wnd--2020-10-25--Pennsylvania's energy-industry advances and emissions successes at risk

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Energy . ]
Pennsylvania stands out among its neighboring states as an energy powerhouse that has made smart use of its vast supplies of natural resources .
But that could all change if Governor Tom Wolf circumvents the commonwealth ’ s general assembly to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative , a multistate compact widely known as RGGI .
TRENDING : If Democrats sweep , here 's an alternative to civil war Pennsylvania is now the largest net exporter of electricity in the U.S. ; it delivered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between 2013 and 2017 .
Pennsylvanians enjoy electricity prices below the national average , largely thanks to the fracking boom started in the mid-2000s , which reinvigorated the state ’ s natural gas industry and helped much of western Pennsylvania stave off the worst effects of the Great Recession .
The Keystone State is also the nation ’ s second-largest producer of natural gas , third-largest producer of coal , 16th-largest producer of crude oil , and third-largest producer of electricity in general , according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states that are now part of RGGI should start to follow Pennsylvania ’ s lead and implement pro-energy policies that would benefit average citizens who are still reeling from the economic effects of COVID-19 .
Pennsylvanians enjoy low electricity rates , particularly compared with their RGGI neighbors , whose rates averaged 15.08 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2018—5 cents above Pennsylvania ’ s .
Imposing RGGI ’ s strict cap-and-trade system on Pennsylvania would certainly raise electricity prices , but for what gain ?
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection estimates that under RGGI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas emissions could fall by 25 percent between 2022 and 2030 .
Yet the DEP also reports that the state ’ s emissions fell by nearly 19 percent from 2005 to 2016 , without any such framework .
That ’ s largely due to Pennsylvania ’ s dramatic shift from coal to natural gas production and its modest increase in nuclear power production .
( Natural gas emits roughly half as much carbon dioxide when burned as coal , and nuclear produces none . )
In other words , the free market is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already achieved substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions .
Eleven New England and Mid-Atlantic states are now signatories to RGGI , which makes use of a cap-and-trade system that caps the annual amount of greenhouse gases—mostly carbon dioxide and methane—that companies are permitted to emit .
Producers can then trade a limited number of emission permits in an auction , in order to emit more without being fined ; but the cap and total number of permits shrink each year , making it more expensive for them to emit greenhouse gases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wolf ’ s own DEP reports that the annual cost—passed through to taxpayers—could reach $ 320 million as early as 2022 , using proceeds from the annual RGGI emission auction .
The Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania , a major manufacturers ’ trade group , estimates the minimum financial impact of RGGI at $ 275 million per year as an added cost to energy producers , not counting the expense of purchasing cap-and-trade emission permits , much of which will be passed along to households and other consumers .
Unlike some global warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data to examine .
A 2018 study by the libertarian Cato Institute found that the program “ resulted in a 12 percent drop in [ overall ] goods production , ” compared with a 20 percent gain in non-RGGI comparison states .
Critically , RGGI states saw power imports increase from 8 percent to 17 percent and “ shifted jobs to other states.
” In Delaware alone , RGGI emission allowance costs added $ 11 million to the state ’ s electricity bills .
One independent analysis of how RGGI invested its revenues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a nearly $ 900 cost per metric ton of carbon dioxide reduced , vastly higher than the “ social cost of carbon ” —the measure of the economic impact of emissions used to justify carbon pricing schemes—that the far-left Environmental Defense Fund estimates at roughly $ 50 per metric ton .
But here ’ s the kicker : Cato ’ s study found “ no added emissions reductions or associated health benefits from the RGGI program.
” So what ’ s the point of having Pennsylvania join RGGI if there are no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that Wolf ’ s anti-energy schemes fit into a broader movement .
Pennsylvania ’ s great success has made it a target of professional left-wing activists who subscribe to a rigid ideology that demonizes carbon dioxide , a naturally occurring gas that is vital to life on earth .
These environmentalists are waging a nationwide war on cheap , abundant energy from coal , oil , and natural gas , forcing the country to arbitrarily shift to unreliable and expensive sources such as wind turbines and solar plants .
While RGGI doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on coal and natural gas power plants—these groups have been angling for a statewide ban on fracking for years .
America owes its energy independence to fracking .
In 2009 , the U.S. was the world ’ s third-largest oil producer , behind Russia and Saudi Arabia .
In 2019 , it led the globe in oil and natural gas output , more than doubling oil production and increasing gas production by two-thirds in a decade , producing 12.3 million barrels of crude oil per day .
And in 2019 , America became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in 67 years , according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration .
Now is not the time to go backward .
Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter who writes about energy policy and environmental issues .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Energy . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Energy.]
By Kevin Mooney
Real Clear Energy
Pennsylvania stands out among its neighboring states as an energy powerhouse that has made smart use of its vast supplies of natural resources.
But that could all change if Governor Tom Wolf circumvents the commonwealth’s general assembly to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a multistate compact widely known as RGGI.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Pennsylvania is now the largest net exporter of electricity in the U.S.; it delivered an average of 58 million megawatt-hours annually between 2013 and 2017. Pennsylvanians enjoy electricity prices below the national average, largely thanks to the fracking boom started in the mid-2000s, which reinvigorated the state’s natural gas industry and helped much of western Pennsylvania stave off the worst effects of the Great Recession.
The Keystone State is also the nation’s second-largest producer of natural gas, third-largest producer of coal, 16th-largest producer of crude oil, and third-largest producer of electricity in general, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Instead of having Pennsylvania join RGGI, other states that are now part of RGGI should start to follow Pennsylvania’s lead and implement pro-energy policies that would benefit average citizens who are still reeling from the economic effects of COVID-19.
Pennsylvanians enjoy low electricity rates, particularly compared with their RGGI neighbors, whose rates averaged 15.08 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2018—5 cents above Pennsylvania’s. Imposing RGGI’s strict cap-and-trade system on Pennsylvania would certainly raise electricity prices, but for what gain?
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection estimates that under RGGI, the state’s annual greenhouse gas emissions could fall by 25 percent between 2022 and 2030. Yet the DEP also reports that the state’s emissions fell by nearly 19 percent from 2005 to 2016, without any such framework. That’s largely due to Pennsylvania’s dramatic shift from coal to natural gas production and its modest increase in nuclear power production. (Natural gas emits roughly half as much carbon dioxide when burned as coal, and nuclear produces none.) In other words, the free market is working without government intervention, and Pennsylvania has already achieved substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
Eleven New England and Mid-Atlantic states are now signatories to RGGI, which makes use of a cap-and-trade system that caps the annual amount of greenhouse gases—mostly carbon dioxide and methane—that companies are permitted to emit. Producers can then trade a limited number of emission permits in an auction, in order to emit more without being fined; but the cap and total number of permits shrink each year, making it more expensive for them to emit greenhouse gases.
What would this mean for Pennsylvania?
Wolf’s own DEP reports that the annual cost—passed through to taxpayers—could reach $320 million as early as 2022, using proceeds from the annual RGGI emission auction. The Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania, a major manufacturers’ trade group, estimates the minimum financial impact of RGGI at $275 million per year as an added cost to energy producers, not counting the expense of purchasing cap-and-trade emission permits, much of which will be passed along to households and other consumers.
Unlike some global warming policies, RGGI has a wealth of data to examine. A 2018 study by the libertarian Cato Institute found that the program “resulted in a 12 percent drop in [overall] goods production,” compared with a 20 percent gain in non-RGGI comparison states. Critically, RGGI states saw power imports increase from 8 percent to 17 percent and “shifted jobs to other states.” In Delaware alone, RGGI emission allowance costs added $11 million to the state’s electricity bills.
One independent analysis of how RGGI invested its revenues in 2018 found that the program resulted in a nearly $900 cost per metric ton of carbon dioxide reduced, vastly higher than the “social cost of carbon”—the measure of the economic impact of emissions used to justify carbon pricing schemes—that the far-left Environmental Defense Fund estimates at roughly $50 per metric ton. But here’s the kicker: Cato’s study found “no added emissions reductions or associated health benefits from the RGGI program.”
So what’s the point of having Pennsylvania join RGGI if there are no economic or environmental benefits? The answer is that Wolf’s anti-energy schemes fit into a broader movement.
Pennsylvania’s great success has made it a target of professional left-wing activists who subscribe to a rigid ideology that demonizes carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring gas that is vital to life on earth. These environmentalists are waging a nationwide war on cheap, abundant energy from coal, oil, and natural gas, forcing the country to arbitrarily shift to unreliable and expensive sources such as wind turbines and solar plants.
While RGGI doesn’t specifically target fracking—it levies taxes on coal and natural gas power plants—these groups have been angling for a statewide ban on fracking for years. America owes its energy independence to fracking. In 2009, the U.S. was the world’s third-largest oil producer, behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. In 2019, it led the globe in oil and natural gas output, more than doubling oil production and increasing gas production by two-thirds in a decade, producing 12.3 million barrels of crude oil per day. And in 2019, America became a net energy exporter for the first time in 67 years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Now is not the time to go backward.
Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter who writes about energy policy and environmental issues.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Energy.]


wnd--2020-10-25--Hillary: Most Republicans want to see Trump gone but can't say it publicly

( THE HILL ) Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that most Republicans want to see President Trump voted @ @ @ @ @ ’ t say it publicly , Axios reported on Sunday .
Clinton told the New @ @ @ @ @ Sway ” that most Republicans “ have been cowards , spineless enablers ” of the @ @ @ @ @ `` Most Republicans are going to want to close the page , '' Clinton said @ @ @ @ @ podcast set to be released Monday .
`` They want to see him gone as @ @ @ @ @ but they ca n't say it publicly . ''

(THE HILL) Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that most Republicans want to see President Trump voted out of office but can’t say it publicly, Axios reported on Sunday.
Clinton told the New York Times Opinion podcast “Sway” that most Republicans “have been cowards, spineless enablers” of the president throughout his administration.
"Most Republicans are going to want to close the page," Clinton said on an episode of the podcast set to be released Monday. "They want to see him gone as much as we do, but they can't say it publicly."
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-25--Nurse accuses doctor of purposely infecting her with coronavirus

( WPLG ) Venise Jean-Baptiste said she and her son suffered COVID-19 after a Miami doctor she worked with purposely @ @ @ @ @ .
Jean-Baptiste , an advanced registered nurse practitioner , said the exchange with Dr. Joseph @ @ @ @ @ into each other in the hallway .
They were at the Project Access Foundation ’ @ @ @ @ @ 8000 Biscayne Blvd.
, near Miami ’ s Little River area .
The nurse claims @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 and that she demanded personal protective equipment ( PPE ) , also suggesting that @ @ @ @ @ He said , 'Well , if I have it , now you have it too @ @ @ @ @ alone , ’ ” Jean-Baptist said , adding that she and her son started to @ @ @ @ @ the alleged incident .

(WPLG) Venise Jean-Baptiste said she and her son suffered COVID-19 after a Miami doctor she worked with purposely infected her with the coronavirus.
Jean-Baptiste, an advanced registered nurse practitioner, said the exchange with Dr. Joseph Piperato happened when they ran into each other in the hallway.
They were at the Project Access Foundation’s Biscayne Medical office at 8000 Biscayne Blvd., near Miami’s Little River area. The nurse claims Piperato was showing symptoms of COVID-19 and that she demanded personal protective equipment (PPE), also suggesting that he get tested.
“He said, 'Well, if I have it, now you have it too. Now, leave me alone,’” Jean-Baptist said, adding that she and her son started to show symptoms within days of the alleged incident.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-25--Middle-schooler threatened with arrest over missed Zoom sessions

( EAST BAY TIMES ) Miss three 30-minute Zoom classes in a single day and go to jail ?
For @ @ @ @ @ student , that could be the consequence , according to a letter the boy ’ @ @ @ @ @ school principal .
And according to the seventh-grader ’ s father , Mark Mastrov , @ @ @ @ @ similar letters because their children allegedly missed Zoom time during their distance learning — a @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Out of the blue , we got this letter .
It said my @ @ @ @ @ and at the bottom it referenced a state law which said truants can go to @ @ @ @ @ of class , ” Mastrov said in an interview .
“ I called the school @ @ @ @ @ , I want to clear this up.
’ “ I was told that it was @ @ @ @ @ , “ Are you kidding me ?
Then that ’ s a bad law.
’ @ @ @ @ @ sweep , here 's an alternative to civil war

(EAST BAY TIMES) Miss three 30-minute Zoom classes in a single day and go to jail?
For a 12-year-old Stanley Middle School student, that could be the consequence, according to a letter the boy’s father received from the school principal.
And according to the seventh-grader’s father, Mark Mastrov, other Lafayette parents have received similar letters because their children allegedly missed Zoom time during their distance learning — a pandemic version of playing hooky.
“Out of the blue, we got this letter. It said my son had missed classes, and at the bottom it referenced a state law which said truants can go to jail for missing 90 minutes of class,” Mastrov said in an interview. “I called the school and said, ‘Hey, I want to clear this up.’
“I was told that it was the law. I said, “Are you kidding me? Then that’s a bad law.’ ”
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-25--Washington Post to media: Report Hunter Biden leaks as foreign disinformation, even if it 'probably'

Washington Post to media: Report Hunter Biden leaks as foreign disinformation, even if it 'probably' isn't

( WASHINGTON EXAMINER ) An analysis piece in the Washington Post stated journalists should treat the leaked emails allegedly recovered @ @ @ @ @ laptop as a foreign disinformation campaign , even if the claim lacks evidence .
“ @ @ @ @ @ and the Russian interference of 2016 holds valuable lessons on what to do and what @ @ @ @ @ , ” wrote Thomas Rid in the Washington Post under the paper 's `` Perspective @ @ @ @ @ must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — @ @ @ @ @ ’ t. ” “ What an incredible admission in the Washington Post , wow .
@ @ @ @ @ to issue journalistic marching orders this contrived in full view of the public , ” @ @ @ @ @ said of the Washington Post ’ s article on Twitter .

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER) An analysis piece in the Washington Post stated journalists should treat the leaked emails allegedly recovered from Hunter Biden’s laptop as a foreign disinformation campaign, even if the claim lacks evidence.
“Take a step back, and the Russian interference of 2016 holds valuable lessons on what to do and what not to do in 2020,” wrote Thomas Rid in the Washington Post under the paper's "Perspective" section. “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t.”
“What an incredible admission in the Washington Post, wow. The hubris it must take to issue journalistic marching orders this contrived in full view of the public,” Daily Caller editor Geoffrey Ingersoll said of the Washington Post’s article on Twitter.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-25--Court to review new definition of 'woman'

A court in Scotland will review a case against a government attempt to redefine the word `` woman '' to include men .
The legal action by a group called For Women Scotland challenges the alteration of a law designed to address the number of women on public boards .
The group claims that the definition of `` woman '' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards ( Scotland ) Act 2018 was altered to include men who identify as women due to pressure from the Scottish Trans Alliance .
`` It should not be possible for Scottish government to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermine U.K. equality law , '' the organization said in a statement noted by the U.K. 's Christian Institute '' Governments at Westminster and Holyrood have , shamefully , ignored U.K. law and left ordinary women with the task of defending our legal rights at personal and financial cost . ''
TRENDING : If Democrats sweep , here 's an alternative to civil war The Scotsman newspaper reported FWS charges that parliament is n't allowed to change the definition of a word .
They are concerned about the implications , including what amounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Equality Act 2010 states `` sex '' is a reference to a man or a woman , and defines woman as `` a female of any age . ''
FWS says that definition is key to `` maintaining women 's rights and protections in law . ''
The Scotsman reported it 's `` feared that if it becomes established that devolved legislatures can amend key terms in the Equality Act via other pieces of legislation , then other countries within the U.K. may follow and the Equality Act may be undermined .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sure public boards in Scotland had equal representation of men and woman .
But it also specified that a `` woman '' is someone `` who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment ... if , and only if , the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo , is undergoing or has undergone a process ( or part of a process ) for the purpose of becoming female . ''
The transgender agenda has faced setbacks recently .
This fall , the U.K. government dropped a plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those in England and Wales to change their legal `` sex '' designation from one to the other .
Similar plans in Scotland were dropped last spring .

A court in Scotland will review a case against a government attempt to redefine the word "woman" to include men.
The legal action by a group called For Women Scotland challenges the alteration of a law designed to address the number of women on public boards. The group claims that the definition of "woman" in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 was altered to include men who identify as women due to pressure from the Scottish Trans Alliance.
"It should not be possible for Scottish government to redefine protected characteristics in discrete legislation nor undermine U.K. equality law," the organization said in a statement noted by the U.K.'s Christian Institute
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"Governments at Westminster and Holyrood have, shamefully, ignored U.K. law and left ordinary women with the task of defending our legal rights at personal and financial cost."
The Scotsman newspaper reported FWS charges that parliament isn't allowed to change the definition of a word.
They are concerned about the implications, including what amounts to "self-identification of sex."
The Equality Act 2010 states "sex" is a reference to a man or a woman, and defines woman as "a female of any age." FWS says that definition is key to "maintaining women's rights and protections in law."
The Scotsman reported it's "feared that if it becomes established that devolved legislatures can amend key terms in the Equality Act via other pieces of legislation, then other countries within the U.K. may follow and the Equality Act may be undermined."
The law originally was intended to make sure public boards in Scotland had equal representation of men and woman.
But it also specified that a "woman" is someone "who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment ... if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female."
The transgender agenda has faced setbacks recently. This fall, the U.K. government dropped a plan that would have made it easier for those in England and Wales to change their legal "sex" designation from one to the other.
Similar plans in Scotland were dropped last spring.


wnd--2020-10-25--Now that U.S. recognizes China as threat, 'it won't get any easier'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Defense . ]
Regardless of whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden wins in November , the next president will confront both a divided America and a world in its usual disarray .
Among the many foreign policy challenges facing the new administration , three are critical : China , Russia , and America ’ s own broken diplomatic instrument .
Keep the Main Thing the Main Thing Trump ’ s biggest foreign policy accomplishment has been to reorient America ’ s China policy , discarding the three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clear-headed evaluation of China as a competitor and threat .
This belated shift was probably inevitable , but Trump accelerated the end of America ’ s embrace of China as a purported partner in prosperity .
TRENDING : If Democrats sweep , here 's an alternative to civil war It won ’ t get any easier from here .
China has both economic tailwinds and demographic headwinds .
The latter is a far larger factor – “ demographics are destiny ” – but perhaps somewhat mitigated in an age of automation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meanwhile , is confronting massive debts , internal disunity , and the looming “ Terrible Twenties ” of major naval recapitalization that analysts have long warned about .
Despite the uncertainty his erratic tweets breed , President Trump has actually strengthened many of America ’ s partnerships in Asia .
The other members of the Quad – Japan , Australia , and India – are critical to the region and vital U.S. national interests .
They are likely to be America ’ s most important twenty-first century partners .
Biden sounds committed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is probably prudent , but it is no barrier to arming Taiwan to the teeth and helping it become a “ porcupine nation ” that can make China think twice about invading .
The Taiwanese commitment to their own defense , however , is in question .
Asian allies are key , and a 500-ship navy would be nice , but the Sino-American competition 's critical arena is likely to be economic and technological .
The next administration must put America ’ s long-term trajectory ahead of Wall Street ’ s quarterly earnings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chains to at least the Western Hemisphere , if not to the United States itself .
The COVID pandemic and America 's initial shameful lack of capacity to make even basic personal protective equipment ( PPE ) should have been the needed wake-up call .
Perhaps U.S. – China technological separation can be limited , “ small plots with high walls , ” as tech billionaires like Eric Schmidt prefer .
A broader decoupling and a de facto two internets may be where we end up .
Regardless , both its 5G failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States has yet to get serious about its growing tech vulnerabilities .
Russia , that other remixed Cold War threat , is increasingly adjacent to China in American strategists ' eyes .
Yet Russia is a distinct and far lesser security challenge than China .
President Obama 's dismissing Russia as “ a regional power ” may not have been sound messaging to Americans or Russians .
Still , it remains a more accurate assessment than the Russian hysteria that has gripped much of the American body politic for the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown that Russia remains a great power , albeit one with clear limits .
The massive Red Army is long gone , replaced by a more proficient and agile Russian military that gets a maximum return on limited interventions like Syria .
Russia has achieved many of its aims in its near abroad and has become an influential actor in the Middle East and North Africa .
The Russians have assassinated spies and dissidents in Europe with little regard for the headlines .
And while Russian interference in U.S. elections does not seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has likely succeeded beyond its authors ’ wildest dreams in disrupting and delegitimizing American politics .
Vladimir Putin ’ s Russia is America ’ s adversary , not an outright enemy .
The United States must not let Russia fall into China ’ s camp .
Whether one hearkens to Halford Mackinder ’ s Heartland Theory or simply does the math on defense spending , the power of a Russo-Chinese alliance is clear .
It is in America ’ s national interest to get past Russian provocations and our own politics and find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Putin ’ s Russia .
Remaining in the Open Skies Treaty and renewing New START are good first steps .
A broad nuclear framework and an accord on mutual political non-interference are potential long-term goals .
America ’ s European allies will have their say , but most will probably welcome a lowering of tensions .
Some theorists argue that structural factors will prevent Russia and China from being more than partners of convenience .
Perhaps .
Even a limited attempt at an American reset with Russia could fail as completely as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a goofy prop .
Nonetheless , the next administration should at least keep its options open and remain realist in its approach to Russia .
“ Ending endless wars ” has become a trope in American politics , thanks to Donald Trump .
But the campaign promises of 2016 remain unfulfilled , with U.S. troops still in Afghanistan , Iraq , and a handful of other low-intensity wars across the Greater Middle East .
Like Trump , Biden increasingly speaks of a smaller footprint and limited counterterrorism aims .
A broader demilitarization of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declining State Department should be among the next president ’ s foremost foreign policy goals .
Both the hapless Rex Tillerson and the swaggering Mike Pompeo gutted the State Department , presiding over a 16-month hiring freeze , plummeting morale , and an unprecedented politicization of the department .
Morale at State is 13th out of the 17 large federal agencies , and vacancies are endemic , both overseas and in key positions at Foggy Bottom .
In an increasingly multipolar world , the decline of American diplomacy is a critical vulnerability .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , filled the vacuum that the State Department has left .
America ’ s senior generals have become proconsuls while her junior officers are told that they are diplomats too .
One wonders why America hasn ’ t won a war in thirty years .
A Foreign Service ROTC program is overdue .
America ’ s diplomats are every bit as important as her soldiers .
As foreign service officers sometimes like to note , since Vietnam , the United States has had more ambassadors than generals killed in the line of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bold , he can take a page from Elizabeth Warren and end America ’ s archaic , corrupt practice of giving ambassadorships to campaign donors and other amateurs .
The ends , ways , and means of U.S. foreign policy are all in need of serious reappraisal and reform .
The State Department is a good place for the next administration to start .
Gil Barndollar is a Senior Fellow at Defense Priorities and a Senior Research Fellow at the Catholic University of America ’ s Center for the Study of Statesmanship .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ originally was published by Real Clear Defense . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Defense.]
By Gil Barndollar
Real Clear Defense
Regardless of whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden wins in November, the next president will confront both a divided America and a world in its usual disarray. Among the many foreign policy challenges facing the new administration, three are critical: China, Russia, and America’s own broken diplomatic instrument.
Keep the Main Thing the Main Thing
Trump’s biggest foreign policy accomplishment has been to reorient America’s China policy, discarding the three preceding administrations' naivete in favor of a clear-headed evaluation of China as a competitor and threat. This belated shift was probably inevitable, but Trump accelerated the end of America’s embrace of China as a purported partner in prosperity.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
It won’t get any easier from here. China has both economic tailwinds and demographic headwinds. The latter is a far larger factor – “demographics are destiny” – but perhaps somewhat mitigated in an age of automation and artificial intelligence. The United States, meanwhile, is confronting massive debts, internal disunity, and the looming “Terrible Twenties” of major naval recapitalization that analysts have long warned about.
Despite the uncertainty his erratic tweets breed, President Trump has actually strengthened many of America’s partnerships in Asia. The other members of the Quad – Japan, Australia, and India – are critical to the region and vital U.S. national interests. They are likely to be America’s most important twenty-first century partners.
Biden sounds committed to continued strategic ambiguity on Taiwan. This is probably prudent, but it is no barrier to arming Taiwan to the teeth and helping it become a “porcupine nation” that can make China think twice about invading. The Taiwanese commitment to their own defense, however, is in question.
Asian allies are key, and a 500-ship navy would be nice, but the Sino-American competition's critical arena is likely to be economic and technological. The next administration must put America’s long-term trajectory ahead of Wall Street’s quarterly earnings calls and restore key industries and supply chains to at least the Western Hemisphere, if not to the United States itself. The COVID pandemic and America's initial shameful lack of capacity to make even basic personal protective equipment (PPE) should have been the needed wake-up call.
Perhaps U.S. – China technological separation can be limited, “small plots with high walls,” as tech billionaires like Eric Schmidt prefer. A broader decoupling and a de facto two internets may be where we end up. Regardless, both its 5G failure and the recent TikTok fiasco show that the United States has yet to get serious about its growing tech vulnerabilities.
Realism on Russia
Russia, that other remixed Cold War threat, is increasingly adjacent to China in American strategists' eyes. Yet Russia is a distinct and far lesser security challenge than China. President Obama's dismissing Russia as “a regional power” may not have been sound messaging to Americans or Russians. Still, it remains a more accurate assessment than the Russian hysteria that has gripped much of the American body politic for the last four years.
The past decade has shown that Russia remains a great power, albeit one with clear limits. The massive Red Army is long gone, replaced by a more proficient and agile Russian military that gets a maximum return on limited interventions like Syria. Russia has achieved many of its aims in its near abroad and has become an influential actor in the Middle East and North Africa. The Russians have assassinated spies and dissidents in Europe with little regard for the headlines. And while Russian interference in U.S. elections does not seem to have moved many votes, it has likely succeeded beyond its authors’ wildest dreams in disrupting and delegitimizing American politics.
Vladimir Putin’s Russia is America’s adversary, not an outright enemy. The United States must not let Russia fall into China’s camp. Whether one hearkens to Halford Mackinder’s Heartland Theory or simply does the math on defense spending, the power of a Russo-Chinese alliance is clear.
It is in America’s national interest to get past Russian provocations and our own politics and find a modus vivendi, however uncomfortable, with Putin’s Russia. Remaining in the Open Skies Treaty and renewing New START are good first steps. A broad nuclear framework and an accord on mutual political non-interference are potential long-term goals. America’s European allies will have their say, but most will probably welcome a lowering of tensions.
Some theorists argue that structural factors will prevent Russia and China from being more than partners of convenience. Perhaps. Even a limited attempt at an American reset with Russia could fail as completely as the last effort – though hopefully without a goofy prop. Nonetheless, the next administration should at least keep its options open and remain realist in its approach to Russia.
Diplomacy and Demilitarization
“Ending endless wars” has become a trope in American politics, thanks to Donald Trump. But the campaign promises of 2016 remain unfulfilled, with U.S. troops still in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a handful of other low-intensity wars across the Greater Middle East. Like Trump, Biden increasingly speaks of a smaller footprint and limited counterterrorism aims. A broader demilitarization of American foreign policy and restoration of the declining State Department should be among the next president’s foremost foreign policy goals.
Both the hapless Rex Tillerson and the swaggering Mike Pompeo gutted the State Department, presiding over a 16-month hiring freeze, plummeting morale, and an unprecedented politicization of the department. Morale at State is 13th out of the 17 large federal agencies, and vacancies are endemic, both overseas and in key positions at Foggy Bottom. In an increasingly multipolar world, the decline of American diplomacy is a critical vulnerability.
The U.S. military has, for decades now, filled the vacuum that the State Department has left. America’s senior generals have become proconsuls while her junior officers are told that they are diplomats too. One wonders why America hasn’t won a war in thirty years.
A Foreign Service ROTC program is overdue. America’s diplomats are every bit as important as her soldiers. As foreign service officers sometimes like to note, since Vietnam, the United States has had more ambassadors than generals killed in the line of duty. If Biden wants to be bold, he can take a page from Elizabeth Warren and end America’s archaic, corrupt practice of giving ambassadorships to campaign donors and other amateurs.
The ends, ways, and means of U.S. foreign policy are all in need of serious reappraisal and reform. The State Department is a good place for the next administration to start.
Gil Barndollar is a Senior Fellow at Defense Priorities and a Senior Research Fellow at the Catholic University of America’s Center for the Study of Statesmanship.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Defense.]


wnd--2020-10-25--Biden's campaign calls lid on in-person campaigning

( BREITBART ) With nine days left before the 2020 election , former Vice President Joe Biden is off the @ @ @ @ @ events scheduled .
On Sunday , Biden ’ s campaign called a “ lid ” @ @ @ @ @ day .
A “ lid ” usually also means the campaign will not conduct press @ @ @ @ @ the remainder of the day .
Biden ’ s campaign clarified that this was not @ @ @ @ @ since the former vice president would speak to supporters late-Sunday evening at a virtual “ @ @ @ @ @ .

(BREITBART) With nine days left before the 2020 election, former Vice President Joe Biden is off the campaign trail without any in-person events scheduled.
On Sunday, Biden’s campaign called a “lid” on in-person campaigning for the day. A “lid” usually also means the campaign will not conduct press conferences or dispense press releases the remainder of the day. Biden’s campaign clarified that this was not a “full lid” since the former vice president would speak to supporters late-Sunday evening at a virtual “I will vote” concert.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-25--Senate advances Amy Coney Barrett nomination, with confirmation expected Monday

( CNBC ) Senate Republicans on Sunday advanced Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination to the Supreme Court , @ @ @ @ @ hurdles of the 48-year-old nominee ’ s confirmation process .
Barrett , a federal appeals @ @ @ @ @ U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals , is expected to be confirmed by the Senate @ @ @ @ @ s procedural vote divided 51-48 largely along party lines .
Two Republicans , Sens .
@ @ @ @ @ Susan Collins of Maine , sided with Democrats .

(CNBC) Senate Republicans on Sunday advanced Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, clearing one of the final hurdles of the 48-year-old nominee’s confirmation process.
Barrett, a federal appeals court judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is expected to be confirmed by the Senate on Monday.
Sunday’s procedural vote divided 51-48 largely along party lines. Two Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, sided with Democrats.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-26--Now Biden's staff has to correct him, explaining he 'misspoke'

( FOX NEWS ) -- Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said that the government could provide four-year college educations for @ @ @ @ @ for his campaign to later admit it would really be closer to double that amount @ @ @ @ @ aired Sunday on CBS ' `` 60 Minutes , '' Biden bragged about the number @ @ @ @ @ `` significant institutional changes '' that would include a 15 % minimum tax on corporations @ @ @ @ @ more than $ 400 billion .
`` I can send every single qualified person to @ @ @ @ @ state for $ 150 billion , '' Biden said .
`` I can make sure @ @ @ @ @ for community college can go and we still have a lotta money left over .
@ @ @ @ @ by significant institutional changes .

(FOX NEWS) -- Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said that the government could provide four-year college educations for $150 billion, only for his campaign to later admit it would really be closer to double that amount.
During an interview that aired Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," Biden bragged about the number as a feature of proposed "significant institutional changes" that would include a 15% minimum tax on corporations, saying it would raise more than $400 billion.
"I can send every single qualified person to a four-year college in their state for $150 billion," Biden said. "I can make sure every single person who qualifies for community college can go and we still have a lotta money left over. That's what I mean by significant institutional changes.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-27--Fox News staffers have coronavirus, top anchors quarantine

( MEDIAITE ) -- Fox News leadership announced in an internal memo Monday that several staffers have tested positive for @ @ @ @ @ that has sent top anchors and executives into quarantine and prompted the network to reduce @ @ @ @ @ number of top figures at Fox News are under quarantine after a passenger on the @ @ @ @ @ from the final presidential debate in Nashville back to New York tested positive .
The @ @ @ @ @ News Media President Jay Wallace , chief political anchor Bret Baier , anchor of The @ @ @ @ @ two of the hosts of The Five , Dana Perino and Juan Williams .
“ @ @ @ @ @ about recent developments of a few positive COVID-19 cases at FOX News Media , ” @ @ @ @ @ CEO Suzanne Scott wrote in an internal memo .
“ This is a reminder that @ @ @ @ @ positive will be quarantining and following all of our mandatory guidelines before they enter any @ @ @ @ @

(MEDIAITE) -- Fox News leadership announced in an internal memo Monday that several staffers have tested positive for the coronavirus, a development that has sent top anchors and executives into quarantine and prompted the network to reduce its in-person workforce.
A number of top figures at Fox News are under quarantine after a passenger on the network’s private flight from the final presidential debate in Nashville back to New York tested positive. The group of passengers included Fox News Media President Jay Wallace, chief political anchor Bret Baier, anchor of The Story Martha MacCallum, and two of the hosts of The Five, Dana Perino and Juan Williams.
“We wanted to inform you about recent developments of a few positive COVID-19 cases at FOX News Media,” Wallace and Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott wrote in an internal memo. “This is a reminder that any employee who has tested positive will be quarantining and following all of our mandatory guidelines before they enter any of our buildings.”
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-27--The Trump campaign's 'next commercial'

The Trump campaign's 'next commercial'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
“ But you can tell the story of why this year might genuinely be different as well !
In particular , you can see how there may be many Republican-leaning voters who genuinely like his [ Trump ’ s ] policies but dislike him personally on such a visceral level that they can not bring themselves to vote for him.
” – Sean Trende , RealClearPolitics senior elections analyst , Oct. 20 , “ What a Big Biden Win Would Look Like.
” What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is an opposite reaction — Republicans who admit that they personally despise the president but are voting for him anyway because they like his policies .
Such contradictions in voter behavior diminish the chances of predicting the presidential winner once afforded by a light-hearted , hypothetical question asking voters : “ Who would you rather have a beer with ?
” When this theoretical , quadrennial beer question entered the political domain ( around 2004 , based on my research ) , pollsters concocted that pop-culture scenario to gauge “ likability ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To be clear , that poll served as a metaphor only , as two recent commanders-in-chief – and at least one candidate for the job – did not drink .
After all , beer sharing aside , Americans are not only voting for a president but someone who they will invite into their homes over the next four years .
However , it just so happened that the “ have a beer ” question was a decent predictor of who would win the White House .
For example , in 2004 , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters preferred President George W. Bush as a drinking buddy over Sen. John Kerry .
Voters picked Bush even though he abstained from drinking , while Kerry — his “ elite ” Democratic challenger — was perceived as more “ snobby.
” During the 2008 election pitting Sens .
Barack Obama and John McCain , I read a revealing modern twist on the beer bro ’ question from a young male 's perspective .
He said that McCain would be “ more fun one-on-one in a bar crawl.
” But , Obama “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ make sure the ladies paid equal attention to me.
” Now that is some focus-group insight !
A window into why Obama ’ s perceived magnetic personality and nice-guy image was key to his decisive 2008 win over McCain , who was considered more hot-tempered .
In 2012 when President Obama was up for reelection , he again won the brew challenge with favorability numbers that surpassed his weaker job approval rating while running against Republican Mitt Romney .
( As a member of the Mormon faith , Romney did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 2012 report on Mediaite also quoted an MSNBC guest describing Romney as a “ geeky , awkward candidate on the campaign trail ” who “ doesn ’ t project a lot of personal warmth .
He doesn ’ t seem the kind of guy you ’ d want to sit down and have a beer with.
” Likeability was a significant factor in 2012 , and the more popular Obama was overwhelmingly reelected .
Then in June 2016 , Rasmussen reported polling results for the presidential candidate with whom “ likely voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Donald Trump won 45 % to Hillary Clinton ’ s 37 % , with 18 % undecided .
Yet , Trump and Clinton were nearly tied at 42 % to 41 % when likely voters were asked which candidate “ they ’ d prefer to invite home to dinner with them and their families.
” Again , a large percentage , 17 % , were unsure .
Those mid-year polling results predicted the tough , unsettled race that lay ahead .
Four years later , we are less than two weeks from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election of our lifetime.
” ( In a December 2019 RCP piece , I argued that voters think that way about every presidential election . )
Now let ’ s revisit the all-important beer-buddy question from a new perspective .
Sean Trende ’ s analysis about Republicans who like Trump ’ s policies but won ’ t vote for him due to his unlikeable personality is supported by Politico ’ s Tom Alberta , who wrote : “ Generations of pollsters and journalists have fixated on the question of which candidate voters would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how personality translates into political success .
Here ’ s the thing : Americans have been having a beer with Trump for the past four years—every morning , every afternoon , every evening .
He has made himself more accessible than any president in history , using the White House as a performance stage and Twitter as a real-time diary for all to read .
Like the drunk at the bar , he won ’ t shut up.
” Nonetheless , for the vast majority of Republicans , Trump is their favorite “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shut up , ” and they don ’ t want him to .
Millions of loyal , banner-waving , rally attending , MAGA hat wearers enthusiastically love and support the president because of what he has done , will continue to do , and are gladly voting to keep him in office .
Even Republicans who find Trump personally abhorrent will hold their nose and cast their vote with the other hand .
I know this firsthand because these voters are my friends .
Last week while making a point in my controversial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received the prior week from a dear friend who is a Republican leader explaining why I had to support Trump .
It read in part : In so many words , that is the mantra I hear repeatedly , and often this way : “ Your house is on fire ; do you care if the fireman is a jerk ?
” Furthermore , reacting to my piece last week , RCP readers sent me numerous Gmails .
These mostly angry messages exposed the schism facing our nation when millions of voters would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump because of what he is doing for America .
An example : “ Trump is one of the few people standing between mainstream American and the precipice.
” Also , I heard from Republicans who want to kick Trump out of that proverbial bar , such as this RCP reader : “ I have never seen the virtue of a group of people so much undermined by one person than the typical Republican has been by Trump.
” The reader ended his long message writing , “ Thank you and God Bless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me feel less alone .
I now have some hope.
” Finally , before I go drink a beer , here is an RCP reader ’ s message that best represents the view of most Trump-voting Republicans : “ Yes , President Trump 's tweets are boisterous in nature and hurt him .
Yes , he certainly has flaws .
At least I know he will fight for my rights and has demonstrated a willingness to do so .
That ’ s why I ’ m voting for him…I can overlook everything else.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reader just wrote your next commercial !

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Myra Adams
Real Clear Politics
“But you can tell the story of why this year might genuinely be different as well! In particular, you can see how there may be many Republican-leaning voters who genuinely like his [Trump’s] policies but dislike him personally on such a visceral level that they cannot bring themselves to vote for him.” – Sean Trende, RealClearPolitics senior elections analyst, Oct. 20, “What a Big Biden Win Would Look Like.”
What Trende wrote is true, but also there is an opposite reaction — Republicans who admit that they personally despise the president but are voting for him anyway because they like his policies.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Such contradictions in voter behavior diminish the chances of predicting the presidential winner once afforded by a light-hearted, hypothetical question asking voters: “Who would you rather have a beer with?”
(Note: After searching during this election cycle, I have yet to find that question asked by any polling company.)
When this theoretical, quadrennial beer question entered the political domain (around 2004, based on my research), pollsters concocted that pop-culture scenario to gauge “likability” as a factor in predicting outcome. To be clear, that poll served as a metaphor only, as two recent commanders-in-chief – and at least one candidate for the job – did not drink.
After all, beer sharing aside, Americans are not only voting for a president but someone who they will invite into their homes over the next four years.
However, it just so happened that the “have a beer” question was a decent predictor of who would win the White House.
For example, in 2004, a poll found that 57.3% of undecided voters preferred President George W. Bush as a drinking buddy over Sen. John Kerry. Voters picked Bush even though he abstained from drinking, while Kerry — his “elite” Democratic challenger — was perceived as more “snobby.”
During the 2008 election pitting Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, I read a revealing modern twist on the beer bro’ question from a young male's perspective. He said that McCain would be “more fun one-on-one in a bar crawl.” But, Obama “would get me into better clubs” and “make sure the ladies paid equal attention to me.” Now that is some focus-group insight! A window into why Obama’s perceived magnetic personality and nice-guy image was key to his decisive 2008 win over McCain, who was considered more hot-tempered.
In 2012 when President Obama was up for reelection, he again won the brew challenge with favorability numbers that surpassed his weaker job approval rating while running against Republican Mitt Romney. (As a member of the Mormon faith, Romney did not drink.)
That data from a June 2012 report on Mediaite also quoted an MSNBC guest describing Romney as a “geeky, awkward candidate on the campaign trail” who “doesn’t project a lot of personal warmth. He doesn’t seem the kind of guy you’d want to sit down and have a beer with.” Likeability was a significant factor in 2012, and the more popular Obama was overwhelmingly reelected.
Then in June 2016, Rasmussen reported polling results for the presidential candidate with whom “likely voters” would prefer to have a beer. Donald Trump won 45% to Hillary Clinton’s 37%, with 18% undecided.
Yet, Trump and Clinton were nearly tied at 42% to 41% when likely voters were asked which candidate “they’d prefer to invite home to dinner with them and their families.” Again, a large percentage, 17%, were unsure. Those mid-year polling results predicted the tough, unsettled race that lay ahead.
Four years later, we are less than two weeks from what everyone calls “the most important election of our lifetime.” (In a December 2019 RCP piece, I argued that voters think that way about every presidential election.)
Now let’s revisit the all-important beer-buddy question from a new perspective. Sean Trende’s analysis about Republicans who like Trump’s policies but won’t vote for him due to his unlikeable personality is supported by Politico’s Tom Alberta, who wrote:
“Generations of pollsters and journalists have fixated on the question of which candidate voters would rather have a beer with—a window into how personality translates into political success. Here’s the thing: Americans have been having a beer with Trump for the past four years—every morning, every afternoon, every evening. He has made himself more accessible than any president in history, using the White House as a performance stage and Twitter as a real-time diary for all to read. Like the drunk at the bar, he won’t shut up.”
Nonetheless, for the vast majority of Republicans, Trump is their favorite “drunk” who “won’t shut up,” and they don’t want him to. Millions of loyal, banner-waving, rally attending, MAGA hat wearers enthusiastically love and support the president because of what he has done, will continue to do, and are gladly voting to keep him in office.
Even Republicans who find Trump personally abhorrent will hold their nose and cast their vote with the other hand. I know this firsthand because these voters are my friends.
Last week while making a point in my controversial Trump piece, I included a text received the prior week from a dear friend who is a Republican leader explaining why I had to support Trump. It read in part:
“Pay attention to ISSUES, not personalities.”
In so many words, that is the mantra I hear repeatedly, and often this way: “Your house is on fire; do you care if the fireman is a jerk?”
Furthermore, reacting to my piece last week, RCP readers sent me numerous Gmails. These mostly angry messages exposed the schism facing our nation when millions of voters would relish that proverbial “beer” with Trump because of what he is doing for America. An example:
“Trump is one of the few people standing between mainstream American and the precipice.”
Also, I heard from Republicans who want to kick Trump out of that proverbial bar, such as this RCP reader:
“I have never seen the virtue of a group of people so much undermined by one person than the typical Republican has been by Trump.” The reader ended his long message writing, “Thank you and God Bless You for writing your article and making me feel less alone. I now have some hope.”
Finally, before I go drink a beer, here is an RCP reader’s message that best represents the view of most Trump-voting Republicans:
“Yes, President Trump's tweets are boisterous in nature and hurt him. Yes, he certainly has flaws. At least I know he will fight for my rights and has demonstrated a willingness to do so. That’s why I’m voting for him…I can overlook everything else.”
Hey Trump campaign, an RCP reader just wrote your next commercial!


wnd--2020-10-27--'The early vote is not even news'

'The early vote is not even news'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
It ’ s that most wonderful time of year .
After endless speculation , analysis , and hedging , we are tantalizingly close to having actual new election data to work with .
Given this , it is a natural temptation for analysts to gravitate toward the one piece of hard data that we have in our possession : early voting numbers .
Take , for example , this piece from Politico , claiming that the Democrats ’ massive lead in early voting is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given my response on this matter before : Don ’ t try to divine election results from early voting returns .
I made this point in 2016 , when people were making the exact same arguments about Democrats ’ chances off of similar data .
The problem today is the same as it was back then .
Rather than reinvent the wheel , I ’ ll summarize my basic argument from four years ago : Unless you somehow know what is going to happen on Election Day , this argument is useless .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could turn out every one of their voters early , and Republicans could still win the election by turning out more on Election Day .
Obviously , that isn ’ t going to happen .
But we exist somewhere along that spectrum .
Most , if not the overwhelming majority , of these early voters are people who would otherwise vote on Election Day .
The fact that they decide to cast ballots early just isn ’ t all that interesting -- except perhaps in a state like Nevada , where almost all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is especially true in 2020 , when fears of COVID-19 have ( unfortunately ) become a partisan issue , and where President Trump has been urging Republicans not to vote early .
It would probably be unusual , in fact , if we did not see a partisan advantage for Democrats in early voting .
We can add to this one other problem : human nature .
Seeing patterns in clouds is a whimsical experience , one that often brings about nostalgia for childhood .
It ’ s also a substantial cognitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things that aren ’ t there .
Our brains evolved to make patterns out of seemingly disparate events , but we ’ ve probably over-evolved in this regard , to our detriment in predicting elections .
More importantly , when we really want to see something , we have a tendency to make it so .
We can look at the cloud that sort of/kind of looks like a seagull , except that it only has one wing and no beak and 13 tendrils instead of legs .
But our brain will still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Don ’ t get me started on images of Elvis popping up everywhere . )
How does this relate to early voting ?
Because we don ’ t have a lengthy history of good research giving our brains guidance for how to interpret early returns , it ’ s very easy to see what you want to see .
For example , we can look at North Carolina , and see that Democrats have a 10.5-percentage-point lead over Republicans in early voting .
That seems great for Democrats .
But we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a similar point in 2016 , Democrats had a 13.1-percentage-point lead there in early voting .
In other words , Democrats are doing worse than they were at this point four years ago ( and much worse than they were in 2012 ) .
Actually , with a week to go early voting is looking about the same as it did at the end of 2016 ( when Democrats had a 9.8-percentage-point lead at the end ) , and that wasn ’ t a great year for them .
For that matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the early electorate in 2016 ; at this point they are 20.5 % of the electorate .
That ’ s probably not what we would expect in a Democratic wave year when Republicans are being encouraged to vote on Election Day and Democrats are supposedly avoiding it .
You can see similar stories developing in Florida and Nevada , where you can make a case that things look roughly the same as they did about a week out from Election Day in 2016 .
Of course , there are various rejoinders to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote against Donald Trump at higher rates than they did in 2016 , and a critical mass of independents seems to have soured on the president .
Maybe Republicans are using in-person early voting , cannibalizing their traditional Election Day vote .
Perhaps the anticipated Trumpian improvement with African Americans and Hispanic will fail to materialize , and he ’ ll do worse than in 2016 with non-whites .
This precisely illustrates my point .
The claim is not “ the early vote actually is good news for Republicans.
” The point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even news.
” We don ’ t know in these states what share of Republicans , Democrats , or independents are voting for Republicans or Democrats , and we don ’ t know how many voters for any party are going to end up voting on Nov. 3 .
This is all speculation dressed up as news .
We ’ ve waited this long for actual election returns ; we can wait eight more days .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Sean Trende
Real Clear Politics
It’s that most wonderful time of year. After endless speculation, analysis, and hedging, we are tantalizingly close to having actual new election data to work with. Given this, it is a natural temptation for analysts to gravitate toward the one piece of hard data that we have in our possession: early voting numbers. Take, for example, this piece from Politico, claiming that the Democrats’ massive lead in early voting is a “warning flare.”
I have given my response on this matter before: Don’t try to divine election results from early voting returns. I made this point in 2016, when people were making the exact same arguments about Democrats’ chances off of similar data.
The problem today is the same as it was back then. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I’ll summarize my basic argument from four years ago: Unless you somehow know what is going to happen on Election Day, this argument is useless. To take an extreme example: Democrats could turn out every one of their voters early, and Republicans could still win the election by turning out more on Election Day.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Obviously, that isn’t going to happen. But we exist somewhere along that spectrum. Most, if not the overwhelming majority, of these early voters are people who would otherwise vote on Election Day. The fact that they decide to cast ballots early just isn’t all that interesting -- except perhaps in a state like Nevada, where almost all of the votes are cast early. This is especially true in 2020, when fears of COVID-19 have (unfortunately) become a partisan issue, and where President Trump has been urging Republicans not to vote early. It would probably be unusual, in fact, if we did not see a partisan advantage for Democrats in early voting.
We can add to this one other problem: human nature. Seeing patterns in clouds is a whimsical experience, one that often brings about nostalgia for childhood. It’s also a substantial cognitive problem, because you’re seeing things that aren’t there. Our brains evolved to make patterns out of seemingly disparate events, but we’ve probably over-evolved in this regard, to our detriment in predicting elections.
More importantly, when we really want to see something, we have a tendency to make it so. We can look at the cloud that sort of/kind of looks like a seagull, except that it only has one wing and no beak and 13 tendrils instead of legs. But our brain will still somehow make a seagull out of it. (Don’t get me started on images of Elvis popping up everywhere.)
How does this relate to early voting? Because we don’t have a lengthy history of good research giving our brains guidance for how to interpret early returns, it’s very easy to see what you want to see. For example, we can look at North Carolina, and see that Democrats have a 10.5-percentage-point lead over Republicans in early voting. That seems great for Democrats.
But we could also contextualize this by noting that at a similar point in 2016, Democrats had a 13.1-percentage-point lead there in early voting. In other words, Democrats are doing worse than they were at this point four years ago (and much worse than they were in 2012). Actually, with a week to go early voting is looking about the same as it did at the end of 2016 (when Democrats had a 9.8-percentage-point lead at the end), and that wasn’t a great year for them. For that matter, African American voters were 22% of the early electorate in 2016; at this point they are 20.5% of the electorate. That’s probably not what we would expect in a Democratic wave year when Republicans are being encouraged to vote on Election Day and Democrats are supposedly avoiding it.
You can see similar stories developing in Florida and Nevada, where you can make a case that things look roughly the same as they did about a week out from Election Day in 2016.
Of course, there are various rejoinders to all this. We might expect Republicans to vote against Donald Trump at higher rates than they did in 2016, and a critical mass of independents seems to have soured on the president. Maybe Republicans are using in-person early voting, cannibalizing their traditional Election Day vote. Perhaps the anticipated Trumpian improvement with African Americans and Hispanic will fail to materialize, and he’ll do worse than in 2016 with non-whites.
This precisely illustrates my point. The claim is not “the early vote actually is good news for Republicans.” The point is “the early vote is not even news.” We don’t know in these states what share of Republicans, Democrats, or independents are voting for Republicans or Democrats, and we don’t know how many voters for any party are going to end up voting on Nov. 3. This is all speculation dressed up as news. We’ve waited this long for actual election returns; we can wait eight more days.


wnd--2020-10-27--Suspect arrested after pro-Trump family is pepper-sprayed at 'Jews for Trump' event

A pro-Trump rally in New York City held by members of the Jewish community was attacked throughout Sunday by protestors , leaving children suffering after being assaulted with pepper spray .
A “ Jews for Trump ” vehicle rally was organized by an adviser to the Trump campaign , Boris Epshteyn .
He is also the co-chair of Jewish Voices for Trump .
But rather than being allowed to take part in a peaceful showing of support for the president , the already embattled Orthodox Jewish community was assaulted in areas from Manhattan to Brooklyn .
WARNING : The following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offensive : Fox News reported a family of seven was pepper-sprayed while participating in the peaceful rally .
Of the family that was targeted by anti-Trump protestors , four children were left feeling the lingering effects of the pepper spray .
A man told Fox anonymously that his family was driving along Fifth Avenue in a car draped with Trump flags with its windows down .
That ’ s when the man said another car pulled up alongside his family and sprayed everyone , including the four children , with the pepper spray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and screaming and I jumped out of the car after I was peppered [ sic ] sprayed as well , '' he told Fox News .
The reported attacker was arrested when the man who was interviewed by Fox said he got out of the car , only to be further pursued on foot by a person who allegedly released the chemical irritant on the family and children .
An officer reportedly detained and arrested the alleged attacker .
The man said the children `` are now left traumatized '' and `` coughing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed to in the unprovoked attack .
The family hit with the chemical irritant were not the only members of the city ’ s pro-Trump Jewish community targeted by violence Sunday .
Several hundred cars adorning “ Trump 2020 ” flags took part in the mobile rally , which began in the Coney Island neighborhood , and stopped at Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue .
One such caravan was led by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani , whose car was targeted by a mob of demonstrators .
The rally eventually headed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos posted to social media show that those who partook in the Trump rally were attacked with rocks and other projectiles throughout the event , while some were targeted on the Brooklyn Bridge by a man who was punching car windows .
In all , the NYPD told Fox that `` 11 people were taken into custody '' following the attacks on the Jews for Trump rally-goers .
Of those arrested , six were charged with disorderly conduct , obstruction of government administration and harassment .
Another individual faces a charge of assaulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thirteen Orthodox Jewish rabbis endorsed Trump ’ s re-election bid in a letter on Sunday .
The community has been targeted in recent weeks by city and state officials over religious gatherings , leading to accusations that Democratic officials such as Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov .
Andrew Cuomo are engaging in anti-Semitism .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

A pro-Trump rally in New York City held by members of the Jewish community was attacked throughout Sunday by protestors, leaving children suffering after being assaulted with pepper spray.
A “Jews for Trump” vehicle rally was organized by an adviser to the Trump campaign, Boris Epshteyn.
He is also the co-chair of Jewish Voices for Trump.
But rather than being allowed to take part in a peaceful showing of support for the president, the already embattled Orthodox Jewish community was assaulted in areas from Manhattan to Brooklyn.
WARNING: The following contains videos that some viewers may find offensive:
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
More from brawl in Manhattan when anti-Trump protesters attack #JewsForTrump vehicle convoy pic.twitter.com/KUPratW4Mf — NYC Scanner (@NYScanner) October 25, 2020
Fox News reported a family of seven was pepper-sprayed while participating in the peaceful rally.
Of the family that was targeted by anti-Trump protestors, four children were left feeling the lingering effects of the pepper spray.
A man told Fox anonymously that his family was driving along Fifth Avenue in a car draped with Trump flags with its windows down.
That’s when the man said another car pulled up alongside his family and sprayed everyone, including the four children, with the pepper spray.
"Immediately the kids started crying and screaming and I jumped out of the car after I was peppered [sic] sprayed as well," he told Fox News.
The reported attacker was arrested when the man who was interviewed by Fox said he got out of the car, only to be further pursued on foot by a person who allegedly released the chemical irritant on the family and children.
An officer reportedly detained and arrested the alleged attacker.
Woman arrested for spraying pepper spray at the #JewsForTrump vehicle convoy on 5 Avenue in Manhattan. pic.twitter.com/kfrwaLTJgT — NYC Scanner (@NYScanner) October 25, 2020
The man said the children "are now left traumatized" and "coughing" from the pepper spray they were exposed to in the unprovoked attack.
The family hit with the chemical irritant were not the only members of the city’s pro-Trump Jewish community targeted by violence Sunday.
Several hundred cars adorning “Trump 2020” flags took part in the mobile rally, which began in the Coney Island neighborhood, and stopped at Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue.
One such caravan was led by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose car was targeted by a mob of demonstrators.
Ruddy Giuliani just rode through NYC with Trump Caravan. Trump cars got egged and flags ripped up by BLM. 📹 By Scootercaster (FNTV) [email protected] for licensing pic.twitter.com/9Knx0hAtSM — @SCOOTERCASTER (FNTV) (@ScooterCasterNY) October 25, 2020
The rally eventually headed to a park in Brooklyn.
Multiple videos posted to social media show that those who partook in the Trump rally were attacked with rocks and other projectiles throughout the event, while some were targeted on the Brooklyn Bridge by a man who was punching car windows.
This man is so upset that a #JewsForTrump vehicle convoy practically shut down the Brooklyn Bridge while heading to Manhattan, that he began punching vehicles. @NYPDnews @realDonaldTrump @TrumpWarRoom pic.twitter.com/6kSZKUoa0F — NYC Scanner (@NYScanner) October 25, 2020
Eggs thrown on #JewsForTrump vehicle convoy in Brooklyn pic.twitter.com/IvMC4uGXKN — NYC Scanner (@NYScanner) October 25, 2020
In all, the NYPD told Fox that "11 people were taken into custody" following the attacks on the Jews for Trump rally-goers.
Of those arrested, six were charged with disorderly conduct, obstruction of government administration and harassment.
Another individual faces a charge of assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.
Thirteen Orthodox Jewish rabbis endorsed Trump’s re-election bid in a letter on Sunday.
The community has been targeted in recent weeks by city and state officials over religious gatherings, leading to accusations that Democratic officials such as Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew Cuomo are engaging in anti-Semitism.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-10-27--State Department: China's goal is 'to fundamentally revise world order'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
Foreign policy , it is said , seldom determines U.S. elections .
Nevertheless , external threats – and the measures adopted to counter them -- often carry far-reaching implications for America ’ s ability to secure freedom at home .
That is one reason Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made a priority of explaining the scope and urgency of the China challenge to fellow Americans and of traveling the world to discuss the challenge with friends and partners .
Owing in part to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part to China ’ s egregious conduct -- not least its dishonest and disastrous handling of the outbreak in Wuhan of the new coronavirus , which resulted in a global pandemic -- awareness has been growing in the United States and in nations around the world that Beijing has triggered a new era of great-power competition .
Still , few appreciate the pattern in China ’ s inroads in every region of the world , much less the specific form of preeminence to which the Chinese Communist Party ( CCP ) aspires .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Planning Staff argues in “ The Elements of the China Challenge , ” a long paper to be published next month , the CCP aims not merely at preeminence within the established world order -- which is grounded in free and sovereign nation-states , flows from the universal principles on which America was founded , and advances U.S. national interests .
Beijing ’ s long-term goal is to fundamentally revise world order , placing the People ’ s Republic of China ( PRC ) -- with some 1.4 billion people , the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the center and serving Beijing ’ s authoritarian goals and imperial ambitions .
The widespread failure to understand China ’ s conduct results in no small measure from neglect of the CCP ’ s governing ideas and guiding aims .
Just as the United States ’ commitment to a free and open international order composed of sovereign nation-states arises out of America ’ s dedication to “ unalienable rights ” -- the language that our nation ’ s Declaration of Independence uses to describe the rights inherent in all persons -- so too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the international order to comply with socialism ’ s dictates stem from the CCP ’ s communist ideology and extreme nationalist convictions .
The conventional wisdom , however , has long supposed that China is best understood in terms of reasonable state behavior .
Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping ’ s decision in the late 1970s to incorporate capitalist elements into China ’ s state-controlled economy spurred rapid modernization , generated enormous economic growth , and catapulted China to great-power status .
It was thought , in line with the conventional wisdom of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberalization and the new affluence it generated would bring political liberalization .
For decades , moreover , influential observers in and out of government viewed China ’ s rise as an opportunity to substantially enlarge the world market and thereby benefit all nations through increased global commerce .
Indeed , China ’ s prodigious economic growth yielded substantial benefits not only to the Chinese people but also to nations around the world .
Even after the CCP ’ s bloody June 1989 crackdown on hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States and around the world clung to high hopes for China ’ s steady integration into the international order .
But the highly anticipated political liberalization did not occur .
China might have chosen the democratic path of former dictatorships in East Asia like South Korea and Taiwan .
Speculations about “ the end of history ” -- that liberal democracy , owing to its reasonableness and universal appeal , was spreading around the globe -- inflated the hope .
But the CCP has stuck to its authoritarian convictions .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fidelity to socialism -- the state control of economy and society -- as the model not only for China but also for a world order dominated by China .
It was always unreasonable to assume that Chinese Communist Party leaders -- who take pride in being heirs to a great and ancient civilization , and who espouse a 20th-century ideology and political system whose cruelty and repression have left tens of millions dead -- comprehend domestic politics and world affairs as do the United States and other liberal democracies .
In recent years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -- by nefarious means ranging from digital surveillance to sweeping indoctrination to concentration camps for religious and ethnic minorities -- intensified the subordination of the Chinese people to CCP-defined collective interests .
The CCP has developed -- and acquired through intellectual property theft of massive proportions -- advanced technologies not only to control its own population but also to build a world-class military and to collect data on persons across the globe .
The CCP has pursued extravagant claims in the South China Sea in brazen defiance of international law while crushing freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same in Taiwan .
The CCP has undertaken major infrastructure and investment projects around the world , the better to induce or compel sovereign nation-states , particularly their governing and business elites , to participate in China ’ s reshaping of world affairs .
And the CCP has leveraged its integration into international organizations to infuse them with norms and standards rooted in CCP authoritarianism .
All this enables the CCP to credibly pursue the quest -- proceeding outward through the Indo-Pacific region and encompassing the globe -- to remake world order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ambitions for global supremacy flow from the CCP ’ s overarching sensibility .
That sensibility is authoritarian , collectivist , and imperial .
Two streams of ideas nourish it .
Seminal CCP writings and speeches proclaim cardinal tenets of Marxism-Leninism as interpreted by all five Chinese communist leaders beginning with Mao Zedong , CCP chairman from 1943 to 1976 and founding ruler of the People ’ s Republic of China .
These writings and speeches also advance an extreme interpretation of Chinese nationalism .
Daniel Tobin -- a senior associate at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( CSIS ) and a faculty member in China Studies at the National Intelligence University -- has underscored the continuity of the party ’ s commitment to socialism : “ In his first speech to a Politburo group study session as general secretary in November 2012 , Xi [ Jinping ] echoed each of his post-Mao predecessors in insisting : ‘ Only socialism can save China , and only Chinese socialism can lead our country to development.
’ ” According to Xi , that overarching socialist commitment has always had a vital nationalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in October 2017 , the CCP amended its Party Constitution to enshrine his concept of “ the Chinese Dream of national rejuvenation.
” Xi highlighted the fidelity of his synthesis of Chinese communism and Chinese nationalism to the party ’ s fundamental teachings : “ At its founding , ” he said , “ the Communist Party of China made realizing communism its highest ideal and its ultimate goal , and shouldered the historic mission of national rejuvenation.
” In a 2019 speech , Xi emphasized that the nation ’ s flourishing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimate victory : “ In today ’ s China , the essence of patriotism is the complete combination of our devotion to the country , to the Chinese Communist Party and to socialism.
” The patriotic work of national rejuvenation , as Xi explains it , culminates with China ’ s dominance of a globe-spanning socialist order .
A politics grounded in 20th-century communist dogma and an extreme interpretation of Chinese nationalism was by no means inevitable in China .
Indeed , prominent alternatives to CCP authoritarianism , collectivism , and imperialism have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steeped in Confucian civilization than the population of the People ’ s Republic of China , the people of Hong Kong , Taiwan , and South Korea embraced freedom and democracy .
Notwithstanding its authoritarian rule at home and the threat it presents to freedom around the world , China under the CCP is marked by a variety of vulnerabilities .
These begin with the disadvantages endemic to autocracy : constraints over the long-term on innovation , difficulties forming and maintaining alliances , and the costs of internal repression .
They also include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instability ; demographic imbalance ; environmental degradation ; persistent corruption ; oppression of ethnic and religious minorities ; daunting expenses incurred in monitoring , censoring , and indoctrinating China ’ s 1.4 billion people ; separation of the armed forces , controlled by the party , from the people ; and -- particularly in the wake of the illness , death , and social and economic devastation wrought worldwide by the COVID-19 pandemic born in Wuhan -- mounting international anger at the CCP ’ s contempt for human life , indifference to other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international norms and obligations .
Understanding the China challenge depends on a clear-eyed assessment of the CCP ’ s conduct at home and around the world ; its basic beliefs and long-term goals ; and its vulnerabilities , both those it shares with all authoritarian regimes and those specific to the CCP .
Meeting the China challenge will require the United States to return to the fundamentals .
To safeguard a free and open international order , the United States must , in the first place , secure freedom at home by honoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional traditions .
The United States must also maintain the world ’ s best-trained and best-equipped military .
It light of the China challenge ’ s distinctive features , it must revitalize its alliance system by developing new groupings and coalitions to handle particular problems and by reforming international organizations so that they serve the interests of free and sovereign nation states .
It must pursue opportunities to cooperate with China but based on fairness and reciprocity , while constraining and deterring China where necessary .
It must cultivate a diplomatic corps that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while appreciating the diversity and common humanity of the peoples and nations of the world .
It must foster an informed and engaged public .
And it must , through the many forms of diplomatic power at its disposal , champion human rights .
This multi-pronged approach will demonstrate for all to see that the United States stands , and stands with those who stand , for freedom .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Peter Berkowitz
Real Clear Politics
Foreign policy, it is said, seldom determines U.S. elections. Nevertheless, external threats – and the measures adopted to counter them -- often carry far-reaching implications for America’s ability to secure freedom at home. That is one reason Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made a priority of explaining the scope and urgency of the China challenge to fellow Americans and of traveling the world to discuss the challenge with friends and partners.
Owing in part to the secretary’s efforts and in part to China’s egregious conduct -- not least its dishonest and disastrous handling of the outbreak in Wuhan of the new coronavirus, which resulted in a global pandemic -- awareness has been growing in the United States and in nations around the world that Beijing has triggered a new era of great-power competition. Still, few appreciate the pattern in China’s inroads in every region of the world, much less the specific form of preeminence to which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aspires.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
As the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff argues in “The Elements of the China Challenge,” a long paper to be published next month, the CCP aims not merely at preeminence within the established world order -- which is grounded in free and sovereign nation-states, flows from the universal principles on which America was founded, and advances U.S. national interests. Beijing’s long-term goal is to fundamentally revise world order, placing the People’s Republic of China (PRC) -- with some 1.4 billion people, the world’s most populous nation -- at the center and serving Beijing’s authoritarian goals and imperial ambitions.
The widespread failure to understand China’s conduct results in no small measure from neglect of the CCP’s governing ideas and guiding aims. Just as the United States’ commitment to a free and open international order composed of sovereign nation-states arises out of America’s dedication to “unalienable rights” -- the language that our nation’s Declaration of Independence uses to describe the rights inherent in all persons -- so too does China’s determination to reorganize the international order to comply with socialism’s dictates stem from the CCP’s communist ideology and extreme nationalist convictions.
The conventional wisdom, however, has long supposed that China is best understood in terms of reasonable state behavior. Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s decision in the late 1970s to incorporate capitalist elements into China’s state-controlled economy spurred rapid modernization, generated enormous economic growth, and catapulted China to great-power status. It was thought, in line with the conventional wisdom of political science, that China’s economic liberalization and the new affluence it generated would bring political liberalization.
For decades, moreover, influential observers in and out of government viewed China’s rise as an opportunity to substantially enlarge the world market and thereby benefit all nations through increased global commerce. Indeed, China’s prodigious economic growth yielded substantial benefits not only to the Chinese people but also to nations around the world. Even after the CCP’s bloody June 1989 crackdown on hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square and throughout the country, many in the United States and around the world clung to high hopes for China’s steady integration into the international order. But the highly anticipated political liberalization did not occur.
China might have chosen the democratic path of former dictatorships in East Asia like South Korea and Taiwan. Speculations about “the end of history” -- that liberal democracy, owing to its reasonableness and universal appeal, was spreading around the globe -- inflated the hope. But the CCP has stuck to its authoritarian convictions. At every opportunity, the party affirmed its fidelity to socialism -- the state control of economy and society -- as the model not only for China but also for a world order dominated by China.
It was always unreasonable to assume that Chinese Communist Party leaders -- who take pride in being heirs to a great and ancient civilization, and who espouse a 20th-century ideology and political system whose cruelty and repression have left tens of millions dead -- comprehend domestic politics and world affairs as do the United States and other liberal democracies. In recent years, the CCP has consolidated authority and -- by nefarious means ranging from digital surveillance to sweeping indoctrination to concentration camps for religious and ethnic minorities -- intensified the subordination of the Chinese people to CCP-defined collective interests. The CCP has developed -- and acquired through intellectual property theft of massive proportions -- advanced technologies not only to control its own population but also to build a world-class military and to collect data on persons across the globe. The CCP has pursued extravagant claims in the South China Sea in brazen defiance of international law while crushing freedom in Hong Kong and threatening to do the same in Taiwan. The CCP has undertaken major infrastructure and investment projects around the world, the better to induce or compel sovereign nation-states, particularly their governing and business elites, to participate in China’s reshaping of world affairs. And the CCP has leveraged its integration into international organizations to infuse them with norms and standards rooted in CCP authoritarianism. All this enables the CCP to credibly pursue the quest -- proceeding outward through the Indo-Pacific region and encompassing the globe -- to remake world order in Beijing’s image.
China’s ambitions for global supremacy flow from the CCP’s overarching sensibility. That sensibility is authoritarian, collectivist, and imperial. Two streams of ideas nourish it. Seminal CCP writings and speeches proclaim cardinal tenets of Marxism-Leninism as interpreted by all five Chinese communist leaders beginning with Mao Zedong, CCP chairman from 1943 to 1976 and founding ruler of the People’s Republic of China. These writings and speeches also advance an extreme interpretation of Chinese nationalism.
Daniel Tobin -- a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and a faculty member in China Studies at the National Intelligence University -- has underscored the continuity of the party’s commitment to socialism: “In his first speech to a Politburo group study session as general secretary in November 2012, Xi [Jinping] echoed each of his post-Mao predecessors in insisting: ‘Only socialism can save China, and only Chinese socialism can lead our country to development.’”
According to Xi, that overarching socialist commitment has always had a vital nationalist dimension. At the 19th Party Congress in October 2017, the CCP amended its Party Constitution to enshrine his concept of “the Chinese Dream of national rejuvenation.” Xi highlighted the fidelity of his synthesis of Chinese communism and Chinese nationalism to the party’s fundamental teachings: “At its founding,” he said, “the Communist Party of China made realizing communism its highest ideal and its ultimate goal, and shouldered the historic mission of national rejuvenation.”
In a 2019 speech, Xi emphasized that the nation’s flourishing is indissolubly bound up with communism’s ultimate victory: “In today’s China, the essence of patriotism is the complete combination of our devotion to the country, to the Chinese Communist Party and to socialism.” The patriotic work of national rejuvenation, as Xi explains it, culminates with China’s dominance of a globe-spanning socialist order.
A politics grounded in 20th-century communist dogma and an extreme interpretation of Chinese nationalism was by no means inevitable in China. Indeed, prominent alternatives to CCP authoritarianism, collectivism, and imperialism have prospered in the region. No less steeped in Confucian civilization than the population of the People’s Republic of China, the people of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea embraced freedom and democracy.
Notwithstanding its authoritarian rule at home and the threat it presents to freedom around the world, China under the CCP is marked by a variety of vulnerabilities. These begin with the disadvantages endemic to autocracy: constraints over the long-term on innovation, difficulties forming and maintaining alliances, and the costs of internal repression. They also include vulnerabilities specific to the PRC: economic instability; demographic imbalance; environmental degradation; persistent corruption; oppression of ethnic and religious minorities; daunting expenses incurred in monitoring, censoring, and indoctrinating China’s 1.4 billion people; separation of the armed forces, controlled by the party, from the people; and -- particularly in the wake of the illness, death, and social and economic devastation wrought worldwide by the COVID-19 pandemic born in Wuhan -- mounting international anger at the CCP’s contempt for human life, indifference to other nations’ well-being, and disregard for international norms and obligations.
Understanding the China challenge depends on a clear-eyed assessment of the CCP’s conduct at home and around the world; its basic beliefs and long-term goals; and its vulnerabilities, both those it shares with all authoritarian regimes and those specific to the CCP. Meeting the China challenge will require the United States to return to the fundamentals.
To safeguard a free and open international order, the United States must, in the first place, secure freedom at home by honoring the nation’s founding principles and constitutional traditions. The United States must also maintain the world’s best-trained and best-equipped military. It light of the China challenge’s distinctive features, it must revitalize its alliance system by developing new groupings and coalitions to handle particular problems and by reforming international organizations so that they serve the interests of free and sovereign nation states. It must pursue opportunities to cooperate with China but based on fairness and reciprocity, while constraining and deterring China where necessary. It must cultivate a diplomatic corps that understands the American spirit and American government while appreciating the diversity and common humanity of the peoples and nations of the world. It must foster an informed and engaged public. And it must, through the many forms of diplomatic power at its disposal, champion human rights.
This multi-pronged approach will demonstrate for all to see that the United States stands, and stands with those who stand, for freedom.


wnd--2020-10-27--Man wins $1 million lottery twice after accidentally buying an extra ticket

Most minor mix-ups happen in daily life with few consequences .
We buy the wrong item at the store , accidentally buy a duplicate or the wrong size and lose a few bucks at most .
But one man from Dearborn Heights , Michigan , made a small mistake that paid off big in a way no one could have predicted .
Samir Mazahem picked the five winning numbers for the drawing that took place on June 9 .
The 56-year-old chose 01-05-09-10-23 online when buying his Mega Millions ticket .
As often happens with online ordering , Mazahem accidentally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series when he went back to check on his numbers .
Mazahem told the Michigan Lottery what caused the mix-up .
`` I went online and bought a ticket using numbers that are family birthdays , '' he said .
`` I forgot to save the numbers as favorites in the app , so I went back in and set them up as favorites so I could easily play them in the future . ''
`` What I didn ’ t realize , is that meant I would be buying a second ticket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figured out I had bought two tickets with identical numbers , I was a little bummed but didn ’ t think much about it . ''
In most cases , buying two tickets with the same numbers would decrease the likelihood of a win -- but it worked out quite well for Mazahem .
`` I recently logged into the app to check on some tickets I had bought , and that is when I saw I had two $ 1 million prizes pending , '' he explained .
`` Saying that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` I couldn ’ t believe it was real .
It took several days for the reality to set in that my mistake had paid off to the tune of $ 2 million ! ''
His initial win would have netted him a nice sum , but because each ticket was worth $ 1 million , he made off with double the win .
`` Winning is exciting and gives me some comfort knowing that when I retire , I will have money in the bank , '' he said .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the headquarters to claim his money .
They said he plans to purchase a house and put the rest in savings .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

Most minor mix-ups happen in daily life with few consequences. We buy the wrong item at the store, accidentally buy a duplicate or the wrong size and lose a few bucks at most.
But one man from Dearborn Heights, Michigan, made a small mistake that paid off big in a way no one could have predicted.
Samir Mazahem picked the five winning numbers for the drawing that took place on June 9. The 56-year-old chose 01-05-09-10-23 online when buying his Mega Millions ticket.
As often happens with online ordering, Mazahem accidentally purchased another ticket with the same number series when he went back to check on his numbers.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Mazahem told the Michigan Lottery what caused the mix-up.
"I went online and bought a ticket using numbers that are family birthdays," he said.
"I forgot to save the numbers as favorites in the app, so I went back in and set them up as favorites so I could easily play them in the future."
"What I didn’t realize, is that meant I would be buying a second ticket with the same numbers. Once I figured out I had bought two tickets with identical numbers, I was a little bummed but didn’t think much about it."
In most cases, buying two tickets with the same numbers would decrease the likelihood of a win -- but it worked out quite well for Mazahem.
"I recently logged into the app to check on some tickets I had bought, and that is when I saw I had two $1 million prizes pending," he explained.
"Saying that I was stunned is an understatement."
"I couldn’t believe it was real. It took several days for the reality to set in that my mistake had paid off to the tune of $2 million!"
His initial win would have netted him a nice sum, but because each ticket was worth $1 million, he made off with double the win.
"Winning is exciting and gives me some comfort knowing that when I retire, I will have money in the bank," he said.
According to Michigan Lottery, Mazahem went in-person to the headquarters to claim his money. They said he plans to purchase a house and put the rest in savings.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.