wnd--2020-10-07--State instructs diners: Put your mask on between bites

If public policy is based on `` the science '' regarding wearing masks to slow the spread of COVID-19 , California Gov .
Gavin Newsom is making it harder for the residents of his beleaguered state to figure exactly what the science is .
`` Going out to eat with members of your household this weekend ?
Do n't forget to keep your mask on in between bites .
Do your part to keep those around you healthy , '' says a tweet from the governor 's office .
The image accompanying the tweet , however , poses a dilemma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's titled `` COVD-19 DINER TIP 1 : Minimize the number of times you take your mask off . ''
But Newsom 's guidence would substantially increase the number of times masks are removed .
`` This violates the @ WHO 'Dont 's of Mask wearing , ' '' wrote a Twitter user who supplied a World Health Organization graphic advising people to avoid touching their mask and to wash their hands before touching their mask and after discarding it .
Many counties in California currently limit indoor restaurants to 25 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has compiled a page of `` Mask Facts '' that explains the basic science behind mask wearing and summarizes a variety of studies .
It shows that the consensus prior to the coronavirus pandemic was that the effectiveness of mask-wearing by the general public in slowing the spread of a virus is unproven , and there 's evidence it does more harm than good .
On April 6 , the World Health Organization said the `` wide use of masks by healthy people in the community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and carries uncertainties and critical risks . ''
Just two months , later , however , as the pandemic surged , the WHO changed its stance without providing any evidence with radomized controlled trials .
On March 5 , the Centers for Disease Control said masks `` are usually not recommended in `` non-health care settings . ''
But on Aug. 7 , the CDC said it `` recommends that people wear masks in public settings and when around people who do n't live in your household , especially when other social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @

If public policy is based on "the science" regarding wearing masks to slow the spread of COVID-19, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is making it harder for the residents of his beleaguered state to figure exactly what the science is.
"Going out to eat with members of your household this weekend? Don't forget to keep your mask on in between bites. Do your part to keep those around you healthy," says a tweet from the governor's office.
The image accompanying the tweet, however, poses a dilemma for residents of the Golden State.
It's titled "COVD-19 DINER TIP 1: Minimize the number of times you take your mask off."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
But Newsom's guidence would substantially increase the number of times masks are removed.
"This violates the @WHO 'Dont's of Mask wearing,'" wrote a Twitter user who supplied a World Health Organization graphic advising people to avoid touching their mask and to wash their hands before touching their mask and after discarding it.
Many counties in California currently limit indoor restaurants to 25% of capacity or outdoor dining only.
Going out to eat with members of your household this weekend? Don't forget to keep your mask on in between bites. Do your part to keep those around you healthy. #SlowtheSpreadhttps://t.co/snYe5v55Rw pic.twitter.com/Y4fcDO5Zke — Office of the Governor of California (@CAgovernor) October 3, 2020
Is keeping a mask on while dining a practical tip? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 1% (4 Votes) 99% (317 Votes)
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has compiled a page of "Mask Facts" that explains the basic science behind mask wearing and summarizes a variety of studies.
It shows that the consensus prior to the coronavirus pandemic was that the effectiveness of mask-wearing by the general public in slowing the spread of a virus is unproven, and there's evidence it does more harm than good.
On April 6, the World Health Organization said the "wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks."
Just two months, later, however, as the pandemic surged, the WHO changed its stance without providing any evidence with radomized controlled trials.
On March 5, the Centers for Disease Control said masks "are usually not recommended in "non-health care settings."
But on Aug. 7, the CDC said it "recommends that people wear masks in public settings and when around people who don't live in your household, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain."


wnd--2020-10-07--The political left: Perpetual merchants of death

Just a few weeks after the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and we 've had a lovely object lesson illustrating the difference in character between those on the political left and , well , everybody else .
Despite standing in stark opposition to everything Ginsburg stood for , numerous politicos and pundits articulated gracious and even glowing reviews of her life and work , rather than expressing glee that this stalwart leftist had `` left the building '' forever .
The difference in character of which I speak was of course exemplified last week when the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his wife , Melania , had tested positive for COVID-19 .
Almost immediately , liberals across the country expressed glee at the diagnoses , with countless individuals voicing the sentiment : `` I hope they both die ! ''
As pro-Trump crowds gathered outside of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center where the president was being treated earlier this week , confrontations occasionally broke out between these groups and groups of detractors who taunted the Trump supporters and chanted their hope that the president would languish and die .
As anyone who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be aware , that bunch has been even more vociferous as regards expressing the same sentiment .
There 's far more to this disagreeable dynamic than a widespread demonstration of juvenile or vindictive character , however , and it is vitally important that we recognize and acknowledge same .
For some time now – although I 'm tempted to say `` once upon a time '' – we in America have held the sanctity of human life in extremely high regard .
Some of this has been due to our foundation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal had to do with the evolutive nature of our society .
Somewhere along the line – and to our credit – we became aware of the value of each and every human life .
As the founders of our nation inculcated into our collective worldview , when you steal a person 's freedom , in many respects it is analogous to taking their life .
If we 're being honest , we 'll have to admit that the pogroms of socialist and communist regimes of the 20th century ( such as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cementing our belief that every life has value , from the unborn to the near-dead .
Consequently , we went from a nation in which viewing the public execution of criminals was a form of community recreation , to one in which many people of conscience do n't believe that any life should be taken , even those of unrepentant convicted murderers .
As one might expect – and as we are seeing play out before our eyes – this has changed in an insidious and sinister fashion with the rise of socialism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many leftists oppose the death penalty as a point of their anti law-and-order stance , they obviously take no issue with the half-million to million-plus abortions that are performed in the U.S. annually , nor with euthanasia ( in the form of assisted suicide ) , nor with the thousands who die violently each year in deeply dysfunctional , Democrat-controlled enclaves .
Even socialized medicine – for which leftists advocate and toward which we gravitated significantly with the passage of Obamacare – invariably imposes expedient and even draconian measures that devalue the life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left 's ceaseless admonitions that their opponents on the right are the intolerant , hateful and potentially violent ones , we can now see that they have no compunction as regards committing acts of violence in order to attain what they desire .
The contrived violent demonstrations that continue to plague our cities further illustrate the left 's penchant for murder and mayhem .
For those of us who 've seen this coming for a long time and who are well-versed in the way socialists and communists operate , this is old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and communists maimed , murdered and enslaved close to a half billion people during the 20th century , with quite a few in the latter group still suffering enslavement .
Many will recall the controversy surrounding former President Obama 's relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers .
His revolutionary group , the Weather Underground , was once recorded discussing the prospect of having to kill off around 25 million nonconformists in order to secure communist ascendancy in America .
That the political left embraces a culture of death is , at this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for rejoicing at an opponent 's death or the prospect thereof simply reflects leftists ( as individuals ) having abandoned notions relating to the sanctity of life , and thoroughly embraced that culture of death .
In light of this , continuing to deny the left 's penchant for killing whilst shrinking at their accusatory invective – which is calculated to engender passivity on our part – could prove to be a demonstrably fatal mistake .

Just a few weeks after the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and we've had a lovely object lesson illustrating the difference in character between those on the political left and, well, everybody else. Despite standing in stark opposition to everything Ginsburg stood for, numerous politicos and pundits articulated gracious and even glowing reviews of her life and work, rather than expressing glee that this stalwart leftist had "left the building" forever.
The difference in character of which I speak was of course exemplified last week when the White House announced that President Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, had tested positive for COVID-19. Almost immediately, liberals across the country expressed glee at the diagnoses, with countless individuals voicing the sentiment: "I hope they both die!"
As pro-Trump crowds gathered outside of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center where the president was being treated earlier this week, confrontations occasionally broke out between these groups and groups of detractors who taunted the Trump supporters and chanted their hope that the president would languish and die. As anyone who has frequented social media over the last week will be aware, that bunch has been even more vociferous as regards expressing the same sentiment.
There's far more to this disagreeable dynamic than a widespread demonstration of juvenile or vindictive character, however, and it is vitally important that we recognize and acknowledge same.
For some time now – although I'm tempted to say "once upon a time" – we in America have held the sanctity of human life in extremely high regard. Some of this has been due to our foundation in the Judeo-Christian ethos, but a great deal had to do with the evolutive nature of our society. Somewhere along the line – and to our credit – we became aware of the value of each and every human life.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
As the founders of our nation inculcated into our collective worldview, when you steal a person's freedom, in many respects it is analogous to taking their life. If we're being honest, we'll have to admit that the pogroms of socialist and communist regimes of the 20th century (such as the Holocaust) went a long way toward cementing our belief that every life has value, from the unborn to the near-dead.
Consequently, we went from a nation in which viewing the public execution of criminals was a form of community recreation, to one in which many people of conscience don't believe that any life should be taken, even those of unrepentant convicted murderers.
As one might expect – and as we are seeing play out before our eyes – this has changed in an insidious and sinister fashion with the rise of socialism and its sibling, liberalism. While many leftists oppose the death penalty as a point of their anti law-and-order stance, they obviously take no issue with the half-million to million-plus abortions that are performed in the U.S. annually, nor with euthanasia (in the form of assisted suicide), nor with the thousands who die violently each year in deeply dysfunctional, Democrat-controlled enclaves.
Even socialized medicine – for which leftists advocate and toward which we gravitated significantly with the passage of Obamacare – invariably imposes expedient and even draconian measures that devalue the life of the individual. Finally, despite the left's ceaseless admonitions that their opponents on the right are the intolerant, hateful and potentially violent ones, we can now see that they have no compunction as regards committing acts of violence in order to attain what they desire. The contrived violent demonstrations that continue to plague our cities further illustrate the left's penchant for murder and mayhem.
For those of us who've seen this coming for a long time and who are well-versed in the way socialists and communists operate, this is old hat. In real numbers, socialists and communists maimed, murdered and enslaved close to a half billion people during the 20th century, with quite a few in the latter group still suffering enslavement.
Many will recall the controversy surrounding former President Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. His revolutionary group, the Weather Underground, was once recorded discussing the prospect of having to kill off around 25 million nonconformists in order to secure communist ascendancy in America.
That the political left embraces a culture of death is, at this point, a self-evident proposition. This proclivity for rejoicing at an opponent's death or the prospect thereof simply reflects leftists (as individuals) having abandoned notions relating to the sanctity of life, and thoroughly embraced that culture of death.
In light of this, continuing to deny the left's penchant for killing whilst shrinking at their accusatory invective – which is calculated to engender passivity on our part – could prove to be a demonstrably fatal mistake.


wnd--2020-10-07--How John Brennan helped keep Obama 'scandal free'

`` I am proud of the fact that we will – knock on wood – leave this administration without significant scandal , '' said Barack Obama near the end of his second term .
Until very recently at least , he had former CIA Director John Brennan to thank for that .
Like `` Pulp Fiction 's '' Winston Wolf , John Brennan 's job – even before the CIA veteran joined the Obama administration – was to `` solve problems . ''
One immediate problem candidate Barack Obama had to solve was his 1981 trip to Pakistan .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategically discussed it during a San Francisco fundraiser on April 17 , 2008 .
`` I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college , '' boasted Obama as a way of countering Hillary Clinton 's foreign policy experience .
`` I knew what Sunni and Shia was before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee . ''
Obama mentioned not a word about the trip in either `` Dreams from My Father '' or `` The Audacity of Hope . ''
In the latter book , the omission is particularly noteworthy given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish his foreign policy cred .
This oversight would have been of minimal interest were it not for the fact that Obama 's passport file had been breached four times beginning in January 2008 , the story about which broke just weeks before the San Francisco fundraiser .
To its credit , CNN reported a critical fact the New York Times did not find newsworthy , namely that the prime perpetrator worked for The Analysis Corporation ( TAC ) , whose CEO `` advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company was John Brennan .
According to CNN 's source , the unnamed TAC transgressor was considered a `` terrific '' employee except , of course , for his multiple incursions into Obama 's passport file .
TAC flacks characterized that behavior as an `` aberration , '' claiming , with the PR equivalent of a straight face , `` This individual 's actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards . ''
Reportedly , the State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employee while the investigation was underway .
He need not have worried about the investigation 's outcome .
The State Department 's July 2008 report on the incident was redacted to the point of uselessness .
If Brennan 's employee was ever named , let alone punished , that fact did not make the news or the report .
In January 2009 , the Washington Post ran a 1,300-word , front-page article on Brennan 's appointment as deputy national security adviser .
Obama need not have worried .
The Post failed to mention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Post article , Ken Timmerman , then with Newsmax , reported that , according to his sources , the purpose of the passport breach was to `` cauterize '' Obama 's file , meaning to remove or doctor any potentially embarrassing information .
If true , this revelation helped make sense of Obama 's decision to introduce the subject of his 1981 Pakistan trip a few weeks after his passport file had been properly scrubbed .
In his 2016 book , `` Deception , '' Timmerman further reported that five days after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Washington , D.C. , police arrested , on a marijuana charge , a man with the unusual name `` Leiutenant [ sic ] Quarles Harris Jr. '' In addition to the marijuana , police found eight State Department passport applications on Harris when they busted him .
According to his charging document , `` Harris admitted he obtained the Passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State . ''
After he agreed to cooperate in the State Department investigation , the D.C. police released Harris on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , D.C. police found Harris shot dead in the front seat of his locked car , the shots having penetrated the windshield .
Reported the Washington Times , `` City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators . ''
Or , like the murder of Seth Rich , it might have been just another `` botched robbery . ''
Brennan would show up again long before Obamagate .
In June 2010 , Brennan traveled to Phoenix to discuss border security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In September 2010 , the ATF 's William Newell briefed Brennan 's office on the agency 's `` ambitious efforts to stop weapons trafficking '' in advance of Brennan 's meeting with the Mexican president .
It is hard to believe that someone as savvy as Brennan did not know about Fast and Furious , a bizarre plot to subvert the Second Amendment that began unraveling with the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry three months later .
Then too there was the harassment of the few truth-telling reporters in the major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2012 , Attkisson was not surprised to see a familiar name emerge in a WikiLeaks dump pilfered from the global intelligence company Stratfor .
The memo read , `` Brennan is behind the witch hunts of investigative journalists learning information from inside the beltway sources .
There is a specific tasker from the [ White House ] to go after anyone printing materials negative to the Obama agenda ( oh my ) .
Even the FBI is shocked . ''
Granted , all the allegations I cite about Brennan are unproven .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ then with BuzzFeed , set out to confirm them with an exposé on Brennan , by then the head of the CIA .
Hastings did not get to finish the job .
Early in the morning of June 18 , 2013 , Hastings sent an email to his editor : `` the Feds are interviewing my 'close friends and associates . '
Perhaps if the authorities arrive 'BuzzFeed GQ , ' er HQ , may be wise to immediately request legal counsel before any conversations or interviews about our news-gathering practices or related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hastings was burned beyond recognition in a fiery car crash in a Los Angeles neighborhood .
As they say , dead men tell no tales .
Jack Cashill 's new book , `` Unmasking Obama : The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency , '' is widely available .
See also www.cashill.com .

"I am proud of the fact that we will – knock on wood – leave this administration without significant scandal," said Barack Obama near the end of his second term. Until very recently at least, he had former CIA Director John Brennan to thank for that.
Like "Pulp Fiction's" Winston Wolf, John Brennan's job – even before the CIA veteran joined the Obama administration – was to "solve problems."
One immediate problem candidate Barack Obama had to solve was his 1981 trip to Pakistan. No one knew about this trip until Obama strategically discussed it during a San Francisco fundraiser on April 17, 2008.
"I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college," boasted Obama as a way of countering Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience. "I knew what Sunni and Shia was before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
Obama mentioned not a word about the trip in either "Dreams from My Father" or "The Audacity of Hope." In the latter book, the omission is particularly noteworthy given that Obama used "Audacity" to establish his foreign policy cred.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
This oversight would have been of minimal interest were it not for the fact that Obama's passport file had been breached four times beginning in January 2008, the story about which broke just weeks before the San Francisco fundraiser.
To its credit, CNN reported a critical fact the New York Times did not find newsworthy, namely that the prime perpetrator worked for The Analysis Corporation (TAC), whose CEO "advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues." The CEO of that small company was John Brennan.
According to CNN's source, the unnamed TAC transgressor was considered a "terrific" employee except, of course, for his multiple incursions into Obama's passport file.
TAC flacks characterized that behavior as an "aberration," claiming, with the PR equivalent of a straight face, "This individual's actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards."
Reportedly, the State Department asked Brennan not to discipline the employee while the investigation was underway. He need not have worried about the investigation's outcome.
The State Department's July 2008 report on the incident was redacted to the point of uselessness. If Brennan's employee was ever named, let alone punished, that fact did not make the news or the report.
In January 2009, the Washington Post ran a 1,300-word, front-page article on Brennan's appointment as deputy national security adviser. Obama need not have worried. The Post failed to mention the passport incident.
Three days after the Post article, Ken Timmerman, then with Newsmax, reported that, according to his sources, the purpose of the passport breach was to "cauterize" Obama's file, meaning to remove or doctor any potentially embarrassing information.
If true, this revelation helped make sense of Obama's decision to introduce the subject of his 1981 Pakistan trip a few weeks after his passport file had been properly scrubbed.
In his 2016 book, "Deception," Timmerman further reported that five days after the passport story broke in March 2008, Washington, D.C., police arrested, on a marijuana charge, a man with the unusual name "Leiutenant [sic] Quarles Harris Jr."
In addition to the marijuana, police found eight State Department passport applications on Harris when they busted him. According to his charging document, "Harris admitted he obtained the Passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State."
After he agreed to cooperate in the State Department investigation, the D.C. police released Harris on his own recognizance. Less than a month later, D.C. police found Harris shot dead in the front seat of his locked car, the shots having penetrated the windshield.
Reported the Washington Times, "City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators." Or, like the murder of Seth Rich, it might have been just another "botched robbery."
Brennan would show up again long before Obamagate. In June 2010, Brennan traveled to Phoenix to discuss border security with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.
In September 2010, the ATF's William Newell briefed Brennan's office on the agency's "ambitious efforts to stop weapons trafficking" in advance of Brennan's meeting with the Mexican president.
It is hard to believe that someone as savvy as Brennan did not know about Fast and Furious, a bizarre plot to subvert the Second Amendment that began unraveling with the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry three months later.
Then too there was the harassment of the few truth-telling reporters in the major media like CBS's Sharyl Attkisson. In 2012, Attkisson was not surprised to see a familiar name emerge in a WikiLeaks dump pilfered from the global intelligence company Stratfor.
The memo read, "Brennan is behind the witch hunts of investigative journalists learning information from inside the beltway sources. There is a specific tasker from the [White House] to go after anyone printing materials negative to the Obama agenda (oh my). Even the FBI is shocked."
Granted, all the allegations I cite about Brennan are unproven. In 2013, reporter Michael Hastings, then with BuzzFeed, set out to confirm them with an exposé on Brennan, by then the head of the CIA. Hastings did not get to finish the job.
Early in the morning of June 18, 2013, Hastings sent an email to his editor: "the Feds are interviewing my 'close friends and associates.' Perhaps if the authorities arrive 'BuzzFeed GQ,' er HQ, may be wise to immediately request legal counsel before any conversations or interviews about our news-gathering practices or related journalism issues."
Several hours later, Hastings was burned beyond recognition in a fiery car crash in a Los Angeles neighborhood. As they say, dead men tell no tales.
Jack Cashill's new book, "Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency," is widely available. See also www.cashill.com.


wnd--2020-10-08--Pollster says undecided voters found Harris 'abrasive and condescending'

( FOX NEWS ) -- Voters found Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris to be `` abrasive and condescending '' @ @ @ @ @ 's debate with Vice President Mike Pence , pollster Frank Luntz told the Fox News @ @ @ @ @ complaint about Kamala Harris was that she was abrasive and condescending , '' said Luntz @ @ @ @ @ of 15 undecided voters from eight battleground states throughout the evening .
`` The complaint @ @ @ @ @ he was too tired , but [ he was ] vice presidential , or presidential @ @ @ @ @ who went on to say that `` if this is a battle over style and @ @ @ @ @ the case with undecided voters because they simply do not choose on policy , they @ @ @ @ @ this was Mike Pence ’ s night . ''

(FOX NEWS) -- Voters found Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris to be "abrasive and condescending" at various points throughout Wednesday's debate with Vice President Mike Pence, pollster Frank Luntz told the Fox News reaction panel.
"The complaint about Kamala Harris was that she was abrasive and condescending," said Luntz, who monitored the reactions of 15 undecided voters from eight battleground states throughout the evening.
"The complaint about Mike Pence was that he was too tired, but [he was] vice presidential, or presidential," added Luntz, who went on to say that "if this is a battle over style and substance -- which is often the case with undecided voters because they simply do not choose on policy, they also choose on persona -- this was Mike Pence’s night."
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-08--Pence challenges Harris on Supreme Court packing question

( FOX NEWS ) -- Vice President Mike Pence hammered Sen. Kamala Harris Wednesday night over whether Democrats would pack @ @ @ @ @ not “ get their way , ” and should Judge Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed @ @ @ @ @ Election Day .
During the vice presidential debate , Pence said that the “ American @ @ @ @ @ ” on court packing , after Democratic nominee Joe Biden ducked the question during the @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Are you and Joe Biden going to pack the court if Amy Coney @ @ @ @ @ you going to pack the court ?
” Pence asked .
“ Your party is @ @ @ @ @ to the Supreme Court , which has had 9 seats for 150 years , if @ @ @ @ @ your way .
”

(FOX NEWS) -- Vice President Mike Pence hammered Sen. Kamala Harris Wednesday night over whether Democrats would pack the Supreme Court should they not “get their way,” and should Judge Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed to the high court before Election Day.
During the vice presidential debate, Pence said that the “American people really deserve an answer” on court packing, after Democratic nominee Joe Biden ducked the question during the first presidential debate last week.
“Are you and Joe Biden going to pack the court if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed? Are you going to pack the court?” Pence asked. “Your party is actually openly advocating adding seats to the Supreme Court, which has had 9 seats for 150 years, if you don’t get your way.”
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-08--Harris blows it trying to report on Trump taxes

( WASHINGTON EXAMINER ) -- Sen. Kamala Harris incorrectly stated how much President Trump paid in taxes in total in @ @ @ @ @ vice presidential debate on Wednesday .
The California Democrat said that Trump only paid $ @ @ @ @ @ figure that comes from a New York Times report in September .
However , the @ @ @ @ @ income taxes in those years , not the total taxes Trump paid , which include @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times report said Trump paid no federal income taxes in 10 of @ @ @ @ @ only $ 750 each in 2016 and 2017 .
Trump ’ s overall income was @ @ @ @ @ so he did not owe regular income tax on any of it , according to @ @ @ @ @ not clear from the report what Trump paid in other taxes , such as payroll @ @ @ @ @

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER) -- Sen. Kamala Harris incorrectly stated how much President Trump paid in taxes in total in 2016 and 2017 during the vice presidential debate on Wednesday.
The California Democrat said that Trump only paid $750 in taxes, a figure that comes from a New York Times report in September. However, the number referred just to his income taxes in those years, not the total taxes Trump paid, which include property and business taxes.
The New York Times report said Trump paid no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years and only $750 each in 2016 and 2017. Trump’s overall income was negative in those two years so he did not owe regular income tax on any of it, according to the report. It's not clear from the report what Trump paid in other taxes, such as payroll and capital gains taxes.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-08--Trump rejects demand for virtual debate structure

( WASHINGTON EXAMINER ) -- President Trump declared he will not be participating in next week 's presidential debate given @ @ @ @ @ to be a virtual event .
Trump said the change , which was announced less @ @ @ @ @ phone interview Thursday morning on Fox Business , is `` not acceptable to us .
@ @ @ @ @ Debates had just released a statement that said the `` debate will take the form @ @ @ @ @ in which the candidates would participate from separate remote locations . ''

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER) -- President Trump declared he will not be participating in next week's presidential debate given that it is now set to be a virtual event.
Trump said the change, which was announced less than an hour before his phone interview Thursday morning on Fox Business, is "not acceptable to us."
The Commission on Presidential Debates had just released a statement that said the "debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which the candidates would participate from separate remote locations."
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-08--Pence and Harris strike calmer tone than presidential debate

( WASHINGTON EXAMINER ) – The vice presidential debate was much calmer and more conventional than the first meeting of @ @ @ @ @ , but Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence nevertheless differed mightily on the issues @ @ @ @ @ each , and , particularly in the case of Pence , stepped on each other @ @ @ @ @ assailed the Trump administration on the pandemic while Pence cast the Democratic ticket as far @ @ @ @ @ `` The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration @ @ @ @ @ country , ” Harris said of President Trump ’ s coronavirus response in her very @ @ @ @ @ “ We need to save our country , and Joe Biden is the best leader @ @ @ @ @ frankly , this administration has forfeited their right to re-election because of this .
”

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER) – The vice presidential debate was much calmer and more conventional than the first meeting of the major party presidential nominees, but Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence nevertheless differed mightily on the issues, launched sharp attacks at each, and, particularly in the case of Pence, stepped on each other's allotted time.
Harris assailed the Trump administration on the pandemic while Pence cast the Democratic ticket as far more radical than advertised.
"The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country,” Harris said of President Trump’s coronavirus response in her very first answer Wednesday night. “We need to save our country, and Joe Biden is the best leader to do that, and frankly, this administration has forfeited their right to re-election because of this.”
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-10-09--Joe Biden is flirting with the destruction of the judiciary

Joe Biden says , `` You 'll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over . ''
To this point , Biden has n't offered any position on court-packing , one of the gravest threats to the constitutional order in modern American history .
Whether he is too scared of offending a significant faction of his party or he believes it 's an idea worth considering , his silence is a reflection of a dangerous shift on the left .
Progressives , of course , have a point .
If the Supreme Court adheres to even the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than surrendering to the impulses of majoritarian politics , it 's going to be a huge impediment to their agenda .
Indeed , they have the same motivation as President Franklin Roosevelt had when he attempted to expand the Court in 1937 : One-party rule .
FDR revived a Woodrow Wilson plan to arbitrarily place political allies into the courts , one for every judge over 70 years old , which would have meant 50 additional political allies on the federal bench , and six additional Supreme Court justices .
Like today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public by attempting to delegitimize the Court – claiming , for instance , that the justices were incompetent geriatric cases incapable of performing their duties .
( It is somewhat ironic that the most reliably pro-New Deal justice at the time , Louis Brandeis , was the only octogenarian on the Court . )
In those days , there were still enough politicians who valued the separation of powers to stop him .
Of the 10 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who signed a document opposing FDR 's scheme , seven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintain that FDR was wrong or misguided ; they argued that the court-packing plan was an `` utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle , '' a transparent scheme to punish justices whose opinions diverged from the executive branch , and `` an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country . ''
If enacted , the senators wrote , court-packing would create a `` vicious precedent which must necessarily undermine our system . ''
They concluded that the plan `` should be so emphatically rejected that its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the free representatives of the free people of America . ''
TRENDING : Schumer plays COVID card in bid to stop Amy Coney Barrett confirmation : 'The GOP must halt' FDR , whose popularity would plummet to historic lows after the court-packing threat , ultimately went on to appoint eight justices , and to largely have his way in fundamentally changing American governance .
But he was prevented from destroying the Court as an institution , and modern-day Democrats are now seeking to finish that job .
Today , every instance in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately transformed into a national `` crisis '' in which the public has `` lost faith '' in a system that worked perfectly fine when they were in power .
Not that long ago , self-interest was a motivation for defending deliberative politics and republican order .
But these days , undeterred by reality , partisans have convinced themselves they 'll be in power forever .
It 's not merely the progressive fringe that demands Democrats blow up the courts .
It is the partisan , self-proclaimed defenders of `` norms . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the nation 's leading periodical of intellectual anti-constitutionalism , Lawfare 's Quinta Jurecic and Susan Hennessey argue that `` if Republicans continue the smash-and-grab approach to confirming Barrett , '' court-packing `` may be the only way for Democrats to save the Court . ''
The duly elected president and the duly elected Senate are observing the constitutionally stipulated guidelines for placing a highly qualified jurist on the Court .
Someone will need to do a better job of explaining how dismantling the Court will `` save '' it .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to differentiate between ends and means , the idea makes intuitive sense to you .
Perhaps you nod along as Biden spuriously argues that Amy Coney Barrett 's nomination is nothing more than the exploitation of a `` loophole '' to undo the Affordable Care Act , ignoring the fact that we do n't know how she 'll rule on the Obamacare lawsuit .
But back here in the real world , we know that court-packing would be far more destructive to our political order than anything Donald Trump has done , Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notion that the Senate should n't confirm Trump 's nominee because Biden might win the election or Trump lost the `` popular vote '' is highly dubious .
Justices do not need the consent of the majority , nor should they seek it .
As Clark Neily , the vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute , recently noted , some of the Supreme Court 's `` most reviled cases – including Dred Scott ( slavery ) , Plessy ( separate-but-equal ) , and Buck v. Bell ( eugenics ) – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can think of no higher compliment to pay a judge than to characterize her as antidemocratic . ''
And that 's if Democrats take the charge seriously , which all evidence suggests they do n't : Remember , they had no problem with this `` anti-democratic '' institution when it was creating constitutional rights to gay marriage and abortion .
It only becomes a problem for them when it threatens to defend the Bill of Rights .

Joe Biden says, "You'll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over." To this point, Biden hasn't offered any position on court-packing, one of the gravest threats to the constitutional order in modern American history. Whether he is too scared of offending a significant faction of his party or he believes it's an idea worth considering, his silence is a reflection of a dangerous shift on the left.
Progressives, of course, have a point. If the Supreme Court adheres to even the most rudimentary constitutional limits on state power, rather than surrendering to the impulses of majoritarian politics, it's going to be a huge impediment to their agenda. Indeed, they have the same motivation as President Franklin Roosevelt had when he attempted to expand the Court in 1937: One-party rule.
FDR revived a Woodrow Wilson plan to arbitrarily place political allies into the courts, one for every judge over 70 years old, which would have meant 50 additional political allies on the federal bench, and six additional Supreme Court justices. Like today's Democrats, he first softened up the public by attempting to delegitimize the Court – claiming, for instance, that the justices were incompetent geriatric cases incapable of performing their duties. (It is somewhat ironic that the most reliably pro-New Deal justice at the time, Louis Brandeis, was the only octogenarian on the Court.)
In those days, there were still enough politicians who valued the separation of powers to stop him. Of the 10 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who signed a document opposing FDR's scheme, seven were Democrats. They didn't merely maintain that FDR was wrong or misguided; they argued that the court-packing plan was an "utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle," a transparent scheme to punish justices whose opinions diverged from the executive branch, and "an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country."
If enacted, the senators wrote, court-packing would create a "vicious precedent which must necessarily undermine our system." They concluded that the plan "should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
FDR, whose popularity would plummet to historic lows after the court-packing threat, ultimately went on to appoint eight justices, and to largely have his way in fundamentally changing American governance. But he was prevented from destroying the Court as an institution, and modern-day Democrats are now seeking to finish that job.
Today, every instance in which Democrats are denied a political victory is immediately transformed into a national "crisis" in which the public has "lost faith" in a system that worked perfectly fine when they were in power. Not that long ago, self-interest was a motivation for defending deliberative politics and republican order. But these days, undeterred by reality, partisans have convinced themselves they'll be in power forever.
It's not merely the progressive fringe that demands Democrats blow up the courts. It is the partisan, self-proclaimed defenders of "norms." In a recent piece in The Atlantic, the nation's leading periodical of intellectual anti-constitutionalism, Lawfare's Quinta Jurecic and Susan Hennessey argue that "if Republicans continue the smash-and-grab approach to confirming Barrett," court-packing "may be the only way for Democrats to save the Court."
The duly elected president and the duly elected Senate are observing the constitutionally stipulated guidelines for placing a highly qualified jurist on the Court. Someone will need to do a better job of explaining how dismantling the Court will "save" it. Now, perhaps if you've lost the ability to differentiate between ends and means, the idea makes intuitive sense to you. Perhaps you nod along as Biden spuriously argues that Amy Coney Barrett's nomination is nothing more than the exploitation of a "loophole" to undo the Affordable Care Act, ignoring the fact that we don't know how she'll rule on the Obamacare lawsuit. But back here in the real world, we know that court-packing would be far more destructive to our political order than anything Donald Trump has done, Barrett's nomination very much included.
The notion that the Senate shouldn't confirm Trump's nominee because Biden might win the election or Trump lost the "popular vote" is highly dubious. Justices do not need the consent of the majority, nor should they seek it. As Clark Neily, the vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute, recently noted, some of the Supreme Court's "most reviled cases – including Dred Scott (slavery), Plessy (separate-but-equal), and Buck v. Bell (eugenics) – involved acceding to democratically enacted policies. I can think of no higher compliment to pay a judge than to characterize her as antidemocratic."
And that's if Democrats take the charge seriously, which all evidence suggests they don't: Remember, they had no problem with this "anti-democratic" institution when it was creating constitutional rights to gay marriage and abortion. It only becomes a problem for them when it threatens to defend the Bill of Rights.


wnd--2020-10-09--GOP needs to 'act like' it controls Senate Judiciary Committee

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
Republicans control the Senate Judiciary Committee .
They need to act like it .
As hearings on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court begin Oct. 12 , it is vital that committee Chairman Lindsey Graham not allow a repeat of the debacle that occurred during the confirmation process for Justice Brett Kavanaugh two years ago .
No sane person would want to relive the pornographic pig circus that took place when Kavanaugh ’ s reputation was besmirched by Senate Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mud they had trucked in just for the purpose of destroying a conservative nominee .
The hearing room should have been hosed out after Dianne Feinstein , Kamala Harris and the rest of the Democrat smear squad were finished with their cynical attacks on a good man .
Alas , there is no guarantee that the Democrats won ’ t seek a repeat of such partisan attacks when they get a chance to grill Barrett next week , which is why Graham needs to forget about bipartisanship and rule the committee with an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa , is a kind and decent man , who got rolled by the Democrats when they unveiled their outrageous allegations of assault and gang rape against Kavanaugh .
Graham must forgo any effort to emulate Grassley and should instead take as his exemplar of efficient hearing management the execrable Adam Schiff , who ran the House impeachment hearings against President Trump as if they were the Salem witch trials .
The evidence he wanted was included , no matter how spectral , and the evidence he objected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential .
The best example was Schiff ’ s blocking Republicans from questioning witnesses about their relationship with alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella .
On Nov. 19 , 2019 , Rep. Devin Nunes was questioning Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman about President Trump ’ s phone call with the president of Ukraine when Schiff blocked a line of questioning regarding the people whom Vindman had confided in about the call .
“ We need to protect the whistleblower , ” Schiff told Nunes .
“ I want to make sure that there ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proceedings .
If the witness has a good-faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistleblower , that is not the purpose that we are here for , and I want to advise the witness accordingly.
” Schiff falsely claimed that the whistleblower ’ s identity was protected under federal law , and Republicans were never able to pursue questioning of Ciaramella to find out whether he was indeed the whistleblower or what motives he might have had for trying to destroy Trump .
No one ever held Schiff accountable for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even though they were arbitrary and capricious .
Nor , I suspect , would there be any recourse for Democrats if Graham were to shut off certain lines of questioning of Judge Barrett , so he ought to do whatever is necessary to protect the decorum of the Senate .
Remember , Graham will be using his power not to corrupt the proceedings , but to protect their integrity .
Most of the complaints against Barrett so far have centered on her Catholic religion .
Some senators seem to believe that her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote to uphold the precedent of Roe v. Wade and allow abortion to continue to be a constitutional right .
That overlooks the obvious argument that many strenuous supporters of abortion , such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden , are practicing Catholics .
It should be noted as well that Justice William Brennan Jr. , who was part of the original majority deciding in favor of a woman ’ s right to abortion , was also Catholic .
Evidently , there is no predisposition to vote against abortion based on religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Graham must stop any members of the Judiciary Committee from questioning Barrett about her private religious beliefs .
That ’ s because the Constitution explicitly prohibits such questions .
Article VI , Clause 3 , says that “ no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States . ''
There is no exception , but that didn ’ t stop Feinstein , the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee , from grilling Barrett about her Catholicism when she was being confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circuit Court of Appeals .
Unfortunately , Sen. Grassley allowed his colleague to trample on the Constitution with her now-infamous line of questioning .
“ Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that dogma and law are two different things , and I think whatever a religion is , it has its own dogma .
The law is totally different , ” said Feinstein , herself a non-lawyer .
“ And I think in your case , professor , when you read your speeches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dogma lives loudly within you .
And that ’ s of concern.
” Of course , the law and dogma are two very different things , which is why Feinstein ’ s statements were so inappropriate .
“ You are controversial , ” Feinstein told Barrett in 2017 , “ because you have a long history of believing your religious beliefs should prevail.
” If Feinstein or anyone else on the committee were to ask a similar question , they should be rebuked by Chairman Graham , and the witness should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not Grassley .
What is appropriate for both the senators and the judge is to honor the second part of Article VI , Clause 3 , of the Constitution : “ The Senators and Representatives ... and the Members of the several State Legislatures , and all executive and judicial Officers , both of the United States and of the several States , shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation , to support this Constitution.
” That oath of support for the Constitution clearly forbids senators from applying a religious test to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides a blueprint for what kinds of questions are appropriate to ask the judge .
Not questions about cases pending before the court .
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rightly refused to answer any such questions , and Barrett will do so , also .
But since the oath focuses on the Constitution , so too should the senators ’ questions .
Just what does it mean to you , Judge Barrett , to support the Constitution ?
How will you do so ?
If you have to choose between the Constitution and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevail ?
If Barrett ’ s answers to those questions are what we expect , then she should be unanimously recommended by the committee and unanimously confirmed by the Senate .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Frankl Miele
Real Clear Politics
Republicans control the Senate Judiciary Committee. They need to act like it. As hearings on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court begin Oct. 12, it is vital that committee Chairman Lindsey Graham not allow a repeat of the debacle that occurred during the confirmation process for Justice Brett Kavanaugh two years ago.
No sane person would want to relive the pornographic pig circus that took place when Kavanaugh’s reputation was besmirched by Senate Democrats wallowing in a seemingly endless supply of mud they had trucked in just for the purpose of destroying a conservative nominee. The hearing room should have been hosed out after Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris and the rest of the Democrat smear squad were finished with their cynical attacks on a good man.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Alas, there is no guarantee that the Democrats won’t seek a repeat of such partisan attacks when they get a chance to grill Barrett next week, which is why Graham needs to forget about bipartisanship and rule the committee with an iron hand.
His predecessor as chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, is a kind and decent man, who got rolled by the Democrats when they unveiled their outrageous allegations of assault and gang rape against Kavanaugh. Graham must forgo any effort to emulate Grassley and should instead take as his exemplar of efficient hearing management the execrable Adam Schiff, who ran the House impeachment hearings against President Trump as if they were the Salem witch trials. The evidence he wanted was included, no matter how spectral, and the evidence he objected to was withheld, no matter how essential.
The best example was Schiff’s blocking Republicans from questioning witnesses about their relationship with alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella. On Nov. 19, 2019, Rep. Devin Nunes was questioning Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman about President Trump’s phone call with the president of Ukraine when Schiff blocked a line of questioning regarding the people whom Vindman had confided in about the call.
“We need to protect the whistleblower,” Schiff told Nunes. “I want to make sure that there’s no effort to out the whistleblower through these proceedings. If the witness has a good-faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistleblower, that is not the purpose that we are here for, and I want to advise the witness accordingly.” Schiff falsely claimed that the whistleblower’s identity was protected under federal law, and Republicans were never able to pursue questioning of Ciaramella to find out whether he was indeed the whistleblower or what motives he might have had for trying to destroy Trump.
Should the GOP "take control" of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 97% (28 Votes) 3% (1 Votes)
No one ever held Schiff accountable for his rulings as chair of the committee, even though they were arbitrary and capricious. Nor, I suspect, would there be any recourse for Democrats if Graham were to shut off certain lines of questioning of Judge Barrett, so he ought to do whatever is necessary to protect the decorum of the Senate. Remember, Graham will be using his power not to corrupt the proceedings, but to protect their integrity.
Most of the complaints against Barrett so far have centered on her Catholic religion. Some senators seem to believe that her faith makes it impossible for her to vote to uphold the precedent of Roe v. Wade and allow abortion to continue to be a constitutional right. That overlooks the obvious argument that many strenuous supporters of abortion, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, are practicing Catholics. It should be noted as well that Justice William Brennan Jr., who was part of the original majority deciding in favor of a woman’s right to abortion, was also Catholic. Evidently, there is no predisposition to vote against abortion based on religion.
But even if there were, Sen. Graham must stop any members of the Judiciary Committee from questioning Barrett about her private religious beliefs. That’s because the Constitution explicitly prohibits such questions. Article VI, Clause 3, says that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
There is no exception, but that didn’t stop Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, from grilling Barrett about her Catholicism when she was being confirmed for her current job on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, Sen. Grassley allowed his colleague to trample on the Constitution with her now-infamous line of questioning.
“Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that dogma and law are two different things, and I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different,” said Feinstein, herself a non-lawyer. “And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern.”
Of course, the law and dogma are two very different things, which is why Feinstein’s statements were so inappropriate. “You are controversial,” Feinstein told Barrett in 2017, “because you have a long history of believing your religious beliefs should prevail.”
If Feinstein or anyone else on the committee were to ask a similar question, they should be rebuked by Chairman Graham, and the witness should be instructed not to answer. Be Schiff, not Grassley. What is appropriate for both the senators and the judge is to honor the second part of Article VI, Clause 3, of the Constitution:
“The Senators and Representatives ... and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”
That oath of support for the Constitution clearly forbids senators from applying a religious test to Amy Coney Barrett, and it also provides a blueprint for what kinds of questions are appropriate to ask the judge. Not questions about cases pending before the court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rightly refused to answer any such questions, and Barrett will do so, also.
But since the oath focuses on the Constitution, so too should the senators’ questions. Just what does it mean to you, Judge Barrett, to support the Constitution? How will you do so? If you have to choose between the Constitution and a personal belief or opinion, which will prevail?
If Barrett’s answers to those questions are what we expect, then she should be unanimously recommended by the committee and unanimously confirmed by the Senate.


wnd--2020-10-08--The making of a pro-social psychopath

The making of a pro-social psychopath

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Science . ]
In 2006 , Dr. James Fallon found out he had the brain imaging pattern and genetic make up of a `` full-blown psychopath '' .
He was surprised , to say the least .
As a happily married family man and a successful neuroscientist at the University of California-Irvine , Fallon did n't exactly fit the malevolent stereotype of a psychopath , but there it was on a brain scan : drastically diminished activity in specific areas of the frontal and temporal lobes linked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So he asked his wife , kids , grandchildren , and colleagues for their thoughts on his apparent diagnosis .
`` Every one of them said you do n't connect to people , you 're kind of cold , and you 're kind of superficially glib , '' he recounted at a Moth story session at the 2011 World Science Festival .
Psychopathy is characterized by egoism , boldness , and impaired empathy , among other personality traits .
As further confirmation to his psychopathic inclinations , Fallon found that he really did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought about him .
Even though they recognized that Fallon generally lacked empathy and interpersonal warmth , they still enjoyed having him in their lives , and he felt the same .
`` There 's a very constant number of these in all sorts of societies , '' he noted , perhaps because they are desirable .
`` Do we really want our surgeons to be empathetic when they 're doing the surgery or do we want somebody cold and calculated ?
Do we want our Green Berets to really be empathetic ... @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us ? ''
Artists and creative types also seem predisposed to pro-social psychopathy .
`` While acclaimed as revolutionary and pioneering visionaries , the same category of people can come across as unsocialized and discomfiting even to their close associates and admirers , '' psychologist Adrianne John R. Galang noted in 2010 .
He went on to test artists for psychopathic traits .
The results confirmed his suspicions .
`` Many ( but not all ) highly creative people tend to have personality traits similar to those of psychopaths .
Their emotional disinhibition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Big Think 's Matt Davis wrote of Galang 's research .
So how do people become pro-social psychopaths ?
While genetics and brain structure play a big role in whether or not someone will be a psychopath as they grow up , upbringing and early life experiences can negate hardwired predispositions to psychopathy .
`` One most likely reason is that although I have the genetic makeup of a “ born ” psychopath , some of those very same “ risk ” genes in someone showered with love ( versus abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the critical first few years of life , appear to offset the psychopathy-inducing effects of the other “ risk ” genes , '' Fallon explained .
While Fallon and other pro-social psychopaths might not necessarily empathize with other people very well , they still understand that it 's morally right to treat them with dignity and respect .
Pro-social psychopaths prove that you do n't have to care about someone to be nice to them .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Science . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Science.]
By Ross Pomeroy
Real Clear Science
In 2006, Dr. James Fallon found out he had the brain imaging pattern and genetic make up of a "full-blown psychopath".
He was surprised, to say the least.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
As a happily married family man and a successful neuroscientist at the University of California-Irvine, Fallon didn't exactly fit the malevolent stereotype of a psychopath, but there it was on a brain scan: drastically diminished activity in specific areas of the frontal and temporal lobes linked to empathy, morality and self-control. So he asked his wife, kids, grandchildren, and colleagues for their thoughts on his apparent diagnosis.
"Big mistake," he later recalled.
"Every one of them said you don't connect to people, you're kind of cold, and you're kind of superficially glib," he recounted at a Moth story session at the 2011 World Science Festival.
Psychopathy is characterized by egoism, boldness, and impaired empathy, among other personality traits.
As further confirmation to his psychopathic inclinations, Fallon found that he really didn't care what his friends or family thought about him. Even though they recognized that Fallon generally lacked empathy and interpersonal warmth, they still enjoyed having him in their lives, and he felt the same.
"I'm what's called a pro-social... psychopath," Fallon said.
"There's a very constant number of these in all sorts of societies," he noted, perhaps because they are desirable. "Do we really want our surgeons to be empathetic when they're doing the surgery or do we want somebody cold and calculated? Do we want our Green Berets to really be empathetic... or do we want them to protect us?"
Artists and creative types also seem predisposed to pro-social psychopathy.
"While acclaimed as revolutionary and pioneering visionaries, the same category of people can come across as unsocialized and discomfiting even to their close associates and admirers," psychologist Adrianne John R. Galang noted in 2010. He went on to test artists for psychopathic traits. The results confirmed his suspicions.
"Many (but not all) highly creative people tend to have personality traits similar to those of psychopaths. Their emotional disinhibition expresses itself in striking works of art," Big Think's Matt Davis wrote of Galang's research.
So how do people become pro-social psychopaths? While genetics and brain structure play a big role in whether or not someone will be a psychopath as they grow up, upbringing and early life experiences can negate hardwired predispositions to psychopathy.
"One most likely reason is that although I have the genetic makeup of a “born” psychopath, some of those very same “risk” genes in someone showered with love (versus abuse or abandonment), from childbirth through the critical first few years of life, appear to offset the psychopathy-inducing effects of the other “risk” genes," Fallon explained.
While Fallon and other pro-social psychopaths might not necessarily empathize with other people very well, they still understand that it's morally right to treat them with dignity and respect. Pro-social psychopaths prove that you don't have to care about someone to be nice to them.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Science.]


wnd--2020-10-08--Debate: Pence's honey vs. Harris' vinegar

Among millennials who may decide the 2020 presidential election , the most discussed thing about Wednesday night 's vice presidential debate was neither candidates ' ideas or debate skills .
Among the young , internet chatter was about an insect – a fly that landed for two minutes atop Vice President Mike Pence 's white hair .
An omen , lucky or unlucky ?
A Chinese or Silicon Valley bugging drone ?
To those watching the very different personalities of California Sen. Kamala Harris and Pence , an old saying came to mind : `` You catch more flies with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed sour , acidic and corrosive .
Pence was sweet , healing and pleasant .
By roughly two to one , viewers preferred Honey Pence over Vinegar Harris .
Pence won the debate , not by a knockout but on points , by pointing out that Harris tended to deal with tough questions by evasion and dissimulation .
Harris needs a `` defibrillator '' to stop her from telling so many fibs – about the Biden-Harris embrace of socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 's Green New Deal , designed to kill capitalism ; about their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and about Biden 's pledge to repeal President Donald Trump 's tax cuts for rich and poor alike .
Following the previous week 's debacle moderated by Fox 's Never-Trumper Chris Wallace , Veepstakes moderator Susan Page of USA Today did better .
Page is liberal but professional .
She also has a lucrative book contract to write House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 's biography , which would be more profitable if Democrats gain rather than lose power .
Page deserves a grade of `` B '' for her moderating .
She repeatedly cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limits on Harris .
Page also usually insisted that Pence respond first , which gave Harris the advantage of having `` the last word . ''
Kamala – whose India-born mother named her after the Hindu goddess of wealth and whose African genes are mingled with DNA from one of Jamaica 's biggest slave owners – unleashed a verbal swarm of deceptive accusations , making faces or interrupting when Pence was speaking and utilizing other oratorical gimmicks .
My favorite Kamala Harris trick was inspired by Hillary Clinton , who won young female @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponent during a debate : `` Do n't patronize me ! ''
Harris attempted this trick by repeatedly saying to Pence , with fake feminist outrage : `` I will not be lectured [ by you ] … '' But Mike Pence had not `` lectured '' her .
He was unfailingly polite and kind .
Harris ' unfair vinegar tactic merely showed that little she said should be believed .
Also untrustworthy : Harris blamed Trump for riots and economic hardships caused by leftist Democratic governors and mayors .
She blamed Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In an Orwellian re-write of history , she blamed riots on `` white supremacists , '' not Marxist-founded , Biden-funding Antifa and Black Lives Matter .
Harris , remember , bailed out rioters , attacked police , but told an alleged rapist `` I 'm proud of you . ''
Kamala Harris dropped out of the Democratic primaries after her support fell to only 2 % .
She is unlikeable and untrusted , even by Democrats happy that she votes to the left even of socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders .
Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders has always been honestly far-left , but Kamala will adopt whatever poses , right or left , bring her power – as being loony left now does in the Democratic Party .
Like Biden , she is amoral , corrupt , greedy and grasping .
Kamala Harris , as the Rev .
Jesse Jackson once described Bill Clinton , in her deepest self is shamelessly unprincipled – in Jackson 's words , `` nothing but an appetite '' for power and ego .
A vote for deteriorating Biden will likely make Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top '' in California politics , America 's president .
During the debate , Pence offered sure-footed values and solid facts , much as President Ronald Reagan did .
In his youth , Reagan had been a New Deal Democrat .
`` I did n't leave the Democratic Party , '' Reagan famously said , `` the party left me . ''
Mike Pence was born and raised an Irish-American Roman Catholic Democrat who in 1980 voted for Jimmy Carter .
In college , he became a born-again Protestant evangelical , politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Eight years later , as a talk host on Indiana radio , Pence described himself as `` Rush Limbaugh on decaf , '' a Tea Party conservative .
During Wednesday 's debate , millions of moderate Americans found Pence 's honest , decent decaf with honey was their cup of tea .
Lowell Ponte is a former Reader 's Digest Roving Editor .
His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal , the New York Times and other major publications .
His latest paper co-authored with Craig R. Smith , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to rethink several areas of investment to protect and grow your savings against little-known economic threats .
For a free , postpaid copy , call toll-free 800-630-1492 .

Among millennials who may decide the 2020 presidential election, the most discussed thing about Wednesday night's vice presidential debate was neither candidates' ideas or debate skills.
Among the young, internet chatter was about an insect – a fly that landed for two minutes atop Vice President Mike Pence's white hair. An omen, lucky or unlucky? A Chinese or Silicon Valley bugging drone?
To those watching the very different personalities of California Sen. Kamala Harris and Pence, an old saying came to mind: "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
Harris seemed sour, acidic and corrosive. Pence was sweet, healing and pleasant. By roughly two to one, viewers preferred Honey Pence over Vinegar Harris.
Pence won the debate, not by a knockout but on points, by pointing out that Harris tended to deal with tough questions by evasion and dissimulation. Harris needs a "defibrillator" to stop her from telling so many fibs – about the Biden-Harris embrace of socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, designed to kill capitalism; about their promise to end fossil fuel use; and about Biden's pledge to repeal President Donald Trump's tax cuts for rich and poor alike.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Following the previous week's debacle moderated by Fox's Never-Trumper Chris Wallace, Veepstakes moderator Susan Page of USA Today did better. Page is liberal but professional. She also has a lucrative book contract to write House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's biography, which would be more profitable if Democrats gain rather than lose power.
Page deserves a grade of "B" for her moderating. She repeatedly cut Pence off harshly, while rarely imposing limits on Harris. Page also usually insisted that Pence respond first, which gave Harris the advantage of having "the last word."
Kamala – whose India-born mother named her after the Hindu goddess of wealth and whose African genes are mingled with DNA from one of Jamaica's biggest slave owners – unleashed a verbal swarm of deceptive accusations, making faces or interrupting when Pence was speaking and utilizing other oratorical gimmicks.
My favorite Kamala Harris trick was inspired by Hillary Clinton, who won young female votes by snapping at her male Senate opponent during a debate: "Don't patronize me!"
Did Mike Pence win Wednesday's debate? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 100% (91 Votes) 0% (0 Votes)
Harris attempted this trick by repeatedly saying to Pence, with fake feminist outrage: "I will not be lectured [by you] …"
But Mike Pence had not "lectured" her. He was unfailingly polite and kind. Harris' unfair vinegar tactic merely showed that little she said should be believed.
Also untrustworthy: Harris blamed Trump for riots and economic hardships caused by leftist Democratic governors and mayors. She blamed Trump, not Chinese Communists, for COVID. In an Orwellian re-write of history, she blamed riots on "white supremacists," not Marxist-founded, Biden-funding Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Harris, remember, bailed out rioters, attacked police, but told an alleged rapist "I'm proud of you."
Kamala Harris dropped out of the Democratic primaries after her support fell to only 2%. She is unlikeable and untrusted, even by Democrats happy that she votes to the left even of socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Harris, however, is not ideological. Sanders has always been honestly far-left, but Kamala will adopt whatever poses, right or left, bring her power – as being loony left now does in the Democratic Party. Like Biden, she is amoral, corrupt, greedy and grasping.
Kamala Harris, as the Rev. Jesse Jackson once described Bill Clinton, in her deepest self is shamelessly unprincipled – in Jackson's words, "nothing but an appetite" for power and ego. A vote for deteriorating Biden will likely make Harris, who "slept her way to the top" in California politics, America's president.
During the debate, Pence offered sure-footed values and solid facts, much as President Ronald Reagan did. In his youth, Reagan had been a New Deal Democrat. "I didn't leave the Democratic Party," Reagan famously said, "the party left me."
Mike Pence was born and raised an Irish-American Roman Catholic Democrat who in 1980 voted for Jimmy Carter. In college, he became a born-again Protestant evangelical, politically inspired by Reagan's "common-sense conservatism." Eight years later, as a talk host on Indiana radio, Pence described himself as "Rush Limbaugh on decaf," a Tea Party conservative.
During Wednesday's debate, millions of moderate Americans found Pence's honest, decent decaf with honey was their cup of tea.
Lowell Ponte is a former Reader's Digest Roving Editor. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and other major publications. His latest paper co-authored with Craig R. Smith, "The Secret War," shows how to rethink several areas of investment to protect and grow your savings against little-known economic threats. For a free, postpaid copy, call toll-free 800-630-1492.


wnd--2020-10-08--Judge Amy Coney Barrett and the vow: What the media is linking

Several media outlets refer to a “ vow ” in stories questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s associations with the religious group People of Praise .
People of Praise Communications Director Sean Connolly told the Daily Caller News Foundation that many People of Praise members choose to make a permanent commitment called a covenant “ after a multi-year period of prayer and discernment.
” “ The covenant of the People of Praise is a promise of love and service we choose to make to one another , ” he said .
“ The covenant is not an oath or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commitment to be there for one another for the long run , to support one another through thick and thin , through all of life ’ s seasons .
Of course , we understand that God can always call a person to another way of life.
” Media outlets have called this covenant a “ vow ” in stories about Supreme Court nominee Barrett ’ s Catholic faith suggesting that the group is extreme and worthy of scrutiny .
Some media outlets also falsely reported that People of Praise inspired Margaret Atwood ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” before issuing retractions and corrections .
Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and other Democratic lawmakers questioned Barrett minutely about her Catholic faith in 2017 , suggesting that Barrett ’ s views may make her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court .
Feinstein refused in late September to address whether she would question Barrett in this way again , saying , “ I ’ m not going to go there , ” and adding , “ Let ’ s wait until she ’ s nominated.
” The People of Praise covenant may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , the Guardian suggested Tuesday .
“ The Senate Judiciary Committee should be prepared to ask to examine any covenant — a solemn contract binding before God — that she signed in the course of becoming a full member of People of Praise , ” Villanova professor Massimo Faggioli wrote in a an Politico op-ed .
“ Doing so will protect , not erode , America ’ s foundational value of religious liberty .
Connolly provided the DCNF with a copy of the covenant , in which People of Praise members commit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one another and the community as a whole in all needs , ” and to “ obey the direction of the Holy Spirit.
” Full text of the People of Praise covenant : We covenant ourselves to live our lives together in Christ our Lord , by the power of his Spirit .
We agree to become a Christian community , to find within our fellowship the essential core of our life in the Spirit : in worship and the sacraments , spiritual and moral guidance , service and apostolic activity .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lord is establishing with all the ministry gifts of the Holy Spirit , especially with the foundational ministry gifts of apostles , pastors , prophets , teachers and evangelists .
We agree to obey the direction of the Holy Spirit manifested in and through these ministries in full harmony with the church .
We recognize in the covenant a unique relationship one to another and between the individual and the community .
We accept the responsibility for mutual care , concern and ministry among ourselves .
We will serve one another and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs : spiritual , material , financial .
We agree that the weekly meeting of the community is primary among our commitments and that we will not be absent except for a serious reason .
Connolly told the DCNF that the Associated Press reported that the covenant was a 1,500 word document .
The People of Praise communications director guessed that the publication confused “ an article on our website about our covenant with the covenant itself.
” “ Our covenant is in fact quite short , ” he said .
Connolly did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covenant .
“ Like many religious communities , People of Praise leaves it up to its members to decide whether to publicly disclose their involvement in our community , ” he told the DCNF regarding the Supreme Court nominee .
Republican lawmakers and conservatives have defended Barrett , criticizing insinuations that her relationship with People of Praise makes her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court .
Conservatives pointed out that a Washington Post story continued to attach negative meaning to People of Praise ’ s use of the word “ handmaid , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used in religious contexts to describe women for thousands of years .
A story in The Guardian Tuesday examined where Barrett resided during law school at the University of Notre Dame — a large South Bend , Indiana , home owned at the time by People of Praise co-founder Kevin Ranaghan .
The Guardian called its discovery of Barrett ’ s law school residence a “ revelation ” that offers “ new clues ” about People of Praise ’ s “ possible influence ” on Barrett .
Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s faith “ religious smears , ” saying : “ Next , the Dems propose a test : if she floats .
.
.
she ’ s a witch !
” “ The Democrats and their liberal allies think Judge Barrett is ‘ too Christian ’ or ‘ the wrong kind of Christian ’ to be a good judge , ” she added .
“ That is rank bigotry , and it has no place in our country.
” This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Content @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact [ email protected ]

Mary Margaret Olohan
Daily Caller News Foundation
Several media outlets refer to a “vow” in stories questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s associations with the religious group People of Praise.
People of Praise Communications Director Sean Connolly told the Daily Caller News Foundation that many People of Praise members choose to make a permanent commitment called a covenant “after a multi-year period of prayer and discernment.”
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
“The covenant of the People of Praise is a promise of love and service we choose to make to one another,” he said. “The covenant is not an oath or a vow. Our covenant is a commitment to be there for one another for the long run, to support one another through thick and thin, through all of life’s seasons. Of course, we understand that God can always call a person to another way of life.”
Media outlets have called this covenant a “vow” in stories about Supreme Court nominee Barrett’s Catholic faith suggesting that the group is extreme and worthy of scrutiny. Some media outlets also falsely reported that People of Praise inspired Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” before issuing retractions and corrections.
Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and other Democratic lawmakers questioned Barrett minutely about her Catholic faith in 2017, suggesting that Barrett’s views may make her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Feinstein refused in late September to address whether she would question Barrett in this way again, saying, “I’m not going to go there,” and adding, “Let’s wait until she’s nominated.”
The People of Praise covenant may be brought up during these hearings next week, the Guardian suggested Tuesday.
Should Judge Amy Coney Barrett have her religious beliefs scrutinized so closely? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 3% (4 Votes) 97% (143 Votes)
“The Senate Judiciary Committee should be prepared to ask to examine any covenant — a solemn contract binding before God — that she signed in the course of becoming a full member of People of Praise,” Villanova professor Massimo Faggioli wrote in a an Politico op-ed. “Doing so will protect, not erode, America’s foundational value of religious liberty.
Connolly provided the DCNF with a copy of the covenant, in which People of Praise members commit to meeting weekly, to serve “one another and the community as a whole in all needs,” and to “obey the direction of the Holy Spirit.”
Full text of the People of Praise covenant: We covenant ourselves to live our lives together in Christ our Lord, by the power of his Spirit. We agree to become a Christian community, to find within our fellowship the essential core of our life in the Spirit: in worship and the sacraments, spiritual and moral guidance, service and apostolic activity. We accept the order of this community which the Lord is establishing with all the ministry gifts of the Holy Spirit, especially with the foundational ministry gifts of apostles, pastors, prophets, teachers and evangelists. We agree to obey the direction of the Holy Spirit manifested in and through these ministries in full harmony with the church. We recognize in the covenant a unique relationship one to another and between the individual and the community. We accept the responsibility for mutual care, concern and ministry among ourselves. We will serve one another and the community as a whole in all needs: spiritual, material, financial. We agree that the weekly meeting of the community is primary among our commitments and that we will not be absent except for a serious reason.
Connolly told the DCNF that the Associated Press reported that the covenant was a 1,500 word document. The People of Praise communications director guessed that the publication confused “an article on our website about our covenant with the covenant itself.”
“Our covenant is in fact quite short,” he said.
Connolly did not address whether Barrett has made the covenant.
“Like many religious communities, People of Praise leaves it up to its members to decide whether to publicly disclose their involvement in our community,” he told the DCNF regarding the Supreme Court nominee.
Republican lawmakers and conservatives have defended Barrett, criticizing insinuations that her relationship with People of Praise makes her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.
Conservatives pointed out that a Washington Post story continued to attach negative meaning to People of Praise’s use of the word “handmaid,” a biblical word that has been used in religious contexts to describe women for thousands of years.
A story in The Guardian Tuesday examined where Barrett resided during law school at the University of Notre Dame — a large South Bend, Indiana, home owned at the time by People of Praise co-founder Kevin Ranaghan. The Guardian called its discovery of Barrett’s law school residence a “revelation” that offers “new clues” about People of Praise’s “possible influence” on Barrett.
Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz called a Wednesday Washington Post article on Barrett’s faith “religious smears,” saying: “Next, the Dems propose a test: if she floats . . . she’s a witch!”
“The Brett Kavanaugh sleaze machine is back,” said Judicial Crisis Network’s Carrie Severino.
“The Democrats and their liberal allies think Judge Barrett is ‘too Christian’ or ‘the wrong kind of Christian’ to be a good judge,” she added. “That is rank bigotry, and it has no place in our country.”
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].