’s Law declared, “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will, sooner or later, become left-wing.” Absolute power corrupts, after all, absolutely. All these companies have moved further and further to the left, shadow- or outright-banning conservatives at will.
What to do about that is an argument for another column, but it’s irrelevant to this one. This is about what they’ve done to many of us, or at least too many of us to be ignored.
These websites, whether responsible or not, have become hubs for the worst parts of human nature. It was always there, but they gave it a home. Now miserable people spend their days hunting for scalps and scrambling to find any way to twist something said into something that can get someone banned, fired or both. It doesn’t matter who the person is or what their politics are anymore--social media is fast becoming a pool of starved, frenzied, cannibalistic piranha.
Maybe that’s all they’ll ever be, or maybe it’s all some of us are capable of being. But I don’t think so.
So I propose this to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and whatever else is out there that I don’t know about: take a week off. That’s right, take a week. Spend some time with friends or family, or do whatever it is you’d do if you had the time. Shut down for seven days. You can do it for maintenance for an hour or two in the middle of the night, so surely you can do it for a week.
It would force people to be people again, if only temporarily. We need a reminder of what it is to be a person, a decent person, and interact with real people (even socially distanced).
It would also force the worst people to live with themselves for a while, to marinate in the rage-fire fueled by instant feedback from people they’ll never meet but hate anyway. It’ll make narcissists, desperate for attention, think about what they’re willing to do to get that attention. And it might make people use their phones as phones again, to call people and have conversations, even if they’re only about how they miss trolling people.
A voluntary week off wouldn’t work. I’ve seen enough episodes of “Intervention” to know forced cold turkey is the only way to beat the habit.
After that week, switch back on and see what happens. Maybe nothing will change--maybe people will only have seven days of vitriol stored up and unleash it. But maybe they won’t be such jerks, even if only for a short while.
The culture is addicted to this garbage. The heads of the social media sites are leftists, and left-wing radicals use them to coordinate their actions through the site. But couldn’t we all use a week off from that, too?
So, how about this: the first week of September, flip the switch off. From the 6th through the 12th, find something else to do. Allow no tweets, no status updates, no pictures, no videos, nothing. I doubt this will happen--there’s too much money to be made--but just imagine it. It would be like traveling back in time--back to when people spoke to each other, paid attention to the moment and didn’t give a damn if anyone else knew what they were doing or what they thought about it or anything, and if they wanted to know they’d have to ask. Living like humans again, if only for a week. Just imagine it.
###
Derek Hunter is the host of a free daily podcast (subscribe!), host of a daily radio show on WCBM in Maryland, and author of the book, Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses. Follow him on Twitter at @DerekAHunter and on Parler at @DerekHunter.


bonginoreport--2020-07-17--Jeffrey Lord: Never Trump “Republicans” Would Have Hated Reagan Too

As my old boss Ronald Reagan might say , there they go again .
The “ they ” in this case are the self-named “ 43 Alumni for Joe Biden , ” former staffers from the George W. Bush administration , as well members of the amusingly misnamed Lincoln Project , a collection of consultants that can ’ t make time to defend those Lincoln statues being threatened across the land .
Bottom line : These and other Never Trump groups are nothing more than the GOP establishment at it again .
Where to start ?
How about 1980 at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious primary between Ronald Reagan and establishment favorite George H.W .
Bush , Reagan won and was about to be formally nominated by the convention .
It was four years after Reagan ’ s unsuccessful challenge of then-Republican establishment President Gerald Ford in 1976 .
The Reagan-Ford and Reagan-Bush showdowns were , in fact , but the latest battles of the day between the leaders of the Republican Party establishment and the conservative movement of grassroots Republicans .
Reagan was merely the latest conservative champion in a series of battles that spanned decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican President William Howard Taft in his legendary 1912 showdown with progressive ex-GOP President Theodore Roosevelt .
Other conservative champions included President Calvin Coolidge ( a Reagan favorite ) , Taft ’ s son , Ohio Sen. Robert Taft in 1940 , 1948 and 1952 , and Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater .
Famously , it was Reagan ’ s televised speech for Goldwater in October of 1964 that effectively launched his own political career , sending him on to a successful campaign for governor of California two years later–a campaign strenuously opposed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Clarence Thomas Describes The Moment He Chose To Vote For Ronald Reagan ) Over the ensuing years , as Reagan loomed as a presidential possibility , leaders of the national GOP establishment scornfully dismissed him .
Nelson Rockefeller , Ford ’ s vice president , labeled Reagan “ a minority of a minority ” who “ has been taking some extreme positions.
” New York Republican Sen. Jacob Javits , Rockefeller ’ s fellow New York GOP establishment leader , claimed that Reagan ’ s views were “ so extreme that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic and social structure and our place in the world to such a degree as to make our country ’ s place at home and abroad , as we know it , a thing of the past.
” As Reagan rolled up primary victories in 1980 , ex-rival Ford predicted Reagan was a “ sure-loser ” against Democratic President Jimmy Carter because Reagan held “ extreme and too-simple views.
” Establishment GOP Rep. John Anderson of Illinois , a member of the House GOP leadership , was so incensed by Reagan ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a third party presidential candidate .
Reagan won in a 44-state landslide against Carter and Anderson , doing what the establishment Ford himself could not do four years earlier .
These views of Reagan were typical of the GOP establishment of the day , a forerunner of what the Bush 43 alumni , The Lincoln Project and other Never Trumpers say about President Donald Trump today .
Ed Rollins , Reagan ’ s former White House political director and 1984 campaign manager ( at the time , this writer ’ s boss ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed the establishment George H.W .
Bush to be “ a very nice man ” whose “ main talent lay in cultivating friendships.
” But Bush had made clear his establishment disdain for conservatism in the primaries by attacking Reagan ’ s tax cut plan as “ Voodoo economics , which showed he didn ’ t believe in the Reagan economic plan.
” “ To those who worked for Reagan against Ford and the Republican establishment in 1976 , George Bush personified everything they ’ d battled all their lives .
Picking him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the true believers.
” And when Bush was picked as Reagan ’ s vice president as a peace-offering to the establishment ?
Rollins writes : “ What I didn ’ t realize at the time was that we ’ d just cut the fuse on our own revolution .
The conservatives had won , but then surrendered the future back to the eastern establishment moderates .
… A phrase popped into my mind for the first time to describe my feelings about George Bush : Trojan Horse .
The enemy was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to mind as 43 Alumni for Joe Biden and The Lincoln Project get headlines from the hate-Trump media and cash from GOP establishment types .
Reagan would recognize the grift afoot here on the spot .
( RELATED : ‘ Donate To These Savvy Grifters ’ : Lincoln Project ’ s Rick Wilson Gets Trolled By Cartoon Interviewers ) This is nothing more than the newest incarnation of the same old GOP establishment game of so-called “ moderate Republicans ” engaged in the latest effort to turn the GOP into what Reagan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imitation of the Democrats .
In their endorsement of Joe Biden , these establishment “ Republicans ” have dropped their mask and revealed their opposition to every bedrock principle of the Republican Party they once pretended to support .
They now boost Biden – a candidate who supports abortion and would place radical Leftists on the Supreme Court .
That means , like him , they also oppose tax cuts and seek to weaken our border and immigration laws .
And Biden , as with all Democrats , loves to divide by race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from their creation as the party of slave owners and segregationists , to identity politics today — the ugly grandson of segregation .
In other words , this is the same song , the umpteenth verse from the latest cheerleaders of the intellectually bankrupt GOP establishment that Reagan routinely had to battle before and during his presidency .
On the bright side ?
Their mask is off .
They should never be invited back into the GOP fold again .
Jeffrey Lord , a former CNN contributor , is a columnist and author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director in the Reagan White House .
In his Washington career , he has served successively as a senior aide for a U.S. congressman and a U.S. senator , chief of staff for former Reagan cabinet member Drew Lewis in the 1984 Reagan-Bush campaign , and as an aide to HUD Secretary Jack Kemp .
He writes at his website , TheJeffreyLord.com .
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Content created by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

As my old boss Ronald Reagan might say, there they go again.
The “they” in this case are the self-named “43 Alumni for Joe Biden,” former staffers from the George W. Bush administration, as well members of the amusingly misnamed Lincoln Project, a collection of consultants that can’t make time to defend those Lincoln statues being threatened across the land.
Bottom line: These and other Never Trump groups are nothing more than the GOP establishment at it again.
Where to start? How about 1980 at the Republican National Convention. After a serious primary between Ronald Reagan and establishment favorite George H.W. Bush, Reagan won and was about to be formally nominated by the convention. It was four years after Reagan’s unsuccessful challenge of then-Republican establishment President Gerald Ford in 1976.
The Reagan-Ford and Reagan-Bush showdowns were, in fact, but the latest battles of the day between the leaders of the Republican Party establishment and the conservative movement of grassroots Republicans. Reagan was merely the latest conservative champion in a series of battles that spanned decades. Reagan trod the path of conservative Republican President William Howard Taft in his legendary 1912 showdown with progressive ex-GOP President Theodore Roosevelt. Other conservative champions included President Calvin Coolidge (a Reagan favorite), Taft’s son, Ohio Sen. Robert Taft in 1940, 1948 and 1952, and Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater. Famously, it was Reagan’s televised speech for Goldwater in October of 1964 that effectively launched his own political career, sending him on to a successful campaign for governor of California two years later–a campaign strenuously opposed by the California GOP establishment. (RELATED: Clarence Thomas Describes The Moment He Chose To Vote For Ronald Reagan)
Over the ensuing years, as Reagan loomed as a presidential possibility, leaders of the national GOP establishment scornfully dismissed him. Nelson Rockefeller, Ford’s vice president, labeled Reagan “a minority of a minority” who “has been taking some extreme positions.”
New York Republican Sen. Jacob Javits, Rockefeller’s fellow New York GOP establishment leader, claimed that Reagan’s views were “so extreme that they would alter our country’s very economic and social structure and our place in the world to such a degree as to make our country’s place at home and abroad, as we know it, a thing of the past.”
As Reagan rolled up primary victories in 1980, ex-rival Ford predicted Reagan was a “sure-loser” against Democratic President Jimmy Carter because Reagan held “extreme and too-simple views.” Establishment GOP Rep. John Anderson of Illinois, a member of the House GOP leadership, was so incensed by Reagan’s nomination he ran in the fall as a third party presidential candidate. Reagan won in a 44-state landslide against Carter and Anderson, doing what the establishment Ford himself could not do four years earlier.
These views of Reagan were typical of the GOP establishment of the day, a forerunner of what the Bush 43 alumni, The Lincoln Project and other Never Trumpers say about President Donald Trump today.
Ed Rollins, Reagan’s former White House political director and 1984 campaign manager (at the time, this writer’s boss) would recall in his memoirs that he believed the establishment George H.W. Bush to be “a very nice man” whose “main talent lay in cultivating friendships.” But Bush had made clear his establishment disdain for conservatism in the primaries by attacking Reagan’s tax cut plan as “Voodoo economics, which showed he didn’t believe in the Reagan economic plan.”
Rollins continued:
“To those who worked for Reagan against Ford and the Republican establishment in 1976, George Bush personified everything they’d battled all their lives. Picking him would be seen as a particular betrayal by the true believers.”
And when Bush was picked as Reagan’s vice president as a peace-offering to the establishment? Rollins writes:
“What I didn’t realize at the time was that we’d just cut the fuse on our own revolution. The conservatives had won, but then surrendered the future back to the eastern establishment moderates. … A phrase popped into my mind for the first time to describe my feelings about George Bush: Trojan Horse. The enemy was in our camp.”
All of this comes back to mind as 43 Alumni for Joe Biden and The Lincoln Project get headlines from the hate-Trump media and cash from GOP establishment types. Reagan would recognize the grift afoot here on the spot. (RELATED: ‘Donate To These Savvy Grifters’: Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson Gets Trolled By Cartoon Interviewers)
This is nothing more than the newest incarnation of the same old GOP establishment game of so-called “moderate Republicans” engaged in the latest effort to turn the GOP into what Reagan mocked as a “pale pastel” imitation of the Democrats.
In their endorsement of Joe Biden, these establishment “Republicans” have dropped their mask and revealed their opposition to every bedrock principle of the Republican Party they once pretended to support. They now boost Biden – a candidate who supports abortion and would place radical Leftists on the Supreme Court. That means, like him, they also oppose tax cuts and seek to weaken our border and immigration laws. And Biden, as with all Democrats, loves to divide by race, a core value of the Democrats from their creation as the party of slave owners and segregationists, to identity politics today — the ugly grandson of segregation.
In other words, this is the same song, the umpteenth verse from the latest cheerleaders of the intellectually bankrupt GOP establishment that Reagan routinely had to battle before and during his presidency.
On the bright side? Their mask is off. They should never be invited back into the GOP fold again.
Jeffrey Lord, a former CNN contributor, is a columnist and author. He is a former associate political director in the Reagan White House. In his Washington career, he has served successively as a senior aide for a U.S. congressman and a U.S. senator, chief of staff for former Reagan cabinet member Drew Lewis in the 1984 Reagan-Bush campaign, and as an aide to HUD Secretary Jack Kemp. He writes at his website, .
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation. Content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@ dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


bonginoreport--2020-07-16--McEnany on Reopening Schools: The Science Is on Our Side

It has been said before , but it bears repeating : You are better off watching raw footage of the White House press briefings than trusting the word of journalists .
Put more simply , members of our vaunted Fourth Estate can not be trusted to report accurately on this administration .
They are just making stuff up at this point .
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Wednesday tried to explain President Trump ’ s position that schools in the United States should re-open sooner rather than later .
“ The president has said , unmistakably , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was just in the [ Oval Office ] talking to him about that .
And when he says ‘ open , ’ he means , ‘ open in full ’ – kids being able to attend each and every day at their school , ” she told reporters at a White House press briefing .
“ The science should not stand in the way of this , ” McEnany continued .
“ And as Dr. Scott Atlas , and I thought this was a good quote , [ said ] , ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Everyone else in the western world , our peer nations , are doing it .
We are the outlier here.
’ The science is very clear on this that , for instance , you look at the [ Journal of the American Medical Association ] pediatric study of 46 pediatric hospitals in North America that said the risk of critical illness from COVID is far less for children than that of seasonal flu.
” The White House press secretary concluded , “ The science is on our side here .
We encourage for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the science .
Open our schools.
” McEnany obviously did not say that schools should re-open despite what the science says .
She clearly said that there should not be any science-based objections to re-opening precisely because the data show it is both safe and preferable to put students back into their classrooms .
But you would never know what McEnany said or meant from following members of the press , many of whom selectively edited the White House press secretary ’ s remarks Wednesday to make her sound like a knuckle-dragging flat-earther @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Trump 's push to reopen schools : ‘ The science should not stand in the way of this , ’ ” said CNN ’ s Jim Acosta , conveniently omitting some fairly necessary context .
CNN ’ s Ana Cabrera claimed , “ WH Press Secretary : ‘ When he ( Trump ) says open , he means open – in full – kids being able to attend each and every day at their school , ’ McEnany told reporters at the press briefing .
‘ The science should not stand in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From the White House podium : ‘ Science should not stand in the way ’ of reopening schools , ” CBS News White House correspondent Weijia Jiang said elsewhere .
Reporter Jim Heath , who brags in his Twitter media profile that he is a Walter Cronkite Award-winner , said , “ ‘ The science should not stand in the way of this.
’ You just ca n't make this stuff up .
108 days until the election.
” '' 'The science should not stand in the way of this , ’ [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' said NBC News ’ s Josh Lederman .
The Daily Beast claimed in its headline from the briefing , “ Kayleigh McEnany : ‘ Science Should Not Stand in the Way ’ of Reopening Schools.
” Tweeted CBS News , “ McEnany : ‘ The president has said unmistakably that he wants schools to open ...
When he says open , he means open and full , kids being able to attend each and every day at their school .
The science should not stand in the way of this.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says ‘ science should not stand in the way ’ of reopening schools , ” the New York Times claimed in the headline to a live blog post .
The Guardian similarly claimed on its live blog , “ White House : 'The science should not stand in the way ' of reopening schools.
” “ White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on school reopenings : ‘ The science should not stand in the way of this , ’ ” said the Washington Post ’ s official Twitter account .
The Washington Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` ‘ The science should not stand in the way ’ of schools reopening , White House press secretary says . ''
Weird how none of these news accounts were able to include the full context of the press secretary ’ s remarks .
Just a total mystery !
Look , whether the science is on the side or re-opening is not the issue .
The issue here is that our press can not be trusted to convey accurately and fairly even basic statements made by administration officials .
If we can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most basic functions of their profession , then what can we trust ?
Never forget : When the country elected an intemperate demagogue as president , the corporate news media failed its public duty in the worst way imaginable by somehow being nearly as untrustworthy as the man in the Oval Office .

It has been said before, but it bears repeating: You are better off watching raw footage of the White House press briefings than trusting the word of journalists.
Put more simply, members of our vaunted Fourth Estate cannot be trusted to report accurately on this administration. They are just making stuff up at this point.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Wednesday tried to explain President Trump’s position that schools in the United States should reopen sooner rather than later.
“The president has said, unmistakably, that he wants schools to open. And I was just in the Oval [Office] talking to him about that. And when he says ‘open,’ he means ‘open in full’ — kids being able to attend each and every day at their school,” she told reporters at a White House press briefing.
“The science should not stand in the way of this,” McEnany continued. “And as Dr. Scott Atlas said — I thought this was a good quote — ‘Of course we can do it. Everyone else in the Western world, our peer nations, are doing it. We are the outlier here.’ The science is very clear on this — that, you know, for instance, you look at the [Journal of the American Medical Association's] pediatric study of 46 pediatric hospitals in North America that said the risk of critical illness from COVID is far less for children than that of seasonal flu.”
The White House press secretary concluded, “The science is on our side here. We encourage for localities and states to just simply follow the science. Open our schools.”
McEnany obviously did not say that schools should reopen despite what the science says. She clearly said that there should not be any science-based objections to reopening precisely because the data show it is both safe and preferable to put students back into their classrooms.
But you would never know what McEnany said or meant from following members of the press, many of whom selectively edited the White House press secretary’s remarks Wednesday to make her sound like a knuckle-dragging flat-earther.
“The White House Press Secretary on Trump's push to reopen schools: ‘The science should not stand in the way of this,’” said CNN’s Jim Acosta, conveniently omitting some fairly necessary context.
CNN’s Ana Cabrera tweeted, “WH Press Secretary: ‘When he (Trump) says open, he means open – in full – kids being able to attend each and every day at their school,’ McEnany told reporters at the press briefing. ‘The science should not stand in the way of this.’”
“From the White House podium: ‘Science should not stand in the way’ of reopening schools,” CBS News White House correspondent Weijia Jiang posted.
Reporter Jim Heath, who brags in his Twitter media profile that he is a Walter Cronkite Award-winner, said, “‘The science should not stand in the way of this.’ You just can't make this stuff up. 108 days until the election.”
"'The science should not stand in the way of this,’ [McEnany] says of fully re-opening schools," said NBC News’s Josh Lederman.
The Daily Beast claimed in its headline from the briefing, “Kayleigh McEnany: ‘Science Should Not Stand in the Way’ of Reopening Schools.”
Tweeted CBS News, “McEnany: ‘The president has said unmistakably that he wants schools to open. ...When he says open, he means open and full, kids being able to attend each and every day at their school. The science should not stand in the way of this.’”
“The White House press secretary says ‘science should not stand in the way’ of reopening schools,” the New York Times claimed in the headline to a live blog post.
The Guardian similarly claimed on its live blog, “White House: 'The science should not stand in the way' of reopening schools.”
“White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on school reopenings: ‘The science should not stand in the way of this,’” said the Washington Post’s Twitter account.
The Washington Post also published a headline that reads, "‘The science should not stand in the way’ of schools reopening, White House press secretary says."
Weird how none of these news accounts were able to include the full context of the press secretary’s remarks. Just a total mystery!
Look, whether the science is on the side of reopening is not the issue. The issue here is that our press cannot be trusted to convey accurately and fairly even basic statements made by administration officials. If we cannot trust reporters to perform even the most basic functions of their profession, then what can we trust?
Never forget: When the country elected an intemperate demagogue as president, the corporate news media failed its public duty in the worst way imaginable by somehow being nearly as untrustworthy as the man in the Oval Office.


bonginoreport--2020-07-17--Pentagon Bans All Confederate Flags From U.S. Military Installations

The Pentagon has officially banned all displays and depictions of the Confederate flag on U.S. military installations and other U.S. military property on Friday .
In a carefully worded memo dated July 16 , Secretary of Defense Mark Esper outlined a specific list of flags authorized for display – which excluded the Confederate flag – and noted that any unauthorized flags are now prohibited for display .
“ Flags are powerful symbols , particularly in the military community for whom flags embody common mission , common histories , and the special , timeless bond of warriors , ” Esper wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we fly must accord with the military imperatives of good order and discipline , treating all our people with dignity and respect , and rejecting divisive symbols.
” Other than the American flag , service members and DOD employees are authorized to display only flags of U.S. states and territories , military service branches , general officer flags , civilian flags appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate , the POW/MIA flag , flags for U.S. allied or partner nations , flags of global organizations with U.S. membership such as NATO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Military Department-specific SES flags , and flags or guidons associated with ceremonies , commands , units , and branches .
“ The public display or depiction of unauthorized flags in museum exhibits , state-issued license plates , grave sites , memorial markers , monuments , educational displays , historical displays , or works of art , where the nature of the display or depiction can not reasonably be viewed as endorsement of the flag by the Department of Defense , is not prohibited , ” the memo states .
The new rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DOD employees in workplaces and public areas on military installations and facilities , including barracks and common areas , and in the plain view of any “ government-operated or public-private venture housing.
” “ What has always united us remains clear – our common mission , our oath to support and defend the Constitution , and our American flag .
With this change in policy , we will further improve the morale , cohesion , and readiness of the force in defense of our great Nation , ” Esper wrote .

The Pentagon has officially banned all displays and depictions of the Confederate flag on U.S. military installations and other U.S. military property on Friday.
In a carefully worded memo dated July 16, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper outlined a specific list of flags authorized for display – which excluded the Confederate flag – and noted that any unauthorized flags are now prohibited for display.
“Flags are powerful symbols, particularly in the military community for whom flags embody common mission, common histories, and the special, timeless bond of warriors,” Esper wrote in the memo. “The flags we fly must accord with the military imperatives of good order and discipline, treating all our people with dignity and respect, and rejecting divisive symbols.”
Other than the American flag, service members and DOD employees are authorized to display only flags of U.S. states and territories, military service branches, general officer flags, civilian flags appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the POW/MIA flag, flags for U.S. allied or partner nations, flags of global organizations with U.S. membership such as NATO, Senior Executive Service (SES) and Military Department-specific SES flags, and flags or guidons associated with ceremonies, commands, units, and branches.
“The public display or depiction of unauthorized flags in museum exhibits, state-issued license plates, grave sites, memorial markers, monuments, educational displays, historical displays, or works of art, where the nature of the display or depiction cannot reasonably be viewed as endorsement of the flag by the Department of Defense, is not prohibited,” the memo states.
The new rule affects public displays of service members and DOD employees in workplaces and public areas on military installations and facilities, including barracks and common areas, and in the plain view of any “government-operated or public-private venture housing.”
“What has always united us remains clear – our common mission, our oath to support and defend the Constitution, and our American flag. With this change in policy, we will further improve the morale, cohesion, and readiness of the force in defense of our great Nation,” Esper wrote.


bonginoreport--2020-07-17--Ruth Bader Ginsburg Being Treated for Recurrence of Cancer

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Friday she is being treated for liver cancer but remains able to work `` full steam . ''
The 87-year-old justice said she began a course of chemotherapy in May to treat a recurrence of cancer after a February scan revealed lesions on her liver .
`` Immunotherapy first essayed proved unsuccessful .
The chemotherapy course , however , is yielding positive results .
Satisfied that my treatment course is now clear , I am providing this information , '' Ginsburg said in a statement .
Ginsburg , a liberal , is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a 5-4 majority of Republican-appointed justices , and a vacancy could allow President Donald Trump to nominate a conservative replacement .
Ginsburg said her most recent scan was conducted on July 7 and showed `` significant reduction of the liver lesions and no new disease . ''
`` I am tolerating chemotherapy well and am encouraged by the success of my current treatment .
I will continue bi-weekly chemotherapy to keep my cancer at bay , and am able to maintain an active daily routine , '' Ginsburg said .
She added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up with opinion writing and all other Court work .
I have often said I would remain a member of the Court as long as I can do the job full steam .
I remain fully able to do that . ''
Ginsburg has wrestled with a slew of health problems , including multiple cancer scares in recent years .
On Wednesday , she was discharged from Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore after being admitted the day before with a possible infection .
A court spokesperson said Wednesday that she was `` home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in May for a benign gallbladder condition , Ginsburg called into the court 's arguments over Trump rules expanding exemptions to the Affordable Care Act 's contraceptive mandate .
The arguments were held over the phone as a precaution against the spread of Covid-19 .
Ginsburg said those hospitalizations were `` unrelated '' to the recent cancer recurrence .
The court will next hear arguments in October .
Ginsburg has been treated for colon and pancreatic cancer and in 2018 underwent a procedure to remove cancerous growths from one of her lungs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the most sought after prizes in November 's presidential contest .
Trump , who has already named two conservative justices to the bench , has made his appointments to the top court and the rest of the federal judiciary a signature element of his campaign .
The GOP has a majority in the Senate , which must approve presidential nominations to the court , and is fighting to keep its hold on the chamber in the November election .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , has said he would work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that opened up in 2020 .
Trump reacted to the news earlier in the week that Ginsburg had been hospitalized by saying that `` I wish her the absolute best . ''
`` On May 19 , I began a course of chemotherapy ( gemcitabine ) to treat a recurrence of cancer .
A periodic scan in February followed by a biopsy revealed lesions on my liver .
My recent hospitalizations to remove gall stones and treat an infection were unrelated to this recurrence .
Immunotherapy first essayed proved unsuccessful .
The chemotherapy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results .
Satisfied that my treatment course is now clear , I am providing this information .
My most recent scan on July 7 indicated significant reduction of the liver lesions and no new disease .
I am tolerating chemotherapy well and am encouraged by the success of my current treatment .
I will continue bi-weekly chemotherapy to keep my cancer at bay , and am able to maintain an active daily routine .
Throughout , I have kept up with opinion writing and all other Court work .
I have often said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court as long as I can do the job full steam .
I remain fully able to do that . ''
Correction : This story has been updated to correct the spelling of Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's name .

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participates in taking a new family photo with her fellow justices at the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 1, 2017. Jonathan Ernst | Reuters
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Friday she is being treated for liver cancer but remains able to work "full steam." The 87-year-old justice said she began a course of chemotherapy in May to treat a recurrence of cancer after a February scan revealed lesions on her liver. "Immunotherapy first essayed proved unsuccessful. The chemotherapy course, however, is yielding positive results. Satisfied that my treatment course is now clear, I am providing this information," Ginsburg said in a statement. Ginsburg, a liberal, is the court's eldest justice. The court has a 5-4 majority of Republican-appointed justices, and a vacancy could allow President Donald Trump to nominate a conservative replacement. Ginsburg said her most recent scan was conducted on July 7 and showed "significant reduction of the liver lesions and no new disease." "I am tolerating chemotherapy well and am encouraged by the success of my current treatment. I will continue bi-weekly chemotherapy to keep my cancer at bay, and am able to maintain an active daily routine," Ginsburg said.
watch now
She added: "Throughout, I have kept up with opinion writing and all other Court work. I have often said I would remain a member of the Court as long as I can do the job full steam. I remain fully able to do that." Ginsburg has wrestled with a slew of health problems, including multiple cancer scares in recent years. On Wednesday, she was discharged from Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore after being admitted the day before with a possible infection. A court spokesperson said Wednesday that she was "home and doing well." While hospitalized in May for a benign gallbladder condition, Ginsburg called into the court's arguments over Trump rules expanding exemptions to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate. The arguments were held over the phone as a precaution against the spread of Covid-19. Ginsburg said those hospitalizations were "unrelated" to the recent cancer recurrence. The court will next hear arguments in October. Ginsburg has been treated for colon and pancreatic cancer and in 2018 underwent a procedure to remove cancerous growths from one of her lungs. Possible control of the court is one of the most sought after prizes in November's presidential contest. Trump, who has already named two conservative justices to the bench, has made his appointments to the top court and the rest of the federal judiciary a signature element of his campaign.
watch now


bonginoreport--2020-07-17--More Than 2,400 Airmen to Transfer to U.S. Space Force in September

The 2,410 airmen selected to transfer are all from space operations career fields .
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Space Force has selected 2,410 airmen to transfer to the new branch starting Sept. 1 , officials announced July 16 .
These airmen were selected from more than 8,500 who applied to transfer to the Space Force .
The airmen selected are all from space operations career fields .
They have volunteered to leave the U.S. Air Force and will either commission or enlist , as applicable for officers or enlisted , into the Space Force .
Last month the Space Force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a broad range of career fields applied to join the space branch .
“ This is an exciting and historic time for these space operators who will be some of the first members to join the Space Force , ” Lt. Gen. David “ DT ” Thompson , vice commander of the U.S Space Force , said in a statement .
Members selected for transfer will be personally notified later this month with instructions for required administrative tasks they need to complete .
The Space Force said some members will transfer around Sept. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for administrative processes to be completed , such as a pending promotion board .
Patricia Mulcahy , deputy chief of space operations for personnel and logistics , said there has been “ substantial planning behind the scenes between the Space Force and Air Force to get us to this day.
” From the 8,500 applicants , more will be selected from career fields like intelligence , cyberspace operations , developmental engineering , acquisition , geospatial intelligence , signals intelligence and others .
These candidates will be evaluated in a “ transfer board , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boards for officers are scheduled for the end of July , and for enlisted airmen later in the fall .
The results will be announced approximately 30 days after each board is completed .
Transfers for personnel selected from these boards are expected to begin in February 2021 .
Service members from the Army and Navy could be eligible to transfer to the Space Force but not yet .
“ Although legal provisions exist for members of other services to transfer to the Space Force , the current focus is on Air Force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Space Force will release further details for a limited inter-service transfer program for other sister services for fiscal year 2021 .
”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Space Force has selected 2,410 airmen to transfer to the new branch starting Sept. 1, officials announced July 16. These airmen were selected from more than 8,500 who applied to transfer to the Space Force.
The airmen selected are all from space operations career fields. They have volunteered to leave the U.S. Air Force and will either commission or enlist, as applicable for officers or enlisted, into the Space Force.
Last month the Space Force said more than 8,500 active-duty airmen from a broad range of career fields applied to join the space branch.
“This is an exciting and historic time for these space operators who will be some of the first members to join the Space Force,” Lt. Gen. David “DT” Thompson, vice commander of the U.S Space Force, said in a statement.
Members selected for transfer will be personally notified later this month with instructions for required administrative tasks they need to complete.
The Space Force said some members will transfer around Sept. 1, others may have to wait for administrative processes to be completed, such as a pending promotion board.
Patricia Mulcahy, deputy chief of space operations for personnel and logistics, said there has been “substantial planning behind the scenes between the Space Force and Air Force to get us to this day.”
From the 8,500 applicants, more will be selected from career fields like intelligence, cyberspace operations, developmental engineering, acquisition, geospatial intelligence, signals intelligence and others.
These candidates will be evaluated in a “transfer board,” said the Space Force. Transfer boards for officers are scheduled for the end of July, and for enlisted airmen later in the fall. The results will be announced approximately 30 days after each board is completed. Transfers for personnel selected from these boards are expected to begin in February 2021.
Service members from the Army and Navy could be eligible to transfer to the Space Force but not yet. “Although legal provisions exist for members of other services to transfer to the Space Force, the current focus is on Air Force members,” the service said. “The Space Force will release further details for a limited inter-service transfer program for other sister services for fiscal year 2021.”


bonginoreport--2020-07-17--Goldman Sachs Predicts S&P 500 Will Yield 6% Annual Returns Over Next Decade

• Over the next decade , expects stocks to outperform bonds and deliver average annualized returns of 6 % , according to a long-term forecast published by Goldman Sachs on Monday .
• Goldman said its analysis implies a 90 % probability that stocks will outperform bonds over the next 10 years , thanks in part to historically low interest rates .
• Goldman acknowledged that forecasting potential equity returns a decade into the future is hard , and noted that its last long-term forecast in 2012 missed the mark : 8 % estimated annual returns versus the S & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13.6 % .
Investors should continue to favor stocks over bonds from now until at least 2030 , according to Goldman Sachs .
In a note published Monday , Goldman gave its long-term forecast for what stocks will do over the next decade .
The firm estimated that the S & P 500 index will deliver an average annualized total return of 6 % , and estimated that stocks have a 90 % probability of outperforming bonds due in part to record-low interest rates .
Goldman acknowledged that it 's difficult to forecast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pointing to its last long-term forecast from July 2012 .
In that forecast , Goldman suggested that stocks would deliver an average annualized return of 8 % .
But eight years later , the S & P 500 delivered an average annual return of 13.6 % .
Read more : Paul Andreola has a long track record of finding tiny stocks that deliver 10-times returns .
He lays out the 4 criteria he looks for when seeking the next explosive pick .
The firm said that 25 % of its 2030 stock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while the other 75 % will come from price gains .
Goldman added that a more bullish scenario could result in average annualized gains of 11 % , while a more bearish scenario could see stocks return just 2 % .
Read more : BANK OF AMERICA : Buy these 14 stocks that are likely winners in the pandemic - and will benefit from the biggest trends that will define the future Goldman used and averaged five different approaches to estimate the 6 % return for stocks into the next decade .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 26.5x , implying the S & P 500 will post an average annualized return of 2.7 % during the next 10 years . ''
`` While equity valuation is high on an absolute basis , it is more reasonable in the context of the low interest rate environment ...
Given the 10-year US Treasury yield currently equals 0.7 % , the starting relative valuation implies the S & P 500 will post an 8.7 % annualized equity return through 2030 . ''
`` The major ownership categories of US stocks collectively account for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimate these entities in aggregate had a 44 % portfolio allocation to US equities ...
Since 1952 , when equity allocations have been between 40 % and 45 % , the subsequent 10-year annualized return for the S & P 500 has averaged 6.5 % . ''
`` Our analysis implies annualized S & P 500 total return during the coming decade will equal 4.7 % if the dividend yield in 2030 remains roughly unchanged from the current level of approximately 2.0 % . ''
`` S & P 500 returns during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of GDP growth and how much time the US economy spends in contraction ... Our Monte Carlo simulation of potential equity returns during the next decade incorporates various economic growth scenarios.
`` Read more : BANK OF AMERICA : Buy these 7 pharma stocks now as they race to develop COVID-19 treatments and vaccines Despite the bullish long-term outlook , Goldman named five key risks that could derail its forecast : the rise of de-globalization , higher taxes , higher labor costs , an aging US population , and turnover in the S @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that since its long term forecast in 2012 , 170 new companies were added to the S & P 500 , which now make up 17 % of the index .
It 's hard to make a long-term forecast for stock returns when some of the companies that will likely be driving returns 10 years from now have n't even been founded .

Over the next decade, expect stocks to outperform bonds and deliver average annualized returns of 6%, Goldman Sachs said in a long-term forecast published on Monday.
Goldman said its analysis implied a 90% probability that stocks will outperform bonds over the next 10 years, thanks in part to historically low interest rates.
Goldman acknowledged that forecasting potential equity returns a decade in the future was hard and noted that its previous long-term forecast, in 2012, missed the mark: 8% estimated annual returns versus the S&P 500's average annual return of 13.6%.
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
Get the inside scoop on today’s biggest stories in business, from Wall Street to Silicon Valley — delivered daily. Loading Something is loading. Thanks for signing up! Access your favorite topics in a personalized feed while you're on the go. download the app Email address By clicking ‘Sign up’, you agree to receive marketing emails from Insider as well as other partner offers and accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Investors should continue to favor stocks over bonds from now until at least 2030, according to Goldman Sachs.
In a note published Monday, Goldman gave its long-term forecast for stocks over the next decade. The firm estimated that the S&P 500 index would deliver an average annualized return of 6% and that stocks had a 90% probability of outperforming bonds in part because of record low interest rates.
Goldman acknowledged that it was difficult to forecast stock returns 10 years in the future, pointing to its previous long-term forecast, from July 2012. In that forecast, Goldman suggested that stocks would deliver an average annualized return of 8%. But eight years later, the S&P 500 delivered an average annual return of 13.6%.
Read more: Paul Andreola has a long track record of finding tiny stocks that deliver 10-times returns. He lays out the 4 criteria he looks for when seeking the next explosive pick.
Goldman Sachs
The firm forecast that 25% of its 2030 stock return forecast would be generated by dividends, while the other 75% would come from price gains. Goldman added that a more bullish scenario could result in average annualized gains of 11%, while a more bearish scenario could see stocks return just 2%.
Read more: BANK OF AMERICA: Buy these 14 stocks that are likely winners in the pandemic — and will benefit from the biggest trends that will define the future
Goldman averaged five approaches to estimate the 6% return for stocks into the next decade:
1. Starting absolute valuation: 2.7%
"The cyclically-adjusted P/E multiple currently equals 26.5x, implying the S&P 500 will post an average annualized return of 2.7% during the next 10 years."
2. Starting relative valuation: 8.7%
"While equity valuation is high on an absolute basis, it is more reasonable in the context of the low interest rate environment ... Given the 10-year US Treasury yield currently equals 0.7%, the starting relative valuation implies the S&P 500 will post an 8.7% annualized equity return through 2030."
3. Equity allocations: 6.5%
"The major ownership categories of US stocks collectively account for 83% of the market. We estimate these entities in aggregate had a 44% portfolio allocation to US equities ... Since 1952, when equity allocations have been between 40% and 45%, the subsequent 10-year annualized return for the S&P 500 has averaged 6.5%."
4. Dividend yield and growth: 4.7%
"Our analysis implies annualized S&P 500 total return during the coming decade will equal 4.7% if the dividend yield in 2030 remains roughly unchanged from the current level of approximately 2.0%."
5. Economic modeling: 7.2%
"S&P 500 returns during the next decade will depend on the pace of GDP growth and how much time the US economy spends in contraction ... Our Monte Carlo simulation of potential equity returns during the next decade incorporates various economic growth scenarios. "
Read more: BANK OF AMERICA: Buy these 7 pharma stocks now as they race to develop COVID-19 treatments and vaccines
Despite the bullish long-term outlook, Goldman named five key risks that could derail its forecast: the rise of deglobalization, higher taxes, higher labor costs, an aging US population, and turnover in the S&P 500 index.
Goldman noted that since its 2012 long-term forecast, 170 companies had been added to the S&P 500, now making up 17% of the index. It's hard to make a long-term forecast for stock returns when some of the companies that are likely to drive returns 10 years from now haven't even been founded.


bonginoreport--2020-07-17--Houston Rockets, NBA Promote Picture of James Harden Wearing Pro-Police Face Mask

The NBA and the Houston Rockets promoted a photograph on Thursday that featured star player James Harden wearing a face covering that featured a pro-police “ Thin Blue Line ” on an American flag with a skull .
“ The black space above the blue line represents society , order , and peace , while the black below , crime , anarchy , and chaos , ” Thin Blue Line USA says .
“ The Thin Blue Line running between them , ‘ law enforcement , ’ separates the two , keeping crime separated from society.
” The Houston Rockets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writing , “ Mask Up.
” The NBA also tweeted out an image of Harden wearing the face covering , writing , “ The Masked Beard !
” The image from the NBA account provided a more clear view of the mask , which appears to be a “ Thin Blue Line Skull ” face covering made by Salt Armour Co .
The Washington Post reported , “ Neither the Rockets nor the NBA , which also shared an image of Harden ’ s mask to their Twitter account ’ s more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday to questions about where Harden got the mask or whether it was meant as a political statement.
” The skull image on the face covering is likely a knock off from Marvel ’ s “ The Punisher , ” which is reportedly not happy that the image is heavily embraced by those in law enforcement and the military .
The skull from The Punisher is so popular among law enforcement that many refuse to remove decals from their gear .
After residents in Solvay , New York , complained about the decals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Chief Allen Wood and Lt. Derek Osbeck responded in a statement , saying , “ The Punisher symbol on the patrol vehicles of the Solvay Police Department , while similar to the symbol featured in Marvel comics , is our way of showing our citizens that we will stand between good and evil.
” Last October , Rocket ’ s General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted out support for Hong Kong which sparked an immediate backlash from the Chinese Communist Party .
Morey tweeted out a graphic that stated : “ Fight For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Morey ’ s support for democracy , NBA chief communications officer Mike Bass released the following statement : We recognize that the views expressed by Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey have deeply offended many of our friends and fans in China , which is regrettable .
While Daryl has made it clear that his tweet does not represent the Rockets or the NBA , the values of the league support individuals ’ educating themselves and sharing their views on matters important to them .
We have great respect for the history and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the NBA can be used as a unifying force to bridge cultural divides and bring people together .
Morey also apologized for standing up for freedom , tweeting : “ I did not intend my tweet to cause any offense to Rockets fans and friends of mine in China .
I was merely voicing one thought , based on one interpretation , of one complicated event .
I have had a lot of opportunity since that tweet to hear and consider other perspectives .
I have always appreciated the significant support our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would hope that those who are upset will know that offending or misunderstanding them was not my intention .
My tweets are my own and in no way represent the Rockets or the NBA.
” Tilman Fertitta , owner of the Houston Rockets , said in a tweet that Morey ’ s beliefs did “ NOT speak ” for the team ’ s values , writing : “ Listen… .
@ dmorey does NOT speak for the @ HoustonRockets .
Our presence in Tokyo is all about the promotion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political organization.
” The Daily Wire is one of America ’ s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news , opinion , and entertainment .
Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member .

The NBA and the Houston Rockets promoted a photograph on Thursday that featured star player James Harden wearing a face covering that featured a pro-police “Thin Blue Line” on an American flag with a skull.
“The black space above the blue line represents society, order, and peace, while the black below, crime, anarchy, and chaos,” Thin Blue Line USA says. “The Thin Blue Line running between them, ‘law enforcement,’ separates the two, keeping crime separated from society.”
The Houston Rockets tweeted out an image of Harden, writing, “Mask Up.”
The NBA also tweeted out an image of Harden wearing the face covering, writing, “The Masked Beard!”
The image from the NBA account provided a more clear view of the mask, which appears to be a “Thin Blue Line Skull” face covering made by Salt Armour Co.
The Washington Post reported, “Neither the Rockets nor the NBA, which also shared an image of Harden’s mask to their Twitter account’s more than 30 million followers, responded late on Thursday to questions about where Harden got the mask or whether it was meant as a political statement.”
The skull image on the face covering is likely a knock off from Marvel’s “The Punisher,” which is reportedly not happy that the image is heavily embraced by those in law enforcement and the military.
The skull from The Punisher is so popular among law enforcement that many refuse to remove decals from their gear.
After residents in Solvay, New York, complained about the decals on the department’s police cars, Chief Allen Wood and Lt. Derek Osbeck responded in a statement, saying, “The Punisher symbol on the patrol vehicles of the Solvay Police Department, while similar to the symbol featured in Marvel comics, is our way of showing our citizens that we will stand between good and evil.”
Last October, Rocket’s General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted out support for Hong Kong which sparked an immediate backlash from the Chinese Communist Party.
Morey tweeted out a graphic that stated: “Fight For Freedom Stand With Hong Kong”
A bunch of us have shared this, but #ICYMI, here's what @HoustonRockets GM Daryl Morey tweeted that offended his bosses and league officials pic.twitter.com/agjiLZjC2R — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 7, 2019
Following Morey’s support for democracy, NBA chief communications officer Mike Bass released the following statement:
We recognize that the views expressed by Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey have deeply offended many of our friends and fans in China, which is regrettable. While Daryl has made it clear that his tweet does not represent the Rockets or the NBA, the values of the league support individuals’ educating themselves and sharing their views on matters important to them. We have great respect for the history and culture of China and hope that sports and the NBA can be used as a unifying force to bridge cultural divides and bring people together.
Morey also apologized for standing up for freedom, tweeting: “I did not intend my tweet to cause any offense to Rockets fans and friends of mine in China. I was merely voicing one thought, based on one interpretation, of one complicated event. I have had a lot of opportunity since that tweet to hear and consider other perspectives. I have always appreciated the significant support our Chinese fans and sponsors have provided and I would hope that those who are upset will know that offending or misunderstanding them was not my intention. My tweets are my own and in no way represent the Rockets or the NBA.”
2/ I have always appreciated the significant support our Chinese fans and sponsors have provided and I would hope that those who are upset will know that offending or misunderstanding them was not my intention. My tweets are my own and in no way represent the Rockets or the NBA. — Daryl Morey (@dmorey) October 7, 2019
Tilman Fertitta, owner of the Houston Rockets, said in a tweet that Morey’s beliefs did “NOT speak” for the team’s values, writing: “Listen…. @dmorey does NOT speak for the @HoustonRockets. Our presence in Tokyo is all about the promotion of the @NBA internationally and we are NOT a political organization.”