wnd--2020-12-03--Secular Democrats urge Biden to pounce on U.S. Christianity

A Democratic political action committee representing `` secular values '' issued a sweeping agenda for Joe Biden to reverse many of President Trump 's advances for religious liberty and `` restore a vision of constitutional secularism . ''
The Secular Democrats of America PAC and Reps. Jamie Raskin , D-Md.
, and Jared Huffman , D-Calif. – members of the Congressional Freethought Caucus – were behind the 28-page document , which was issued Monday .
It would ban religious organizations from participating in government programs , support governors who want to close down churches amid the COVID pandemic , require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedents such as the Hobby Lobby case , prevent mention of creationism in education and work for a `` deradicalization '' of `` white Christian nationalism . ''
TRENDING : Democrat New York mayor and ex-police chief arrested with cocaine after pursuit The document declares the `` rise of white Christian nationalism is a national security threat . ''
It recommends to Biden that he `` encourage the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to dedicate resources to deradicalization programs aimed at hate groups , including , but not limited to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such groups , including the online environment , and take action to address increased hate crimes toward minority faith communities ; and shift rhetoric to label violent white nationalist extremists as terrorists . ''
The PAC wants to rid the nation entirely of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act , which was adopted in 1992 to protect religious expression and has been integral in several religious-liberty victories in court .
The document insists government funding should be `` nonsectarian , '' calling for restoring `` secularism '' to the nation and `` protecting '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive orders for elimination , including those that promote free speech , provide for `` equal participation '' by faith organizations , encourage the strengthening of black colleges , allow employers to be exempt from Obamacare 's abortion funding mandates based on their faith , protect health care providers from being forced to violate their faith , and protect the faith of federal program participants .
The plan calls America 's motto , `` In God We Trust , '' a `` relic of McCarthyism and the anti-atheist hysteria of the 1950s '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' should be condemned .
And it insists politicians should not be allowed to say `` God and country . ''
It calls for `` nontheists '' as chaplains in the military and the appointment of a `` nonreligious representative '' to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom .
Further , judges should be appointed to overturn precedents such as the Hobby Lobby case , because they are `` new and ungrounded privileging of corporate religious power over essential civil rights and civil liberties . ''
The document says attorney general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ houses of worship , and any display of religious symbols on public grounds should be forbidden .
The plan repeatedly references a return to the policies and practices of Barack Obama .
`` We urge you to champion America ’ s original constitutional secularism and the separation of church and state as core governing principles that protect religious freedom for people of all faiths—and none at all , '' the authors tell Biden .
`` We implore you to help educate the American public by reasonably defining what religious freedom really means : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practice his or her religion without interference , but no religious group can impose religious dogma or orthodoxy on other citizens and other faiths and belief systems . ''
The document insists on `` science '' prevailing in issues regarding sex education , stem cell research and health care .
RNS said the organization `` hopes to represent secular Democrats and mobilize nonreligious voters , a complex but growing group . ''
According to a FiveThirtyEight analysis of data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study , 9 % of Democratic primary voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they were agnostics and 18 % identified as `` nothing in particular . ''
However , about half of those in the last group said they still attend worship occasionally .
The Daily Wire reported Raskin charged : `` Trump 's ministers and judges have turned religious free exercise into a weapon against anti-discrimination law , and this essential fallacy must be corrected .
The Biden administration should quickly debunk the right-wing myth that personal free exercise of religion is a license to discriminate against other people in the provision of services @ @ @ @ @ @ @

A Democratic political action committee representing "secular values" issued a sweeping agenda for Joe Biden to reverse many of President Trump's advances for religious liberty and "restore a vision of constitutional secularism."
The Secular Democrats of America PAC and Reps. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Jared Huffman, D-Calif. – members of the Congressional Freethought Caucus – were behind the 28-page document, which was issued Monday.
It would ban religious organizations from participating in government programs, support governors who want to close down churches amid the COVID pandemic, require new disclosures from churches, overturn religious-rights precedents such as the Hobby Lobby case, prevent mention of creationism in education and work for a "deradicalization" of "white Christian nationalism."
The document declares the "rise of white Christian nationalism is a national security threat."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
It recommends to Biden that he "encourage the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to dedicate resources to deradicalization programs aimed at hate groups, including, but not limited to, white nationalists; increase monitoring of such groups, including the online environment, and take action to address increased hate crimes toward minority faith communities; and shift rhetoric to label violent white nationalist extremists as terrorists."
The PAC wants to rid the nation entirely of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was adopted in 1992 to protect religious expression and has been integral in several religious-liberty victories in court.
The document insists government funding should be "nonsectarian," calling for restoring "secularism" to the nation and "protecting" nontheists.
It targets dozens of presidential executive orders for elimination, including those that promote free speech, provide for "equal participation" by faith organizations, encourage the strengthening of black colleges, allow employers to be exempt from Obamacare's abortion funding mandates based on their faith, protect health care providers from being forced to violate their faith, and protect the faith of federal program participants.
Are Christians in America in danger if Joe Biden becomes president? 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. 98% (1031 Votes) 2% (22 Votes)
The plan calls America's motto, "In God We Trust," a "relic of McCarthyism and the anti-atheist hysteria of the 1950s" and says references to "Judeo-Christian values" should be condemned.
And it insists politicians should not be allowed to say "God and country."
It calls for "nontheists" as chaplains in the military and the appointment of a "nonreligious representative" to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.
Further, judges should be appointed to overturn precedents such as the Hobby Lobby case, because they are "new and ungrounded privileging of corporate religious power over essential civil rights and civil liberties."
The document says attorney general should support governors who restrict gatherings at houses of worship, and any display of religious symbols on public grounds should be forbidden.
The plan repeatedly references a return to the policies and practices of Barack Obama.
"We urge you to champion America’s original constitutional secularism and the separation of church and state as core governing principles that protect religious freedom for people of all faiths—and none at all," the authors tell Biden.
"We implore you to help educate the American public by reasonably defining what religious freedom really means: that every American has a right to practice his or her religion without interference, but no religious group can impose religious dogma or orthodoxy on other citizens and other faiths and belief systems."
The document insists on "science" prevailing in issues regarding sex education, stem cell research and health care.
RNS said the organization "hopes to represent secular Democrats and mobilize nonreligious voters, a complex but growing group."
According to a FiveThirtyEight analysis of data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 9% of Democratic primary voters said they were atheists, 8% said they were agnostics and 18% identified as "nothing in particular." However, about half of those in the last group said they still attend worship occasionally.
The Daily Wire reported Raskin charged: "Trump's ministers and judges have turned religious free exercise into a weapon against anti-discrimination law, and this essential fallacy must be corrected. The Biden administration should quickly debunk the right-wing myth that personal free exercise of religion is a license to discriminate against other people in the provision of services in government and the marketplace."


wnd--2020-12-03--Amazon driver runs into burning home to save life of elderly man trapped inside

On Friday afternoon , Tim West of New Smyrna Beach , Florida , almost lost his parents , his house and his dog while he was out .
But his neighbors and even a random deliveryman in the area were n't about the let that happen .
Amazon deliverer Sean Campbell was doing his rounds on Black Friday in the Century Woods Subdivision when he heard screaming in the distance .
`` I heard the screaming and when you hear something like that you have to go to it , '' Campbell told WESH-TV .
Without a second thought , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and raced to the source of the screams .
When he got there , he saw a house on fire .
An elderly woman had been escorted from the home , but when Campbell got there an elderly man was still trapped inside , apparently unaware of the blaze steadily consuming the home .
TRENDING : Democrat New York mayor and ex-police chief arrested with cocaine after pursuit Campbell entered the house and saw the elderly gentleman in the kitchen .
`` He was in the kitchen , just , you know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Campbell explained .
`` I do n't think he truly knew what was going on , so I was like , 'Sir , c'mon .
I need to help you .
C'mon , let ’ s get out . '
'' `` He was trying to grab his walker and cane and I 'm like , 'No , we got to move ... you 've got to see another day ! '
'' When firefighters arrived , they were able to rescue the family dog , as well .
The house was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the family will be staying with a relative who lives nearby while the home is repaired .
Campbell was glad to be of assistance , and West is aware that Campbell and the others who risked harm to save his family are heroes .
`` Thankful that I got the people inside out , '' Campbell said .
`` It was fantastic that he was both here and able to go inside and brave enough to go inside , '' West said .
`` We really appreciate that . ''
Amazon has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company spokeswoman Deborah Bass said Amazon just as proud of its driver .
`` We love hearing stories about drivers being everyday heroes for our customers and the communities they serve , '' she told People .
`` Everyone at Amazon was touched by Sean going above and beyond to help someone in need , and we ’ re excited to celebrate and thank him for his great efforts . ''
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

On Friday afternoon, Tim West of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, almost lost his parents, his house and his dog while he was out.
But his neighbors and even a random deliveryman in the area weren't about the let that happen. Amazon deliverer Sean Campbell was doing his rounds on Black Friday in the Century Woods Subdivision when he heard screaming in the distance.
"I heard the screaming and when you hear something like that you have to go to it," Campbell told WESH-TV.
Without a second thought, he dropped the packages he was carrying and raced to the source of the screams. When he got there, he saw a house on fire.
An elderly woman had been escorted from the home, but when Campbell got there an elderly man was still trapped inside, apparently unaware of the blaze steadily consuming the home.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Campbell entered the house and saw the elderly gentleman in the kitchen.
"He was in the kitchen, just, you know, with his walker just standing there," Campbell explained. "I don't think he truly knew what was going on, so I was like, 'Sir, c'mon. I need to help you. C'mon, let’s get out.'"
"He was trying to grab his walker and cane and I'm like, 'No, we got to move ... you've got to see another day!'"
When firefighters arrived, they were able to rescue the family dog, as well. The house was badly damaged, but not destroyed, and the family will be staying with a relative who lives nearby while the home is repaired.
Campbell was glad to be of assistance, and West is aware that Campbell and the others who risked harm to save his family are heroes.
"Thankful that I got the people inside out," Campbell said.
"It was fantastic that he was both here and able to go inside and brave enough to go inside," West said. "We really appreciate that."
Amazon has also given Campbell a nod, and company spokeswoman Deborah Bass said Amazon just as proud of its driver.
"We love hearing stories about drivers being everyday heroes for our customers and the communities they serve," she told People.
"Everyone at Amazon was touched by Sean going above and beyond to help someone in need, and we’re excited to celebrate and thank him for his great efforts."
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-12-03--Democrat calls for unity are disgusting

Democrat calls for unity are disgusting

As the reader may be aware , earlier this week Attorney General William Barr told the Associated Press that the Justice Department has not seen evidence of widespread vote fraud that would affect the outcome of the 2020 election .
According to Barr , most of the claims of fraud investigated have been `` very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct '' but `` are not systemic allegations . ''
Leaving aside the potential for nefarious activity in between the lines of those utterances and the discouraging nature thereof , I 'd like to point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to detract the credibility of his statements .
First off , if Barr is citing the actions of U.S. attorneys and FBI agents , and we have to take into account the deportment of these parties over the last several years .
How could Barr or anyone else presume that the same U.S. attorneys and FBI agents who have been conspiring with D.C. elites to oust President Trump over the last four years be trusted to investigate instances of vote fraud that might turn the tide in the president 's favor ?
Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election tampering being the sole qualification for vote fraud turning the election in Joe Biden 's favor preposterous in the extreme .
Barr said that instances of fraud were `` very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct '' rather than evidencing systemic orchestration .
Concluding that their impact could not have significantly influenced the election 's outcome sounds eerily similar to the assertions we once heard that `` there is no Mafia '' because law enforcement had not yet discovered the organizational structure of the five Mafia families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
TRENDING : Democrat New York mayor and ex-police chief arrested with cocaine after pursuit The Deep State cabal made it plain long before November that it was prepared to do anything in its power to oust Trump , legal or otherwise .
As I 've detailed more than once in this space , the previous administration and its surrogates spent a great deal of time and energy reinforcing their shadow government infrastructure .
This was evidenced in the mobilization of the foot soldiers we saw engaging in violent demonstrations this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're aware of some prominent players in this tragic comedy , many have necessarily operated in the shadows .
The idea that they would leave a clear trail — paper or otherwise — evidencing their guilt in the area of vote fraud is just silly .
As we know , an unfortunate number of agencies ( including most news sources and many elected Republicans ) have adopted the narrative that the election was legitimate and that we 'll just have to get along with the incoming administration the best we can .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be willing to accept the results of the election in the vain hope of a return to some semblance of normality .
But the election 's outcome , such as it is , can not be accepted under any circumstances .
Commentator Mark Steyn articulated this extremely well earlier this week while guest hosting on Rush Limbaugh 's radio show .
He offered two assertions that ought to resonate with every reader : One , he said that shrugging our collective shoulders and `` accepting the lie '' ( of Biden 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corrupt , totalitarian regimes , not a constitutional republic .
Two , Republicans have been conceding hills on the field of battle to Democrats for decades , hoping for conciliation and bipartisanism .
Finally , he asked — and I 'm paraphrasing — what hill are we willing to die on , then , if not one involving a stolen election ?
Indeed , in accepting a Biden win in this election , we will have entered a realm that we have never before occupied as a nation , institutionalized corruption .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why pay one 's taxes ?
Why obey the law if we are no longer a nation of laws ?
The danger relative to our entering these waters can not be overstated .
The recent entreaties of Joe Biden , his surrogates and prominent Democrats toward unity in the wake of this contentious election have engendered both laughter and disgust on the part of Trump supporters .
And this should not be at all surprising .
The principled individual does not reconcile with evil , and neither should we as a nation .

As the reader may be aware, earlier this week Attorney General William Barr told the Associated Press that the Justice Department has not seen evidence of widespread vote fraud that would affect the outcome of the 2020 election.
According to Barr, most of the claims of fraud investigated have been "very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct" but "are not systemic allegations." Leaving aside the potential for nefarious activity in between the lines of those utterances and the discouraging nature thereof, I'd like to point out a couple of things that tend to detract the credibility of his statements.
First off, if Barr is citing the actions of U.S. attorneys and FBI agents, and we have to take into account the deportment of these parties over the last several years. How could Barr or anyone else presume that the same U.S. attorneys and FBI agents who have been conspiring with D.C. elites to oust President Trump over the last four years be trusted to investigate instances of vote fraud that might turn the tide in the president's favor?
Second, I find that "systemic" election tampering being the sole qualification for vote fraud turning the election in Joe Biden's favor preposterous in the extreme. Barr said that instances of fraud were "very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct" rather than evidencing systemic orchestration.
Concluding that their impact could not have significantly influenced the election's outcome sounds eerily similar to the assertions we once heard that "there is no Mafia" because law enforcement had not yet discovered the organizational structure of the five Mafia families that were running billion-dollar rackets across the country.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The Deep State cabal made it plain long before November that it was prepared to do anything in its power to oust Trump, legal or otherwise. As I've detailed more than once in this space, the previous administration and its surrogates spent a great deal of time and energy reinforcing their shadow government infrastructure. This was evidenced in the mobilization of the foot soldiers we saw engaging in violent demonstrations this year, among other things.
Though we're aware of some prominent players in this tragic comedy, many have necessarily operated in the shadows. The idea that they would leave a clear trail — paper or otherwise — evidencing their guilt in the area of vote fraud is just silly.
As we know, an unfortunate number of agencies (including most news sources and many elected Republicans) have adopted the narrative that the election was legitimate and that we'll just have to get along with the incoming administration the best we can. An increasing number of uninformed voters also appear to be willing to accept the results of the election in the vain hope of a return to some semblance of normality. But the election's outcome, such as it is, cannot be accepted under any circumstances.
Commentator Mark Steyn articulated this extremely well earlier this week while guest hosting on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. He offered two assertions that ought to resonate with every reader: One, he said that shrugging our collective shoulders and "accepting the lie" (of Biden's victory) is in the character of corrupt, totalitarian regimes, not a constitutional republic. Two, Republicans have been conceding hills on the field of battle to Democrats for decades, hoping for conciliation and bipartisanism. Finally, he asked — and I'm paraphrasing — what hill are we willing to die on, then, if not one involving a stolen election?
Indeed, in accepting a Biden win in this election, we will have entered a realm that we have never before occupied as a nation, institutionalized corruption. Why vote if our elections are rigged? Why pay one's taxes? Why obey the law if we are no longer a nation of laws?
The danger relative to our entering these waters cannot be overstated. The recent entreaties of Joe Biden, his surrogates and prominent Democrats toward unity in the wake of this contentious election have engendered both laughter and disgust on the part of Trump supporters.
And this should not be at all surprising.
The principled individual does not reconcile with evil, and neither should we as a nation.


wnd--2020-12-03--Congressman asks Supreme justice to stop Pennsylvania certification

A congressman is among the plaintiffs who have filed an emergency request with Justice Samuel Alito of the U.S. Supreme Court to suspend further action to certify the Pennsylvania presidential election results .
The request from U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly and other individuals was filed after the state 's courts rejected all attempts to resolve the case .
At issue is a question of whether a state procedure adopted just for the 2020 election to allow expanded mail-in ballots violated a state constitutional requirement that votes be submitted in person , expect for a very few limited absentee ballots .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that America soon will know whether the Supreme Court will intervene in the numerous complaints of election fraud .
TRENDING : Democrat New York mayor and ex-police chief arrested with cocaine after pursuit While establishment media have called the race for Joe President Trump has not conceded , and his campaign attorneys and others have filed complaints in Wisconsin , Michigan , Pennsylvania , Georgia , Arizona and Nevada .
The emergency request to the U.S. Supreme Court order halting Pennsylvania officials from taking steps to finalize election results .
`` Justice Alito @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court with regard to the election process in Pennsylvania , and the actions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court both before and after the election .
Justice Alito spent much of his legal career in New Jersey and was a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals from 1990 to 2005 , RedState explained .
`` The Third Circuit handles all cases coming from Pennsylvania .
Justice Alito is no stranger to the judicial system of Pennsylvania , nor the partisan nature of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court given the way judges are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high court previously declined to enter the fray when the GOP in Pennsylvania challenged the state Supreme Court 's advocacy for expanded voting opportunities .
At the time Alito warned : `` The court ’ s handling of the important constitutional issue raised by this matter has needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious post-election problems .
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office . ''
He added : `` The court expressly acknowledged that the statutory provision mandating receipt by election day was unambiguous and that its abrogation of that rule was not based on an interpretation of the statute .
… It further conceded that the statutory deadline was constitutional on its face , but it claimed broad power to do what it thought was needed to respond to a 'natural disaster , ' and it justified its decree as necessary to protect voters ’ rights under the Free and Equal Elections Clause of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : `` Maybe it 's just me , but those don ’ t sound like words from a justice who is of the view that the Penn .
Supreme Court has done nothing wrong . ''
Alito at that time also ordered all ballots received after the statutory deadline be segregated .
The submission to the high court has a `` procedural history '' but a focal point is the `` unfairness '' issue .
That 's because the state Supreme Court rejected the complaint `` without ever seeking or considering a response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidentiary record to support the factual claims made in its opinion . ''
The plaintiffs raise the issue that the state acted contrary to its own constitution on an issue `` where the state ’ s authority is directly received from the United States Constitution , the adoption of 'no excuse ' mail-in voting violated that authority . ''
That was a change this year from the previous standard , used for more than 150 years , that absentee ballots are allowed only under specific circumstances .

A congressman is among the plaintiffs who have filed an emergency request with Justice Samuel Alito of the U.S. Supreme Court to suspend further action to certify the Pennsylvania presidential election results.
The request from U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly and other individuals was filed after the state's courts rejected all attempts to resolve the case.
At issue is a question of whether a state procedure adopted just for the 2020 election to allow expanded mail-in ballots violated a state constitutional requirement that votes be submitted in person, expect for a very few limited absentee ballots.
The case, reports RedState, means that America soon will know whether the Supreme Court will intervene in the numerous complaints of election fraud.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
While establishment media have called the race for Joe President Trump has not conceded, and his campaign attorneys and others have filed complaints in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.
The emergency request to the U.S. Supreme Court order halting Pennsylvania officials from taking steps to finalize election results.
"Justice Alito has been the most outspoken member of the court with regard to the election process in Pennsylvania, and the actions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court both before and after the election. Justice Alito spent much of his legal career in New Jersey and was a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals from 1990 to 2005, RedState explained. "The Third Circuit handles all cases coming from Pennsylvania. Justice Alito is no stranger to the judicial system of Pennsylvania, nor the partisan nature of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court given the way judges are elected to that court."
The high court previously declined to enter the fray when the GOP in Pennsylvania challenged the state Supreme Court's advocacy for expanded voting opportunities.
At the time Alito warned: "The court’s handling of the important constitutional issue raised by this matter has needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious post-election problems. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office."
He added: "The court expressly acknowledged that the statutory provision mandating receipt by election day was unambiguous and that its abrogation of that rule was not based on an interpretation of the statute. … It further conceded that the statutory deadline was constitutional on its face, but it claimed broad power to do what it thought was needed to respond to a 'natural disaster,' and it justified its decree as necessary to protect voters’ rights under the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the State Constitution."
RedState commented: "Maybe it's just me, but those don’t sound like words from a justice who is of the view that the Penn. Supreme Court has done nothing wrong."
Alito at that time also ordered all ballots received after the statutory deadline be segregated.
The submission to the high court has a "procedural history" but a focal point is the "unfairness" issue.
That's because the state Supreme Court rejected the complaint "without ever seeking or considering a response from the plaintiffs, and without any evidentiary record to support the factual claims made in its opinion."
The plaintiffs raise the issue that the state acted contrary to its own constitution on an issue "where the state’s authority is directly received from the United States Constitution, the adoption of 'no excuse' mail-in voting violated that authority."
That was a change this year from the previous standard, used for more than 150 years, that absentee ballots are allowed only under specific circumstances.


wnd--2020-12-03--Trump won his other campaign – to destroy media credibility

Convinced that President Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection , the media suddenly became less hysterical .
Just like that , the media , at least to some degree , rediscovered concepts such as fairness and perspective after being AWOL the last four years .
Two weeks after the election , New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Nicholas Kristof haltingly , grudgingly and reluctantly , admitted that yes , Trump was right .
Banning in-person school education to fight COVID-19 was and is bad policy .
Kristof wrote : `` Some things are true even though President Trump says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months that schools reopen , and on that he seems to have been largely right .
Schools , especially elementary schools , do not appear to have been major sources of coronavirus transmission , and remote learning is proving to be a catastrophe for many low-income children . ''
Kristof , of course , could not acknowledge Trump 's correct judgment without the `` some things are true even though Trump says them '' snark .
But remember , this is The New York Times , a paper that has not endorsed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps .
Kristof even took a Trump-like swipe at Democratic-run cities .
TRENDING : Democrat New York mayor and ex-police chief arrested with cocaine after pursuit And , whether inadvertently or not , he made the case for K-12 vouchers for inner city kids : `` So Democrats helped preside over school closures that have devastated millions of families and damaged children 's futures .
Cities such as Boston , Philadelphia , Baltimore and Washington , D.C. , have closed schools while allowing restaurants to operate .
... School closures magnify these inequities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and affluent parents are better able to help kids adjust to remote learning .
At the same time , low-income children fall even further behind . ''
The New York Times again , after the media awarded the election to former Vice President Joe Biden , even questioned the science behind a ban on outdoor dining , which most counties in California recently enacted .
In `` Small Gatherings Spread the Virus , but Are They Causing the Surge ? ''
the Times wrote : `` But are dinners and backyard barbecues really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infections ?
The available data do not support that contention , scientists say .
Still , the idea has been repeated so often it has become conventional wisdom , leading to significant restrictions in many states .
... '' But many epidemiologists are far less certain , saying there is little evidence to suggest that household gatherings were the source of the majority of infections since the summer .
Indeed , it has become much harder to pinpoint any source of any outbreak , now that the virus is so widespread and Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
... '' A constant drumbeat about the dangers of social gatherings may help to convey the seriousness of the current surge , ( Harvard University infectious disease epidemiologist Julia Marcus ) said .
On the other hand , in some states the misperception has led to draconian policies that do n't square with science . ''
Goodness !
If Pulitzer gave a prize for `` Fair and Balanced Coronavirus Stories in the Post-Trump Era , '' The New York Times might actually deserve this one .
Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump-hating left when he accused Trump of `` homicidal negligence '' in his handling of the coronavirus .
But Dr. Anthony Fauci , post-election , also sounds Trumpian .
On the possibility of further lockdowns , Fauci recently said : `` There is no appetite for locking down in the American public , but I believe that we can do it without a lockdown .
I really do .
... You could still get businesses going .
You could still have economic forward thinking while you 're doing that .
You do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hopefully we wo n't have to do that . ''
No `` appetite '' for another lockdown ?
What happened to `` follow the science '' ?
This is yet another tacit admission that , as Trump insisted , we must consider the unintended consequences of shutting down the economy , including increased rates of suicide , depression , homicide , drug abuse , alcoholism and domestic violence .
Finally , did serial Trump CNN critic , Jake Tapper praise , literally praise and credit Trump for the speed with which drug manufacturers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yes , he did .
Tapper said : `` We should take a moment , as we always have when discussing vaccine and Operation Warp Speed , that this is – you know , putting aside all of the failures of the Trump administration when it comes to the coronavirus , and there are lots – this is an unmitigated success and we should acknowledge that . ''
For four years , major media , along with their Democratic comrades , banded together to bring down Trump .
They appear to have succeeded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to expose the media 's blatant , often vicious anti-Republican bias so that much of America will never again trust it , Trump won .
Huge .

Convinced that President Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection, the media suddenly became less hysterical. Just like that, the media, at least to some degree, rediscovered concepts such as fairness and perspective after being AWOL the last four years.
Two weeks after the election, New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Nicholas Kristof haltingly, grudgingly and reluctantly, admitted that yes, Trump was right. Banning in-person school education to fight COVID-19 was and is bad policy.
Kristof wrote: "Some things are true even though President Trump says them. Trump has been demanding for months that schools reopen, and on that he seems to have been largely right. Schools, especially elementary schools, do not appear to have been major sources of coronavirus transmission, and remote learning is proving to be a catastrophe for many low-income children."
Kristof, of course, could not acknowledge Trump's correct judgment without the "some things are true even though Trump says them" snark. But remember, this is The New York Times, a paper that has not endorsed a Republican for president since 1956. Little steps.
Kristof even took a Trump-like swipe at Democratic-run cities.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
And, whether inadvertently or not, he made the case for K-12 vouchers for inner city kids: "So Democrats helped preside over school closures that have devastated millions of families and damaged children's futures. Cities such as Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., have closed schools while allowing restaurants to operate. ... School closures magnify these inequities, as many private schools remain open and affluent parents are better able to help kids adjust to remote learning. At the same time, low-income children fall even further behind."
The New York Times again, after the media awarded the election to former Vice President Joe Biden, even questioned the science behind a ban on outdoor dining, which most counties in California recently enacted.
In "Small Gatherings Spread the Virus, but Are They Causing the Surge?" the Times wrote: "But are dinners and backyard barbecues really the engine driving the current surge of infections? The available data do not support that contention, scientists say. Still, the idea has been repeated so often it has become conventional wisdom, leading to significant restrictions in many states. ...
"But many epidemiologists are far less certain, saying there is little evidence to suggest that household gatherings were the source of the majority of infections since the summer. Indeed, it has become much harder to pinpoint any source of any outbreak, now that the virus is so widespread and Americans may be exposed in so many ways. ...
"A constant drumbeat about the dangers of social gatherings may help to convey the seriousness of the current surge, (Harvard University infectious disease epidemiologist Julia Marcus) said. On the other hand, in some states the misperception has led to draconian policies that don't square with science."
Goodness! If Pulitzer gave a prize for "Fair and Balanced Coronavirus Stories in the Post-Trump Era," The New York Times might actually deserve this one.
Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein shared the mood of much of the Trump-hating left when he accused Trump of "homicidal negligence" in his handling of the coronavirus. But Dr. Anthony Fauci, post-election, also sounds Trumpian.
On the possibility of further lockdowns, Fauci recently said: "There is no appetite for locking down in the American public, but I believe that we can do it without a lockdown. I really do. ... You could still get businesses going. You could still have economic forward thinking while you're doing that. You don't necessarily have to shut everything down. Hopefully we won't have to do that."
No "appetite" for another lockdown? What happened to "follow the science"? This is yet another tacit admission that, as Trump insisted, we must consider the unintended consequences of shutting down the economy, including increased rates of suicide, depression, homicide, drug abuse, alcoholism and domestic violence.
Finally, did serial Trump CNN critic, Jake Tapper praise, literally praise and credit Trump for the speed with which drug manufacturers have apparently developed vaccines for COVID-19?
Yes, he did. Tapper said: "We should take a moment, as we always have when discussing vaccine and Operation Warp Speed, that this is – you know, putting aside all of the failures of the Trump administration when it comes to the coronavirus, and there are lots – this is an unmitigated success and we should acknowledge that."
For four years, major media, along with their Democratic comrades, banded together to bring down Trump. They appear to have succeeded. But as to Trump's campaign to expose the media's blatant, often vicious anti-Republican bias so that much of America will never again trust it, Trump won. Huge.


wnd--2020-12-03--Trump: 'Biden can't be president' if we're right about fraud

( FOX NEWS ) -- President Trump is once again charging that last month ’ s presidential election was rigged @ @ @ @ @ In an address posted on his Twitter and Facebook pages that the president described as @ @ @ @ @ speech , I ’ ve ever made , ” Trump charged that “ lots of @ @ @ @ @ the election .
And he argued that `` if we are right about the fraud @ @ @ @ @ be president .
We 're talking about hundreds of thousands of votes .
We 're @ @ @ @ @ has ever seen before . ''

(FOX NEWS) -- President Trump is once again charging that last month’s presidential election was rigged and rampant with fraud.
In an address posted on his Twitter and Facebook pages that the president described as possibly “the most important speech, I’ve ever made,” Trump charged that “lots of bad things happened” during the election.
And he argued that "if we are right about the fraud, Joe Biden can't be president. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of votes. We're talking about numbers like nobody has ever seen before."
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-12-03--Company that kick-started Silicon Valley moving to Texas

( FOX NEWS ) -- Hewlett Packard Enterprise ( HPE ) , the California firm that literally kickstarted Silicon Valley @ @ @ @ @ , is moving to Texas .
The low-key announcement was made via an SEC filing @ @ @ @ @ California ’ s anti-jobs policies , its high taxes , capricious regulatory enforcement , and @ @ @ @ @ out the company that launched Silicon Valley , is any business , large or small @ @ @ @ @ move ?
Unless a company must directly serve the California market , such as a @ @ @ @ @ is a resounding “ No !
” And there ’ s no sign that things @ @ @ @ @ : after the 2020 election , Democrats retained their supermajorities in both legislative chambers while @ @ @ @ @ In effect , California is a one-party , anti-free enterprise state .

(FOX NEWS) -- Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), the California firm that literally kickstarted Silicon Valley in a garage in 1939, is moving to Texas. The low-key announcement was made via an SEC filing on Dec. 1.
If California’s anti-jobs policies, its high taxes, capricious regulatory enforcement, and blackout-inducing energy policy can chase out the company that launched Silicon Valley, is any business, large or small, immune from pressure to move? Unless a company must directly serve the California market, such as a fast-food chain, the answer is a resounding “No!”
And there’s no sign that things are about to turnaround soon: after the 2020 election, Democrats retained their supermajorities in both legislative chambers while controlling every statewide office. In effect, California is a one-party, anti-free enterprise state.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-12-03--President Trump's work to reshape federal judiciary continues

( FOX NEWS ) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote Thursday on the nominee to fill the appeals court @ @ @ @ @ Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett as well as voting on whether to send three other @ @ @ @ @ the Senate floor — which could further cement President Trump ’ s reshaping of the @ @ @ @ @ office .
This comes to the chagrin of Democrats who insist Republicans are violating tradition @ @ @ @ @ despite a Joe Biden victory in the presidential race .
After hearings on nominees before @ @ @ @ @ committee is scheduled to vote Thursday on the nomination of Thomas L. Kirsch II to @ @ @ @ @ Circuit Court of Appeals , replacing Barrett .
Kirsch is currently the U.S. attorney for @ @ @ @ @ .

(FOX NEWS) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote Thursday on the nominee to fill the appeals court seat vacated by new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett as well as voting on whether to send three other lower trial court nominees to the Senate floor — which could further cement President Trump’s reshaping of the federal judiciary before he leaves office.
This comes to the chagrin of Democrats who insist Republicans are violating tradition by continuing to confirm judges despite a Joe Biden victory in the presidential race.
After hearings on nominees before the Thanksgiving recess, the committee is scheduled to vote Thursday on the nomination of Thomas L. Kirsch II to serve on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, replacing Barrett. Kirsch is currently the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Indiana.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-12-04--Why Americans don't believe anything anymore

There is a lot of talk these days about conspiracies .
A huge number of Americans are prone to believing some pretty wild stuff .
This is true on the left , where a large number of people never stopped believing that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the White House from Hillary Clinton .
This is also true on the right , where a large number of people believe that Trump is not just a president but also the leader of a war against a secret group of pedophiles who run the world .
None of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , how did we get here ?
You rarely hear that question debated .
How did people lose faith in our institutions to such an extent that trust is at an all-time low ?
How did we get to the point where nobody believes anybody else and where outright fraudsters can sell so many of our fellow citizens on crazier and crazier conspiracies ?
To look at this problem -- maybe our biggest as a society at the moment -- we have to look at the behavior of our leading institutions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate storylines involving behavior so horrible that each would have been a full-blown scandal just a few years prior .
Now we have something new like this every week .
People are numb .
They do n't believe our leaders have any real standards or morals , and they do n't believe a thing they are told because of it .
First , the New York Times broke a huge story about how top American companies have been lobbying to water down what is , in essence , an anti-slavery bill in Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not giving up on Trump The Communist Chinese government has undertaken a repressive campaign against their Uyghur Muslim minority .
As part of that campaign , they have placed huge numbers of Uyghurs in internment or reeducation camps , and they have shipped many others out of their home region to other parts of China to do forced labor .
In response , the U.S. Congress is debating a bill to protect these workers by prohibiting goods made by these forced laborers .
Major American brands , including Apple , Nike and Coca @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretly lobbying to water down this bill , which poses a danger to their important Chinese supply chains .
Apple programmed Siri to express support for Black Lives Matter .
Coca Cola put together a cheesy marketing program called `` Together We Must '' about its deep commitment to racial justice .
Nike 's entire corporate marketing effort revolves around its commitment to social and racial justice .
All these social and racial justice commitments are cheap .
Allowing supply chain disruptions in China -- even to stop modern slavery -- would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the joke .
Second , this week , a huge public fight has broken out between the local BLM chapters and their national organization .
The national group , BLM Global Network Foundation , has raised millions in donations from individuals and corporate donors over the years , ramping up massively in the wake of the George Floyd murder .
As first reported by Daily Caller , for many years now , the national BLM office has been spending lavishly on travel and other overhead expenses , with very few funds making their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do all the work .
This week , apparently finally at a tipping point , the local BLM chapters went public with their complaint .
Chapters from 10 major cities -- including Chicago , Philadelphia and Washington , D.C. -- put up a statement on a new website publicly slamming the BLM national group .
They accused the national group of lacking transparency regarding the millions of dollars it was taking in while providing virtually no support to the local chapters doing all the work .
Try to name a group that captured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than BLM .
BLM signs are everywhere .
Top athletes wear them on their jerseys .
It 's painted on the street in front of the White House .
Virtually every celebrity 's Twitter page has the hashtag .
Huge companies have supported it and have it on their websites .
All of this is presumably because all these people care about Black lives .
But if you care about Black lives , then presumably all the real Black Lives Matter organizations getting ripped off by their national headquarters would make you upset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went up Nov. 30 .
As of yet , the corporate media has not even reported on it .
None of the BLM corporate or celebrity sponsors has said a word .
How could this be ?
This is n't some conservative media conspiracy .
We are talking about the local BLM activists getting ripped off .
They have gone public .
You would think people who cared about their cause would be upset by that .
They would at least want to look into it .
Where are all the celebs ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are left with the impression that maybe the media , Hollywood and corporate America do n't care that much after all .
It 's not good to be too cynical , but these days , it 's harder and harder not to be .
We now have a country full of cynics .
They 've been trained to be cynical .
All the lying and posturing and phony branding and hypocrisy come with a price , and that price is nobody believes anything or anyone anymore .

There is a lot of talk these days about conspiracies. A huge number of Americans are prone to believing some pretty wild stuff.
This is true on the left, where a large number of people never stopped believing that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the White House from Hillary Clinton. This is also true on the right, where a large number of people believe that Trump is not just a president but also the leader of a war against a secret group of pedophiles who run the world. None of this is very healthy.
The big question is, how did we get here? You rarely hear that question debated. How did people lose faith in our institutions to such an extent that trust is at an all-time low? How did we get to the point where nobody believes anybody else and where outright fraudsters can sell so many of our fellow citizens on crazier and crazier conspiracies?
To look at this problem -- maybe our biggest as a society at the moment -- we have to look at the behavior of our leading institutions. Just this week, we saw two separate storylines involving behavior so horrible that each would have been a full-blown scandal just a few years prior. Now we have something new like this every week. People are numb. They don't believe our leaders have any real standards or morals, and they don't believe a thing they are told because of it.
First, the New York Times broke a huge story about how top American companies have been lobbying to water down what is, in essence, an anti-slavery bill in Congress.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The Communist Chinese government has undertaken a repressive campaign against their Uyghur Muslim minority. As part of that campaign, they have placed huge numbers of Uyghurs in internment or reeducation camps, and they have shipped many others out of their home region to other parts of China to do forced labor. In response, the U.S. Congress is debating a bill to protect these workers by prohibiting goods made by these forced laborers. Major American brands, including Apple, Nike and Coca Cola, have been on Capitol Hill secretly lobbying to water down this bill, which poses a danger to their important Chinese supply chains.
Apple programmed Siri to express support for Black Lives Matter. Coca Cola put together a cheesy marketing program called "Together We Must" about its deep commitment to racial justice. Nike's entire corporate marketing effort revolves around its commitment to social and racial justice. All these social and racial justice commitments are cheap. Allowing supply chain disruptions in China -- even to stop modern slavery -- would be expensive. People are starting to get the joke.
Second, this week, a huge public fight has broken out between the local BLM chapters and their national organization. The national group, BLM Global Network Foundation, has raised millions in donations from individuals and corporate donors over the years, ramping up massively in the wake of the George Floyd murder.
As first reported by Daily Caller, for many years now, the national BLM office has been spending lavishly on travel and other overhead expenses, with very few funds making their way to the local BLM chapters who do all the work. This week, apparently finally at a tipping point, the local BLM chapters went public with their complaint.
Chapters from 10 major cities -- including Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. -- put up a statement on a new website publicly slamming the BLM national group. They accused the national group of lacking transparency regarding the millions of dollars it was taking in while providing virtually no support to the local chapters doing all the work.
Try to name a group that captured the nation's attention this year more than BLM. BLM signs are everywhere. Top athletes wear them on their jerseys. It's painted on the street in front of the White House. Virtually every celebrity's Twitter page has the hashtag. Huge companies have supported it and have it on their websites. All of this is presumably because all these people care about Black lives. But if you care about Black lives, then presumably all the real Black Lives Matter organizations getting ripped off by their national headquarters would make you upset. Apparently not.
The website statement went up Nov. 30. As of yet, the corporate media has not even reported on it. None of the BLM corporate or celebrity sponsors has said a word. How could this be? This isn't some conservative media conspiracy. We are talking about the local BLM activists getting ripped off. They have gone public. You would think people who cared about their cause would be upset by that. They would at least want to look into it. Where are all the celebs? Where is all the attention? You are left with the impression that maybe the media, Hollywood and corporate America don't care that much after all.
It's not good to be too cynical, but these days, it's harder and harder not to be. We now have a country full of cynics. They've been trained to be cynical. All the lying and posturing and phony branding and hypocrisy come with a price, and that price is nobody believes anything or anyone anymore.


wnd--2020-12-04--An anti-Semite asks and is answered: Is Israel racist?

Some months ago , a gentleman who pens anti-Semitic tracts approached me for an interview .
I agreed .
Being a naïve methodological individualist , I never generalize about individuals .
That my interlocutor writes crude anti-Semitic boilerplate did not mean I would not give him a chance to reveal himself as someone other than a crude anti-Semite .
After I answered his written questions in full , however , he bailed .
Here , then , is my reply to one of many loaded and leading questions I was asked and had answered in good faith .
A leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Since I am Jewish , I was considered a priori guilty .
Of what ?
Well , you know : `` nudge nudge , wink wink , say no more , '' as goes the Monty Python skit .
In his case , the fact that I married gentiles twice was not enough to clear me from charges of `` Jewish supremacy . ''
I was pelted with uncouth , inappropriate bias-confirming questions such as , `` Do you think that marrying a non-Jew was a mistake and you should only marry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons I 'm not giving up on Trump One of the less flighty questions was , `` Do you believe Israel is a racist state ? ''
I 've been deconstructing the construct of racism in my latest columns , analytically showing that , at worst , racism is a worldview , a state of mind — often spoken or written , and entirely the prerogative of a free people , just so long as no corporeal aggression is committed .
Gleaned from the gentleman 's own enthusiastically affirmative reply to his question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to draw the distinctions made in the column `` Was The Cop 's Knee On George Floyd 's Neck 'Racism ' ?
No ! ''
That distinction is , very plainly , that we have no way of divining what 's in a person 's mind — in this case Officer Chauvin 's , as he pressed down on Floyd 's neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds .
All we know is that it was wrong , and that there are laws that address unprovoked or excessive violence .
To extrapolate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soldiers or law enforcement act with depraved indifference or commit felony crimes against innocent Palestinian civilians — to that extent they should be punished and , I venture , are punished .
When all is said and done , however , there is no credible way of inferring racism from Israeli acts of depraved indifference , or from Chauvin 's .
Nor should we , given that `` racism '' is mostly a mindset .
Thought crimes are nobody 's business in free societies .
In free societies , the role of law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the kind that injures property and person .
Thought crimes , when voiced , hurt only feelings .
Anyone who partakes in weaponizing the nebulous racism construct is a progressive — and certainly a bad person — in my book .
Prejudice — here used as the right to pre-judge — is a concept more fittingly attached to the Jewish ethno-state , not racism .
The idea of rejecting some and welcoming others into the fold , as Israel most certainly does , is an extension of an individual 's right as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So long as no real violence and aggression are involved , the right to pre-judge and , consequently , to associate or dissociate in accordance with one 's prejudgments , is the prerogative of a free person , and , by extension , of a free group of people , living in voluntary association .
Is freedom of association racist ?
Is exclusion racist ?
Only if you are of the progressive left .
Both vicious and violent , the progressive left believes that one is compelled by egalitarian , humanistic dogma to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of punishment .
Again , the freedom to exclude is not racist .
Rather , it is the inherent right of free individuals , living severally or collectively .
The freedom to exclude is a libertarian tenet of liberty .
This , not racism , is the reason many libertarian-minded conservatives were with Barry Goldwater in opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , as it dictated with whom people may associate or dissociate from — whom they employ , serve , sell to or rent to .
Free people associate and dissociate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a retail store selling Nazi memorabilia opens its doors in my neighborhood .
I enter in search of the yellow Star of David that Jews were forced to wear during the Third Reich .
The proprietor , decked out in Nazi regalia , says , `` I 'm sorry , we do n't serve Jews . ''
`` Do n't be like that , '' I reply .
`` Where else can I find a pair of clip-on , yellow Star-of-David earrings ? ''
( My ears are n't pierced . )
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Ma'am , I mean no disrespect , but back in the Old Country , Jews murdered my great grandfather 's cousin and used his blood in the leavening of the Passover matzah . ''
`` Yeah , '' I reply .
`` I 'm familiar with that blood libel .
I assure you my own mother 's matzo balls were free of the blood of brats , gentile or Jewish .
No matter .
I can see where you 're coming from .
Your loss .
Good luck . ''
There !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ oddball `` sensibility '' hurt me ?
No , it did n't .
It enhanced his freedom and hurt me not at all .
( There 's Etsy.com for those earrings . )
It is with the same courtesy and good cheer that I had agreed to reply to my interviewer 's loaded and leading questions .
Alas ...
In Part 2 : Racism , as understood in the U.S. , is more often concerned with discrimination based on distinct physical characteristics .
That will be addressed , next week , vis a @ @ @

Some months ago, a gentleman who pens anti-Semitic tracts approached me for an interview. I agreed. Being a naïve methodological individualist, I never generalize about individuals. That my interlocutor writes crude anti-Semitic boilerplate did not mean I would not give him a chance to reveal himself as someone other than a crude anti-Semite.
After I answered his written questions in full, however, he bailed.
Here, then, is my reply to one of many loaded and leading questions I was asked and had answered in good faith.
A leading question is one that suggests an answer. Since I am Jewish, I was considered a priori guilty. Of what? Well, you know: "nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more," as goes the Monty Python skit.
In his case, the fact that I married gentiles twice was not enough to clear me from charges of "Jewish supremacy." I was pelted with uncouth, inappropriate bias-confirming questions such as, "Do you think that marrying a non-Jew was a mistake and you should only marry another Jew?"
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
One of the less flighty questions was, "Do you believe Israel is a racist state?"
I've been deconstructing the construct of racism in my latest columns, analytically showing that, at worst, racism is a worldview, a state of mind — often spoken or written, and entirely the prerogative of a free people, just so long as no corporeal aggression is committed.
Gleaned from the gentleman's own enthusiastically affirmative reply to his question — it was clear that he had failed to draw the distinctions made in the column "Was The Cop's Knee On George Floyd's Neck 'Racism'? No!"
That distinction is, very plainly, that we have no way of divining what's in a person's mind — in this case Officer Chauvin's, as he pressed down on Floyd's neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds. All we know is that it was wrong, and that there are laws that address unprovoked or excessive violence.
To extrapolate to Israel: To the extent Israeli soldiers or law enforcement act with depraved indifference or commit felony crimes against innocent Palestinian civilians — to that extent they should be punished and, I venture, are punished.
When all is said and done, however, there is no credible way of inferring racism from Israeli acts of depraved indifference, or from Chauvin's.
Nor should we, given that "racism" is mostly a mindset.
Thought crimes are nobody's business in free societies. In free societies, the role of law enforcement agencies is to police corporeal crime — the kind that injures property and person. Thought crimes, when voiced, hurt only feelings.
Anyone who partakes in weaponizing the nebulous racism construct is a progressive — and certainly a bad person — in my book.
Prejudice — here used as the right to pre-judge — is a concept more fittingly attached to the Jewish ethno-state, not racism. The idea of rejecting some and welcoming others into the fold, as Israel most certainly does, is an extension of an individual's right as a sovereign, discerning human being.
So long as no real violence and aggression are involved, the right to pre-judge and, consequently, to associate or dissociate in accordance with one's prejudgments, is the prerogative of a free person, and, by extension, of a free group of people, living in voluntary association.
Is freedom of association racist? Is exclusion racist? Only if you are of the progressive left. Both vicious and violent, the progressive left believes that one is compelled by egalitarian, humanistic dogma to accept everyone into your midst on pain of punishment.
Again, the freedom to exclude is not racist. Rather, it is the inherent right of free individuals, living severally or collectively.
The freedom to exclude is a libertarian tenet of liberty. This, not racism, is the reason many libertarian-minded conservatives were with Barry Goldwater in opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as it dictated with whom people may associate or dissociate from — whom they employ, serve, sell to or rent to.
Free people associate and dissociate at will.
To wit, say a retail store selling Nazi memorabilia opens its doors in my neighborhood. I enter in search of the yellow Star of David that Jews were forced to wear during the Third Reich. The proprietor, decked out in Nazi regalia, says, "I'm sorry, we don't serve Jews."
"Don't be like that," I reply. "Where else can I find a pair of clip-on, yellow Star-of-David earrings?" (My ears aren't pierced.) The Nazi sympathizer is polite but persistent: "Ma'am, I mean no disrespect, but back in the Old Country, Jews murdered my great grandfather's cousin and used his blood in the leavening of the Passover matzah."
"Yeah," I reply. "I'm familiar with that blood libel. I assure you my own mother's matzo balls were free of the blood of brats, gentile or Jewish. No matter. I can see where you're coming from. Your loss. Good luck."
There! Did my courtesy to the man's oddball "sensibility" hurt me? No, it didn't. It enhanced his freedom and hurt me not at all. (There's Etsy.com for those earrings.)
It is with the same courtesy and good cheer that I had agreed to reply to my interviewer's loaded and leading questions. Alas ...
In Part 2: Racism, as understood in the U.S., is more often concerned with discrimination based on distinct physical characteristics. That will be addressed, next week, vis a vis Israel.


wnd--2020-12-04--Patience, determination ... and time

Patience, determination ... and time

One of my resolutions this year was to start living on a budget , and gain control of my money .
I never realized how easy it would be to get discouraged early on .
Can you give me some encouragement to help make my financial resolutions stick in 2021 ?
TRENDING : 6 reasons I 'm not giving up on Trump The secret to making a goal into a reality is getting started .
It ’ s really that simple .
You also have to be realistic and accept the fact that nothing — especially things you ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time around .
That leads to the next step , which is patience .
Most people think about losing 20 pounds , and immediately feel it needs to happen in the next month or so .
It does n't .
And mostly likely , it won ’ t .
Like almost everything else worth doing , it ’ s something that requires sacrifice and focus each day over an extended period of time .
Crash courses are usually painful and rarely work out well .
But once you 've done something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easier and easier part of your daily routine .
Pretty soon , it ’ s not a chore or something you ’ re afraid of .
Making a budget and gaining control of your finances works the same way .
When you first create a money plan , it probably wo n't work out exactly as you hoped .
That ’ s OK .
It will barely work the second month , but it won ’ t be as scary , because you ’ ve already done it once .
By the third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much better feel for it , and your stress levels will go way down because you already know the basics .
It just takes determination , patience , and intensity to get through the rough patches that go along with starting anything new .
A new year is just around the corner , Collin .
Don ’ t fall into the same old trap .
Give yourself a little grace , but keep your eyes on the prize .
Start preparing yourself now .
You ’ ve got plenty of time to begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a solid budget ready when January 1st arrives .
It may feel like things are beginning slowly , but you can make this happen if you ’ ll just stick with it !
Do you appreciate Dave 's clear and solid answers to readers ' questions ?
Order his book `` The Money Answer Book '' and get your finances on the right track !

Dear Dave,
One of my resolutions this year was to start living on a budget, and gain control of my money. I never realized how easy it would be to get discouraged early on. Can you give me some encouragement to help make my financial resolutions stick in 2021?
Collin
Dear Collin,
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The secret to making a goal into a reality is getting started. It’s really that simple. You also have to be realistic and accept the fact that nothing — especially things you’ve never done before — works out perfectly the first time around. That leads to the next step, which is patience. Most people think about losing 20 pounds, and immediately feel it needs to happen in the next month or so. It doesn't. And mostly likely, it won’t. Like almost everything else worth doing, it’s something that requires sacrifice and focus each day over an extended period of time. Crash courses are usually painful and rarely work out well. But once you've done something a few times, it becomes an easier and easier part of your daily routine. Pretty soon, it’s not a chore or something you’re afraid of.
Making a budget and gaining control of your finances works the same way. When you first create a money plan, it probably won't work out exactly as you hoped. That’s OK. It will barely work the second month, but it won’t be as scary, because you’ve already done it once. By the third month, you’ll have a much better feel for it, and your stress levels will go way down because you already know the basics. It just takes determination, patience, and intensity to get through the rough patches that go along with starting anything new.
A new year is just around the corner, Collin. Don’t fall into the same old trap. Give yourself a little grace, but keep your eyes on the prize. Start preparing yourself now. You’ve got plenty of time to begin laying out a plan, and have a solid budget ready when January 1st arrives. It may feel like things are beginning slowly, but you can make this happen if you’ll just stick with it!
—Dave
Do you appreciate Dave's clear and solid answers to readers' questions? Order his book "The Money Answer Book" and get your finances on the right track!


Runaway truck

Democrat New York mayor and ex-police chief arrested with cocaine after pursuit

* 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--2020-12-04--Mandatory voting is authoritarian

Mandatory voting is authoritarian

After the 2016 presidential election , I wrote an exceptionally unpopular op-ed for The Washington Post headlined `` We must weed out ignorant Americans from the electorate . ''
In it , I noted that `` never have so many people with so little knowledge made so many consequential decisions for the rest of us . ''
My assumption has always been that the Post accepted the piece only because its editors believed I was aiming my criticism exclusively at the right-wing populists who had just voted for Donald Trump .
If so , they were wrong .
My skepticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all elections .
Indeed , today , the problem is even more severe .
More Americans voted in 2020 than ever before even though the winner , Joe Biden , was rarely impelled to answer a substantive question on policy or even to show himself in public .
2020 might have featured the most vacuous campaigns in American history .
This is what `` democracy '' looks like when propelled by fearmongering , ignorance and the `` common impulse of passion , '' as James Madison warned .
I mean that all around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it is the only right of a citizen , without any corresponding expectations .
And as if that constant cultural haranguing to vote were n't annoying enough , after every election , no matter how many people participate , there is a campaign to force everyone to do it .
`` America Needs Compulsory Voting , '' writes a professor in Foreign Affairs .
`` A Little Coercion Can Do a Lot for Democracy . ''
`` 1 In 3 Americans Did n't Vote .
Should We Force Them To Next Time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 reasons I 'm not giving up on Trump Ideally , in a free nation , the answer to `` should we force them ? ''
is almost always `` no . ''
But for the folks at places such as the Brookings Institution and Harvard University 's Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation , the answer is almost always `` yes . ''
In July , these think tanks laid out their case for mandatory voting in a report titled `` Lift Every Voice : The Urgency of Universal Civic Duty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whip up an equally anodyne euphemism for `` ugly authoritarian instinct , '' but none immediately comes to mind .
None of this is new , of course .
Over the years , we 've seen similar columns in The New York Times and Time .
Obama administration officials such as Peter Orszag , an advocate of compelling everyone to buy state-mandated health insurance , were arguing that the United States `` prides itself as the beacon of democracy , but it 's very likely no U.S. president has ever been elected by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe the lesson here is that we should pride ourselves on how many freedoms we enjoy rather than how people vote .
`` The hope is not that the United States of America tomorrow morning is going to adopt this , '' E. J. Dionne , who is a Georgetown University professor of government , a Washington Post columnist and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution , told BuzzFeed , `` but we do hope that cities , counties , states would take a look at this and perhaps adopt it experimentally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has adopted instant runoffs . ''
Some of us do not share the hopes of Dionne , a long-time proponent of forcing Americans to do all sorts of things .
The Constitution makes no stipulation that citizens must vote .
It does n't even mention voting as an individual right .
We have no civic duty to vote .
I have n't voted for president since 2000 .
I have n't voted at all since 2004 .
For me , this is a proactive political choice .
But maybe some Americans do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monarchists or nihilists .
Some Americans might not be satisfied with any of their choices .
Some might rather be watching cartoons .
It 's none of Dionne 's business .
The last thing we should do is make those who are n't interested , motivated or feel unprepared to make sound decisions act against their will .
Whenever I mention that compelling people to participate in the political system is authoritarian , someone will ridicule me by noting that voting is the hallmark of `` democracy . ''
One wonders if citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had no real vote as British colonial subjects for 150 years , feel freer today than they did 30 years ago .
Sure , mandatory voting exists in Australia and Belgium .
But it also exists in Bolivia , Congo , Dominican Republic , Egypt and Lebanon .
In fact , historically speaking , authoritarian states often adopt compulsory voting as a way of creating a false sense of democratic legitimacy .
If you 're compelling people to participate , you 're not doing `` democracy . ''
2020 saw record turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' is a bit misleading since the involvement was largely a function of states ' haphazardly mailing out paper ballots to everyone .
All mandatory-voting advocates are doing is further degrading the importance of elections and incentivizing more demagoguery .
If they truly believed democracy was sacred – rather than a way to accumulate power – they 'd want Americans to put more effort into voting for the president than they do in ordering Chinese takeout .
And they certainly would n't want to force anyone to do it .

After the 2016 presidential election, I wrote an exceptionally unpopular op-ed for The Washington Post headlined "We must weed out ignorant Americans from the electorate." In it, I noted that "never have so many people with so little knowledge made so many consequential decisions for the rest of us."
My assumption has always been that the Post accepted the piece only because its editors believed I was aiming my criticism exclusively at the right-wing populists who had just voted for Donald Trump. If so, they were wrong. My skepticism extends to all sides.
And to all elections. Indeed, today, the problem is even more severe. More Americans voted in 2020 than ever before even though the winner, Joe Biden, was rarely impelled to answer a substantive question on policy or even to show himself in public. 2020 might have featured the most vacuous campaigns in American history. This is what "democracy" looks like when propelled by fearmongering, ignorance and the "common impulse of passion," as James Madison warned. I mean that all around.
We encourage Americans to vote as if it is the only right of a citizen, without any corresponding expectations. And as if that constant cultural haranguing to vote weren't annoying enough, after every election, no matter how many people participate, there is a campaign to force everyone to do it.
"America Needs Compulsory Voting," writes a professor in Foreign Affairs. "A Little Coercion Can Do a Lot for Democracy." "1 In 3 Americans Didn't Vote. Should We Force Them To Next Time?" asks BuzzFeed.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Ideally, in a free nation, the answer to "should we force them?" is almost always "no." But for the folks at places such as the Brookings Institution and Harvard University's Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, the answer is almost always "yes." In July, these think tanks laid out their case for mandatory voting in a report titled "Lift Every Voice: The Urgency of Universal Civic Duty Voting." I wish I could whip up an equally anodyne euphemism for "ugly authoritarian instinct," but none immediately comes to mind.
None of this is new, of course. Over the years, we've seen similar columns in The New York Times and Time. Obama administration officials such as Peter Orszag, an advocate of compelling everyone to buy state-mandated health insurance, were arguing that the United States "prides itself as the beacon of democracy, but it's very likely no U.S. president has ever been elected by a majority of American adults." Maybe the lesson here is that we should pride ourselves on how many freedoms we enjoy rather than how people vote.
"The hope is not that the United States of America tomorrow morning is going to adopt this," E. J. Dionne, who is a Georgetown University professor of government, a Washington Post columnist and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told BuzzFeed, "but we do hope that cities, counties, states would take a look at this and perhaps adopt it experimentally, the way, say, Maine has adopted instant runoffs."
Some of us do not share the hopes of Dionne, a long-time proponent of forcing Americans to do all sorts of things. The Constitution makes no stipulation that citizens must vote. It doesn't even mention voting as an individual right. We have no civic duty to vote. I haven't voted for president since 2000. I haven't voted at all since 2004.
For me, this is a proactive political choice. But maybe some Americans don't vote because they are anarchists, or monarchists or nihilists. Some Americans might not be satisfied with any of their choices. Some might rather be watching cartoons. It's none of Dionne's business. The last thing we should do is make those who aren't interested, motivated or feel unprepared to make sound decisions act against their will.
Whenever I mention that compelling people to participate in the political system is authoritarian, someone will ridicule me by noting that voting is the hallmark of "democracy." One wonders if citizens of, say, Hong Kong, who had no real vote as British colonial subjects for 150 years, feel freer today than they did 30 years ago. Sure, mandatory voting exists in Australia and Belgium. But it also exists in Bolivia, Congo, Dominican Republic, Egypt and Lebanon. In fact, historically speaking, authoritarian states often adopt compulsory voting as a way of creating a false sense of democratic legitimacy. If you're compelling people to participate, you're not doing "democracy."
2020 saw record turnout – though calling it a "turnout" is a bit misleading since the involvement was largely a function of states' haphazardly mailing out paper ballots to everyone.
All mandatory-voting advocates are doing is further degrading the importance of elections and incentivizing more demagoguery. If they truly believed democracy was sacred – rather than a way to accumulate power – they'd want Americans to put more effort into voting for the president than they do in ordering Chinese takeout. And they certainly wouldn't want to force anyone to do it.


wnd--2020-12-04--3rd state considers lawmakers naming electors

There 's talk in a third state of state lawmakers asserting their constitutional authority to select Electoral College electors instead of assigning them through the popular vote .
WXIA-TV in Atlanta reported the calls for Republican Gov .
Brian Kemp to call a special session of the Georgia General Assembly to alter election procedures as state senators held hearings on evidence of vote fraud and manipulation .
The report , however , said it 's not clear if there 's significant support among state lawmakers for such an extraordinary measure .
The hearings center on eyewitness testimony of fraud in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is no evidence of widespread fraud or of a concerted effort to manipulate the results .
TRENDING : 6 reasons I 'm not giving up on Trump But Fox News noted Ray Smith , a lawyer for the Trump campaign , confirmed the campaign is filing a petition to contest the election results .
He also called on Georgia lawmakers to choose their state 's electors .
`` Because of irregularities and abject failure of the secretary of state of this state and the counties to properly conduct of the election it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results of the 2020 presidential election , '' Smith charged .
Typically , a new election would fix the problem , he said .
`` However , because the presidential election is actually a delegation of your constitutional duties as a legislature , you as a Georgia legislature are the body that is to choose the presidential electors , '' he said .
The call for state lawmakers to claw back their constitutional power to choose Electoral College electors is growing .
A resolution proposed by lawmakers in Pennsylvania charges `` numerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been `` ignored '' by the governor , secretary of state and election officials .
The lawmakers state the General Assembly `` takes back and reserves the power to designate presidential electors for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the December 2020 meeting of the Electoral College and withdraws any prior statement or direction to the contrary given by the General Assembly or any other official or body . ''
Arizona Rep. Mark Finchem also announced during a recent vote-fraud hearing he wants the legislature to reclaim control over the appointment of Electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` We are clawing our Electoral College votes back , we will not release them , '' he said .
`` That 's what I 'm calling our colleagues in both the House and the Senate to do .
Exercise our plenary authority under the U.S .
Constitution . ''
Several constitutional experts have pointed out that state lawmakers have great latitude in determining their electors , and for whom they vote , if they have evidence of vote fraud or other misbehavior .
Republican state Sen. Doug Mastriano Mastriano , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an intervew with Steve Bannon 's `` War Room '' that members of the Pennsylvania House and Senate were working on a joint resolution to `` grab back '' their constitutional authority from the secretary of state that was ceded in 1938 , the Gateway Pundit reported .
The now-completed Pennsylvania resolution notes that state law requires mail-in ballots to be in by 8 p.m. on Election Day and for all signatures to be authenticated .
But the state this year used `` satellite locations , '' and the state Supreme Court made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws weeks before the election .
The resolution has additional pages of election process defects that lawmakers have identified .
Litigation followed because of the anomalous vote pattern , in which President Trump 's lead of some 700,000 votes evaporated with the introduction of vote `` dumps '' after polls closed in which Joe Biden was given in excess of 95 % of the votes .
The resolution states that in light of the `` irregularities '' and the `` infringement on the General Assembly 's sole authority '' regarding electors , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power to designate presidential electors for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the December 2020 meeting of the Electoral College and withdraws any prior statement or direction to the contrary . ''
The media have credited to Joe Biden enough Electoral College votes to be president .
But the outcome is not official until the Electoral College votes .
And if enough states withhold their votes , neither candidate could gain the required 270 to be elected president .
In that case , the Constitution provides that the U.S. House elects a president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
WND reported two constitutional-law experts , William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney , have explained that Republican-controlled state legislatures that the authority to appoint slates of Republican electors to the Electoral College if the voters chose the Democratic candidate .
That could happen if there is evidence of fraud and other remedies are not available .
`` During the 2020 presidential election , many of the so-called swing states , including Arizona , saw unprecedented – and unlawful – erosions of procedural safeguards as well as administration irregularities on Election Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` People deserve an honest accounting of who won .
… With respect to identifying and remediating fraudulent or mistaken results , it is now or never , whatever can be done must be done .
`` Legislators who want to carefully examine the election process , and take action if significant election fraud is found , would be simply giving effect to the vote of the people , not denying it . ''

There's talk in a third state of state lawmakers asserting their constitutional authority to select Electoral College electors instead of assigning them through the popular vote.
WXIA-TV in Atlanta reported the calls for Republican Gov. Brian Kemp to call a special session of the Georgia General Assembly to alter election procedures as state senators held hearings on evidence of vote fraud and manipulation.
The report, however, said it's not clear if there's significant support among state lawmakers for such an extraordinary measure.
The hearings center on eyewitness testimony of fraud in Georgia's election. State leaders insist there is no evidence of widespread fraud or of a concerted effort to manipulate the results.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
But Fox News noted Ray Smith, a lawyer for the Trump campaign, confirmed the campaign is filing a petition to contest the election results.
He also called on Georgia lawmakers to choose their state's electors.
"Because of irregularities and abject failure of the secretary of state of this state and the counties to properly conduct of the election it is impossible — impossible — to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election," Smith charged.
Typically, a new election would fix the problem, he said.
Should state lawmakers select Electoral College electors? 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% (202 Votes) 5% (11 Votes)
"However, because the presidential election is actually a delegation of your constitutional duties as a legislature, you as a Georgia legislature are the body that is to choose the presidential electors," he said.
The call for state lawmakers to claw back their constitutional power to choose Electoral College electors is growing.
A resolution proposed by lawmakers in Pennsylvania charges "numerous illegal acts" in the 2020 election have been "ignored" by the governor, secretary of state and election officials.
The lawmakers state the General Assembly "takes back and reserves the power to designate presidential electors for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the December 2020 meeting of the Electoral College and withdraws any prior statement or direction to the contrary given by the General Assembly or any other official or body."
Arizona Rep. Mark Finchem also announced during a recent vote-fraud hearing he wants the legislature to reclaim control over the appointment of Electoral College electors, the National File reports.
"We are clawing our Electoral College votes back, we will not release them," he said. "That's what I'm calling our colleagues in both the House and the Senate to do. Exercise our plenary authority under the U.S. Constitution."
Several constitutional experts have pointed out that state lawmakers have great latitude in determining their electors, and for whom they vote, if they have evidence of vote fraud or other misbehavior.
“Rep. Finchem, issued a call to withhold the state’s Electoral College votes, as he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes” #ArizonaHearing #StopTheSteaI2020 @MarkFinchem @NationalFile @ali @michellemalkin https://t.co/qqLPFq4UFM — Paul Gosar (@DrPaulGosar) November 30, 2020
Republican state Sen. Doug Mastriano Mastriano, a retired U.S. Army colonel, said in an intervew with Steve Bannon's "War Room" that members of the Pennsylvania House and Senate were working on a joint resolution to "grab back" their constitutional authority from the secretary of state that was ceded in 1938, the Gateway Pundit reported.
The now-completed Pennsylvania resolution notes that state law requires mail-in ballots to be in by 8 p.m. on Election Day and for all signatures to be authenticated.
But the state this year used "satellite locations," and the state Supreme Court made other changes to the state's election laws weeks before the election.
The resolution has additional pages of election process defects that lawmakers have identified. Litigation followed because of the anomalous vote pattern, in which President Trump's lead of some 700,000 votes evaporated with the introduction of vote "dumps" after polls closed in which Joe Biden was given in excess of 95% of the votes.
The resolution states that in light of the "irregularities" and the "infringement on the General Assembly's sole authority" regarding electors, the lawmaking body "takes back and reserves the power to designate presidential electors for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the December 2020 meeting of the Electoral College and withdraws any prior statement or direction to the contrary."
The media have credited to Joe Biden enough Electoral College votes to be president. But the outcome is not official until the Electoral College votes. And if enough states withhold their votes, neither candidate could gain the required 270 to be elected president.
In that case, the Constitution provides that the U.S. House elects a president, with each state getting one vote.
WND reported two constitutional-law experts, William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney, have explained that Republican-controlled state legislatures that the authority to appoint slates of Republican electors to the Electoral College if the voters chose the Democratic candidate.
That could happen if there is evidence of fraud and other remedies are not available.
"During the 2020 presidential election, many of the so-called swing states, including Arizona, saw unprecedented – and unlawful – erosions of procedural safeguards as well as administration irregularities on Election Day," the constitutional experts have explained. "People deserve an honest accounting of who won. … With respect to identifying and remediating fraudulent or mistaken results, it is now or never, whatever can be done must be done.
"Legislators who want to carefully examine the election process, and take action if significant election fraud is found, would be simply giving effect to the vote of the people, not denying it."