wnd--2020-10-05--Fact check: Trump says Democrats ‘have gone totally, stone-cold crazy.’ Is he right?

Americans are facing a presidential election more crucial to their freedom and wellbeing than perhaps any election in their nation ’ s history – and yet which has become a total charade , a farce , a massive pretense in every way .
Virtually the entire “ mainstream media ” – the Democratic Party ’ s propaganda wing – loathes the fearless incumbent Donald Trump , even as he suffers from COVID-19 .
What does it matter that he resurrected the U.S. economy , made America energy-independent , destroyed the ISIS caliphate and largely kept his campaign promises , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ etat against him ?
Most media figures hate him , while fiercely supporting – and actually pretending to venerate – the challenger , Joe Biden , a feeble , unprincipled , constantly lying and shockingly corrupt do-nothing career politician whose mental disintegration is now so obvious and advanced that he can barely speak coherently without a teleprompter or days of rehearsals .
Everyone paying attention , of course , realizes that Joe Biden is simply a smiling , failing and soon-to-be-discarded Trojan horse , in the bowels of which impatiently crouch the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to burst out and rule America should Biden win .
That includes , first and foremost , his running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris , who the independent GovTrack.us “ ranked most liberal compared to All Senators ” in 2019 – that is , further left than flaming socialist Bernie Sanders .
So , with Election Day in less than a month , let ’ s venture a little deeper than the usual formulaic analyses pundits offer to explain today ’ s surreal political landscape .
TRENDING : As tension grips Capitol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already had COVID emerges In fact , let ’ s start with one utterly obvious truth that almost no one is willing to publicly express : Today ’ s Democratic Party is insane .
“ Insane : not of sound mind ; mentally deranged ; unable to think clearly ; utterly senseless ; demented ; frenzied ” Consider the classic , oft-cited example of a true statement so clearly self-evident that everybody acknowledges it : “ 2+2=4.
” * New York City ’ s Brooklyn College math education professor Laurie Rubel is so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insisting 2+2=4 “ reeks of white supremacist patriarchy.
” Yes , really .
* The Democratic Party insists it can change the earth ’ s weather by adopting a bizarre socialist-totalitarian program that would completely destroy the U.S. economy , eradicate Americans ’ constitutional rights , kill millions of jobs and plunge the nation into inescapable chaos , anarchy and depression .
The Green New Deal ’ s estimated cost approaches $ 100 trillion , more money than the gross world product – that is , the annual economic output of every nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era of skyrocketing violent crime , the Minneapolis City Council recently pledged not to merely “ defund , ” but to entirely “ dismantle ” its city 's police department , while over a dozen other U.S. cities have promised to “ defund ” theirs .
Meanwhile , as Democrat officials demonize America ’ s police as racist bullies and prosecute innocent citizens for defending themselves against violent mobs , they are also freeing thousands of criminals from prison , ending cash bail so offenders can get back on the street immediately after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraging violent revolutionary mobs to rob , loot and burn America ’ s cities night after night .
And then they blame it all on Trump .
* Sen. Bernie Sanders , who many believe would largely set the agenda for a Joe Biden administration , has publicly insisted that Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev , who killed three people including an eight-year-old boy and injured 280 others , must be allowed to vote from prison , along with all other convicted felons in the country .
* The Democratic Party , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abandoned their former “ safe , legal and rare ” mantra regarding abortion and now insist a beautiful , full-term human baby just about to be born is not really a person at all , and therefore can be slaughtered at will , even after he or she is born – as long as “ the mother and her doctor ” agree .
* Democrats also agree there are more than 100 different genders , not just the two that existed from the dawn of mankind on earth until sometime last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and have babies and that taxpayers must fund pregnant men ’ s abortions .
And , if you don ’ t agree with these extreme delusions , you ’ re an anti-science bigot .
Got it ?
These are the people who believe they ’ re much more intelligent and moral than you , and who , in just a few weeks , fully intend to take over America forever .
`` If the Democrats win , ” Rush Limbaugh said recently , “ that 's the end of democracy .
It 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We 're gon na have a one-party government that is going to devote itself to eliminating all opposition .
That 's what 's at stake .
If they win , I think the Republican Party essentially ceases to exist . ''
How is that even possible , seeing as America has been a two-party system for centuries ?
`` One of the first things they will do , ” explained Limbaugh , “ is grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico , and that will give them four Democrat senators .
They will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They will never lose control of the House .
They will pack the Supreme Court with who knows how many new justices , and they 'll all be left-leaning justices .
And it wo n't take them long to do any of this .
And after they 've done it , there will be a one-party state .
The United States will be a one-party government . ''
What would America look like under permanent Democrat rule ?
Limbaugh echoes what others have also predicted : The entire U.S. would become like California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state in the union – perfect weather , fantastically fertile land , the Pacific Ocean – California had everything .
But today much of the state resembles feudal medieval Europe , with the middle class rapidly fleeing or disintegrating , leaving the state to a super-rich elite class in gated communities with private security , surrounded by large areas populated by multitudes of homeless drug addicts and other lost souls living in unthinkable filth and squalor , human feces and drug paraphernalia everywhere , and marked by the frightening re-emergence of long-conquered diseases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the bubonic plague .
What has driven the Democratic Party to this advanced state of madness ?
For an important clue , consider a little more of Limbaugh ’ s analysis : `` The Democrat Party has become full-fledged Marxist radical left .
They do not believe in opposition .
They do n't believe in debate .
They do n't believe they should have to win minds and hearts .
They do n't believe they should have to persuade anybody .
They do n't believe that there is legitimate opposition .
… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who oppose them , [ who ] try to stop them .
They 're gon na make everybody pay .
… You can forget about the Democrat Party as a party that has to win its way into power and has to keep proving itself .
Once they get it , folks , they 're never gon na take the chance of losing it again . ''
All of this behavior is clearly irrational , immoral , totalitarian and , yes , insane .
But then , that ’ s exactly what “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant .
Marxism is in complete rebellion against God , against His commandments , against His morality , against the very idea of objective truth .
Marxists want their own truth , their own laws , their own morality , their own biology , their own science , their own heaven – on earth .
They want nothing to do with God or the Judeo-Christian culture that comprised the moral foundation of America and Western Civilization – which they openly hate .
At its deepest level , of course , we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evil .
Hit the pause button : None of this is to say that our Democrat countrymen are evil – most are not , but they have been powerfully indoctrinated , intimidated , brainwashed .
Their hatred of Trump – and of America herself as a “ systemically racist ” nation – combined with the Marxist indoctrination dished out by almost all U.S. colleges and reinforced by today ’ s “ fake news ” disinformation media and radically intolerant “ cancel culture , ” has rendered them guilt-ridden , monumentally deceived and very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemies ; they ’ re our brothers and sisters who are enslaved by an enemy power that has , for the time being at least , totally captured their minds and loyalties .
Some of them will one day wake up and come back to sanity , especially the young .
In the meantime , vote for Trump like your country and your freedom depend on it , because they most certainly do .
`` Trump is the only guy that can prevent this from happening , '' said Limbaugh .
`` He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he 's the only guy with the desire , he 's the only guy with the know-how , and he 's the only guy with the spirit to stand up and oppose them .
He 's the only guy not afraid of them .
But this is what we 're facing . ''
Limbaugh also predicted that if Democrats lose in November , `` They 're going to engage in violence like you have n't seen yet . ''
`` The Democrats are promising that the riots will continue and intensify .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will ratchet up .
In fact , this is one of the things that the Democrats are using to try to win the election .
They 're actually extorting voters .
The Democrats are saying , if you want this , if you want this stuff to continue , elect Trump .
If you elect Trump , this stuff 's gon na continue and it 's gon na keep getting worse .
If you want us to stop , then do n't elect Trump . ''
And what does President Donald Trump himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a late-August visit to Old Forge , Penn.
, Trump candidly told supporters : “ At stake in this election is the survival of our nation .
It ’ s true , because we ’ re dealing with crazy people on the other side .
They ’ ve gone totally , stone-cold crazy.
” “ If you want a vision of your life under a Biden presidency , think of the smoldering ruins in Minneapolis , the violent anarchy of Portland , the bloodstained sidewalks of Chicago , and imagine the mayhem coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in America.
” “ They ’ re coming to get you .
... and me .
We , we ’ re the wall between the American Dream and total insanity , and the destruction of the greatest country in the history of the world.
” “ They want to cancel you .
Totally cancel you .
Take your job , turn your family against you for speaking your mind while they indoctrinate your children with twisted , twisted worldviews that nobody ever thought possible.
” “ Joe Biden is the candidate of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your values in disdain .
But you can send them all a thundering message on Election Day by voting for Trump-Pence.
” Editor ’ s note : To explore this subject more deeply , see the current issue of WND ’ s acclaimed Whistleblower magazine , edited monthly by David Kupelian , titled “ INSIDE THE TROJAN HORSE : What America will become if Joe Biden is elected president.
” The issue is also available in state-of-the-art digital form .
Better yet , SUBSCRIBE TO WHISTLEBLOWER ( print edition ) and get 12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION .

Americans are facing a presidential election more crucial to their freedom and wellbeing than perhaps any election in their nation’s history – and yet which has become a total charade, a farce, a massive pretense in every way.
Virtually the entire “mainstream media” – the Democratic Party’s propaganda wing – loathes the fearless incumbent Donald Trump, even as he suffers from COVID-19. What does it matter that he resurrected the U.S. economy, made America energy-independent, destroyed the ISIS caliphate and largely kept his campaign promises, all while fighting off a never-ending coup d’etat against him? Most media figures hate him, while fiercely supporting – and actually pretending to venerate – the challenger, Joe Biden, a feeble, unprincipled, constantly lying and shockingly corrupt do-nothing career politician whose mental disintegration is now so obvious and advanced that he can barely speak coherently without a teleprompter or days of rehearsals.
Everyone paying attention, of course, realizes that Joe Biden is simply a smiling, failing and soon-to-be-discarded Trojan horse, in the bowels of which impatiently crouch the radicals, socialists and Marxist revolutionaries who plan to burst out and rule America should Biden win. That includes, first and foremost, his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, who the independent GovTrack.us “ranked most liberal compared to All Senators” in 2019 – that is, further left than flaming socialist Bernie Sanders.
So, with Election Day in less than a month, let’s venture a little deeper than the usual formulaic analyses pundits offer to explain today’s surreal political landscape.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
In fact, let’s start with one utterly obvious truth that almost no one is willing to publicly express: Today’s Democratic Party is insane.
“Insane: not of sound mind; mentally deranged; unable to think clearly; utterly senseless; demented; frenzied”
Consider the classic, oft-cited example of a true statement so clearly self-evident that everybody acknowledges it: “2+2=4.”
Right?
Not anymore.
* New York City’s Brooklyn College math education professor Laurie Rubel is so “woke” she recently claimed that insisting 2+2=4 “reeks of white supremacist patriarchy.” Yes, really.
* The Democratic Party insists it can change the earth’s weather by adopting a bizarre socialist-totalitarian program that would completely destroy the U.S. economy, eradicate Americans’ constitutional rights, kill millions of jobs and plunge the nation into inescapable chaos, anarchy and depression. The Green New Deal’s estimated cost approaches $100 trillion, more money than the gross world product – that is, the annual economic output of every nation on earth combined.
* In an era of skyrocketing violent crime, the Minneapolis City Council recently pledged not to merely “defund,” but to entirely “dismantle” its city's police department, while over a dozen other U.S. cities have promised to “defund” theirs. Meanwhile, as Democrat officials demonize America’s police as racist bullies and prosecute innocent citizens for defending themselves against violent mobs, they are also freeing thousands of criminals from prison, ending cash bail so offenders can get back on the street immediately after being arrested to offend again, and encouraging violent revolutionary mobs to rob, loot and burn America’s cities night after night. And then they blame it all on Trump.
* Sen. Bernie Sanders, who many believe would largely set the agenda for a Joe Biden administration, has publicly insisted that Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who killed three people including an eight-year-old boy and injured 280 others, must be allowed to vote from prison, along with all other convicted felons in the country.
* The Democratic Party, including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, have abandoned their former “safe, legal and rare” mantra regarding abortion and now insist a beautiful, full-term human baby just about to be born is not really a person at all, and therefore can be slaughtered at will, even after he or she is born – as long as “the mother and her doctor” agree.
* Democrats also agree there are more than 100 different genders, not just the two that existed from the dawn of mankind on earth until sometime last year, and insist that men can get pregnant and have babies and that taxpayers must fund pregnant men’s abortions. And, if you don’t agree with these extreme delusions, you’re an anti-science bigot.
Got it? These are the people who believe they’re much more intelligent and moral than you, and who, in just a few weeks, fully intend to take over America forever.
“Forever”?
"If the Democrats win,” Rush Limbaugh said recently, “that's the end of democracy. It's the end of the two-party system. We're gonna have a one-party government that is going to devote itself to eliminating all opposition. That's what's at stake. If they win, I think the Republican Party essentially ceases to exist."
How is that even possible, seeing as America has been a two-party system for centuries?
"One of the first things they will do,” explained Limbaugh, “is grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, and that will give them four Democrat senators. They will never lose control of the Senate. They will never lose control of the House. They will pack the Supreme Court with who knows how many new justices, and they'll all be left-leaning justices. And it won't take them long to do any of this. And after they've done it, there will be a one-party state. The United States will be a one-party government."
What would America look like under permanent Democrat rule? Limbaugh echoes what others have also predicted: The entire U.S. would become like California.
Once the most loved and admired state in the union – perfect weather, fantastically fertile land, the Pacific Ocean – California had everything. But today much of the state resembles feudal medieval Europe, with the middle class rapidly fleeing or disintegrating, leaving the state to a super-rich elite class in gated communities with private security, surrounded by large areas populated by multitudes of homeless drug addicts and other lost souls living in unthinkable filth and squalor, human feces and drug paraphernalia everywhere, and marked by the frightening re-emergence of long-conquered diseases like typhus, typhoid fever, tuberculosis and the bubonic plague.
What has driven the Democratic Party to this advanced state of madness?
For an important clue, consider a little more of Limbaugh’s analysis: "The Democrat Party has become full-fledged Marxist radical left. They do not believe in opposition. They don't believe in debate. They don't believe they should have to win minds and hearts. They don't believe they should have to persuade anybody. They don't believe that there is legitimate opposition. … And there will be punishment for people who oppose them, [who] try to stop them. They're gonna make everybody pay. … You can forget about the Democrat Party as a party that has to win its way into power and has to keep proving itself. Once they get it, folks, they're never gonna take the chance of losing it again."
All of this behavior is clearly irrational, immoral, totalitarian and, yes, insane. But then, that’s exactly what “full-fledged Marxist radical left” has always meant.
Marxism is in complete rebellion against God, against His commandments, against His morality, against the very idea of objective truth. Marxists want their own truth, their own laws, their own morality, their own biology, their own science, their own heaven – on earth. They want nothing to do with God or the Judeo-Christian culture that comprised the moral foundation of America and Western Civilization – which they openly hate.
At its deepest level, of course, we’re talking about a war between good and evil.
Hit the pause button: None of this is to say that our Democrat countrymen are evil – most are not, but they have been powerfully indoctrinated, intimidated, brainwashed. Their hatred of Trump – and of America herself as a “systemically racist” nation – combined with the Marxist indoctrination dished out by almost all U.S. colleges and reinforced by today’s “fake news” disinformation media and radically intolerant “cancel culture,” has rendered them guilt-ridden, monumentally deceived and very angry. But they are not our enemies; they’re our brothers and sisters who are enslaved by an enemy power that has, for the time being at least, totally captured their minds and loyalties. Some of them will one day wake up and come back to sanity, especially the young.
In the meantime, vote for Trump like your country and your freedom depend on it, because they most certainly do.
"Trump is the only guy that can prevent this from happening," said Limbaugh. "He's the only guy with the gonads, he's the only guy with the desire, he's the only guy with the know-how, and he's the only guy with the spirit to stand up and oppose them. He's the only guy not afraid of them. But this is what we're facing."
Limbaugh also predicted that if Democrats lose in November, "They're going to engage in violence like you haven't seen yet."
"The Democrats are promising that the riots will continue and intensify. The Democrats are promising that the violence will ratchet up. In fact, this is one of the things that the Democrats are using to try to win the election. They're actually extorting voters. The Democrats are saying, if you want this, if you want this stuff to continue, elect Trump. If you elect Trump, this stuff's gonna continue and it's gonna keep getting worse. If you want us to stop, then don't elect Trump."
And what does President Donald Trump himself say about all of this? During a late-August visit to Old Forge, Penn., Trump candidly told supporters:
“At stake in this election is the survival of our nation. It’s true, because we’re dealing with crazy people on the other side. They’ve gone totally, stone-cold crazy.”
“If you want a vision of your life under a Biden presidency, think of the smoldering ruins in Minneapolis, the violent anarchy of Portland, the bloodstained sidewalks of Chicago, and imagine the mayhem coming to your town and every single town in America.”
“They’re coming to get you. ... and me. We, we’re the wall between the American Dream and total insanity, and the destruction of the greatest country in the history of the world.”
“They want to cancel you. Totally cancel you. Take your job, turn your family against you for speaking your mind while they indoctrinate your children with twisted, twisted worldviews that nobody ever thought possible.”
“Joe Biden is the candidate of these privileged liberal hypocrites who hold you and your values in disdain. But you can send them all a thundering message on Election Day by voting for Trump-Pence.”
Editor’s note: To explore this subject more deeply, see the current issue of WND’s acclaimed Whistleblower magazine, edited monthly by David Kupelian, titled “INSIDE THE TROJAN HORSE: What America will become if Joe Biden is elected president.” The issue is also available in state-of-the-art digital form. Better yet, SUBSCRIBE TO WHISTLEBLOWER (print edition) and get 12 fantastic issues or else get an ANNUAL DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION.
FOLLOW DAVID KUPELIAN ON FACEBOOK.


wnd--2020-10-07--Top infectious disease experts launch drive to end lockdowns

Leading epidemiologists have launched a petition calling for an end to lockdowns of the healthy and , instead , focusing on protecting the people who are vulnerable to the coronavirus .
Professors Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard , Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford and Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya of Stanford announced the effort in an interview Monday with Fox News ' Laura Ingraham .
The Great Barrington Declaration states that as `` infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies , and recommend an approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most of my colleagues in infectious disease , '' Kulldorf told Ingraham , `` are in favor of risk-based strategy or an age-based strategy where we protect the elderly or other high risk groups while the younger resume life more or less normally . ''
At the time this article was published , more than 2,400 medical health and public health scientists had co-signed the declaration along with more than 2,700 practicing medical professionals .
Gupta and Bhattacharya emphasized that herd immunity should be the objective , contending it could be achieved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID is not a `` death sentence , '' Bhattacharya argued , alluding to survival rates of nearly 100 % for those under 70 and nearly 95 % for those who are older .
`` I think we 've created this idea in the public mind that it is something so unique and so deadly that we should utterly end all normal existence as a result of it , '' he said .
`` That 's not right .
We can have a much better way .
Protect the vulnerable .
Shield them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we reach a level where there is population immunity , '' the Stanford professor said .
`` And for the rest of the world , let us live our lives . ''
The CDC last month issued new estimates that showed people under 50 years infected by COVID-19 have nearly a 100 % survival rate .
It broke down to a 99.997 % survival rate for 0-19 ; 99.98 % for ages 20-49 ; 99.5 % for 50-69 ; and 94.6 % for those over 70 .
Those who died of coronavirus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average of 2.6 comorbidities , meaning more than two chronic diseases along with COVID-19 .
Overall , the CDC says , just 6 % of the people counted as COVID-19 deaths died of COVID-19 alone .
This week the World Health Organization said it currently estimates 10 % of the world 's population has been infected , meaning that by the U.N. body 's own account , the infection fatality rate for COVID-19 is only 0.13 % .
That 's a little more than one-tenth of 1 % , which the WHO says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The WHO 's estimate in March of a death rate of 3.4 % sparked panic worldwide , fueling the catastrophic lockdowns .
Ingraham asked her guests to comment on White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci 's insistence in an interview with CNN Monday night that `` we need to flood the system '' with `` surveillance testing '' to find out what the level of infection is in the community on a broad scale .
`` I think that 's a very inefficient use of very limited resources , '' Gupta @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do is protect the vulnerable , so it makes every bit if sense to me that we would take those resources and use them to develop smart strategies to protect the vulnerable , '' she said .
By not testing those who have little risk , she said , `` you actually allow that population to build up a level of immunity which in turn protects the vulnerable . ''
`` So , it 's a kind of win-win , '' she said .
Gupta said three to six months is sufficient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the vulnerable can resume their normal lives .
Battacharya was asked to comment on the ridicule of the strategy of achieving herd immunity adopted successfully by Sweden .
`` I think that denying herd immunity is like denying gravity .
Gravity exists and herd immunity exists , '' he said .
He explained that even if a vaccine is developed , it 's herd immunity that protects the population against the virus .
The real question , Battacharya said , is how to achieve herd immunity , and he contends the strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there more quickly , with less loss of life and less damage to other aspects of public health that get ignored , I think , by these doctors that are essentially denying basic facts about biology . ''
Ingraham said that keeping children from in-person classes `` will go down as one of the most outrageous abuses of supposed science that we 've seen in the last 50 years . ''
`` Children are being kept from school with a 99.997 % survival rate of anyone under the age of 19 ?
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to agree , '' Gupta said .
... `` It 's absolutely tragic , it 's unconscionable . ''
Kulldorf and Bhattacharya recently participated in a roundtable with Florida Gov .
Ron DeSantis in which they said the widescale lockdowns actually increase the risk to the vulnerable , slowing down the building of herd immunity for the population .
Bhattacharya emphasized the sharp difference in mortality rate for younger people , pointing out it 's lower than the seasonal flu .
The current Centers for Disease Control data shows influenza is deadlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ During the 2018-19 flu season , the CDC recorded 480 flu deaths among children ages 0-17 in the United States .
About 90 died from coronavirus complications from the beginning of the pandemic through mid-August , the American Academy of Pediatrics said .
See the interview with Ingraham : The Great Barrington Declaration emphasizes the `` irreparable damage '' caused by the lockdowns .
`` Coming from both the left and right , and around the world , we have devoted our careers to protecting people , '' it states .
`` Current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short and long-term public health .
The results ( to name a few ) include lower childhood vaccination rates , worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes , fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come , with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden .
Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice , '' the epidemiologists write .
`` Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage , with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus is growing and it 's now known that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is `` more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young . ''
`` Indeed , for children , COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms , including influenza . ''
They argue that as immunity builds the population , the risk of infection for everyone , including the vulnerable falls .
`` We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e .
the point at which the rate of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this can be assisted by ( but is not dependent upon ) a vaccine , '' they write .
`` Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity . ''
They argue that the `` most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity , is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection , while better protecting those who are at highest risk @ @

Leading epidemiologists have launched a petition calling for an end to lockdowns of the healthy and, instead, focusing on protecting the people who are vulnerable to the coronavirus.
Professors Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford and Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya of Stanford announced the effort in an interview Monday with Fox News' Laura Ingraham.
The Great Barrington Declaration states that as "infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection."
"Most of my colleagues in infectious disease," Kulldorf told Ingraham, "are in favor of risk-based strategy or an age-based strategy where we protect the elderly or other high risk groups while the younger resume life more or less normally."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
At the time this article was published, more than 2,400
medical health and public health scientists had co-signed the declaration along with more than 2,700 practicing medical professionals.
Gupta and Bhattacharya emphasized that herd immunity should be the objective, contending it could be achieved in a relatively short amount of time.
COVID is not a "death sentence," Bhattacharya argued, alluding to survival rates of nearly 100% for those under 70 and nearly 95% for those who are older.
"I think we've created this idea in the public mind that it is something so unique and so deadly that we should utterly end all normal existence as a result of it," he said.
Should the lockdowns continue? 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. 7% (32 Votes) 93% (411 Votes)
"That's not right. We can have a much better way. Protect the vulnerable. Shield them for a short period of time until we reach a level where there is population immunity," the Stanford professor said. "And for the rest of the world, let us live our lives."
The CDC last month issued new estimates that showed people under 50 years infected by COVID-19 have nearly a 100% survival rate. It broke down to a 99.997% survival rate for 0-19; 99.98% for ages 20-49; 99.5% for 50-69; and 94.6% for those over 70.
Those who died of coronavirus, according to the CDC, had an average of 2.6 comorbidities, meaning more than two chronic diseases along with COVID-19. Overall, the CDC says, just 6% of the people counted as COVID-19 deaths died of COVID-19 alone.
This week the World Health Organization said it currently estimates 10% of the world's population has been infected, meaning that by the U.N. body's own account, the infection fatality rate for COVID-19 is only 0.13%. That's a little more than one-tenth of 1%, which the WHO says is the rate for the seasonal flu.
The WHO's estimate in March of a death rate of 3.4% sparked panic worldwide, fueling the catastrophic lockdowns.
The Great Barrington Declaration argues that #COVID19 #lockdowns should be replaced with Focused Protection. Please sign.https://t.co/07nispEacW #GBdeclaration — Martin Kulldorff (@MartinKulldorff) October 5, 2020
'Denying basic facts about biology'
Ingraham asked her guests to comment on White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci's insistence in an interview with CNN Monday night that "we need to flood the system" with "surveillance testing" to find out what the level of infection is in the community on a broad scale.
"I think that's a very inefficient use of very limited resources," Gupta said.
"What we really want to do is protect the vulnerable, so it makes every bit if sense to me that we would take those resources and use them to develop smart strategies to protect the vulnerable," she said.
By not testing those who have little risk, she said, "you actually allow that population to build up a level of immunity which in turn protects the vulnerable."
"So, it's a kind of win-win," she said.
Gupta said three to six months is sufficient time for enough immunity to accumulate so that the vulnerable can resume their normal lives.
Battacharya was asked to comment on the ridicule of the strategy of achieving herd immunity adopted successfully by Sweden.
"I think that denying herd immunity is like denying gravity. Gravity exists and herd immunity exists," he said.
He explained that even if a vaccine is developed, it's herd immunity that protects the population against the virus.
The real question, Battacharya said, is how to achieve herd immunity, and he contends the strategy the declaration advocates "will get us there more quickly, with less loss of life and less damage to other aspects of public health that get ignored, I think, by these doctors that are essentially denying basic facts about biology."
Ingraham said that keeping children from in-person classes "will go down as one of the most outrageous abuses of supposed science that we've seen in the last 50 years."
"Children are being kept from school with a 99.997% survival rate of anyone under the age of 19? It's insanity."
"I would have to agree," Gupta said. ... "It's absolutely tragic, it's unconscionable."
"We should appreciate young adults who help generate herd immunity by living normal lives and keeping society afloat. When people throw misguided complaints at you, falsely claiming that you are endangering others, remember that the opposite is true." https://t.co/6GZSgYg6jH — Martin Kulldorff (@MartinKulldorff) August 17, 2020
Kulldorf and Bhattacharya recently participated in a roundtable with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in which they said the widescale lockdowns actually increase the risk to the vulnerable, slowing down the building of herd immunity for the population.
Bhattacharya emphasized the sharp difference in mortality rate for younger people, pointing out it's lower than the seasonal flu.
The current Centers for Disease Control data shows influenza is deadlier among children ages 0-17 than COVID-19. During the 2018-19 flu season, the CDC recorded 480 flu deaths among children ages 0-17 in the United States. About 90 died from coronavirus complications from the beginning of the pandemic through mid-August, the American Academy of Pediatrics said.
See the interview with Ingraham:
'Irreparable damage'
The Great Barrington Declaration emphasizes the "irreparable damage" caused by the lockdowns.
"Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people," it states.
"Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice," the epidemiologists write.
"Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed."
They note that knowledge of the coronavirus is growing and it's now known that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is "more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young."
"Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza."
They argue that as immunity builds the population, the risk of infection for everyone, including the vulnerable falls.
"We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine," they write.
"Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity."
They argue that the "most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk."
They call that approach "Focused Protection."


wnd--2020-10-07--Hospitalization of presidential candidate a first? 'Not quite true'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
Much is unprecedented this year , and not only in politics .
Every day seems to bring surprises , and one way or another America shall be changed by 2020 .
The pundits and amateur historians have one thing wrong , however , about President Donald Trump ’ s hospitalization , and about the campaign ’ s interruption .
This is “ unprecedented , ” we keep hearing .
That ’ s not quite true , however .
A similar situation , if not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Less than a month before the Election Day , Theodore Roosevelt was shot at point-blank range in Milwaukee as he was heading to the city ’ s main auditorium to deliver a major address .
A bartender from Brooklyn , Bavarian immigrant Joseph Schrank , had been following the Progressive ( “ Bull Moose ” Party ) campaign stops through the Midwest , before finally getting his clear chance in Milwaukee on October 14 .
Roosevelt had finished his dinner in the Hotel Gilpatrick when Schrank pointed his Colt revolver at TR and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his chest and knocked him back .
Roosevelt demanded that the would-be assassin be brought before him ( as much to see the gun as the man – he noted that it was a .38-caliber pistol on a .44-caliber frame ) and then countermanded his aides ’ plan to drive him to a hospital .
“ I will deliver this speech or die , ” Roosevelt said .
And he did , blood staining his shirtfront , for nearly 90 minutes .
“ It takes more than that to kill a bull moose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did he go to a local hospital .
Roosevelt was typically cool-headed through the experience .
He was interested in the details about the almost-murder weapon partly so he could detail the experience to his pals .
To one friend he noted irony of having escaped injury for years in the Dakota Badlands as rancher and cowboy , chasing thieves and rustlers ; as a street-patrolling police commissioner in New York City ; as a Rough Rider in Cuba , veteran of a couple bloody engagements , with fellow soldiers shot on either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the old maid who discovered a burglar under her bed and yelled , ‘ There you are !
I ’ ve been looking for you for years !
’ ” After Roosevelt finished his speech that night and was examined , it was decided that he travel by train to Chicago , where specialists could examine him .
Schrank ’ s bullet hit Roosevelt in the chest , glanced off a rib and stopped near the heart .
A metal spectacle case and a triple-folded manuscript of his speech slowed the bullet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was Roosevelt ’ s massive chest muscles , where the bullet lodged ( and remained there until he died ) that saved his life .
“ I have never seen such a physical specimen on my operating table , ” he said .
A few editorialists mused about the candidate ’ s grandstanding , having survived the attack and absorbed the bullet .
But the national consensus was admiration of Roosevelt ’ s devotion to his task .
As his wife , Edith , took charge of the hospital room in Chicago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely directed his campaign from the hospital .
Many people today do not know that Roosevelt ’ s “ day job ” at the time was contributing editor of a Christian weekly magazine called The Outlook .
After the shooting , the magazine ran on its cover a vivid design , enshrining Roosevelt ’ s prescient words from a March 1912 speech that foreshadowed Martin Luther King ’ s “ I ’ ve Been to the Mountaintop ” address .
TR ’ s words from “ The Right of the People to Rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time being , whoever he may be , is but an instrument , to be used until broken and then to be cast aside ; and if he is worth his salt he will care no more when he is broken than a soldier cares when he is sent where his life is forfeit in order that the victory may be won .
In the long fight for righteousness the watchword for all of us is spend and be spent .
It is of little matter whether any one man fails or succeeds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for it is the cause of mankind… .
We , here in America , hold in our hands the hope of the world , the fate of the coming years ; and shame and disgrace will be ours if in our eyes the light of high resolve is dimmed , if we trail in the dust the golden hopes of men .
Roosevelt ’ s opponents in that campaign , President William Howard Taft and New Jersey Gov .
Woodrow Wilson , immediately announced that they would cease campaigning , or at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TR vehemently rejected that offer : “ Anything that could with justice be said about me beforehand , can be said now , ” he said .
His implication was a challenge to the fairness of opponents ’ attacks , and the honesty of political partisans .
Issues are issues , facts are facts , and the agenda of a presidential contest should have integrity .
So it is with former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s seemingly gracious gesture that he and Sen. Kamala Harris , and the rest of the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticism of President Trump for the time being .
By Theodore Roosevelt ’ s perspective , if advertisements are suspended because Trump has a virus , the ads were either unfair to begin with , or the Biden team lacks integrity behind its strategies .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
Rick Marschall
Real Clear Politics
Much is unprecedented this year, and not only in politics. Every day seems to bring surprises, and one way or another America shall be changed by 2020.
The pundits and amateur historians have one thing wrong, however, about President Donald Trump’s hospitalization, and about the campaign’s interruption. This is “unprecedented,” we keep hearing. That’s not quite true, however. A similar situation, if not similar cause, occurred in 1912. Less than a month before the Election Day, Theodore Roosevelt was shot at point-blank range in Milwaukee as he was heading to the city’s main auditorium to deliver a major address.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
A bartender from Brooklyn, Bavarian immigrant Joseph Schrank, had been following the Progressive (“Bull Moose” Party) campaign stops through the Midwest, before finally getting his clear chance in Milwaukee on October 14. Roosevelt had finished his dinner in the Hotel Gilpatrick when Schrank pointed his Colt revolver at TR and fired one shot.
The bullet entered his chest and knocked him back. Roosevelt demanded that the would-be assassin be brought before him (as much to see the gun as the man – he noted that it was a .38-caliber pistol on a .44-caliber frame) and then countermanded his aides’ plan to drive him to a hospital.
“I will deliver this speech or die,” Roosevelt said. And he did, blood staining his shirtfront, for nearly 90 minutes. “It takes more than that to kill a bull moose!” he roared. Only then did he go to a local hospital.
Roosevelt was typically cool-headed through the experience. He was interested in the details about the almost-murder weapon partly so he could detail the experience to his pals. To one friend he noted irony of having escaped injury for years in the Dakota Badlands as rancher and cowboy, chasing thieves and rustlers; as a street-patrolling police commissioner in New York City; as a Rough Rider in Cuba, veteran of a couple bloody engagements, with fellow soldiers shot on either side of him.
Will Trump's hospitilzation so close to the election sway voters? 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. 27% (8 Votes) 73% (22 Votes)
“I felt like the old maid who discovered a burglar under her bed and yelled, ‘There you are! I’ve been looking for you for years!’”
After Roosevelt finished his speech that night and was examined, it was decided that he travel by train to Chicago, where specialists could examine him. Schrank’s bullet hit Roosevelt in the chest, glanced off a rib and stopped near the heart. A metal spectacle case and a triple-folded manuscript of his speech slowed the bullet. Further, a surgeon noted that it was Roosevelt’s massive chest muscles, where the bullet lodged (and remained there until he died) that saved his life.
“I have never seen such a physical specimen on my operating table,” he said.
A few editorialists mused about the candidate’s grandstanding, having survived the attack and absorbed the bullet. But the national consensus was admiration of Roosevelt’s devotion to his task. As his wife, Edith, took charge of the hospital room in Chicago, TR wrote, dictated, and largely directed his campaign from the hospital.
Many people today do not know that Roosevelt’s “day job” at the time was contributing editor of a Christian weekly magazine called The Outlook. After the shooting, the magazine ran on its cover a vivid design, enshrining Roosevelt’s prescient words from a March 1912 speech that foreshadowed Martin Luther King’s “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” address.
TR’s words from “The Right of the People to Rule” speech:
The leader for the time being, whoever he may be, is but an instrument, to be used until broken and then to be cast aside; and if he is worth his salt he will care no more when he is broken than a soldier cares when he is sent where his life is forfeit in order that the victory may be won. In the long fight for righteousness the watchword for all of us is spend and be spent. It is of little matter whether any one man fails or succeeds; but the cause shall not fail, for it is the cause of mankind….
We, here in America, hold in our hands the hope of the world, the fate of the coming years; and shame and disgrace will be ours if in our eyes the light of high resolve is dimmed, if we trail in the dust the golden hopes of men.
Roosevelt’s opponents in that campaign, President William Howard Taft and New Jersey Gov. Woodrow Wilson, immediately announced that they would cease campaigning, or at least cease their attacks on Roosevelt. TR vehemently rejected that offer: “Anything that could with justice be said about me beforehand, can be said now,” he said.
His implication was a challenge to the fairness of opponents’ attacks, and the honesty of political partisans. Issues are issues, facts are facts, and the agenda of a presidential contest should have integrity.
So it is with former Vice President Joe Biden’s seemingly gracious gesture that he and Sen. Kamala Harris, and the rest of the Democratic Party, suspend negative advertising and personal criticism of President Trump for the time being.
By Theodore Roosevelt’s perspective, if advertisements are suspended because Trump has a virus, the ads were either unfair to begin with, or the Biden team lacks integrity behind its strategies.


wnd--2020-10-07--Real question isn't whether President Trump paid a lot of taxes, or not

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets . ]
Even diehard socialists know that it ’ s foolish to pay more taxes than you owe .
During Tuesday night ’ s debate , moderator Chris Wallace asked President Trump about his taxes based on a story in the Sunday New York Times that claimed that President Trump paid no taxes in 10 of the 15 years ending in 2015 and paid nominal amounts in 2016 and 2017 despite millions in gross revenue .
The President responded that he paid millions in taxes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were years when he paid no taxes – because he owed no taxes – as noted in a 2016 Times article titled “ Donald Trump Acknowledges Not Paying Federal Income Taxes for Years.
” But the real question isn ’ t whether the President paid a lot , a little or no taxes .
It ’ s whether he paid what he owed .
Even Bernie Sanders has admitted that ’ s the standard to which one should be held .
In recent years , Sanders ’ income from book sales put him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most people do , he took full advantage of both deductions to reduce his taxable income and the lower tax rates available under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 , which he voted against .
Asked about his tax liability in an April Fox News town hall , Sanders said “ C ’ mon , I pay the taxes that I owe.
” That ’ s really all we have a right to expect .
In one of my favorite New Testament stories , Jesus stops the stoning of a woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crowd , “ Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
” There were no takers .
While throwing stones at the President for not paying more in taxes , I suspect the authors of the New York Times article , their bosses and the paper ’ s owners pay only what they owe in taxes -- and not a penny more .
Seriously , who pays more than they owe ?
Do the Clintons , the Obamas or the Bidens ?
How about Chris Wallace ?
The only person I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is President Trump who donates his $ 400,000 government salary back to the U.S. government each year .
So , has the President paid what he owes ?
According to Trump ’ s attorney , the IRS is auditing him for tax years going back to 2009 .
But that doesn ’ t mean he has underpaid his taxes .
IRS audits for high net worth individuals are hardly unusual .
Any disputes are routinely settled .
That is very likely what will happen with the President ’ s audits .
If there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicized Obama IRS would have asserted as much sometime prior to 2017 .
The real problem stems from our tax code which is overly complex because the government uses it to incentivize certain conduct ( such as mortgage interest deductions to encourage home ownership ) or to discourage other conduct ( such as taxes on alcohol and tobacco ) rather than simply to raise revenue .
If you invest in commercial real estate , as the President did prior to taking office , the tax code provides a number of deductions designed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that results from such investments .
For example , the deduction for depreciation allows taxpayers to deduct a percentage of the costs of a commercial property or improvements from the property ’ s income each year .
Because depreciation is a non-cash deduction ( the taxpayer doesn ’ t actually pay anything in the year they take the deduction ) , a property that produces positive cash flow can nonetheless show a tax loss .
So , if you ’ re just looking at tax return data , as the Times apparently did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business is actually losing money .
Such is the reality of our current tax code .
Claiming tax losses is both legitimate and common-place assuming those claims are consistent with the applicable tax laws .
If the IRS disagrees with any deductions Trump claimed , he will either come to a settlement with the IRS or contest the finding in court .
However , if the deductions he claims were legitimate , as is likely the case , then to paraphrase Senator Sanders -- C ’ mon , he paid the taxes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive officer of CKE Restaurants for more than 16 years , following a career as an attorney .
He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets.]
By Andy Puzder
Real Clear Markets
Even diehard socialists know that it’s foolish to pay more taxes than you owe.
During Tuesday night’s debate, moderator Chris Wallace asked President Trump about his taxes based on a story in the Sunday New York Times that claimed that President Trump paid no taxes in 10 of the 15 years ending in 2015 and paid nominal amounts in 2016 and 2017 despite millions in gross revenue. The President responded that he paid millions in taxes in some years but has long admitted there were years when he paid no taxes – because he owed no taxes – as noted in a 2016 Times article titled “Donald Trump Acknowledges Not Paying Federal Income Taxes for Years.”
But the real question isn’t whether the President paid a lot, a little or no taxes. It’s whether he paid what he owed. Even Bernie Sanders has admitted that’s the standard to which one should be held.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
In recent years, Sanders’ income from book sales put him in the highest tax bracket. As most people do, he took full advantage of both deductions to reduce his taxable income and the lower tax rates available under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which he voted against. Asked about his tax liability in an April Fox News town hall, Sanders said “C’mon, I pay the taxes that I owe.”
That’s really all we have a right to expect.
In one of my favorite New Testament stories, Jesus stops the stoning of a woman accused of adultery by telling the accusing crowd, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” There were no takers. While throwing stones at the President for not paying more in taxes, I suspect the authors of the New York Times article, their bosses and the paper’s owners pay only what they owe in taxes -- and not a penny more.
Seriously, who pays more than they owe? Do the Clintons, the Obamas or the Bidens? How about Chris Wallace? The only person I know who pays more than he owes is President Trump who donates his $400,000 government salary back to the U.S. government each year.
Has President Trump paid his taxes fairly? 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% (34 Votes) 3% (1 Votes)
So, has the President paid what he owes? According to Trump’s attorney, the IRS is auditing him for tax years going back to 2009. But that doesn’t mean he has underpaid his taxes.
IRS audits for high net worth individuals are hardly unusual. Any disputes are routinely settled. That is very likely what will happen with the President’s audits. If there were obvious wrongdoing, surely the highly politicized Obama IRS would have asserted as much sometime prior to 2017.
The real problem stems from our tax code which is overly complex because the government uses it to incentivize certain conduct (such as mortgage interest deductions to encourage home ownership) or to discourage other conduct (such as taxes on alcohol and tobacco) rather than simply to raise revenue. If you invest in commercial real estate, as the President did prior to taking office, the tax code provides a number of deductions designed to encourage investment by reducing the taxable income that results from such investments.
For example, the deduction for depreciation allows taxpayers to deduct a percentage of the costs of a commercial property or improvements from the property’s income each year. Because depreciation is a non-cash deduction (the taxpayer doesn’t actually pay anything in the year they take the deduction), a property that produces positive cash flow can nonetheless show a tax loss. So, if you’re just looking at tax return data, as the Times apparently did, it could appear that a profitable business is actually losing money. Such is the reality of our current tax code.
Claiming tax losses is both legitimate and common-place assuming those claims are consistent with the applicable tax laws. If the IRS disagrees with any deductions Trump claimed, he will either come to a settlement with the IRS or contest the finding in court. However, if the deductions he claims were legitimate, as is likely the case, then to paraphrase Senator Sanders -- C’mon, he paid the taxes that he owed.
Andy Puzder was chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants for more than 16 years, following a career as an attorney. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Markets.]


wnd--2020-10-07--Study shows 'free speech environment at Syracuse has been deteriorating for years'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Education . ]
Syracuse University has much to be proud of , but not when it comes to support of free speech on campus—SU ranks among the weakest schools in this area , according to the 2020 College Free Speech Rankings released last week by RealClearEducation in partnership with The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education ( FIRE ) and the research firm College Pulse .
Syracuse ranked fifth from last of the 55 universities surveyed .
The school scored only a 39 out of 100 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ category , meaning that only 39 of 100 student respondents said that they felt comfortable sharing their viewpoints .
A majority of those Syracuse students—61 out of 100—said that they do NOT feel able to share their opinions .
The problem seems to come from the top : the university ’ s administration earns low marks from students in its support of free speech .
The school scored just a 53 out of 100 , a far cry from top-ranked University of Chicago , where more than 90 out of 100 students say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earlier this year , Syracuse ’ s dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Karin Ruhlandt and Interim Vice Chancellor and Provost John Liu placed Distinguished Professor Jon Zubieta on leave after the chemistry professor included the terms “ Wuhan Flu ” and “ Chinese Communist Party Virus ” on his course syllabus .
The administrators claimed that labeling the disease this way was racist .
Some students objected publicly to the move , and some large university donors expressed their displeasure privately .
FIRE has called on SU to reinstate Zubieta @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s oversensitivity and willingness to fold under pressure from the speech police , ” wrote student Cesar Gray in a column in The Daily Orange , Syracuse ’ s student newspaper .
“ It ’ s hateful now to attribute to an illness the name of the geological region where it originated ?
” Paul McPolin , a 1987 graduate of Syracuse and now deputy editor at the New York Post , had more positive memories of how the university handled free speech back when he was a student there .
He recalled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Orange , he did “ a series of investigative stories exposing how the administration was secretly planning to revise University Senate and governance rules , which would have limited student input .
My stories , which were very unflattering to the SU administration , helped kill the effort .
However , rather than try to shut me down , the administration fully cooperated with me and answered all my queries .
To me , that showed the school respected the First Amendment , a free press , and the students ’ right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we said.
” Unfortunately , the free speech environment at Syracuse has been deteriorating for years .
In 2010 , Tony Callisto , then Syracuse ’ s Department of Public Safety chief , said that students wearing Halloween costumes deemed offensive would face disciplinary action .
In 2016 , Shimon Dotan , an Israeli filmmaker and NYU journalism professor , was disinvited to Syracuse after SU Professor Gail Hamner wrote a letter saying that she had been pressured to rescind his invitation because of the filmmaker ’ s work on Israeli settlements in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the university , though he was eventually reinvited , according to Matthew Cleary , a member of the University Senate ’ s committee on Academic Freedom , Tenure and Professional Ethics .
FIRE criticized SU in February for initially refusing to recognize a university chapter of Young Americans for Freedom , a conservative student group .
SU cited YAF ’ s lack of a faculty adviser and the group ’ s requirement for prospective members to acknowledge the “ superiority ” of the U.S. Constitution .
YAF did eventually receive official recognition from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Syracuse could depend crucially on The Daily Orange , McPolin believes , because the student paper is not a university-funded organization .
A free and independent press , at Syracuse as anywhere else , is what protects free speech .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Education.]
By Cara Marcano
Real Clear Education
Syracuse University has much to be proud of, but not when it comes to support of free speech on campus—SU ranks among the weakest schools in this area, according to the 2020 College Free Speech Rankings released last week by RealClearEducation in partnership with The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the research firm College Pulse. Syracuse ranked fifth from last of the 55 universities surveyed.
The school scored only a 39 out of 100 in the survey’s “self-expression” category, meaning that only 39 of 100 student respondents said that they felt comfortable sharing their viewpoints. A majority of those Syracuse students—61 out of 100—said that they do NOT feel able to share their opinions.
The problem seems to come from the top: the university’s administration earns low marks from students in its support of free speech. The school scored just a 53 out of 100, a far cry from top-ranked University of Chicago, where more than 90 out of 100 students say that their administration supports free speech.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Earlier this year, Syracuse’s dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Karin Ruhlandt and Interim Vice Chancellor and Provost John Liu placed Distinguished Professor Jon Zubieta on leave after the chemistry professor included the terms“Wuhan Flu” and “Chinese Communist Party Virus” on his course syllabus. The administrators claimed that labeling the disease this way was racist. Some students objected publicly to the move, and some large university donors expressed their displeasure privately. FIRE has called on SU to reinstate Zubieta.
“It demonstrates the administration’s oversensitivity and willingness to fold under pressure from the speech police,” wrote student Cesar Gray in a column in The Daily Orange, Syracuse’s student newspaper. “It’s hateful now to attribute to an illness the name of the geological region where it originated?”
Paul McPolin, a 1987 graduate of Syracuse and now deputy editor at the New York Post, had more positive memories of how the university handled free speech back when he was a student there. He recalled how during his time at The Daily Orange, he did “a series of investigative stories exposing how the administration was secretly planning to revise University Senate and governance rules, which would have limited student input. My stories, which were very unflattering to the SU administration, helped kill the effort. However, rather than try to shut me down, the administration fully cooperated with me and answered all my queries. To me, that showed the school respected the First Amendment, a free press, and the students’ right to speak up—even when it disagreed with what we said.”
Unfortunately, the free speech environment at Syracuse has been deteriorating for years.
Is free speech a problem in today's colleges and universities? 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% (4 Votes) 0% (0 Votes)
In 2010, Tony Callisto, then Syracuse’s Department of Public Safety chief, said that students wearing Halloween costumes deemed offensive would face disciplinary action.
In 2016, Shimon Dotan, an Israeli filmmaker and NYU journalism professor, was disinvited to Syracuse after SU Professor Gail Hamner wrote a letter saying that she had been pressured to rescind his invitation because of the filmmaker’s work on Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Dotan never visited the university, though he was eventually reinvited, according to Matthew Cleary, a member of the University Senate’s committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure and Professional Ethics.
FIRE criticized SU in February for initially refusing to recognize a university chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative student group. SU cited YAF’s lack of a faculty adviser and the group’s requirement for prospective members to acknowledge the “superiority” of the U.S. Constitution. YAF did eventually receive official recognition from the university.
Maintaining freedom of speech at Syracuse could depend crucially on The Daily Orange, McPolin believes, because the student paper is not a university-funded organization. A free and independent press, at Syracuse as anywhere else, is what protects free speech.


wnd--2020-10-07--Top law prof: Biden's silence on court packing 'deeply troubling'

Upon the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Democrats threatened to `` pack '' the high court if President Trump nominated and the Senate confirmed a successor before the election .
That would mean adding new seats to the bench and filling them with progressives .
A longtime liberal legal scholar , Jonathan Turley , warns that `` would destroy '' the high court .
And Ginsburg herself agreed .
It 's why the Democratic ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris should make clear their intentions , said Turley .
`` The refusal of Vice President Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position on the packing of the Supreme Court is deeply troubling , '' Turley wrote .
`` Voters should know if Biden would consider such an irresponsible act , particularly when he previously denounced it . ''
He noted Biden , who previously opposed the concept , `` has chosen to remain silent . ''
Turley said President Trump and Senate are following the Constitution with the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett , just as President Obama did four years ago when he nominated Merrick Garland .
There was nothing unconstitutional about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garland , nor is there anything unconstitutional about voting on Barrett , he explained .
However , the packing scheme `` would change the court for the sole purpose of securing an ideological majority . ''
`` It would create a new and fundamentally flawed court — a sad reflection of our age of rage , '' Turley said .
Ginsburg once said : `` If anything would make the court look partisan , it would be that—one side saying , 'When we ’ re in power , we ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to . '
'' In fact , Turley pointed out , Ginsburg refused during her confirmation to state how she would rule on cases .
`` I have criticized the Ginsburg rule , which is used by nominees to refuse giving more than elusive statements on their judicial philosophy , '' said Turley .
`` It has reduced critical confirmation hearings to formulaic exercises with silent nominees and bloviating members of the Senate .
Nominees must be able to talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for individual rights , without demands to hear their positions on pending cases . ''
Turley said that what politicians are advocating today , however , is a direct litmus test .
`` Not only will they vote against a nominee who opposes a particular case , but they will do so for a nominee who does not expressly support a case , '' he said .
`` Even if a nominee like Barrett has a foundation in the law , it is how she will vote on certain controversial cases instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turley said litmus tests and the idea to pack the bench would not honor Ginsburg .
`` They would instead destroy the Supreme Court she loved , '' he said .
`` These moves would obliterate an institution that has over history preserved the stability and continuity of our country .
The Supreme Court has performed this vital role based on its legitimacy and authority with Americans that will surely evaporate if Democrats conduct litmus tests or pack the bench . ''

Upon the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Democrats threatened to "pack" the high court if President Trump nominated and the Senate confirmed a successor before the election.
That would mean adding new seats to the bench and filling them with progressives.
A longtime liberal legal scholar, Jonathan Turley, warns that "would destroy" the high court. And Ginsburg herself agreed.
It's why the Democratic ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris should make clear their intentions, said Turley.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"The refusal of Vice President Joe Biden to answer repeated questions about his position on the packing of the Supreme Court is deeply troubling," Turley wrote. "Voters should know if Biden would consider such an irresponsible act, particularly when he previously denounced it."
He noted Biden, who previously opposed the concept, "has chosen to remain silent."
Turley said President Trump and Senate are following the Constitution with the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, just as President Obama did four years ago when he nominated Merrick Garland.
There was nothing unconstitutional about the Republican-led Senate choosing not to vote on Garland, nor is there anything unconstitutional about voting on Barrett, he explained.
Does Biden plan to pack the Supreme Court? 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% (45 Votes) 0% (0 Votes)
However, the packing scheme "would change the court for the sole purpose of securing an ideological majority."
"It would create a new and fundamentally flawed court — a sad reflection of our age of rage," Turley said.
Ginsburg once said: "If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that—one side saying, 'When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.'"
In fact, Turley pointed out, Ginsburg refused during her confirmation to state how she would rule on cases.
"I have criticized the Ginsburg rule, which is used by nominees to refuse giving more than elusive statements on their judicial philosophy," said Turley. "It has reduced critical confirmation hearings to formulaic exercises with silent nominees and bloviating members of the Senate. Nominees must be able to talk about their judicial philosophy and the basis for individual rights, without demands to hear their positions on pending cases."
Turley said that what politicians are advocating today, however, is a direct litmus test.
"Not only will they vote against a nominee who opposes a particular case, but they will do so for a nominee who does not expressly support a case," he said. "Even if a nominee like Barrett has a foundation in the law, it is how she will vote on certain controversial cases instead of her views that will matter."
Turley said litmus tests and the idea to pack the bench would not honor Ginsburg.
"They would instead destroy the Supreme Court she loved," he said. "These moves would obliterate an institution that has over history preserved the stability and continuity of our country. The Supreme Court has performed this vital role based on its legitimacy and authority with Americans that will surely evaporate if Democrats conduct litmus tests or pack the bench."


wnd--2020-10-07--Colorado sued for having more voters than people

A lawsuit has been filed in federal court against the state of Colorado for having more voters than voting-age people in many of its counties .
The state shifted abruptly from a Republican to a Democratic majority more than a decade ago when several billionaires donated heavily to strategic state House and Senate races .
Now , however , its numbers do n't add up .
According to Judicial Watch , which sued state Secretary of State Jena Griswold , a Democrat , a 2019 study showed 40 of Colorado 's 64 counties had voter registration rates exceeding 100 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the highest rate in the nation .
And it appears to violate the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 , which requires states to keep voter rolls clean .
The government watchdog said a study last month found that as many as 39 Colorado counties had registration rates exceeding 100 % at any one time during the relevant reporting period .
`` Data Colorado itself provided to the federal Election Assistance Commission ( EAC ) showed that Colorado was lagging in the processing and removal of certain classes of ineligible registrations belonging to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
The state 's performance , the lawsuit explains , indicates `` an ongoing , systemic problem with Colorado 's voter list maintenance efforts . ''
And that hurts registered voters by undermining their confidence in the integrity of the system .
`` It is a direct threat to free and fair elections that with record numbers of mail-in ballots this cycle , over half of Colorado counties have more people registered to vote than are eligible to register , '' Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said .
`` With its inaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opened itself up to potentially be the victim of massive voter fraud . ''
At least nine Colorado counties -- Cheyenne , Dolores , Jackson , Mineral , Ouray , Phillips , Pitkin , San Juan and Summit -- had more registered voters that voting-age citizens during every single month of a 60-month period , the lawsuit said .

A lawsuit has been filed in federal court against the state of Colorado for having more voters than voting-age people in many of its counties.
The state shifted abruptly from a Republican to a Democratic majority more than a decade ago when several billionaires donated heavily to strategic state House and Senate races.
Now, however, its numbers don't add up.
According to Judicial Watch, which sued state Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, a 2019 study showed 40 of Colorado's 64 counties had voter registration rates exceeding 100% of the eligible citizens.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
That was the highest rate in the nation.
And it appears to violate the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires states to keep voter rolls clean.
The government watchdog said a study last month found that as many as 39 Colorado counties had registration rates exceeding 100% at any one time during the relevant reporting period.
"Data Colorado itself provided to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) showed that Colorado was lagging in the processing and removal of certain classes of ineligible registrations belonging to those who had moved out of state."
Could voter fraud be why Colorado shifted abruptly from a Republican to a Democratic majority? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 98% (636 Votes) 2% (11 Votes)
The state's performance, the lawsuit explains, indicates "an ongoing, systemic problem with Colorado's voter list maintenance efforts." And that hurts registered voters by undermining their confidence in the integrity of the system.
"It is a direct threat to free and fair elections that with record numbers of mail-in ballots this cycle, over half of Colorado counties have more people registered to vote than are eligible to register," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. "With its inaction, Colorado has failed its citizens and opened itself up to potentially be the victim of massive voter fraud."
At least nine Colorado counties -- Cheyenne, Dolores, Jackson, Mineral, Ouray, Phillips, Pitkin, San Juan and Summit -- had more registered voters that voting-age citizens during every single month of a 60-month period, the lawsuit said.


wnd--2020-10-07--Ted Cruz says Supreme Court chief justice 'despises' the president

Many of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts decisions can be explained by the fact that he `` despises '' President Trump , contends Sen. Cruz , R-Texas .
`` I think it is personal .
It is difficult to come up with two human beings more antithetical than John Roberts and Donald Trump , in every respect , '' said Cruz in an interview with David Brody for his program `` The Water Cooler . ''
Cruz , discussing his new book `` One Vote Away : How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History , '' said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day O'Connor . ''
Vice President Mike Pence recently said Roberts has been a `` disappointment '' to conservative voters .
However , Roberts ' votes could become less important for conservatives in the future , as the Senate is expected to vote in the coming weeks on President Trump 's nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
She would fill the seat previously held by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the anchor of the court 's left .
Barrett would ensure the court has a 5-4 conservative majority , even without @ @

Many of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts decisions can be explained by the fact that he "despises" President Trump, contends Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
"I think it is personal. It is difficult to come up with two human beings more antithetical than John Roberts and Donald Trump, in every respect," said Cruz in an interview with David Brody for his program "The Water Cooler."
Cruz, discussing his new book "One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History," said Roberts "has become the new Sandra Day O'Connor."
Vice President Mike Pence recently said Roberts has been a "disappointment" to conservative voters.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
However, Roberts' votes could become less important for conservatives in the future, as the Senate is expected to vote in the coming weeks on President Trump's nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
She would fill the seat previously held by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the anchor of the court's left.
Barrett would ensure the court has a 5-4 conservative majority, even without Roberts.


wnd--2020-10-07--Tens of thousands of cases of possible vote fraud cited in new report

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by the Daily Signal . ]
One of the constant refrains from those who oppose election reforms designed to protect the security and integrity of the voting process is that serious vote fraud is a myth .
But as a shocking new report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation shows , those naysayers could not be more wrong .
The foundation ’ s report , “ Critical Condition , ” highlights the severity of the problem : inaccurate voter rolls , duplicate registrations , dead voters , and incomplete registrations—all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to exploit vulnerabilities in the system .
The foundation discovered more than 140,000 instances of potential election fraud in the 2016 and 2018 elections , ranging from individuals illegally voting in multiple states to someone voting in the name of a deceased person .
The Public Interest Legal Foundation created the type of database that President Donald Trump ’ s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity wanted to create , but was prevented from doing so by numerous frivolous lawsuits filed by the left .
Many state governors and election officials also refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is why it was shut down before it could even do any research .
The foundation obtained voter registration and voter history data from 42 states .
It had to sue three states—Illinois , Maine , and Maryland—to get what is supposed to be public information after they refused to comply with their own laws .
All of this information was put into the Safeguarding America ’ s Votes and Elections database .
It was then supplemented with information from other commercial and government data sources , such as credit agencies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Index .
By supplementing the voter registration information , the Public Interest Legal Foundation was able to sift out as many “ false positives ” as possible .
A false positive in data comparisons occurs when two different individuals have the same name and birthdate .
For example , “ John James Smith ” born July 4 , 1976 , appearing on two state voter registration lists may actually be two different people .
By leveraging other identifying information , such as commercial data , Social Security numbers , and credit address histories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not all , false positives that have plagued prior reports from other entities .
The foundation now has what it says is “ the best platform ever constructed to analyze the health of voter rolls and catalog potential vote fraud vulnerabilities.
” So , what did the Public Interest Legal Foundation uncover ?
There are currently 349,773 deceased registrants on the voter rolls in 41 states .
The worst states in this regard are Michigan , Florida , New York , Texas , and California , which account for roughly 51 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered .
Even worse , state records show that 7,890 of these deceased voters cast ballots from the grave in the 2016 presidential election and 6,718 did so in the 2018 congressional elections .
If that weren ’ t bad enough , the foundation also found that : — 8,360 individuals registered and voted in two different states during the 2018 election .
— 43,760 individuals were registered more than once at the same address and cast second votes in the 2016 election , while 37,889 individuals appeared to have voted twice from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Thousands of these apparent double votes were exclusively mail-in ballots . )
— 5,500 voters cast ballots twice in the same state from two different registration addresses in 2018 .
— 34,000 voters appeared to have used nonresidential , commercial addresses—such as gas stations , casinos , and restaurants—to register to vote .
That last problem—registering at a commercial address—is a serious issue .
In fact , Rep. Steve Watkins , R-Kan. , was charged with election fraud in July for claiming a UPS store as his residence when he registered to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 municipal election in Topeka , Kansas .
In 2018 , the foundation ’ s research found that 17 ballots were cast from a self-storage facility in Compton , California , and four ballots were cast from the NPR headquarters in Culver City , California .
The Heritage Election Fraud Database of almost 1,300 proven cases of fraud is just a sampling and not a comprehensive list of election fraud cases .
As we note , it “ does not capture reported instances that are not investigated or prosecuted.
” Those reported cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iceberg .
As the Public Interest Legal Foundation ’ s report shows , there are 144,117 other potential cases of election fraud , just from the last two federal elections .
These should be investigated by election officials and prosecuted by law enforcement officials if the information it uncovered is correct .
Downplaying the risks and vulnerabilities for fraud in the current system only exacerbates existing problems and compromises the most sacred right a free people have .
As the Heritage Election Fraud Database and the latest Public Interest Legal Foundation report show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real—and it could make a difference in a close election .
Editor ’ s note : Hans von Spakovsky serves on the board of the Public Interest Legal Foundation .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by the Daily Signal . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by the Daily Signal.]
By Hans von Spakovsky
Daily Signal
One of the constant refrains from those who oppose election reforms designed to protect the security and integrity of the voting process is that serious vote fraud is a myth.
But as a shocking new report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation shows, those naysayers could not be more wrong.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The foundation’s report, “Critical Condition,” highlights the severity of the problem: inaccurate voter rolls, duplicate registrations, dead voters, and incomplete registrations—all of which allow fraud by those willing to exploit vulnerabilities in the system.
The foundation discovered more than 140,000 instances of potential election fraud in the 2016 and 2018 elections, ranging from individuals illegally voting in multiple states to someone voting in the name of a deceased person.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation created the type of database that President Donald Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity wanted to create, but was prevented from doing so by numerous frivolous lawsuits filed by the left.
Many state governors and election officials also refused to provide data to the commission, which is why it was shut down before it could even do any research.
Is voter fraud likely to play a part in the upcoming election? 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. 99% (74 Votes) 1% (1 Votes)
The foundation obtained voter registration and voter history data from 42 states. It had to sue three states—Illinois, Maine, and Maryland—to get what is supposed to be public information after they refused to comply with their own laws.
All of this information was put into the Safeguarding America’s Votes and Elections database. It was then supplemented with information from other commercial and government data sources, such as credit agencies, obituaries, and the Social Security Death Index.
By supplementing the voter registration information, the Public Interest Legal Foundation was able to sift out as many “false positives” as possible.
A false positive in data comparisons occurs when two different individuals have the same name and birthdate. For example, “John James Smith” born July 4, 1976, appearing on two state voter registration lists may actually be two different people.
By leveraging other identifying information, such as commercial data, Social Security numbers, and credit address histories, one can eliminate most, if not all, false positives that have plagued prior reports from other entities.
The foundation now has what it says is “the best platform ever constructed to analyze the health of voter rolls and catalog potential vote fraud vulnerabilities.”
So, what did the Public Interest Legal Foundation uncover?
There are currently 349,773 deceased registrants on the voter rolls in 41 states. The worst states in this regard are Michigan, Florida, New York, Texas, and California, which account for roughly 51% of the dead voters who are still mistakenly registered.
Even worse, state records show that 7,890 of these deceased voters cast ballots from the grave in the 2016 presidential election and 6,718 did so in the 2018 congressional elections.
If that weren’t bad enough, the foundation also found that:
— 8,360 individuals registered and voted in two different states during the 2018 election.
— 43,760 individuals were registered more than once at the same address and cast second votes in the 2016 election, while 37,889 individuals appeared to have voted twice from the same registration address in 2018. (Thousands of these apparent double votes were exclusively mail-in ballots.)
— 5,500 voters cast ballots twice in the same state from two different registration addresses in 2018.
— 34,000 voters appeared to have used nonresidential, commercial addresses—such as gas stations, casinos, and restaurants—to register to vote.
That last problem—registering at a commercial address—is a serious issue. In fact, Rep. Steve Watkins, R-Kan., was charged with election fraud in July for claiming a UPS store as his residence when he registered to vote, and then voting in a 2019 municipal election in Topeka, Kansas.
In 2018, the foundation’s research found that 17 ballots were cast from a self-storage facility in Compton, California, and four ballots were cast from the NPR headquarters in Culver City, California.
The Heritage Election Fraud Database of almost 1,300 proven cases of fraud is just a sampling and not a comprehensive list of election fraud cases. As we note, it “does not capture reported instances that are not investigated or prosecuted.” Those reported cases are likely just the tip of the iceberg.
As the Public Interest Legal Foundation’s report shows, there are 144,117 other potential cases of election fraud, just from the last two federal elections. These should be investigated by election officials and prosecuted by law enforcement officials if the information it uncovered is correct.
Downplaying the risks and vulnerabilities for fraud in the current system only exacerbates existing problems and compromises the most sacred right a free people have.
As the Heritage Election Fraud Database and the latest Public Interest Legal Foundation report show, the threat of vote fraud is real—and it could make a difference in a close election.
Editor’s note: Hans von Spakovsky serves on the board of the Public Interest Legal Foundation.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by the Daily Signal.]


wnd--2020-10-06--Transgender elections judge facing charges of tampering

An transgendered elections judge in Pennsylvania is facing two counts of tampering with election ballots , including prying into ballots and altering entries .
Jim Martin , district attorney for Lehigh County , announced the charges against Everett `` Erika '' Bickford , a man who now identifies as a woman , in Allentown 's 3rd Ward , The Morning Call newspaper reported The dispute involves the primary race for state representative between Enid Santiago and Peter Schweyer .
Bickford admitted to having `` darkened voters ' bubbles '' several dozen times , as well as trimming the jagged edges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a machine .
Bickford was not charged with changing votes .
Martin said detectives examined all of the ballots and found no evidence of erasure marks , whiteout , or any other indications of a double vote .
Santiago has alleged Bickford 's actions `` stole '' the results for Schweyer , who won the primary by just 55 votes .
Bickford , 69 , said he will plead not guilty and does n't plan to quit .
Santiago is pursuing a write-in campaign against Schweyer .
The results of the election are @ @ @

An transgendered elections judge in Pennsylvania is facing two counts of tampering with election ballots, including prying into ballots and altering entries.
Jim Martin, district attorney for Lehigh County, announced the charges against Everett "Erika" Bickford, a man who now identifies as a woman, in Allentown's 3rd Ward, The Morning Call newspaper reported
The dispute involves the primary race for state representative between Enid Santiago and Peter Schweyer.
Bickford admitted to having "darkened voters' bubbles" several dozen times, as well as trimming the jagged edges of ballots so they would run through a machine.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Bickford was not charged with changing votes.
Martin said detectives examined all of the ballots and found no evidence of erasure marks, whiteout, or any other indications of a double vote.
Santiago has alleged Bickford's actions "stole" the results for Schweyer, who won the primary by just 55 votes.
Bickford, 69, said he will plead not guilty and doesn't plan to quit.
Could this judge's actions "steal" the election for the primary race for state representative? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 98% (123 Votes) 2% (3 Votes)
Santiago is pursuing a write-in campaign against Schweyer.
The results of the election are being audited.