wnd--2020-12-12--Federal agents raid company that makes gun parts

The Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives ( ATF ) on Thursday raided a popular gun component manufacturer under suspicion that the organization was selling firearms without mandating background checks .
Polymer80 , one of the nation ’ s leading sellers of unserialized gun components and DIY firearm kits , was suspected of illegally distributing and manufacturing guns and failing to conduct background checks , according to The Wall Street Journal .
The ATF raided the Nevada business , despite 80 % receivers , which the corporation primarily sells , being legal and not considered firearms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website .
The investigation focused primarily on the company ’ s “ Buy Build Shoot Kit , ” which includes an 80 % finished handgun frame and the components necessary to assemble that frame into a complete Polymer80 handgun , according to WSJ , which cited an ATF warrant .
The agency determined that the set sold together meets the definition of a firearm and thereby would require a background check for purchasing , WSJ reported .
TRENDING : 'The big one ' : Trump intervenes in Texas case at Supreme Court The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ none of the corporation ’ s employees were arrested , according to WSJ .
The agency previously approved Polymer80 ’ s frames for sale , but the kits themselves were not submitted for ATF approval , WSJ reported .
Weapons built from unfinished frames are commonly referred to as “ ghost guns ” by anti-gun activists .
Everytown For Gun Safety , which is largely financed by prominent Democrat Michael Bloomberg , called the DIY firearms “ the fastest growing gun safety problem ” in a May report .
Pro-Second Amendment groups like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making firearms at home is an American tradition that predates the United States.
” This story originally was published by 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 [ email protected ]

By Jake Dima
Daily Caller News Foundation
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on Thursday raided a popular gun component manufacturer under suspicion that the organization was selling firearms without mandating background checks.
Polymer80, one of the nation’s leading sellers of unserialized gun components and DIY firearm kits, was suspected of illegally distributing and manufacturing guns and failing to conduct background checks, according to The Wall Street Journal. The ATF raided the Nevada business, despite 80% receivers, which the corporation primarily sells, being legal and not considered firearms, according to the government body’s website.
The investigation focused primarily on the company’s “Buy Build Shoot Kit,” which includes an 80% finished handgun frame and the components necessary to assemble that frame into a complete Polymer80 handgun, according to WSJ, which cited an ATF warrant. The agency determined that the set sold together meets the definition of a firearm and thereby would require a background check for purchasing, WSJ reported.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The ATF seized records in the raid and none of the corporation’s employees were arrested, according to WSJ.
The agency previously approved Polymer80’s frames for sale, but the kits themselves were not submitted for ATF approval, WSJ reported.
Should federal agents have raided a gun-parts company? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 2% (4 Votes) 98% (195 Votes)
Weapons built from unfinished frames are commonly referred to as “ghost guns” by anti-gun activists. Everytown For Gun Safety, which is largely financed by prominent Democrat Michael Bloomberg, called the DIY firearms “the fastest growing gun safety problem” in a May report.
Pro-Second Amendment groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition insist that “making firearms at home is an American tradition that predates the United States.”
This story originally was published by 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 [email protected].


wnd--2020-12-12--Trump voter in nursing home told to vote for Biden

A nursing home resident who wanted to vote for Trump was told by a staff member to vote for Biden , according to testimony at a legislative hearing in Wisconsin on Friday .
`` No no .
He 's a bad man .
We 're voting for Biden , '' the resident was told .
Then there was the 95-year-old whose daughter has filed a police report over the vote that was cast by her mother in November even though she died in October , the Gateway Pundit reported .
TRENDING : 'The big one ' : Trump intervenes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was held by the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections and the Senate Committee on Elections , Ethics and Rural Issues .
A local NBC outlet reported Democratic members of the committees refused to listen to the evidence , walking out of the hearing and announcing they no longer will participate in any investigation of alleged illegal activities in the election .
They released a statement : `` After a morning of wild conspiracy theories that went unchallenged and uncorrected , it is clear that today ’ s joint hearing is exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all feared it would be . ''
The Democrats – Sens .
Mark Miller and Jeff Smith , and Reps. Lisa Subeck , JoCasta Zamarripa and Mark Spreitzer – said hearing the evidence `` does nothing but undermine our elections and election officials .
Witnesses attacked our clerks and poll workers while Republicans gave them no serious opportunity to respond . ''
Wisconsin Public Radio reported the hearing also heard testimony from Republican officials and their lawyers .
Concerns in Wisconsin also have been raised about votes for people who had moved out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of voting equipment and ballot dumps .
The report noted there was a `` clear split '' between GOP and Democratic lawmakers over the integrity of the election .

A nursing home resident who wanted to vote for Trump was told by a staff member to vote for Biden, according to testimony at a legislative hearing in Wisconsin on Friday.
"No no. He's a bad man. We're voting for Biden," the resident was told.
Then there was the 95-year-old whose daughter has filed a police report over the vote that was cast by her mother in November even though she died in October, the Gateway Pundit reported.
A nursing home resident said she wanted to vote for @realDonaldTrump. But a nursing home staff member said "No no. He's a bad man. We're voting for Biden," and instructed the resident to do so against her wishes. pic.twitter.com/XqJbr5IO8s — Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TeamTrump) December 11, 2020
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The hearing was held by the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections and the Senate Committee on Elections, Ethics and Rural Issues.
A local NBC outlet reported Democratic members of the committees refused to listen to the evidence, walking out of the hearing and announcing they no longer will participate in any investigation of alleged illegal activities in the election.
They released a statement: "After a morning of wild conspiracy theories that went unchallenged and uncorrected, it is clear that today’s joint hearing is exactly the kind of disgraceful display that we all feared it would be."
Should nursing home residents be told whom to vote for? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 1% (4 Votes) 99% (420 Votes)
The Democrats – Sens. Mark Miller and Jeff Smith, and Reps. Lisa Subeck, JoCasta Zamarripa and Mark Spreitzer – said hearing the evidence "does nothing but undermine our elections and election officials. Witnesses attacked our clerks and poll workers while Republicans gave them no serious opportunity to respond."
Wisconsin Public Radio reported the hearing also heard testimony from Republican officials and their lawyers.
Concerns in Wisconsin also have been raised about votes for people who had moved out of state, absentee ballots, audits of voting equipment and ballot dumps.
The report noted there was a "clear split" between GOP and Democratic lawmakers over the integrity of the election.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


wnd--2020-12-12--Senator calls support for Trump election challenge 'treachery'

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of New Jersey accused anyone supporting President Trump 's challenge of the outcome of the 2020 of committing `` treachery '' against America .
`` Those who are pushing to make Donald Trump president for a second term , no matter the outcome of the election , are engaged in a treachery against their nation , '' he said Friday .
Murphy said Trump and his supporters are engaging in `` the most serious attempt to overthrow our democracy in the history of this country . ''
TRENDING : 'The big one ' : Trump intervenes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reply of Pennsylvania 's attorney general to the Texas case that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected late Friday echoed Murphy .
Josh Shapiro accused Texas of `` seditious abuse of the judicial process . ''
He asserted that since Election Day , state and federal courts `` throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election . ''
Shapiro says Texas `` has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims , '' seeking `` to invalidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with which it disagrees . ''
While the Supreme Court rejected the Texas case Friday , it did made the decision based on its merits , concluding Texas lacked standing .
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wanted the case to move forward .

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut accused anyone supporting President Trump's challenge of the outcome of the 2020 of committing "treachery" against America.
"Those who are pushing to make Donald Trump president for a second term, no matter the outcome of the election, are engaged in a treachery against their nation," he said Friday.
Murphy said Trump and his supporters are engaging in "the most serious attempt to overthrow our democracy in the history of this country."
Sen. Chris Murphy: "Those who are pushing to make Donald Trump President for a second term, no matter the outcome of the election, are engaged in a treachery against their nation." pic.twitter.com/54I2iRlL0M — The Hill (@thehill) December 11, 2020
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The reply of Pennsylvania's attorney general to the Texas case that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected late Friday echoed Murphy.
Josh Shapiro accused Texas of "seditious abuse of the judicial process."
He asserted that since Election Day, state and federal courts "throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election."
Is support for Trump's election challenge 'treachery'? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 3% (16 Votes) 97% (564 Votes)
Shapiro says Texas "has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims," seeking "to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees."
While the Supreme Court rejected the Texas case Friday, it did made the decision based on its merits, concluding Texas lacked standing.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wanted the case to move forward.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


wnd--2020-12-12--The elites' Great Reset: Ushering in global fascism

There is a tsunami of authoritarianism coming .
In fact , depending on the final results of the presidential election , we conservatives may get swept up in its undertow sooner than we think .
There appears to me to be an odd aggregation of ideologies merging into one on the horizon – and none of the parts , or the whole they create , is good .
Merely describing it as bad does a disservice to the word bad .
Maybe catastrophic is even too mild .
If things progress the way the woke and radical world leftists envision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alinsky 's Rules for Radicals , communism and fascism .
More and more we 're hearing terms like , Build Back Better , stakeholder capitalism , Environmental , Social , and Corporate Governance ( ESG ) and Social Credit System .
TRENDING : 'The big one ' : Trump intervenes in Texas case at Supreme Court Think of ESG as the corporate version of an individual 's Social Credit Score .
It will also employ Green New Deal and Social Justice ideals .
By sheer coincidence , leftists , seemingly worldwide , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Better .
This refers to a world they envision post Great Reset .
It 's a vision of resetting global economies away from free-market , American-style capitalism to stakeholder capitalism instituted and controlled through the World Economic Forum ( WEF ) – a collection of the world 's billionaire know-it-alls .
The WEF sets forth rules for corporations to abide by , like the aforementioned ESG .
Corporations will be expected to comply with not governmental rules , but WEF guidelines .
But do n't get the idea that governments are n't fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NOTE : Right now , under cover of the coronavirus pandemic , global elites including many right here in the U.S. are actively engaged in trying to usher in a completely new world system they call the `` Great Reset . ''
That 's the topic of the sensational new issue of WND 's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine , titled `` THE GREAT RESET : How American and global elites are leveraging COVID to socialize the world . ''
`` This is a unique moment in history to walk the talk and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klaus Schwab , founder and executive chairman , World Economic Forum .
`` Having companies accepting , not only to measure but also to report on , their environmental and social responsibility will represent a sea change in economic history . ''
These stakeholder capitalism metrics are `` designed to provide a common set of existing disclosures that lead towards a coherent and comprehensive global corporate reporting system . ''
And if a company or corporation decides not to sign on , or opt-out of compliance and reporting of these metrics – what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain , but you can be sure there will be a heavy price to pay , similar to the price paid currently in China when someone 's Social Credit Score falls below a predetermined threshold .
They are , for want of a better term , treated as a social and economic pariah .
And it is all done in full public view .
This is where Saul Alinsky 's Rules for Radicals is applied , both to the people and corporations that do n't comply .
His last rule , the 13th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , personalize it , and polarize it . ''
Now many conservatives believe , for good reason , that these world forces wish to tear down capitalism and reset to communism .
I 'm not sure about that .
It seems to me that the WEF ESG system will be more at home with fascism .
Communism and fascism are similar in many regards .
The major difference between the two is that with communism , the State owns and controls everything , including all production .
Fascism differs in that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintains total control .
Think Oskar Schindler .
Most know his story , chronicled in `` Schindler 's List . ''
He was a wealthy German industrialist who was forced , like most , to join the Nazi Party .
Unlike communism , the fascist Nazis allowed him and other already established titans to keep their businesses and keep getting wealthier , provided they said , did and produced in their factories exactly what the party told them to , when and how .
This , I believe , is what a post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is permitted to happen , we Americans can say goodbye to our uniquely maverick entrepreneurial spirit .
It will not be permitted .
As others have described – think of it in terms of `` The Matrix , '' but no `` Red Pill '' will be offered .
Listen to an audio version of this column : Do you appreciate WND 's unfiltered hard-hitting news and commentary ?
Read us AD-FREE by becoming a WND Insider !
Find out more .

There is a tsunami of authoritarianism coming. In fact, depending on the final results of the presidential election, we conservatives may get swept up in its undertow sooner than we think.
There appears to me to be an odd aggregation of ideologies merging into one on the horizon – and none of the parts, or the whole they create, is good. Merely describing it as bad does a disservice to the word bad.
Maybe catastrophic is even too mild.
If things progress the way the woke and radical world leftists envision, we may be looking at combining Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, communism and fascism.
More and more we're hearing terms like, Build Back Better, stakeholder capitalism, Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) and Social Credit System.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Think of ESG as the corporate version of an individual's Social Credit Score. It will also employ Green New Deal and Social Justice ideals.
By sheer coincidence, leftists, seemingly worldwide, have begun using the phrase, Build Back Better. This refers to a world they envision post Great Reset.
It's a vision of resetting global economies away from free-market, American-style capitalism to stakeholder capitalism instituted and controlled through the World Economic Forum (WEF) – a collection of the world's billionaire know-it-alls.
The WEF sets forth rules for corporations to abide by, like the aforementioned ESG. Corporations will be expected to comply with not governmental rules, but WEF guidelines. But don't get the idea that governments aren't fully on board – they are.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Right now, under cover of the coronavirus pandemic, global elites including many right here in the U.S. are actively engaged in trying to usher in a completely new world system they call the "Great Reset." That's the topic of the sensational new issue of WND's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled "THE GREAT RESET: How American and global elites are leveraging COVID to socialize the world."
"This is a unique moment in history to walk the talk and to make stakeholder capitalism measurable," says Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman, World Economic Forum. "Having companies accepting, not only to measure but also to report on, their environmental and social responsibility will represent a sea change in economic history."
These stakeholder capitalism metrics are "designed to provide a common set of existing disclosures that lead towards a coherent and comprehensive global corporate reporting system."
And if a company or corporation decides not to sign on, or opt-out of compliance and reporting of these metrics – what then?
Well, I'm not certain, but you can be sure there will be a heavy price to pay, similar to the price paid currently in China when someone's Social Credit Score falls below a predetermined threshold. They are, for want of a better term, treated as a social and economic pariah. And it is all done in full public view.
This is where Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is applied, both to the people and corporations that don't comply. His last rule, the 13th: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Now many conservatives believe, for good reason, that these world forces wish to tear down capitalism and reset to communism. I'm not sure about that.
It seems to me that the WEF ESG system will be more at home with fascism.
Communism and fascism are similar in many regards. The major difference between the two is that with communism, the State owns and controls everything, including all production. Fascism differs in that the State doesn't own everything, but maintains total control.
Think Oskar Schindler. Most know his story, chronicled in "Schindler's List." He was a wealthy German industrialist who was forced, like most, to join the Nazi Party. Unlike communism, the fascist Nazis allowed him and other already established titans to keep their businesses and keep getting wealthier, provided they said, did and produced in their factories exactly what the party told them to, when and how.
This, I believe, is what a post Great Reset will resemble. If this is permitted to happen, we Americans can say goodbye to our uniquely maverick entrepreneurial spirit. It will not be permitted.
As others have described – think of it in terms of "The Matrix," but no "Red Pill" will be offered.
Sounds like fun – can't wait!
Listen to an audio version of this column:
Do you appreciate WND's unfiltered hard-hitting news and commentary? Read us AD-FREE by becoming a WND Insider! Find out more.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


wnd--2020-12-12--Is the COVID economic collapse orchestrated? Uh … YES!

I 'm going to be quoting a lot of sources in this column rather than writing much original content .
That 's because there are so many others saying things better than I can .
A few days ago , I read a piece by Daisy Luther ( The Organic Prepper ) called `` How the COVID Response has Destroyed the Personal Finances of Americans . ''
It was so depressing that I could only read it a little at a time .
Normally Luther does a superb job of offering hope in seemingly hopeless situations ; but boy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to finish .
Among much else , the author wrote : `` In the United States , our personal finances have taken blow after blow .
Eight million more Americans than last year are now living in poverty as millions of jobs have disappeared , never to return .
Data from the review site Yelp shows that 60 % of the businesses that shut down due to COVID have permanently closed .
People who were formerly struggling are sinking , and many of those who were comfortably middle class are desperately trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much the virus that has caused our financial woes – it 's the response to the virus .
Federal , state , and local governments have deemed what businesses are allowed to operate and how they must do so .
This has resulted in the loss of businesses themselves , loss of sales , and loss of jobs .
Nearly every family is feeling the effects to some degree . ''
For families affected by the lockdowns , the pain is unimaginable .
I nearly wept when I read one comment written by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ savings are gone .
We will probably lose our only vehicle this week .
Our house will be foreclosed on in January .
We have done everything we can to stop the bleeding , most of our bills are 3-6 months behind .
I 've applied everywhere I can , fast food , everything and I have n't been hired .
Our kids have asked for socks for Christmas and basically only that , because they know how bad it is and they all need socks .
I sew and I tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Facebook marketplace and I sold nothing .
So much wasted time .
We 've sold quite a few of our belongings .
I do n't even know what to do anymore .
We 've asked for help , but there is n't any charity with money left .
So being homeless with 5 kids is going to be excellent .
If anything major were to happen right now , I do n't know what we would do .
Major stuff is coming . ''
Make no mistake , we 're in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Orchestrated .
Got that ?
Orchestrated .
It 's not about controlling a virus ; it 's about controlling people .
Even Rush Limbaugh is calling this a `` plandemic . ''
TRENDING : 'The big one ' : Trump intervenes in Texas case at Supreme Court One person commented : `` I remember thinking when the lockdowns started – do n't they know this is going to destroy the economy ?
And then reality hit me , and I knew that this is their end game and that it 's all been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the goalposts keep moving and some of these policies do n't seem tied to science , '' says Steven Greenhut , a Sacramento-area resident working for R Street Institute .
`` I mean , we ought to treat coronavirus seriously , but just to try to shutdown society without considering the impact on people who are trying to feed themselves and earn a living , it seems crazy . ''
`` Science , '' in other words , usually means whatever a political tyrant wants it to mean .
We all know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but BLM or Antifa protests or Biden celebrations are fine , just fine .
Along with millions of others , we 've experienced the economic fallout .
Our wholesale woodcraft business that has supported us for nearly 30 years absolutely tanked during 2020 .
Thirty years of building up a business , and now it 's gone .
Thankfully , we had other financial irons in the fire , but our wholesalers are struggling because their sales venues have been completely shut down for the foreseeable future .
`` At some point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic is real , the removal of our freedoms is a bigger threat to society , '' notes Jared Dyson on the Liberty Loft .
`` The Democrats are openly destroying our economy .
They are killing small businesses while providing no relief or aid to those that are suffering .
… The coronavirus has infected over 15 million Americans , less than 10 % of the U.S. population , and has a death rate of less than 0.5 % .
Does that warrant destroying small businesses and livelihoods across the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions , they are asking the people with the least economic margin for error to sacrifice the most , '' adds Rich Lowry with National Review .
And the worst may yet to come .
According to ZeroHedge , `` January is going to be a mess .
America 's small-time landlords , along with their tenants , are in trouble as safety nets are set to expire .
Tenants have n't paid rent in months , with a looming eviction moratorium expiring at the end of December .
According to Reuters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has also been troublesome , with many skipping mortgage payments , potentially resulting in a firesale of properties in the year ahead .
For 12 million Americans and their families – this Christmas will be their worst – as the extended unemployment benefits that have kept many of them afloat are set to expire later this month .
Then on New Year 's Day , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 's eviction moratorium expires , which could result in a massive wave of evictions in the first half of 2021 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in unpaid back rent and utilities are set to come due . ''
And it 's not just in America .
Even liberal sources such as Time magazine are admitting `` COVID-19 linked hunger could cause more deaths than the disease itself , '' stating : `` 121 million more people [ globally ] could be 'pushed to the brink of starvation this year ' as a result of disruption to food production and supplies , diminishing aid as well as mass unemployment . ''
Rand Paul has pointed out there 's no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You can take advice and you can give advice .
But once you mandate it , it does n't become advice .
It becomes a form of tyranny . ''
OK , my rant is over .
But the economic misery for millions of people continues .
Folks , the pain is n't worth the cost .

I'm going to be quoting a lot of sources in this column rather than writing much original content. That's because there are so many others saying things better than I can.
A few days ago, I read a piece by Daisy Luther (The Organic Prepper) called "How the COVID Response has Destroyed the Personal Finances of Americans." It was so depressing that I could only read it a little at a time. Normally Luther does a superb job of offering hope in seemingly hopeless situations; but boy, this one was a downer from start to finish.
Among much else, the author wrote: "In the United States, our personal finances have taken blow after blow. Eight million more Americans than last year are now living in poverty as millions of jobs have disappeared, never to return. Data from the review site Yelp shows that 60% of the businesses that shut down due to COVID have permanently closed. People who were formerly struggling are sinking, and many of those who were comfortably middle class are desperately trying to stay afloat. It isn't so much the virus that has caused our financial woes – it's the response to the virus. Federal, state, and local governments have deemed what businesses are allowed to operate and how they must do so. This has resulted in the loss of businesses themselves, loss of sales, and loss of jobs. Nearly every family is feeling the effects to some degree."
For families affected by the lockdowns, the pain is unimaginable. I nearly wept when I read one comment written by a desperate mother: "All our savings are gone. We will probably lose our only vehicle this week. Our house will be foreclosed on in January. We have done everything we can to stop the bleeding, most of our bills are 3-6 months behind. I've applied everywhere I can, fast food, everything and I haven't been hired. Our kids have asked for socks for Christmas and basically only that, because they know how bad it is and they all need socks. I sew and I tried to create an Etsy shop, sell things on Facebook marketplace and I sold nothing. So much wasted time. We've sold quite a few of our belongings. I don't even know what to do anymore. We've asked for help, but there isn't any charity with money left. So being homeless with 5 kids is going to be excellent. If anything major were to happen right now, I don't know what we would do. Major stuff is coming."
Make no mistake, we're in the throes of an orchestrated economic collapse. Orchestrated. Got that? Orchestrated. It's not about controlling a virus; it's about controlling people. Even Rush Limbaugh is calling this a "plandemic."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
One person commented: "I remember thinking when the lockdowns started – don't they know this is going to destroy the economy? And then reality hit me, and I knew that this is their end game and that it's all been planned."
"It just seems like the goalposts keep moving and some of these policies don't seem tied to science," says Steven Greenhut, a Sacramento-area resident working for R Street Institute. "I mean, we ought to treat coronavirus seriously, but just to try to shutdown society without considering the impact on people who are trying to feed themselves and earn a living, it seems crazy."
"Science," in other words, usually means whatever a political tyrant wants it to mean. We all know Trump rallies are "superspreader" events, but BLM or Antifa protests or Biden celebrations are fine, just fine.
Along with millions of others, we've experienced the economic fallout. Our wholesale woodcraft business that has supported us for nearly 30 years absolutely tanked during 2020. Thirty years of building up a business, and now it's gone. Thankfully, we had other financial irons in the fire, but our wholesalers are struggling because their sales venues have been completely shut down for the foreseeable future.
"At some point, we have to realize that while the pandemic is real, the removal of our freedoms is a bigger threat to society," notes Jared Dyson on the Liberty Loft. "The Democrats are openly destroying our economy. They are killing small businesses while providing no relief or aid to those that are suffering. … The coronavirus has infected over 15 million Americans, less than 10% of the U.S. population, and has a death rate of less than 0.5%. Does that warrant destroying small businesses and livelihoods across the country?"
"When policymakers promulgate COVID-19 restrictions, they are asking the people with the least economic margin for error to sacrifice the most," adds Rich Lowry with National Review.
And the worst may yet to come. According to ZeroHedge, "January is going to be a mess. America's small-time landlords, along with their tenants, are in trouble as safety nets are set to expire. Tenants haven't paid rent in months, with a looming eviction moratorium expiring at the end of December. According to Reuters, the lack of rental income for landlords has also been troublesome, with many skipping mortgage payments, potentially resulting in a firesale of properties in the year ahead. For 12 million Americans and their families – this Christmas will be their worst – as the extended unemployment benefits that have kept many of them afloat are set to expire later this month. Then on New Year's Day, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's eviction moratorium expires, which could result in a massive wave of evictions in the first half of 2021. At the moment, $70 billion in unpaid back rent and utilities are set to come due."
And it's not just in America. Even liberal sources such as Time magazine are admitting "COVID-19 linked hunger could cause more deaths than the disease itself," stating: "121 million more people [globally] could be 'pushed to the brink of starvation this year' as a result of disruption to food production and supplies, diminishing aid as well as mass unemployment."
Rand Paul has pointed out there's no scientific evidence tyrannical lockdowns work: "You can take advice and you can give advice. But once you mandate it, it doesn't become advice. It becomes a form of tyranny."
OK, my rant is over. But the economic misery for millions of people continues. Folks, the pain isn't worth the cost.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


wnd--2020-12-12--Think the election is over? Think again!

Fox News loses key ratings battle to conservative competitor for first time ever

* Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required.
Thank you for contacting us. Please check your email inbox to confirm your message and send it to our editorial team.


wnd--2020-12-12--3 blind mice: The Democrats, the media and the Deep State

Three blind mice .
Three blind mice .
See how they run .
See how they run .
They all ran after the farmer 's wife , Who cut off their tails with a carving knife , Did you ever see such a sight in your life , As three blind mice ?
Many of the old children 's rhymes enjoyed long life not only because they entertained the next generation , but because they revealed important insights into human nature and the human condition ( the two being inexorably linked ) .
The Democrats really , really , really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president who got 74 million votes was defeated by a closet Chinese Communist Party kingpin who campaigned from his basement , and at his best spoke to 250 people at a rally .
The media really , really , really want us to believe that they are the only source of Truth in America .
If we do n't heed their `` fraud-free '' election narrative , stay locked down in our basements until coronavirus is eradicated from the planet , and drink the kool-aid of their vaccine promises , we all deserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't .
The Deep State … ah , they are short on spokespeople just now , so we have to decipher their thoughts from their actions .
Deep Staters wanted Trump 's presidency to end before it began .
They started with Russia Russia Russia , paid a United Kingdom spook to dream up the narrative and `` leaked '' this top secret fantasy to their media toadies in America .
TRENDING : 'The big one ' : Trump intervenes in Texas case at Supreme Court When that investigation circled for the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 million toilet , Deep Staters moved on to impeachment .
It was wrong , of course , for the U.S. president to talk to the Ukraine president in a phone call .
Diplomacy must be conducted by the Deep State , else where do they get their payoffs ?
Now it 's Democrats and election laws : State constitutions are just `` guidelines '' on how to conduct an election .
What 's really important is to count every ballot , especially when they are loaded on trucks and brought in from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are so secure we have to send the results to Germany and let our friends in the European Union count them for us .
All nations have unique cultural histories .
It 's a pity that so many of the Three Blind Mice conspirators went to those elite colleges that were at the forefront of trading degrees in victimhood for tuition money .
Those colleges were the ones that early on abandoned teaching Western civilization and history .
Had those previous alumni purchased learning for their children , they might have saved those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming for them .
The Three Blind Mice of America 's elitist subculture have attacked the one group they should never have openly confronted .
Trump supporters are the Farmer 's Wife .
Just like the colonists who finally had enough of rule by a distant , heavy-handed monarch , America in 2020 has had enough of the Deep States ' endless wars and war profiteering , the media 's endless lies covering up for the Deep State and the Democrats ' toilet paper constitutions , which are reserved for them alone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whenever and wherever they like , so they can retain power over America and what she does in the world .
The early colonists who risked their lives coming to America were desperate to control their own lives .
The Puritans wanted religious freedom , the growing tradesmen class wanted economic independence , and many of those who followed were hungry for adventure in the New World .
The thoughtful among us know that unlike those adventurers who founded America , there is nowhere we can run to any longer .
Today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the `` shining city on the hill '' or the world descends into hell on earth .
That is precisely the future dreamt up for the rest of us by the Three Blind Mice .
Life without God .
Trickle-down corruption for the elitists with fake educations , at the expense of the rest of us .
Government and economy forever controlled by members of the American Communist Party .
Money , money , money .
Talk about entitlement !
Early during the Trump presidency , peace began breaking out all over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be unchained .
Now the Three Blind Mice are terrified that the progeny of American settlers can not be controlled .
The Farmer 's Wife has awakened in time to see that the mice are coming for her .
Her reward is in her hand .
I doubt it 's their tails that she is going to cut off .
What would God doing a new thing look like ?
Do you appreciate WND 's unfiltered hard-hitting news and commentary ?
Read us AD-FREE by becoming a WND Insider !
Find out @ @

Three blind mice. Three blind mice.
See how they run. See how they run.
They all ran after the farmer's wife,
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
Did you ever see such a sight in your life,
As three blind mice?
Many of the old children's rhymes enjoyed long life not only because they entertained the next generation, but because they revealed important insights into human nature and the human condition (the two being inexorably linked).
The Democrats really, really, really want us to believe that an incumbent president who got 74 million votes was defeated by a closet Chinese Communist Party kingpin who campaigned from his basement, and at his best spoke to 250 people at a rally.
The media really, really, really want us to believe that they are the only source of Truth in America. If we don't heed their "fraud-free" election narrative, stay locked down in our basements until coronavirus is eradicated from the planet, and drink the kool-aid of their vaccine promises, we all deserve to die, even if we don't.
The Deep State … ah, they are short on spokespeople just now, so we have to decipher their thoughts from their actions. Deep Staters wanted Trump's presidency to end before it began. They started with Russia Russia Russia, paid a United Kingdom spook to dream up the narrative and "leaked" this top secret fantasy to their media toadies in America.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
When that investigation circled for the last time and disappeared down Mueller's $40 million toilet, Deep Staters moved on to impeachment. It was wrong, of course, for the U.S. president to talk to the Ukraine president in a phone call. Diplomacy must be conducted by the Deep State, else where do they get their payoffs?
Now it's Democrats and election laws: State constitutions are just "guidelines" on how to conduct an election. What's really important is to count every ballot, especially when they are loaded on trucks and brought in from out of state. Dominion voting machines are so secure we have to send the results to Germany and let our friends in the European Union count them for us.
All nations have unique cultural histories. It's a pity that so many of the Three Blind Mice conspirators went to those elite colleges that were at the forefront of trading degrees in victimhood for tuition money. Those colleges were the ones that early on abandoned teaching Western civilization and history. Had those previous alumni purchased learning for their children, they might have saved those elitist offspring the grief that is now coming for them.
The Three Blind Mice of America's elitist subculture have attacked the one group they should never have openly confronted. Trump supporters are the Farmer's Wife. Just like the colonists who finally had enough of rule by a distant, heavy-handed monarch, America in 2020 has had enough of the Deep States' endless wars and war profiteering, the media's endless lies covering up for the Deep State and the Democrats' toilet paper constitutions, which are reserved for them alone to wipe their prissy little asses with, whenever and wherever they like, so they can retain power over America and what she does in the world.
The early colonists who risked their lives coming to America were desperate to control their own lives. The Puritans wanted religious freedom, the growing tradesmen class wanted economic independence, and many of those who followed were hungry for adventure in the New World.
The thoughtful among us know that unlike those adventurers who founded America, there is nowhere we can run to any longer. Today, America either fulfills its destiny to be the "shining city on the hill" or the world descends into hell on earth.
That is precisely the future dreamt up for the rest of us by the Three Blind Mice. Life without God. Trickle-down corruption for the elitists with fake educations, at the expense of the rest of us. Government and economy forever controlled by members of the American Communist Party. Money, money, money. Talk about entitlement!
Early during the Trump presidency, peace began breaking out all over the world, and the American economy began to be unchained. Now the Three Blind Mice are terrified that the progeny of American settlers cannot be controlled. The Farmer's Wife has awakened in time to see that the mice are coming for her. Her reward is in her hand.
I doubt it's their tails that she is going to cut off.
What would God doing a new thing look like?
Do you appreciate WND's unfiltered hard-hitting news and commentary? Read us AD-FREE by becoming a WND Insider! Find out more.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


wnd--2020-12-13--WATCH: Gen. Michael Flynn at the Supreme Court

These reports are produced by another news agency , and the editors of WND believe you 'll find it of @ @


wnd--2020-12-12--Supremes advised not to decide 'true church'

The Supreme Court has been warned that the American judiciary is getting way too close to imposing government requirements on churches .
The warning comes in a case over the control of properties used by Episcopal churches in Texas .
Lower courts have tried to second-guess church decisions `` on inherently religious matters '' by applying their claimed `` neutral principles '' to decisions .
The Rutherford Institute argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that such rulings violate the First Amendment 's prohibition on government interference .
The Texas Supreme Court has sought to apply `` neutral principles '' in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization and several breakaway groups that have been using local facilities .
TRENDING : 'The big one ' lands at the Supreme Court '' The Constitution establishes a neutral playing field for all viewpoints and requires the government to remain equally impartial and not favor or disfavor one religion over another , or favor or disfavor religion over non-religion , '' said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead , president of the Rutherford Institute and author of `` Battlefield America : The War on the American People . ''
`` When it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the internal workings of religious institutions , however , the government needs to stay clear of that wall of separation between church and state , and resist the urge to meddle altogether . ''
The institute explained that the national organization asserts control over 100 local groups and demands they follow the authority of the general church .
After a 1979 Supreme Court ruling that state courts are allowed to apply `` neutral principles '' of law in resolving property disputes involving churches , the national group `` amended its canons to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Episcopal Church entities is held in trust and for the general church , '' the institute explained .
When doctrinal disputes arose in the 2000s , a diocese in Fort Worth and a parish in San Angelo broke away and amended their articles of incorporation to take control of local church property .
According to the Rutherford Institute , which has filed friend-of-the-court arguments in the disputes , `` a trial court in each case found that Texas law requires deference to the decision of the Episcopal Church that church property belonged to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' But the Texas Supreme Court ordered the lower courts to apply `` neutral principles '' of law to resolve the property disputes and reversed the decision .
The U.S. Supreme Court initially refused to hear the case , which was returned to state courts .
So institute lawyers now are arguing that allowing a secular court to decide such issues , without deference to church authorities , is effectively replacing church governance with state or federal decisions .
Rutherford 's filing explains the courts are being told to decide `` who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization or a local congregation .
`` There is no adequate 'neutral ' or secular way to resolve that question .
In most cases , the answer will turn on the meaning of church documents – including constitutions , canons , and deeds to church property .
Those documents are necessarily imbued with religious significance .
In hierarchical church organizations , church authorities must have final say over what they mean .
`` Church property disputes , are inherently matters of church government because they often turn on who the church considers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is difficult to imagine a more important question to communities of faith , '' the filing argues .
`` Houses of worship provide a space for adherents to receive ministry , exchange ideas , develop their convictions , and engage in charitable works—all of which are critical to their exercise of religion .
It is no surprise , then , that religious spaces are revered by adherents , and are themselves imbued with deep religious or spiritual significance .
Indeed , the issue is even more fundamental than that because church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ownership of the building , but control of the pulpit as well , '' it continued .
How then do courts apply their decisions to such disputes , the filing asks .
`` No matter how courts try to engage in a secular analysis , by picking the winners and losers—sometimes at odds with the decision of the church itself—the state courts have effectively become parties to these conflicts .
These types of conflicts—where the likelihood of entanglement is high—are precisely the sorts of controversies that this court has always placed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not in secular courts . ''
Such disputes over ownership of church properties are becoming more common amid the divide over homosexuality and same-sex marriage .
The issue is nearly non-existent among denominations in which local congregations own and operate their own facilities .

The Supreme Court has been warned that the American judiciary is getting way too close to imposing government requirements on churches.
The warning comes in a case over the control of properties used by Episcopal churches in Texas. Lower courts have tried to second-guess church decisions "on inherently religious matters" by applying their claimed "neutral principles" to decisions.
The Rutherford Institute argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that such rulings violate the First Amendment's prohibition on government interference.
The Texas Supreme Court has sought to apply "neutral principles" in a fight over the national Episcopal Church's organization and several breakaway groups that have been using local facilities.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"The Constitution establishes a neutral playing field for all viewpoints and requires the government to remain equally impartial and not favor or disfavor one religion over another, or favor or disfavor religion over non-religion," said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute and author of "Battlefield America: The War on the American People."
"When it comes to matters involving church doctrine, church governance and the internal workings of religious institutions, however, the government needs to stay clear of that wall of separation between church and state, and resist the urge to meddle altogether."
The institute explained that the national organization asserts control over 100 local groups and demands they follow the authority of the general church.
After a 1979 Supreme Court ruling that state courts are allowed to apply "neutral principles" of law in resolving property disputes involving churches, the national group "amended its canons to make clear that all property held by Episcopal Church entities is held in trust and for the general church," the institute explained.
Is the American judiciary close to imposing government requirements on churches? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 95% (229 Votes) 5% (11 Votes)
When doctrinal disputes arose in the 2000s, a diocese in Fort Worth and a parish in San Angelo broke away and amended their articles of incorporation to take control of local church property.
The national organization sued.
According to the Rutherford Institute, which has filed friend-of-the-court arguments in the disputes, "a trial court in each case found that Texas law requires deference to the decision of the Episcopal Church that church property belonged to the factions loyal to the church."
But the Texas Supreme Court ordered the lower courts to apply "neutral principles" of law to resolve the property disputes and reversed the decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court initially refused to hear the case, which was returned to state courts.
So institute lawyers now are arguing that allowing a secular court to decide such issues, without deference to church authorities, is effectively replacing church governance with state or federal decisions.
Rutherford's filing explains the courts are being told to decide "who is the true church," a national organization or a local congregation.
"There is no adequate 'neutral' or secular way to resolve that question. In most cases, the answer will turn on the meaning of church documents – including constitutions, canons, and deeds to church property. Those documents are necessarily imbued with religious significance. In hierarchical church organizations, church authorities must have final say over what they mean.
"Church property disputes, are inherently matters of church government because they often turn on who the church considers to be the rightful possessor of church property. It is difficult to imagine a more important question to communities of faith," the filing argues.
"Houses of worship provide a space for adherents to receive ministry, exchange ideas, develop their convictions, and engage in charitable works—all of which are critical to their exercise of religion. It is no surprise, then, that religious spaces are revered by adherents, and are themselves imbued with deep religious or spiritual significance. Indeed, the issue is even more fundamental than that because church property disputes typically are not only about the ownership of the building, but control of the pulpit as well," it continued.
How then do courts apply their decisions to such disputes, the filing asks.
"No matter how courts try to engage in a secular analysis, by picking the winners and losers—sometimes at odds with the decision of the church itself—the state courts have effectively become parties to these conflicts. These types of conflicts—where the likelihood of entanglement is high—are precisely the sorts of controversies that this court has always placed in the hands of church organizations, and not in secular courts."
Such disputes over ownership of church properties are becoming more common amid the divide over homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
The issue is nearly non-existent among denominations in which local congregations own and operate their own facilities.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


wnd--2020-12-12--Doubts cast over claims of fair and free election

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
The 2020 presidential election was neither free nor fair .
Much of the debate has focused on the question of “ voter fraud ” — whether alleged violations of the rules moved enough votes in key states to overturn the outcome , or whether speculative theories about hacked voting machines and software should be taken seriously .
These claims remain unproven .
TRENDING : 'The big one ' lands at the Supreme Court But while voting is the most important event in an election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the culmination of a process .
There are common international standards about what makes an election “ free and fair.
” These criteria , summarized by the Inter-Parliamentary Union , include : the “ absolute ” right to a secret ballot ; the right to “ express political opinions without interference ; [ t ] o seek , receive and impart information and to make an informed choice ” ; the right of candidates to “ equal opportunity of access to the media ” ; the “ right of candidates to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others .
Many of these were violated in 2020 .
“ Fraud ” was not as important as what Democrats were able to accomplish legally , for example , by pushing the country to adopt vote-by-mail on a massive scale .
The scientific basis for doing so was always dubious .
South Korea and Israel both had national elections at the height of the pandemic in March and April , and both used in-person voting , almost exclusively .
Neither could be accused of a lax approach to COVID-19 .
Never before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system of voting in the middle of an election , at the urging of one party , and over the objections of the other .
Democrats also sued to lower the safeguards against fraud in absentee ballots .
The attorney leading many of those lawsuits , Marc Elias of Perkins Coie , was also the key figure in hiring Fusion GPS to produce the fraudulent “ Russia dossier ” in an attempt to smear Donald Trump in the 2016 election .
Democrats preferred vote-by-mail because it allowed them to turn out low-propensity voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the standard practice worldwide — partly because of an attachment to tradition , but also because many Republican voters did not trust that mail-in ballots would remain secret or would be delivered at all by postal workers whose union had backed Democrat Joe Biden .
Beyond that unfair advantage to Democrats , there were flagrant abuses of the principles that make an election free and fair .
Political violence was widespread , carried out almost entirely by left-wing groups alongside Black Lives Matter protests .
Though most protests were peaceful , hundreds were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. cities experienced riots , as did many smaller towns .
Democrats minimized the violence and blamed police , or the president , for the unrest .
With the riots came a national panic that came to be known as “ cancel culture.
” Conservatives feared speaking out lest they lose their jobs , their social media accounts , or their lives .
A poll in July revealed that 77 % of Republicans were afraid to share their political views .
The extreme bias of the mainstream media also suppressed conservative and pro-Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a liar while ignoring Biden ’ s lies about Charlottesville and much else .
The 2020 election also featured unprecedented censorship .
Google manipulated its search algorithm to bury conservative news .
Facebook and Twitter suppressed debate about the coronavirus .
In October , when the New York Post published credible allegations about Hunter Biden ’ s laptop and emails , which exposed Joe Biden ’ s past dissembling , Twitter and Facebook both censored the story .
Mainstream media applauded the censorship , and demanded more .
Other factors also made the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commission on Presidential Debates was stacked against Trump , with one moderator caught conspiring with a prominent Trump critic .
An election-year impeachment , based on claims by a “ whistleblower ” whose very name was censored voluntarily by the press , cast the president as illegitimate .
Former military leaders , like Admiral William McRaven ( Ret . )
, called for his removal , “ the sooner , the better.
” Most of these abuses were legal .
That is why the results of the election can not simply be set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as in the nationwide riots — voters arguably delivered their own verdict , punishing Democratic candidates for the violence and for the party ’ s waffling on “ defund the police.
” But we can not pretend that what happened in 2020 was acceptable .
It leaves many Republicans convinced that the system is “ rigged ” — even against a “ red wave.
” We need to make urgent changes .
If vote-by-mail can not be reversed , it must be made more secure , or replaced with a secure , 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting system .
Political parties must condemn violence unequivocally .
Big Tech must lose its immunity under Section 230 , which it has abused .
The Commission on Presidential Debates should be replaced .
Above all , “ free and fair ” must be the standard to which American elections are held .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Joel B. Pollak
Real Clear Politics
The 2020 presidential election was neither free nor fair.
Much of the debate has focused on the question of “voter fraud” — whether alleged violations of the rules moved enough votes in key states to overturn the outcome, or whether speculative theories about hacked voting machines and software should be taken seriously. These claims remain unproven.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
But while voting is the most important event in an election, it is not the only event, but the culmination of a process.
There are common international standards about what makes an election “free and fair.” These criteria, summarized by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, include: the “absolute” right to a secret ballot; the right to “express political opinions without interference; [t]o seek, receive and impart information and to make an informed choice”; the right of candidates to “equal opportunity of access to the media”; the “right of candidates to security”; freedom of association, and others.
Many of these were violated in 2020.
“Fraud” was not as important as what Democrats were able to accomplish legally, for example, by pushing the country to adopt vote-by-mail on a massive scale.
Was the election free and fair? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 1% (5 Votes) 99% (577 Votes)
The scientific basis for doing so was always dubious. South Korea and Israel both had national elections at the height of the pandemic in March and April, and both used in-person voting, almost exclusively. Neither could be accused of a lax approach to COVID-19.
Never before had the country adopted an entirely new system of voting in the middle of an election, at the urging of one party, and over the objections of the other.
Democrats also sued to lower the safeguards against fraud in absentee ballots. The attorney leading many of those lawsuits, Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, was also the key figure in hiring Fusion GPS to produce the fraudulent “Russia dossier” in an attempt to smear Donald Trump in the 2016 election.
Democrats preferred vote-by-mail because it allowed them to turn out low-propensity voters. Republicans preferred voting in person — the standard practice worldwide — partly because of an attachment to tradition, but also because many Republican voters did not trust that mail-in ballots would remain secret or would be delivered at all by postal workers whose union had backed Democrat Joe Biden.
Republicans turned out voters; Democrats turned out envelopes.
Beyond that unfair advantage to Democrats, there were flagrant abuses of the principles that make an election free and fair.
Political violence was widespread, carried out almost entirely by left-wing groups alongside Black Lives Matter protests. Though most protests were peaceful, hundreds were not.
Forty-eight of the 50 largest U.S. cities experienced riots, as did many smaller towns. Democrats minimized the violence and blamed police, or the president, for the unrest.
With the riots came a national panic that came to be known as “cancel culture.” Conservatives feared speaking out lest they lose their jobs, their social media accounts, or their lives. A poll in July revealed that 77% of Republicans were afraid to share their political views.
The extreme bias of the mainstream media also suppressed conservative and pro-Trump views. Media fact-checkers cast Trump as a liar while ignoring Biden’s lies about Charlottesville and much else.
The 2020 election also featured unprecedented censorship. Google manipulated its search algorithm to bury conservative news. Facebook and Twitter suppressed debate about the coronavirus.
In October, when the New York Post published credible allegations about Hunter Biden’s laptop and emails, which exposed Joe Biden’s past dissembling, Twitter and Facebook both censored the story. Mainstream media applauded the censorship, and demanded more.
Other factors also made the 2020 election unfree and unfair. The Commission on Presidential Debates was stacked against Trump, with one moderator caught conspiring with a prominent Trump critic. An election-year impeachment, based on claims by a “whistleblower” whose very name was censored voluntarily by the press, cast the president as illegitimate. Former military leaders, like Admiral William McRaven (Ret.), called for his removal, “the sooner, the better.”
Most of these abuses were legal. That is why the results of the election cannot simply be set aside. When laws were broken — as in the nationwide riots — voters arguably delivered their own verdict, punishing Democratic candidates for the violence and for the party’s waffling on “defund the police.”
But we cannot pretend that what happened in 2020 was acceptable. It leaves many Republicans convinced that the system is “rigged” — even against a “red wave.”
We need to make urgent changes.
If vote-by-mail cannot be reversed, it must be made more secure, or replaced with a secure, 100% American, and politically independent remote voting system.
Political parties must condemn violence unequivocally. Big Tech must lose its immunity under Section 230, which it has abused. The Commission on Presidential Debates should be replaced.
Above all, “free and fair” must be the standard to which American elections are held.


wnd--2020-12-12--How vaccines surge interest, but not necessarily stock prices

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets . ]
That multiple COVID-19 vaccines are rolling out globally has sparked widespread hope—and pharma fever among investors .
Snap up vaccine-maker shares now , the thinking goes , and you ’ ll catch a slice of the riches these moonshots promise .
But beware .
Lightning-quick COVID immunizations are undeniably great news and a testament to human beings ’ indomitable ingenuity .
But they ’ re unlikely to inject their creators with profits that markets haven ’ t already pre-priced—making vaccine-driven stock price surges unpredictable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The boundlessness of human innovation is a key stock market driver—always has been , always will be .
New technologies drive efficiencies and profits and even create new industries .
Think how many products and companies emerged from the microchip ’ s creation .
Health Care is home to cutting-edge , world-changing innovation .
Recent breakthroughs abound .
Researchers now employ artificial intelligence to expand datasets vastly beyond clinical trials .
They ’ ve connected pacemakers to smartphone apps , giving patients and physicians crucial instant monitoring .
Gene therapy has had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while implanted electronic stimulation devices offer paralyzed patients real hope of walking again .
New drugs , therapies and devices bring relief for patients—and profits for Health Care firms and their investors .
They partly explain why global Health Care stocks have gained 254 % over the past decade , trouncing world stocks ’ overall 156 % gain .
But while COVID vaccines promise massive societal benefits , they ’ re unlikely to boost vaccine makers ’ profits—at least , not long enough to merit huge share price gains .
Government and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prices has vaccine firms treading carefully .
Some contracted to provide major governments huge vaccine quantities at cut-rate prices .
Several with vaccines nearing approval say they won ’ t pursue COVID vaccine profits at all during the “ pandemic phase ” of distribution .
Pfizer and partner BioNTech say they will , but at prices typical of other vaccines with discounts possible initially .
Wall Street expects about $ 11 billion in COVID vaccine revenue for Pfizer in 2021 and gross profit margins of about 50 % —well below the firm ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would boost revenue just 6.3 % above pre-pandemic 2019 levels .
Profits ?
Just 1.0 % higher than 2019 .
Sniffle sniffle ; cough cough !
TRENDING : 'The big one ' lands at the Supreme Court Projections are murky for 2021 .
After that , uncertainty renders them near-useless .
How long will immunity last before repeat injections are required ?
Will governments continue pressuring prices post-pandemic—particularly for vaccines they bankrolled ?
How will a landscape jammed with competitors shake out ?
Early clinical trial successes steal headlines , but multiple firms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tout more logistical flexibility than the early winners , which feature multiple doses of mRNA requiring sub-Arctic storage temperatures .
Companies crossing the finish line first may fall from favor quickly , making share surges short lived .
Beyond all this , stock markets are pretty darned efficient discounters of widely known information—more so now than ever , given data ’ s near-instantaneous availability .
COVID ’ s massive global impact makes vaccine development one of the most scrutinized processes in memory .
Forecasts , rumors , approvals and everything in between are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out for months .
Take Moderna .
It ’ s sales aren ’ t huge—just $ 60 million in 2019—so a vaccine could stoke profit growth far more than big , diversified Pharma firms ’ .
But since vaccine optimism surged on Pfizer ’ s November 9 Phase 3 results announcement , Moderna is up 111 % .
Investors were pre-pricing big growth even earlier : Since January 13 , when it and the National Institutes of Health finalized their vaccine sequencing , Moderna shares are up 653 % .
Pfizer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since its Phase 3 results announcement—a big jump considering its vaccine ’ s mild expected effect on overall profits .
Short term , sentiment-driven vaccine-maker boomlets are surely possible .
But profiting from them requires preternatural timing .
Few possess it .
I know I don ’ t .
Do you ?
Longer term , hopes for more big , sustained gains for vaccine makers don ’ t simply rest on final approvals and reaching the market—they require the firms to fare far better than myriad observers and analysts already expect .
Moreover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maker or any single stock , you need to take a significant position in your portfolio .
What if you ’ re wrong ?
Big bets on individual stocks always massively increase risk .
Investing isn ’ t a get-rich-quick scheme .
It ’ s a long journey , with growth compounding over time .
None of this means you should avoid COVID vaccine makers .
Those with longer-term prospects for innovating above and beyond COVID are worth your attention .
When it comes to their COVID solutions , celebrate these firms for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge returns from hugely watched and heavily pre-priced events .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets.]
By Ken Fisher
Real Clear Markets
That multiple COVID-19 vaccines are rolling out globally has sparked widespread hope—and pharma fever among investors. Snap up vaccine-maker shares now, the thinking goes, and you’ll catch a slice of the riches these moonshots promise. But beware. Lightning-quick COVID immunizations are undeniably great news and a testament to human beings’ indomitable ingenuity. But they’re unlikely to inject their creators with profits that markets haven’t already pre-priced—making vaccine-driven stock price surges unpredictable and short-lived. Here’s why.
The boundlessness of human innovation is a key stock market driver—always has been, always will be. New technologies drive efficiencies and profits and even create new industries. Think how many products and companies emerged from the microchip’s creation. Health Care is home to cutting-edge, world-changing innovation. Recent breakthroughs abound. Researchers now employ artificial intelligence to expand datasets vastly beyond clinical trials. They’ve connected pacemakers to smartphone apps, giving patients and physicians crucial instant monitoring. Gene therapy has had success reversing diseases like sickle cell anemia, while implanted electronic stimulation devices offer paralyzed patients real hope of walking again. New drugs, therapies and devices bring relief for patients—and profits for Health Care firms and their investors. They partly explain why global Health Care stocks have gained 254% over the past decade, trouncing world stocks’ overall 156% gain.
But while COVID vaccines promise massive societal benefits, they’re unlikely to boost vaccine makers’ profits—at least, not long enough to merit huge share price gains. Government and public pressure to keep a lid on prices has vaccine firms treading carefully. Some contracted to provide major governments huge vaccine quantities at cut-rate prices. Several with vaccines nearing approval say they won’t pursue COVID vaccine profits at all during the “pandemic phase” of distribution. Pfizer and partner BioNTech say they will, but at prices typical of other vaccines with discounts possible initially. Wall Street expects about $11 billion in COVID vaccine revenue for Pfizer in 2021 and gross profit margins of about 50%—well below the firm’s overall 70% margins. That would boost revenue just 6.3% above pre-pandemic 2019 levels. Profits? Just 1.0% higher than 2019. Sniffle sniffle; cough cough!
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Projections are murky for 2021. After that, uncertainty renders them near-useless. How long will immunity last before repeat injections are required? Will governments continue pressuring prices post-pandemic—particularly for vaccines they bankrolled? How will a landscape jammed with competitors shake out? Early clinical trial successes steal headlines, but multiple firms aren’t far behind. Some tout more logistical flexibility than the early winners, which feature multiple doses of mRNA requiring sub-Arctic storage temperatures. Companies crossing the finish line first may fall from favor quickly, making share surges short lived.
Beyond all this, stock markets are pretty darned efficient discounters of widely known information—more so now than ever, given data’s near-instantaneous availability. COVID’s massive global impact makes vaccine development one of the most scrutinized processes in memory. Forecasts, rumors, approvals and everything in between are priced into shares nearly instantly—a process playing out for months.
Take Moderna. It’s sales aren’t huge—just $60 million in 2019—so a vaccine could stoke profit growth far more than big, diversified Pharma firms’. But since vaccine optimism surged on Pfizer’s November 9 Phase 3 results announcement, Moderna is up 111%. Investors were pre-pricing big growth even earlier: Since January 13, when it and the National Institutes of Health finalized their vaccine sequencing, Moderna shares are up 653%.
Pfizer’s shares, meanwhile, gained 17.0% since its Phase 3 results announcement—a big jump considering its vaccine’s mild expected effect on overall profits. Short term, sentiment-driven vaccine-maker boomlets are surely possible. But profiting from them requires preternatural timing. Few possess it. I know I don’t. Do you?
Are vaccine stocks a good investment? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 0% (0 Votes) 100% (5 Votes)
Longer term, hopes for more big, sustained gains for vaccine makers don’t simply rest on final approvals and reaching the market—they require the firms to fare far better than myriad observers and analysts already expect. Moreover, to profit hugely from a vaccine maker or any single stock, you need to take a significant position in your portfolio. What if you’re wrong? Big bets on individual stocks always massively increase risk. Investing isn’t a get-rich-quick scheme. It’s a long journey, with growth compounding over time.
None of this means you should avoid COVID vaccine makers. Those with longer-term prospects for innovating above and beyond COVID are worth your attention. When it comes to their COVID solutions, celebrate these firms for their remarkable ingenuity—but don’t expect huge returns from hugely watched and heavily pre-priced events.
Ken Fisher, the founder, Executive Chairman and co-CIO of Fisher Investments, authored 11 books and is a widely published global investment columnist. For more, see Ken’s full bio, here
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets.]


wnd--2020-12-12--'Lonely' Gen Z not turning to religious leaders

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Religion . ]
Self-absorbed and materialistic ; naive and cowardly ; idealistic , oversensitive , and fragile ; apathetic and uninformed ; narcissistic ; the “ snowflake generation.
” These are just some of the stereotypes young people have reported hearing for Generation Z , or those roughly born between 1995 and 2010 .
TRENDING : 'The big one ' lands at the Supreme Court Yet , as misunderstood as they might be , there is plenty of investment being made into trying to understand them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are primed to become the dominant youth influencers of tomorrow , ” writes Alex Williams of the New York Times .
“ Flush with billions in spending power , they promise untold riches to marketers who can find the master key to their psyche.
” Scholars like Jonathan Haidt of New York University have built their careers analyzing what makes Gen Z unique .
In the New York Times best seller “ The Coddling of the American Mind , ” Haidt argues that Gen Z is being denied important opportunities to be challenged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleges and universities , which are essentially grooming them to be spineless and self-entitled .
One research group based out of Bloomington , Minnesota , believes the only way we can truly understand Gen Z is by listening to them .
Springtide Research Institute , led by Dr. Josh Packard , is surveying and interviewing young people by the tens of thousands on topics like relationships , religion , and politics , and their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic .
Their most recent study , “ The State of Religion and Young People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respondents and 150 interviewees between the ages of 13-25 , making it the largest study of the faith lives of Gen Z in the United States .
Never been so lonely At the onset of the report , Springtide confirms that Gen Z is experiencing record levels of loneliness – the “ loneliest generation , ” as others have called it .
Nearly 40 % told Springtide they feel , at least sometimes , they have no one to talk to and that no one really knows them well .
The study ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the loneliness and purposelessness young people experience can be mitigated greatly by relationships with trusted adult mentors .
Of those who said they have no adult mentors , 24 % feel their life never has meaning or purpose .
However , for those with even just one adult mentor , this number dropped to 6 % .
The same correlation held true for loneliness : 58 % of those with no adult mentors reported having no one to talk to at least sometimes , but this number dropped as respondents reported one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to four mentors ( 37 % ) and five or more mentors ( 24 % ) in their lives .
“ The correlation is undeniable , ” the report asserts .
The best kind of mentor relationships , Springtide discovered , are those that model “ relational authority , ” combining the sharing of wisdom and expertise with the practices of listening , integrity , transparency , and care .
Springtide then asked respondents to identify the adults they could turn to if needed .
Three-quarters ( 74 % ) said they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % said a close friend , 33 % said a sibling , and 31 % said another family member or grandparent respectively .
Notably , significantly fewer said they could turn to an institutional representative like a teacher ( 17 % ) or religious leader ( 8 % ) in their time of need .
This isn ’ t necessarily a surprise .
Numerous studies have found Gen Z to harbor exceptionally distrustful attitudes toward major institutions in the United States like the government , the media , and the education system .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ deeply at Gen Z ’ s distrustful relationship with religious institutions , which received special focus in Springtide ’ s study .
Gen Z has been called the “ least religious generation , ” though some studies have suggested that the rising tide of religious “ nones ” is leveling off with Gen Z – to the delight of religious leaders .
Others aren ’ t so sure ; Elizabeth Drescher , religion scholar and author of the book “ Choosing Our Religion : The Spiritual Lives of America 's Nones ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becoming “ more or less religious , ” but rather , “ differently religious.
” In other words , they are carving a new path that places a high premium on ethical , authentic spirituality while holding religious institutions with an open hand .
Springtide confirms that while young people are religiously unaffiliated in record numbers – with 40 % indicating they are agnostic , atheist , or nothing in particular – terms like “ affiliated ” and “ unaffiliated ” can not fully capture the complexity of religious belief and practice for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a whopping 63 % of those claiming affiliation with a religious tradition also reported little to no trust in the very religious institutions with which they identify ( rating trust at 5 or below on a scale of 1-10 : no trust to complete trust ) .
Furthermore , 60 % of the unaffiliated – including 42 % of atheists – said they are at least slightly spiritual .
Interviewees shed additional light on this finding .
“ I do not attend any church , but I still consider myself someone of faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 19 , told Springtide .
This sentiment was echoed by Monica , 23 : “ I guess if you have to put a label on it , I ’ m Christian , but with everything in today ’ s world … I don ’ t know .
I just think I ’ m spiritual , maybe ?
” Though many in Gen Z are not engaging religious institutions and leaders , they have found ways to maintain and even grow in their faith during the COVID-19 pandemic .
In the early months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half ( 47 % ) said they experienced no change in their faith , while a much higher percentage reported their faith becoming stronger ( 35 % ) than those reporting greater doubt in their faith ( 11 % ) or losing their faith altogether ( 7 % ) .
Perhaps spirituality served as a comfort as the loneliest generation became even lonelier , with 60 % reporting they felt very isolated as social distancing and shutdowns began .
During this complex and unprecedented season , it seems that what Gen Z needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genuine care from transparent , trustworthy adults who are willing to listen .
With the presence of each trusted adult – whether it be a parent , teacher , or religious leader – the feelings of purposelessness and loneliness that have defined Gen Z become less prevalent .
Kevin Singer ( @ kevinsinger0 ) is a PhD student at North Carolina State University studying higher education , a professor of religious studies at two community colleges , and Media Relations Specialist for Springtide Research Institute .
[ Editor 's note : This story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Religion.]
By Kevin Singer
Real Clear Religion
Self-absorbed and materialistic; naive and cowardly; idealistic, oversensitive, and fragile; apathetic and uninformed; narcissistic; the “snowflake generation.”
These are just some of the stereotypes young people have reported hearing for Generation Z, or those roughly born between 1995 and 2010.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Yet, as misunderstood as they might be, there is plenty of investment being made into trying to understand them.
“These tweens and teens of today are primed to become the dominant youth influencers of tomorrow,” writes Alex Williams of the New York Times. “Flush with billions in spending power, they promise untold riches to marketers who can find the master key to their psyche.”
Scholars like Jonathan Haidt of New York University have built their careers analyzing what makes Gen Z unique. In the New York Times best seller “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Haidt argues that Gen Z is being denied important opportunities to be challenged in their perspectives at America’s colleges and universities, which are essentially grooming them to be spineless and self-entitled.
One research group based out of Bloomington, Minnesota, believes the only way we can truly understand Gen Z is by listening to them. Springtide Research Institute, led by Dr. Josh Packard, is surveying and interviewing young people by the tens of thousands on topics like relationships, religion, and politics, and their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their most recent study, “The State of Religion and Young People 2020,” drew over 10,000 survey respondents and 150 interviewees between the ages of 13-25, making it the largest study of the faith lives of Gen Z in the United States.
Is Gen Z the 'loneliest generation'? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 75% (70 Votes) 25% (23 Votes)
Never been so lonely
At the onset of the report, Springtide confirms that Gen Z is experiencing record levels of loneliness – the “loneliest generation,” as others have called it. Nearly 40% told Springtide they feel, at least sometimes, they have no one to talk to and that no one really knows them well. The study’s major finding, however, is that the loneliness and purposelessness young people experience can be mitigated greatly by relationships with trusted adult mentors.
Of those who said they have no adult mentors, 24% feel their life never has meaning or purpose. However, for those with even just one adult mentor, this number dropped to 6%. The same correlation held true for loneliness: 58% of those with no adult mentors reported having no one to talk to at least sometimes, but this number dropped as respondents reported one mentor (48%), two to four mentors (37%) and five or more mentors (24%) in their lives. “The correlation is undeniable,” the report asserts. The best kind of mentor relationships, Springtide discovered, are those that model “relational authority,” combining the sharing of wisdom and expertise with the practices of listening, integrity, transparency, and care.
Springtide then asked respondents to identify the adults they could turn to if needed. Three-quarters (74%) said they could turn to their parents, while 45% said a close friend, 33% said a sibling, and 31% said another family member or grandparent respectively. Notably, significantly fewer said they could turn to an institutional representative like a teacher (17%) or religious leader (8%) in their time of need.
Differently religious
This isn’t necessarily a surprise. Numerous studies have found Gen Z to harbor exceptionally distrustful attitudes toward major institutions in the United States like the government, the media, and the education system. However, fewer studies have looked more deeply at Gen Z’s distrustful relationship with religious institutions, which received special focus in Springtide’s study.
Gen Z has been called the “least religious generation,” though some studies have suggested that the rising tide of religious “nones” is leveling off with Gen Z – to the delight of religious leaders. Others aren’t so sure; Elizabeth Drescher, religion scholar and author of the book “Choosing Our Religion: The Spiritual Lives of America's Nones”, concluded that young people aren’t becoming “more or less religious,” but rather, “differently religious.” In other words, they are carving a new path that places a high premium on ethical, authentic spirituality while holding religious institutions with an open hand.
Springtide confirms that while young people are religiously unaffiliated in record numbers – with 40% indicating they are agnostic, atheist, or nothing in particular – terms like “affiliated” and “unaffiliated” cannot fully capture the complexity of religious belief and practice for young people today. For example, a whopping 63% of those claiming affiliation with a religious tradition also reported little to no trust in the very religious institutions with which they identify (rating trust at 5 or below on a scale of 1-10: no trust to complete trust).
Furthermore, 60% of the unaffiliated – including 42% of atheists – said they are at least slightly spiritual. Interviewees shed additional light on this finding. “I do not attend any church, but I still consider myself someone of faith who has spiritual affiliation,” Chris, 19, told Springtide. This sentiment was echoed by Monica, 23: “I guess if you have to put a label on it, I’m Christian, but with everything in today’s world … I don’t know. I just think I’m spiritual, maybe?”
Keeping the faith
Though many in Gen Z are not engaging religious institutions and leaders, they have found ways to maintain and even grow in their faith during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the early months of social distancing and shutdowns, nearly half (47%) said they experienced no change in their faith, while a much higher percentage reported their faith becoming stronger (35%) than those reporting greater doubt in their faith (11%) or losing their faith altogether (7%).
Perhaps spirituality served as a comfort as the loneliest generation became even lonelier, with 60% reporting they felt very isolated as social distancing and shutdowns began.
During this complex and unprecedented season, it seems that what Gen Z needs is not another disempowering stereotype, but genuine care from transparent, trustworthy adults who are willing to listen. With the presence of each trusted adult – whether it be a parent, teacher, or religious leader – the feelings of purposelessness and loneliness that have defined Gen Z become less prevalent.
Kevin Singer (@kevinsinger0) is a PhD student at North Carolina State University studying higher education, a professor of religious studies at two community colleges, and Media Relations Specialist for Springtide Research Institute.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Religion.]


wnd--2020-12-12--Case reveals IRS attempt to insulate itself from taxpayer challenges

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets . ]
Supreme Court cases over tax enforcement of micro-captive transactions usually don ’ t make the front pages or inspire activists to picket the Court ’ s steps .
But one particular case involving the Internal Revenue Service ’ s ( IRS ) ability to enforce regulations in a “ tails I win , heads you lose ” manner , CIC Services v. IRS , may well prove to have important consequences for making the IRS more accountable to taxpayers .
IRS Notice 2016-66 requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to follow extensive reporting procedures .
Failure to comply with this regulation entails extensive penalties , including imprisonment of up to one year and fines of $ 25,000 for individuals and $ 100,000 for corporations .
Though reporting requirements are not a tax or a fine , they have tangible costs to businesses forced to comply with them .
After all , the National Taxpayers Union Foundation has estimated the net burden of tax compliance at over $ 367 billion for last year alone .
TRENDING : 'The big one ' lands at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compliance , one would hope that there would be a careful process to ensure that reporting requirements are not unnecessarily burdensome .
With most federal regulations , notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA ) ensure that the public has a chance to weigh in on important rules , but with this notice ( and nearly 40 percent of others it produces ) the IRS simply decided that this requirement did not apply .
One company required to report under Notice 2016-66 , CIC Services , is challenging the notice on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow the APA .
In response , the IRS has cited the Anti-Injunction Act , a law which normally requires taxpayers to wait until they have paid a tax or received a tax notice until they can challenge the legality of the tax assessment .
This puts taxpayers in a position where they must , to quote a lower court judge on the issue , “ report to prison first and challenge later , ” since knowing failure to report material information to the IRS is a criminal violation .
In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fines in the tens of thousands of dollars and face jail time simply to challenge the legality of a dubious notice .
The consequences of this case , therefore , can stretch well beyond a dispute over enforcement of a wonky tax provision .
Rather , the case is about the IRS ’ s ability to insulate itself from taxpayer challenge and judicial oversight .
After all , it would not be the first time that relatively insignificant legal workarounds ballooned into far more significant infringements on taxpayers ’ rights .
Tools available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summons power ( the power to compel testimony from a witness deemed relevant to IRS operations ) or joint liability for couples in tax disputes ( where a taxpayer can be held liable for their spouse ’ s mistakes ) have been used far more liberally than initially imagined without sufficient checks on the limits of these powers .
By ruling against the IRS in this case , the Supreme Court can send the agency a message that it remains accountable to the judicial system and the taxpayers it is meant to serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prerogative to ignore procedural requirements it finds inconvenient .
Indeed , in oral arguments on the first of December , justices sounded skeptical of the IRS 's sweeping assertion that the AIA insulates their notices from meaningful judicial review .
Nevertheless , failure to do so risks an increasingly renegade IRS which tramples upon taxpayer rights .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets.]
By Andrew Wilford
Real Clear Markets
Supreme Court cases over tax enforcement of micro-captive transactions usually don’t make the front pages or inspire activists to picket the Court’s steps. But one particular case involving the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) ability to enforce regulations in a “tails I win, heads you lose” manner, CIC Services v. IRS, may well prove to have important consequences for making the IRS more accountable to taxpayers.
IRS Notice 2016-66 requires third parties advising on certain micro-captive transactions to follow extensive reporting procedures. Failure to comply with this regulation entails extensive penalties, including imprisonment of up to one year and fines of $25,000 for individuals and $100,000 for corporations.
Though reporting requirements are not a tax or a fine, they have tangible costs to businesses forced to comply with them. After all, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation has estimated the net burden of tax compliance at over $367 billion for last year alone.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Given this cost of compliance, one would hope that there would be a careful process to ensure that reporting requirements are not unnecessarily burdensome. With most federal regulations, notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) ensure that the public has a chance to weigh in on important rules, but with this notice (and nearly 40 percent of others it produces) the IRS simply decided that this requirement did not apply.
One company required to report under Notice 2016-66, CIC Services, is challenging the notice on the basis that the IRS failed to follow the APA. In response, the IRS has cited the Anti-Injunction Act, a law which normally requires taxpayers to wait until they have paid a tax or received a tax notice until they can challenge the legality of the tax assessment.
This puts taxpayers in a position where they must, to quote a lower court judge on the issue, “report to prison first and challenge later,” since knowing failure to report material information to the IRS is a criminal violation. In other words, if potential litigants have to pay fines in the tens of thousands of dollars and face jail time simply to challenge the legality of a dubious notice.
The consequences of this case, therefore, can stretch well beyond a dispute over enforcement of a wonky tax provision. Rather, the case is about the IRS’s ability to insulate itself from taxpayer challenge and judicial oversight.
Should the IRS be insulated from taxpayer challenges? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 0% (0 Votes) 100% (66 Votes)
After all, it would not be the first time that relatively insignificant legal workarounds ballooned into far more significant infringements on taxpayers’ rights. Tools available to the IRS such as the designated summons power (the power to compel testimony from a witness deemed relevant to IRS operations) or joint liability for couples in tax disputes (where a taxpayer can be held liable for their spouse’s mistakes) have been used far more liberally than initially imagined without sufficient checks on the limits of these powers.
By ruling against the IRS in this case, the Supreme Court can send the agency a message that it remains accountable to the judicial system and the taxpayers it is meant to serve, and that it does not have the prerogative to ignore procedural requirements it finds inconvenient. Indeed, in oral arguments on the first of December, justices sounded skeptical of the IRS's sweeping assertion that the AIA insulates their notices from meaningful judicial review. Nevertheless, failure to do so risks an increasingly renegade IRS which tramples upon taxpayer rights.