wnd--2020-08-16--California agenda forcing the poor to pay 4 times as much for power

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Energy . ]
Last year , Berkeley became the first city in the United States to pass a ban on natural gas hookups in new buildings .
Since then , about 30 local governments in California have passed restrictions or bans on the use of natural gas and several cities in other states may follow the Golden State ’ s lead .
These restrictions are being labeled as an essential part of California ’ s efforts to slash its greenhouse gas emissions .
But last week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Energy Commission , claiming that by allowing the bans and promoting building electrification , the agency was creating “ underground regulations ” that were not permitted under state law .
The lawsuit also seeks an order that would force the agency to “ vacate its anti-natural gas policy.
” ( The California Restaurant Association has also sued to stop the bans on natural gas use . )
While the litigation deserves attention ( and a separate column ) , it is clear that the bans on natural gas , are , in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low- and middle-income consumers and in doing so , exacerbate California ’ s poverty problem .
As I show in a new report for the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity , by banning the direct use of natural gas for cooking , home heating , water heaters , and clothes dryers , California regulators are aiming to force consumers to instead use more electricity which , on an energy-equivalent basis , costs four times as much as natural gas .
That ’ s unconscionable in California , which has the highest poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When accounting for the cost of living , 18.1 % of the state ’ s residents are living in poverty .
For perspective , that means that roughly 7 million Californians -- a population about the size of Arizona ’ s -- are living in poverty .
Californians also pay some of America ’ s highest energy prices .
Last year , the average cost of residential electricity in California was 19.2 cents per kilowatt-hour , which is 47 % higher than the national average of about 13 cents per kilowatt-hour .
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Club , Rocky Mountain Institute , and other groups have been pushing for restrictions or bans on natural gas use .
A recent article in the club ’ s flagship magazine , Sierra , declared that local governments in California “ serve as guiding lights as the state navigates a transition from gas to clean-energy buildings.
” The environmental group wants to convince the California Energy Commission to “ require or at least support all-electric new construction in the statewide building code.
” Restrictions on natural gas are popular in the Bay Area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city of Burlingame passed a measure that bans natural gas use in new commercial and multi-family residential projects .
Municipalities in Silicon Valley that have passed restrictions include Cupertino , the home of Apple ; Mountain View ( Alphabet ) ; and Menlo Park ( Facebook ) .
These restrictions on natural gas are being implemented at the same time that electricity rates are soaring .
Last year , the California Public Advocates Office published a study which found that between 2009 and 2019 , baseline rates—that is , the minimum charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service— “ increased at an alarming rate.
” Over that decade , San Diego Gas & Electric ’ s baseline rate jumped by 106 % , or more than five times as fast as the Consumer Price Index .
PG & E ’ s baseline rate jumped by 85 % , and Southern California Edison ’ s rate increased by 48 % .
In May 2020 , electricity prices across all sectors in California jumped by 4.6 % over May 2019 numbers .
In the rest of the country , electricity prices were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California ’ s electric rates are certain to continue rising .
The state ’ s utilities are facing tens of billions of dollars in costs related to renewable-energy mandates , transmission-system upgrades , and the devastating wildfires that hit the state two years ago , some of which were ignited by power lines .
In addition to the high electricity prices , California ratepayers could be on the hook for costs related to shuttering the natural gas grid .
An April report by the California Energy Commission called “ The Challenge of Retail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” found that the “ potential for large reductions in gas demand ” could result in “ unsustainable increases in gas rates and customer energy bills.
” That , in turn , would have the biggest impact on “ customers who are least able to switch away from gas , including renters and low-income residents.
” Put short , California should not attempt to solve the climate change challenge on the backs of the poor and the middle class .
The state should not be abandoning natural gas -- the cleanest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the United States is producing record quantities of it and prices of the fuel are near multi-decade lows .
The reality is that natural gas will be an essential fuel for decades to come .
It is clean , it can be used for transportation , to offset the intermittency of renewables , and to provide low-cost energy services in homes and businesses .
With millions of Californians living in poverty , a problem that is being made worse by the pandemic , policymakers must work to keep energy affordable .
Banning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expensive .
Robert Bryce is a visiting fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity , the host of the Power Hungry Podcast , and a producer of a new feature-length documentary : Juice : How Electricity Explains the World .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Energy . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Energy.]
By Robert Bryce
Real Clear Energy
Last year, Berkeley became the first city in the United States to pass a ban on natural gas hookups in new buildings. Since then, about 30 local governments in California have passed restrictions or bans on the use of natural gas and several cities in other states may follow the Golden State’s lead.
These restrictions are being labeled as an essential part of California’s efforts to slash its greenhouse gas emissions. But last week, Southern California Gas Co. sued the California Energy Commission, claiming that by allowing the bans and promoting building electrification, the agency was creating “underground regulations” that were not permitted under state law. The lawsuit also seeks an order that would force the agency to “vacate its anti-natural gas policy.” (The California Restaurant Association has also sued to stop the bans on natural gas use.)
While the litigation deserves attention (and a separate column), it is clear that the bans on natural gas, are, in fact, regressive energy taxes that will hurt low- and middle-income consumers and in doing so, exacerbate California’s poverty problem. As I show in a new report for the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, by banning the direct use of natural gas for cooking, home heating, water heaters, and clothes dryers, California regulators are aiming to force consumers to instead use more electricity which, on an energy-equivalent basis, costs four times as much as natural gas.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
That’s unconscionable in California, which has the highest poverty rate of any state in America. When accounting for the cost of living, 18.1% of the state’s residents are living in poverty. For perspective, that means that roughly 7 million Californians -- a population about the size of Arizona’s -- are living in poverty. Californians also pay some of America’s highest energy prices. Last year, the average cost of residential electricity in California was 19.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is 47% higher than the national average of about 13 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Despite these facts, campaigners from the Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain Institute, and other groups have been pushing for restrictions or bans on natural gas use. A recent article in the club’s flagship magazine, Sierra, declared that local governments in California “serve as guiding lights as the state navigates a transition from gas to clean-energy buildings.” The environmental group wants to convince the California Energy Commission to “require or at least support all-electric new construction in the statewide building code.”
Restrictions on natural gas are popular in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley. In June, the city of Burlingame passed a measure that bans natural gas use in new commercial and multi-family residential projects. Municipalities in Silicon Valley that have passed restrictions include Cupertino, the home of Apple; Mountain View (Alphabet); and Menlo Park (Facebook).
These restrictions on natural gas are being implemented at the same time that electricity rates are soaring. Last year, the California Public Advocates Office published a study which found that between 2009 and 2019, baseline rates—that is, the minimum charge assessed to each customer for basic electricity service—“increased at an alarming rate.” Over that decade, San Diego Gas & Electric’s baseline rate jumped by 106%, or more than five times as fast as the Consumer Price Index. PG&E’s baseline rate jumped by 85%, and Southern California Edison’s rate increased by 48%.
In May 2020, electricity prices across all sectors in California jumped by 4.6% over May 2019 numbers. In the rest of the country, electricity prices were flat over that period. Furthermore, California’s electric rates are certain to continue rising. The state’s utilities are facing tens of billions of dollars in costs related to renewable-energy mandates, transmission-system upgrades, and the devastating wildfires that hit the state two years ago, some of which were ignited by power lines.
In addition to the high electricity prices, California ratepayers could be on the hook for costs related to shuttering the natural gas grid. An April report by the California Energy Commission called “The Challenge of Retail Gas in California’s Low-Carbon Future,” found that the “potential for large reductions in gas demand” could result in “unsustainable increases in gas rates and customer energy bills.” That, in turn, would have the biggest impact on “customers who are least able to switch away from gas, including renters and low-income residents.”
Put short, California should not attempt to solve the climate change challenge on the backs of the poor and the middle class. The state should not be abandoning natural gas -- the cleanest of the hydrocarbons -- at the same time that the United States is producing record quantities of it and prices of the fuel are near multi-decade lows.
The reality is that natural gas will be an essential fuel for decades to come. It is clean, it can be used for transportation, to offset the intermittency of renewables, and to provide low-cost energy services in homes and businesses. With millions of Californians living in poverty, a problem that is being made worse by the pandemic, policymakers must work to keep energy affordable. Banning natural gas will only make energy more expensive.
Robert Bryce is a visiting fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, the host of the Power Hungry Podcast, and a producer of a new feature-length documentary: Juice: How Electricity Explains the World.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Energy.]


wnd--2020-08-16--The solution to worries about mail-in ballot security

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
As we enter the heart of a campaign season during these uncertain times , one thing remains certain : Election Day will still take place on Nov. 3 , 2020 , as required by law .
Any potential change of date was immediately dismissed last week by Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress , as well as the White House chief of staff .
But to maintain public confidence in our electoral process , our states and counties must also implement protocols and safeguards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date , over 65,000 mail ballots have been rejected in primaries this year for arriving after the return deadline .
This does not include the additional tens of thousands of ballots that have been thrown out because of a mismatched signature , lack of signature or other mistakes that would not have occurred if the elector voted in person .
If the rise in mail voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us anything , it ’ s the reality that mail ballots can be easily rejected .
A delayed and overwhelmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administrative oversight in the mail ballot process means that voters have little opportunity to fix fatal ballot errors to ensure their votes count .
While on average only a small percentage of the total mail ballots returned are rejected , the sheer volume of voters who have opted to vote by mail means that these slightly increased percentages equate to a staggering number of ballots — and disenfranchised voters .
For instance , nearly 150,000 mail ballots were rejected in just three states ’ primary elections this year , each of which had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – 18,500 ( 1.3 % ) in Florida , 102,000 ( 1.5 % ) in California , and 23,000 ( 1.8 % ) in Wisconsin .
As November gets closer , even a small percentage of rejected ballots could make the difference for candidates running in hotly contested races .
Mail ballots are already three times more likely to be rejected than ballots cast in person , and with nearly every state expanding mail voting , it is inevitable that mail ballots will continue to be thrown out at alarming rates leading up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that mail ballots are rejected at higher rates can not be the justification for relaxing invaluable election integrity safeguards .
As someone who has advocated for voting rights for over 20 years , no amount of voter fraud or suppression should be tolerated within our electoral system .
Pointing to the rate at which mail ballots are rejected and demanding that common-sense election procedures be abandoned would be to jeopardize the integrity of the other 98 % of mail ballots that are properly cast and counted .
These election integrity procedures – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned on time or that the ballot be signed by the voter – provide necessary checks to mail voting that ensure integrity in the absence of direct oversight from election officials that exists when an elector votes in person .
Protections of the process help voters have confidence in the accuracy of results when voting by mail , just as when voting in person .
Rather than trying to use the fact that ballots are disqualified as an excuse to relax election security , election officials and nonprofit organizations should educate voters how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they all are properly counted .
How can you , as a voter , ensure that your mail ballot counts ?
First , request your ballot early and return it promptly .
The USPS says it requires a minimum of 15 days to transmit and return a ballot , and voters would be wise to allow even more time to ensure their ballots are returned by the deadline in their states .
Second , follow all ballot instructions carefully .
Is there an inner envelope your ballot must be sealed within before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Do you need to sign the inner and/or outer envelope ?
Does your signature need to be witnessed or notarized ?
Do you need to provide some other form of identification ?
Third , check if your state or county has a system that allows you to track your ballots throughout the process – as it is received , processed , and counted .
Check if your state or county has a means to “ cure ” your ballot if it is rejected and what the deadline is for doing so .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will help ensure every eligible voter ’ s ballot is counted while also bolstering much needed public confidence in our electoral system .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Elliot Berke
Real Clear Politics
As we enter the heart of a campaign season during these uncertain times, one thing remains certain: Election Day will still take place on Nov. 3, 2020, as required by law. Any potential change of date was immediately dismissed last week by Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress, as well as the White House chief of staff. But to maintain public confidence in our electoral process, our states and counties must also implement protocols and safeguards to ensure maximum ballot integrity.
To date, over 65,000 mail ballots have been rejected in primaries this year for arriving after the return deadline. This does not include the additional tens of thousands of ballots that have been thrown out because of a mismatched signature, lack of signature or other mistakes that would not have occurred if the elector voted in person.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
If the rise in mail voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us anything, it’s the reality that mail ballots can be easily rejected. A delayed and overwhelmed postal system paired with a lack of administrative oversight in the mail ballot process means that voters have little opportunity to fix fatal ballot errors to ensure their votes count.
While on average only a small percentage of the total mail ballots returned are rejected, the sheer volume of voters who have opted to vote by mail means that these slightly increased percentages equate to a staggering number of ballots — and disenfranchised voters.
For instance, nearly 150,000 mail ballots were rejected in just three states’ primary elections this year, each of which had less than a 2% rejection rate – 18,500 (1.3%) in Florida, 102,000 (1.5%) in California, and 23,000 (1.8%) in Wisconsin. As November gets closer, even a small percentage of rejected ballots could make the difference for candidates running in hotly contested races.
Mail ballots are already three times more likely to be rejected than ballots cast in person, and with nearly every state expanding mail voting, it is inevitable that mail ballots will continue to be thrown out at alarming rates leading up to and in November.
But the fact that mail ballots are rejected at higher rates cannot be the justification for relaxing invaluable election integrity safeguards. As someone who has advocated for voting rights for over 20 years, no amount of voter fraud or suppression should be tolerated within our electoral system.
Pointing to the rate at which mail ballots are rejected and demanding that common-sense election procedures be abandoned would be to jeopardize the integrity of the other 98% of mail ballots that are properly cast and counted.
These election integrity procedures – like requiring the mail ballot to be returned on time or that the ballot be signed by the voter – provide necessary checks to mail voting that ensure integrity in the absence of direct oversight from election officials that exists when an elector votes in person.
Protections of the process help voters have confidence in the accuracy of results when voting by mail, just as when voting in person.
Rather than trying to use the fact that ballots are disqualified as an excuse to relax election security, election officials and nonprofit organizations should educate voters how to properly cast their mail ballots so that they all are properly counted.
How can you, as a voter, ensure that your mail ballot counts? First, request your ballot early and return it promptly. The USPS says it requires a minimum of 15 days to transmit and return a ballot, and voters would be wise to allow even more time to ensure their ballots are returned by the deadline in their states.
Second, follow all ballot instructions carefully. Is there an inner envelope your ballot must be sealed within before placing in an outer envelope for mailing? Do you need to sign the inner and/or outer envelope? Does your signature need to be witnessed or notarized? Do you need to provide some other form of identification?
Third, check if your state or county has a system that allows you to track your ballots throughout the process – as it is received, processed, and counted. Check if your state or county has a means to “cure” your ballot if it is rejected and what the deadline is for doing so.
If voters follow these steps, it will help ensure every eligible voter’s ballot is counted while also bolstering much needed public confidence in our electoral system.


wnd--2020-08-16--Why American cities are replicating defenses of medieval castles

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
After looters struck downtown Chicago on Sunday night , officials literally raised the bridges to prevent rioting hordes from roaming so easily .
They also blocked road access and stopped public transit .
So , we have come to this : a major American city is replicating the strategy of medieval castles : flood the moats and raise the drawbridges .
All that is missing are crenelated battlements and Welsh longbowmen .
In Portland , officials aren ’ t even raising the drawbridges .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mayor Ted Wheeler ’ s strategy seems to be , “ If you insist on doing this , we might write a strong letter.
” He has stopped short of repeating what Monty Python ’ s French knight told invaders at his castle , “ Go away or I will taunt you a second time.
” Mayor Wheeler hasn ’ t taunted them a first time .
Wheeler has plenty of company among Democratic mayors and governors .
Months after George Floyd ’ s death and the rioting and looting that followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unpunished .
Nothing says , “ We protest racial injustice ” like burning down the corner grocery or smashing windows to grab boxes of expensive Nikes .
Instead of condemning the vandalism and jailing those who committed it , many mayors and city councils are trying to mollify their demands , slash police funding , and wait it out .
The appeasement approach will fail to mollify the vandals , but it will enrage ordinary citizens , who want their lives back and an end to all this moral hectoring .
As we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can see a split emerging among big-city Democrats .
Most , like Portland ’ s Wheeler , Minneapolis ’ Jacob Frey , Seattle ’ s Jenny Durkan , and New York ’ s Bill de Blasio , favor drastic concessions to protesters , beginning with sharp reductions in police budgets .
Seattle just passed a new budget cutting up to 100 officers , slashing salaries for department leaders , and dismantling the special team that removes homeless encampments , one of the city ’ s worst problems .
Seattle ’ s police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcing her retirement .
She was the first black woman to head the department .
No matter to the city council , which was busy congratulating itself for taking what it called “ a first step ” toward upending the city ’ s law enforcement .
Still , the vote wasn ’ t unanimous .
One council member was angry because the cuts didn ’ t go far enough .
This isn ’ t sensible policy ; it ’ s senseless self-parody .
Urban politicians like these , entrenched on the hard left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even violent ones .
They openly support the Black Lives Matter organization and speak about “ reimagining policing.
” Faced with legitimate ( and growing ) demands for better public safety , they offer only lip service .
The most they can say is that “ violence could hurt our common cause.
” No kidding .
A few mayors , including progressives like Chicago ’ s Lori Lightfoot , are finally fed up with the mayhem and want police to stop it .
They are beginning to face the reality that boarded-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revenues they need .
Of course , Lightfoot still lacerates President Trump in her speeches and refuses his offer of federal officers to supplement local officers .
But her policies are edging toward his on law and order .
After Sunday ’ s rioting , Chicago police made over 100 arrests .
Whether those arrested will ever spend time in the Graybar Hotel is another matter .
Local prosecutors might simply wait a few weeks and drop the changes .
Why ?
Because prosecutors in Chicago , like those in many big cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the jails wrongly filled with minorities .
These prosecutors , who call themselves “ Justice Democrats , ” refuse to try many crimes .
They reject the tough-on-crime policies that Democrats , including leading African Americans , supported in the 1990s .
Today ’ s prosecutors campaigned on a much different agenda , and they were elected .
Their soft-on-crime strategy raises two questions , beyond its dubious ideology .
One is whether it will lead to a safer , most just society .
( Spoiler alert : It won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single prosecutor , even an elected one , has the right to abolish whole categories of criminal laws .
No one even raises this issue , but they should .
It goes to the heart of our constitutional government , its separation of powers , and the ways we make and enforce laws .
In Chicago , for example , State ’ s Attorney Kim Foxx decided some time ago not to prosecute shoplifting under $ 1,000 .
Her decision simply ignores the Illinois law , which holds that thefts over $ 300 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 300 still face significant fines and imprisonment , at least hypothetically .
In practice , those penalties are seldom enforced . )
Remember , Foxx is an executive branch official , charged with enforcing the law .
Instead , she effectively repeals those she doesn ’ t like with a wave of her magic wand .
That ’ s troubling in its own right , aside from the green light it gives criminals to keep up the good work .
She did the same thing when she declined to prosecute many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defaced property after Floyd ’ s death .
This weekend ’ s rioters read her signal loud and clear .
Installing prosecutors like Foxx , St. Louis ’ Kimberly Gardner , and Philadelphia ’ s Larry Krasner is a major goal of hard-left activists and their wealthy donors .
In St. Louis , Gardner did nothing about the mob that broke into a gated community , putting frightened homeowners on edge .
Instead , she charged a husband and wife who stood outside their home , guarding it with firearms .
In Philadelphia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against federal troops if they came to his city to restore order .
Prosecutors like these — and like-minded mayors and city councils determined to slash police funding — ignore the success of “ Broken Windows policing , ” which worked well for several decades .
Under New York mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg , it restored order to what had been a dangerous city .
The basic idea is that it makes sense to prosecute small violations , not because isolated vandalism is so awful but because prosecuting it will prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminals got the message : we will catch you , and you will face serious consequences .
If we punish small violations , just imagine how we treat bigger ones .
Justice Democrats are pursuing the exact opposite strategy .
It ought to be called “ Go Ahead , Break Our Windows ” policing .
Ignore all small crimes and many large ones .
Release everyone on bail , even the most violent criminals .
It ’ s working out just like you ’ d expect .
The rise in urban violence has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policing and electing prosecutors like Foxx , Gardner , and Krasner has been part of a systematic , well-funded strategy .
Among its chief architects and donors is billionaire financier , George Soros , but he is hardly alone .
Highlighting Soros ’ role is why the Chicago Tribune ’ s most popular columnist , John Kass , received such scorching criticism .
Actually , his main point wasn ’ t about Soros .
It was that ideologically driven prosecutors are part of a broader political movement , which has contributed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soros ’ role , Kass was accused of anti-Semitism .
It was a false charge , as Carl Cannon explains .
Still , the charges against the columnist are important because they are so emblematic of today ’ s “ cancel culture.
” The allegations not only smear the victim , they also frighten others into silence .
This fear of speaking out — especially to demand public safety — is almost as big a problem as the violence itself .
For a liberal , democratic polity like ours to work , citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freely , openly .
Then , after we debate and pass laws , officials in the executive branch must enforce them .
That ’ s their core responsibility .
It is certainly right to demand that enforcement be color-blind and applied equally to the rich and poor , the powerful and the weak , the celebrity and the street sweeper .
Police must follow established procedures and refrain from using excessive force .
Prosecutors should be given some discretion about using their limited time and resources .
But that discretion has been stretched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law ” does not mean prosecutors can simply ignore black-letter law , any more than police can .
People and businesses have a right to protection from violence and predation , from shoplifting and looting .
Those rights have been properly encoded in law .
How else can each of us pursue life , liberty , and happiness , as we define them ?
We need public safety to pursue our private ends .
That safety is essential , and to secure it we need well-trained police and fair-minded prosecutors .
We need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need competent prosecutors willing to try those suspects if the evidence is sufficient .
Prosecutors should have flexibility about handling individual cases , as long as they are even-handed .
What they should not have is the unilateral power to rewrite broad categories of criminal law .
Far too many Justice Democrats are doing exactly that .
They believe , wrongly , that their benign goals are justification enough .
They are not .
In a constitutional democracy , we have established laws and procedures , not idiosyncratic , arbitrary ones .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duties and their limits .
Prosecutors , mayors , and city councils have all sworn to serve and protect the public .
That hard task begins with restoring public safety .
No duty is more fundamental .
And none is more imperiled .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Charles Lipson
Real Clear Politics
After looters struck downtown Chicago on Sunday night, officials literally raised the bridges to prevent rioting hordes from roaming so easily. They also blocked road access and stopped public transit. So, we have come to this: a major American city is replicating the strategy of medieval castles: flood the moats and raise the drawbridges. All that is missing are crenelated battlements and Welsh longbowmen.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
In Portland, officials aren’t even raising the drawbridges. After more than 70 nights of rioting, Mayor Ted Wheeler’s strategy seems to be, “If you insist on doing this, we might write a strong letter.” He has stopped short of repeating what Monty Python’s French knight told invaders at his castle, “Go away or I will taunt you a second time.” Mayor Wheeler hasn’t taunted them a first time.
Wheeler has plenty of company among Democratic mayors and governors. Months after George Floyd’s death and the rioting and looting that followed, stores remain boarded up, criminals unpunished. Nothing says, “We protest racial injustice” like burning down the corner grocery or smashing windows to grab boxes of expensive Nikes. Instead of condemning the vandalism and jailing those who committed it, many mayors and city councils are trying to mollify their demands, slash police funding, and wait it out. The appeasement approach will fail to mollify the vandals, but it will enrage ordinary citizens, who want their lives back and an end to all this moral hectoring.
As we suffer through this summer of discontent, we can see a split emerging among big-city Democrats. Most, like Portland’s Wheeler, Minneapolis’ Jacob Frey, Seattle’s Jenny Durkan, and New York’s Bill de Blasio, favor drastic concessions to protesters, beginning with sharp reductions in police budgets. Seattle just passed a new budget cutting up to 100 officers, slashing salaries for department leaders, and dismantling the special team that removes homeless encampments, one of the city’s worst problems. Seattle’s police chief, Carmen Best, responded by announcing her retirement. She was the first black woman to head the department. No matter to the city council, which was busy congratulating itself for taking what it called “a first step” toward upending the city’s law enforcement. Still, the vote wasn’t unanimous. One council member was angry because the cuts didn’t go far enough. This isn’t sensible policy; it’s senseless self-parody.
Urban politicians like these, entrenched on the hard left, are reluctant to break with demonstrators, even violent ones. They openly support the Black Lives Matter organization and speak about “reimagining policing.” Faced with legitimate (and growing) demands for better public safety, they offer only lip service. The most they can say is that “violence could hurt our common cause.” No kidding.
A few mayors, including progressives like Chicago’s Lori Lightfoot, are finally fed up with the mayhem and want police to stop it. They are beginning to face the reality that boarded-up stores can’t generate the tax revenues they need. Of course, Lightfoot still lacerates President Trump in her speeches and refuses his offer of federal officers to supplement local officers. But her policies are edging toward his on law and order. After Sunday’s rioting, Chicago police made over 100 arrests.
Whether those arrested will ever spend time in the Graybar Hotel is another matter. Local prosecutors might simply wait a few weeks and drop the changes. Why? Because prosecutors in Chicago, like those in many big cities, think the justice system is racist and the jails wrongly filled with minorities. These prosecutors, who call themselves “Justice Democrats,” refuse to try many crimes. They reject the tough-on-crime policies that Democrats, including leading African Americans, supported in the 1990s. Today’s prosecutors campaigned on a much different agenda, and they were elected.
Their soft-on-crime strategy raises two questions, beyond its dubious ideology. One is whether it will lead to a safer, most just society. (Spoiler alert: It won’t.) The other is whether a single prosecutor, even an elected one, has the right to abolish whole categories of criminal laws. No one even raises this issue, but they should. It goes to the heart of our constitutional government, its separation of powers, and the ways we make and enforce laws.
In Chicago, for example, State’s Attorney Kim Foxx decided some time ago not to prosecute shoplifting under $1,000. Her decision simply ignores the Illinois law, which holds that thefts over $300 are felonies. (Thefts of under $300 still face significant fines and imprisonment, at least hypothetically. In practice, those penalties are seldom enforced.) Remember, Foxx is an executive branch official, charged with enforcing the law. Instead, she effectively repeals those she doesn’t like with a wave of her magic wand. That’s troubling in its own right, aside from the green light it gives criminals to keep up the good work. She did the same thing when she declined to prosecute many of those who rioted, looted, and defaced property after Floyd’s death. This weekend’s rioters read her signal loud and clear.
Installing prosecutors like Foxx, St. Louis’ Kimberly Gardner, and Philadelphia’s Larry Krasner is a major goal of hard-left activists and their wealthy donors. In St. Louis, Gardner did nothing about the mob that broke into a gated community, putting frightened homeowners on edge. Instead, she charged a husband and wife who stood outside their home, guarding it with firearms. In Philadelphia, Krasner announced he would bring charges against federal troops if they came to his city to restore order.
Prosecutors like these — and like-minded mayors and city councils determined to slash police funding — ignore the success of “Broken Windows policing,” which worked well for several decades. Under New York mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, it restored order to what had been a dangerous city. The basic idea is that it makes sense to prosecute small violations, not because isolated vandalism is so awful but because prosecuting it will prevent larger crimes. It worked. Potential criminals got the message: we will catch you, and you will face serious consequences. If we punish small violations, just imagine how we treat bigger ones.
Justice Democrats are pursuing the exact opposite strategy. It ought to be called “Go Ahead, Break Our Windows” policing. Ignore all small crimes and many large ones. Release everyone on bail, even the most violent criminals. It’s working out just like you’d expect. The rise in urban violence has been abrupt and dramatic.
Deterring proactive policing and electing prosecutors like Foxx, Gardner, and Krasner has been part of a systematic, well-funded strategy. Among its chief architects and donors is billionaire financier, George Soros, but he is hardly alone. Highlighting Soros’ role is why the Chicago Tribune’s most popular columnist, John Kass, received such scorching criticism. Actually, his main point wasn’t about Soros. It was that ideologically driven prosecutors are part of a broader political movement, which has contributed to the rise of urban violence.
For stressing Soros’ role, Kass was accused of anti-Semitism. It was a false charge, as Carl Cannon explains. Still, the charges against the columnist are important because they are so emblematic of today’s “cancel culture.” The allegations not only smear the victim, they also frighten others into silence.
This fear of speaking out — especially to demand public safety — is almost as big a problem as the violence itself. For a liberal, democratic polity like ours to work, citizens must be able to discuss public issues freely, openly. Then, after we debate and pass laws, officials in the executive branch must enforce them. That’s their core responsibility. It is certainly right to demand that enforcement be color-blind and applied equally to the rich and poor, the powerful and the weak, the celebrity and the street sweeper. Police must follow established procedures and refrain from using excessive force. Prosecutors should be given some discretion about using their limited time and resources.
But that discretion has been stretched too far. “Equality before the law” does not mean prosecutors can simply ignore black-letter law, any more than police can. People and businesses have a right to protection from violence and predation, from shoplifting and looting. Those rights have been properly encoded in law. How else can each of us pursue life, liberty, and happiness, as we define them? We need public safety to pursue our private ends.
That safety is essential, and to secure it we need well-trained police and fair-minded prosecutors. We need enough police to apprehend suspects. We need competent prosecutors willing to try those suspects if the evidence is sufficient. Prosecutors should have flexibility about handling individual cases, as long as they are even-handed. What they should not have is the unilateral power to rewrite broad categories of criminal law. Far too many Justice Democrats are doing exactly that. They believe, wrongly, that their benign goals are justification enough. They are not. In a constitutional democracy, we have established laws and procedures, not idiosyncratic, arbitrary ones.
These rogue officials need reminding about their basic duties and their limits. Prosecutors, mayors, and city councils have all sworn to serve and protect the public. That hard task begins with restoring public safety. No duty is more fundamental. And none is more imperiled.


wnd--2020-08-16--The shocking origins of Black Lives Matter

During the Soviet era , “ samizdat ” referred to the clandestine copying and distribution of literature banned by the state .
Since official news sources were little more than communist government propaganda , samizdat was often the only source of truthful reporting .
In “ Unmasking Obama : The Fight to Tell the True Story of Failed Presidency , ” Jack Cashill tells the story of how an American samizdat of bloggers , online journals , and citizen journalists challenged the left – and , occasionally , the more “ respectable ” right – for control of the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the story of how the samizdat smoked out the origins of Black Lives Matter .
On the morning of March 23 , 2012 , Barack Obama said of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin four weeks earlier , “ My main message is to the parents of Trayvon – If I had a son , he would look like Trayvon.
” Four weeks after the shooting , Obama had no excuse for not knowing the facts of the case .
This would prove to be the most destructive moment of his presidency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ samizdat kicked into gear .
Leading the way was a fellow who prefers to be known only as “ Sundance.
” Just a year earlier , he and a handful of like-minded citizens , most of them female , banded together to form a blogging collective called the “ Conservative Treehouse.
” Like most citizen journalists in the samizdat , Sundance and his fellow “ Treepers.
” worked without compensation .
Within weeks Sundance and the Treepers had largely deconstructed the fraudulent case against the shooter in question , George Zimmerman .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of gumshoe reporting in the Miami area , Trayvon ’ s home base .
One day , he discovered that the valve stems had been surgically removed from two of his now terminally flat tires .
The culprit left on his windshield a Miami-Dade Police business card with the name sliced off .
On the back of the card was written one word – “ STOP !
!
” There was a reason Sundance blogged under a pseudonym .
One thing Sundance did suspect , but could not prove , was that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if not orchestrated , a shocking legal fraud .
He believed the young woman that prosecutors claimed was on the phone with Trayvon prior to his death was a fraud .
Without this “ phone witness , ” the state could not have arrested Zimmerman .
The affidavit of probable cause was based largely on her testimony .
Five years after the trial , samizdat Los Angeles filmmaker Joel Gilbert picked up where Sundance left off .
Gilbert knew something about the Soviet samizdat .
As a nineteen-year-old in 1984 , he visited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as part of a discreet program run by Jewish organizations .
In September 2019 , Gilbert debuted his documentary , The Trayvon Hoax , at the National Press Club .
In a dazzling bit of investigative journalism , he confirmed Sundance ’ s suspicions about the state ’ s star witness , Rachel Jeantel .
To prove Jeantel an impostor , Gilbert enlisted private investigator Susan Daniels , as well as two prominent handwriting analysts , an audio expert , and a forensic DNA lab .
After poring through page after page of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Facebook messages , high school yearbooks , and crime reports , Gilbert was able to find the real girlfriend , a then sixteen-year-old Haitian American hottie Trayvon knew as “ Diamond.
” Gilbert discovered that when Diamond refused to perjure herself about what she knew , Trayvon ’ s support team – led by George Floyd family attorney Benjamin Crump – allowed the mentally challenged Jeantel , Diamond ’ s half-sister , to pose as a witness .
This was the most consequential bit of judicial malpractice in memory .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trayvon ’ s mother , Sybrina Fulton , was running for office in what the Miami Herald called “ the most high-profile race in the history of commission politics.
” Hillary Clinton had publicly endorsed Fulton , as had Cory Booker .
As Gilbert proved beyond doubt , however , Fulton was the one adult who inarguably knew about the witness switch .
A Pulitzer awaited the intrepid reporter who followed Gilbert ’ s leads .
Not a one could be bothered , not in New York , not in Orlando , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minutes elapsed from the time Gilbert sent an email to the Miami Herald ’ s managing editor asking for his help to the time Gilbert was told , “ Thanks for reaching out .
We are going to pass.
” The ensuing email flurry from the Herald newsroom quickly built to Category 5 level contempt , and this was Miami .
Only after Zimmerman filed a $ 100 million suit in December 2019 did the Herald pay any attention to Gilbert ’ s evidence , and even then its editors got everything wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the editors would have known just how badly they reported the story .
They didn ’ t care .
They unapologetically set “ the merits of the case aside ” in making one final request of Zimmerman : “ Please , go away and leave Trayvon ’ s parents alone.
” Going away was no longer an option .
Black Lives Matter had formed in response to Zimmerman ’ s acquittal in 2013 .
Had its founders been following the trial through the samizdat , they would not have been shocked or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have known how desperately out of control Trayvon Martin ’ s life had become and understood why he viciously attacked a stranger half-a-foot shorter .
Obama had no excuse for not knowing this and even less excuse for green lighting the lethal racial madness that has followed in the years since BLM ’ s founding .
Jack Cashill ’ s “ Unmasking Obama : The Fight to Tell the True Story of Failed Presidency ” is available in hardcover and e-book form .

During the Soviet era, “samizdat” referred to the clandestine copying and distribution of literature banned by the state. Since official news sources were little more than communist government propaganda, samizdat was often the only source of truthful reporting. In “Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of Failed Presidency,” Jack Cashill tells the story of how an American samizdat of bloggers, online journals, and citizen journalists challenged the left – and, occasionally, the more “respectable” right – for control of the Obama narrative. In this excerpt Cashill tells the story of how the samizdat smoked out the origins of Black Lives Matter.
On the morning of March 23, 2012, Barack Obama said of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin four weeks earlier, “My main message is to the parents of Trayvon – If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.” Four weeks after the shooting, Obama had no excuse for not knowing the facts of the case. This would prove to be the most destructive moment of his presidency.
On this same March day, the samizdat kicked into gear. Leading the way was a fellow who prefers to be known only as “Sundance.” Just a year earlier, he and a handful of like-minded citizens, most of them female, banded together to form a blogging collective called the “Conservative Treehouse.” Like most citizen journalists in the samizdat, Sundance and his fellow “Treepers.” worked without compensation.
Within weeks Sundance and the Treepers had largely deconstructed the fraudulent case against the shooter in question, George Zimmerman. To accomplish this, Sundance did a fair amount of gumshoe reporting in the Miami area, Trayvon’s home base. One day, he discovered that the valve stems had been surgically removed from two of his now terminally flat tires.
The culprit left on his windshield a Miami-Dade Police business card with the name sliced off. On the back of the card was written one word – “STOP!!” There was a reason Sundance blogged under a pseudonym.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
One thing Sundance did suspect, but could not prove, was that the Florida state attorneys had enabled, if not orchestrated, a shocking legal fraud. He believed the young woman that prosecutors claimed was on the phone with Trayvon prior to his death was a fraud. Without this “phone witness,” the state could not have arrested Zimmerman. The affidavit of probable cause was based largely on her testimony.
Five years after the trial, samizdat Los Angeles filmmaker Joel Gilbert picked up where Sundance left off. Gilbert knew something about the Soviet samizdat. As a nineteen-year-old in 1984, he visited “refuseniks” in the Soviet Union as part of a discreet program run by Jewish organizations.
In September 2019, Gilbert debuted his documentary, The Trayvon Hoax, at the National Press Club. In a dazzling bit of investigative journalism, he confirmed Sundance’s suspicions about the state’s star witness, Rachel Jeantel.
To prove Jeantel an impostor, Gilbert enlisted private investigator Susan Daniels, as well as two prominent handwriting analysts, an audio expert, and a forensic DNA lab. After poring through page after page of text messages, phone calls, tweets, Facebook messages, high school yearbooks, and crime reports, Gilbert was able to find the real girlfriend, a then sixteen-year-old Haitian American hottie Trayvon knew as “Diamond.”
Is Barack Obama in any way responsible for the rise of Black Lives Matter? 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% (747 Votes) 0% (3 Votes)
Gilbert discovered that when Diamond refused to perjure herself about what she knew, Trayvon’s support team – led by George Floyd family attorney Benjamin Crump – allowed the mentally challenged Jeantel, Diamond’s half-sister, to pose as a witness. This was the most consequential bit of judicial malpractice in memory.
At the time of the film’s release, Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, was running for office in what the Miami Herald called “the most high-profile race in the history of commission politics.” Hillary Clinton had publicly endorsed Fulton, as had Cory Booker.
As Gilbert proved beyond doubt, however, Fulton was the one adult who inarguably knew about the witness switch. A Pulitzer awaited the intrepid reporter who followed Gilbert’s leads. Not a one could be bothered, not in New York, not in Orlando, not even in Miami.
Only twelve minutes elapsed from the time Gilbert sent an email to the Miami Herald’s managing editor asking for his help to the time Gilbert was told, “Thanks for reaching out. We are going to pass.” The ensuing email flurry from the Herald newsroom quickly built to Category 5 level contempt, and this was Miami.
Only after Zimmerman filed a $100 million suit in December 2019 did the Herald pay any attention to Gilbert’s evidence, and even then its editors got everything wrong. If they had watched the film, the editors would have known just how badly they reported the story. They didn’t care. They unapologetically set “the merits of the case aside” in making one final request of Zimmerman: “Please, go away and leave Trayvon’s parents alone.”
Going away was no longer an option. Black Lives Matter had formed in response to Zimmerman’s acquittal in 2013. Had its founders been following the trial through the samizdat, they would not have been shocked or outraged at its outcome. They would have known how desperately out of control Trayvon Martin’s life had become and understood why he viciously attacked a stranger half-a-foot shorter.
Obama had no excuse for not knowing this and even less excuse for green lighting the lethal racial madness that has followed in the years since BLM’s founding.
Jack Cashill’s “Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of Failed Presidency” is available in hardcover and e-book form.


wnd--2020-08-16--Medicaid heading for 'slow-motion train wreck'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
Tell a joke about lawyers and , if anyone within shouting distance has ever taken a bar exam , you ’ ll hear a reminder that everybody needs a good lawyer at some point .
Thanks to legislation passed by Congress in March to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic , this is a moment in which we could all use a good lawyer .
Specifically , state attorneys general need to step up and challenge provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in that measure Congress “ compromised ” and increased the federal share of Medicaid spending by 6 % .
The big catch was that each of these states ’ Medicaid programs couldn ’ t change eligibility guidelines or remove anyone from Medicaid who was already enrolled or enrolled after the bill passed , even if an individual went back to work , became ineligible , or committed fraud .
In the name of guaranteeing access to health care during a pandemic , the measure has only guaranteed massive fiscal constraints and legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and clarity .
Improper spending — i.e.
, waste and fraud — was already skyrocketing in Medicaid and , by 2019 , had reached $ 100 billion per year , driven primarily by eligibility errors that allowed unqualified recipients to the join the program .
Amid this rising waste and the current economic downturn , as states scramble to adapt to plummeting revenues and increasing demand for assistance , Congress has expressly prohibited state leaders from properly managing their biggest program .
The result will be radical disruption to our health care system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety .
But the issue is still lost in the background noise of our public debate , even as states sink deeper and deeper as a tidal wave of ineligible Medicaid enrollees remains on their programs .
Simply allowing states to prioritize limited welfare resources for the truly needy is one of the common-sense measures Congress can take to prevent disaster and make our recovery faster .
Put more bluntly , the key to preventing more bailouts might just be two words we keep hearing : law and order .
That makes this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good lawyer .
Perhaps we shouldn ’ t be surprised that among the five senators who recently wrote to President Trump publicly raising alarm about this slow-motion train wreck , three ( Sens .
Mike Lee , Ted Cruz , and Ben Sasse ) either came to the Senate as accomplished attorneys or have made their name in the chamber on questions of constitutional order .
Of course , five senators do not make a majority .
But politics have a way of catching up to reality eventually .
It is probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begin to hear Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley ’ s prominent voice in this debate , given his own legal background and Missouri ’ s uniquely unfortunate position .
Missouri recently voted to expand Medicaid to able-bodied adults under ObamaCare .
As a share of state spending , Missouri already spent more than any other state on its Medicaid program —about 40 % .
Unfortunately for states that expand Medicaid , the 6 % increase in federal matching funds only applies to the traditional Medicaid population , not the expansion population .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters because the able-bodied expansion population is the group most able to leave and re-enter the fluid labor market and become ineligible shortly after enrolling in Medicaid .
In other words , in the middle of a fiscal crisis , Missouri will expand coverage to thousands of individuals who will quickly become ineligible , but the state will be handcuffed and unable to remove them .
In return , under the FFCRA , the state won ’ t receive any more federal funds than if they had expanded Medicaid before the pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Show Me State .
Perhaps this is the rare moment in which the 17th Amendment to the Constitution — which transferred the power to elect U.S. senators from state legislatures to the public — is having a measurable impact on political incentives .
If senators answered to state policymakers , rather than the public , perhaps they would see crumbling state budgets with more urgency .
Whether or not an obscure constitutional amendment is shaping our political debate during a pandemic and economic downturn , there is another group of policymakers specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they all happen to be lawyers — state attorneys general .
They are ready to take this on .
Over recent decades , attorneys general have banded together more and more to operate as something of a quasi-Senate to advance the interests of states .
In this moment , the public is understandably more interested in federal policy that addresses public health and economic relief than the condition of their state budgets .
But state legislators , looking at the months ahead , are in a unique position to see how opening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those very interests at risk .
Every additional individual on Medicaid is an additional patient paying hospitals through Medicaid ’ s lower reimbursement rates .
And every dollar spent to provide Medicaid to ineligible enrollees is a dollar that can not be spent reopening schools safely .
Who can states call to fight federally mandated fraud ?
State attorneys general .
And make no mistake — these federal handcuffs represent federally mandated fraud in more ways than one .
What else do you call a prohibition on program integrity ?
How else can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignore their own laws and other federal laws that prohibit government spending on ineligible individuals ?
Senators have laundry lists of various interests .
Attorneys general , on the other hand , can usually count their primary responsibilities on one hand — defend their state in court , fight fraud in Medicaid , protect the public , and issue opinions to clarify complex and new legal issues .
This is their moment .
America needs them to stand up for law and order and , ironically , fight to take off the handcuffs @

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Scott Centorino
Real Clear Politics
Tell a joke about lawyers and, if anyone within shouting distance has ever taken a bar exam, you’ll hear a reminder that everybody needs a good lawyer at some point. Thanks to legislation passed by Congress in March to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, this is a moment in which we could all use a good lawyer.
Specifically, state attorneys general need to step up and challenge provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). As readers will recall, in that measure Congress “compromised” and increased the federal share of Medicaid spending by 6%. The big catch was that each of these states’ Medicaid programs couldn’t change eligibility guidelines or remove anyone from Medicaid who was already enrolled or enrolled after the bill passed, even if an individual went back to work, became ineligible, or committed fraud.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
In the name of guaranteeing access to health care during a pandemic, the measure has only guaranteed massive fiscal constraints and legal uncertainty in a moment that demands flexibility and clarity.
Improper spending — i.e., waste and fraud — was already skyrocketing in Medicaid and, by 2019, had reached $100 billion per year, driven primarily by eligibility errors that allowed unqualified recipients to the join the program. Amid this rising waste and the current economic downturn, as states scramble to adapt to plummeting revenues and increasing demand for assistance, Congress has expressly prohibited state leaders from properly managing their biggest program. The result will be radical disruption to our health care system and less funding for schools and public safety.
But the issue is still lost in the background noise of our public debate, even as states sink deeper and deeper as a tidal wave of ineligible Medicaid enrollees remains on their programs. Simply allowing states to prioritize limited welfare resources for the truly needy is one of the common-sense measures Congress can take to prevent disaster and make our recovery faster. Put more bluntly, the key to preventing more bailouts might just be two words we keep hearing: law and order.
That makes this a good time for states to call a good lawyer. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that among the five senators who recently wrote to President Trump publicly raising alarm about this slow-motion train wreck, three (Sens. Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Ben Sasse) either came to the Senate as accomplished attorneys or have made their name in the chamber on questions of constitutional order.
Of course, five senators do not make a majority. But politics have a way of catching up to reality eventually. It is probably only a matter of time before we begin to hear Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley’s prominent voice in this debate, given his own legal background and Missouri’s uniquely unfortunate position.
Missouri recently voted to expand Medicaid to able-bodied adults under ObamaCare. As a share of state spending, Missouri already spent more than any other state on its Medicaid program —about 40%. Unfortunately for states that expand Medicaid, the 6% increase in federal matching funds only applies to the traditional Medicaid population, not the expansion population. But the restrictions apply to both populations. This matters because the able-bodied expansion population is the group most able to leave and re-enter the fluid labor market and become ineligible shortly after enrolling in Medicaid.
In other words, in the middle of a fiscal crisis, Missouri will expand coverage to thousands of individuals who will quickly become ineligible, but the state will be handcuffed and unable to remove them. In return, under the FFCRA, the state won’t receive any more federal funds than if they had expanded Medicaid before the pandemic. That’s a raw deal for the Show Me State.
Perhaps this is the rare moment in which the 17th Amendment to the Constitution — which transferred the power to elect U.S. senators from state legislatures to the public — is having a measurable impact on political incentives. If senators answered to state policymakers, rather than the public, perhaps they would see crumbling state budgets with more urgency.
Whether or not an obscure constitutional amendment is shaping our political debate during a pandemic and economic downturn, there is another group of policymakers specifically tasked with representing the interests of states and they all happen to be lawyers — state attorneys general.
They are ready to take this on. Over recent decades, attorneys general have banded together more and more to operate as something of a quasi-Senate to advance the interests of states. In this moment, the public is understandably more interested in federal policy that addresses public health and economic relief than the condition of their state budgets.
But state legislators, looking at the months ahead, are in a unique position to see how opening welfare programs to unlimited improper payments puts those very interests at risk. Every additional individual on Medicaid is an additional patient paying hospitals through Medicaid’s lower reimbursement rates. And every dollar spent to provide Medicaid to ineligible enrollees is a dollar that cannot be spent reopening schools safely.
Who can states call to fight federally mandated fraud? State attorneys general. And make no mistake — these federal handcuffs represent federally mandated fraud in more ways than one. What else do you call a prohibition on program integrity? How else can you characterize a directive that states must ignore their own laws and other federal laws that prohibit government spending on ineligible individuals?
Senators have laundry lists of various interests. Attorneys general, on the other hand, can usually count their primary responsibilities on one hand — defend their state in court, fight fraud in Medicaid, protect the public, and issue opinions to clarify complex and new legal issues.
This is their moment. America needs them to stand up for law and order and, ironically, fight to take off the handcuffs.


wnd--2020-08-17--Chris Wallace befuddled by silence of the Biden campaign

( WASHINGTON EXAMINER ) -- Veteran Fox News journalist Chris Wallace expressed befuddlement over Joe Biden 's absence from the Sunday morning news show circuit ahead of this week 's national convention .
`` So I 've been doing Sunday shows with conventions .
I started on Meet the Press in 1988 .
I 've been doing it on and off .
For what ?
What is that ?
Thirty-two years .
And it always happens that the Sunday before the convention , '' Wallace said this week on Fox News Radio .
`` The campaign puts out top officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is what we 're gon na try to get accomplished .
So , you know , we put counting all week on , you know , having a top official from the Biden campaign , the campaign manager , the top pollster , the chief strategist , to talk about what they 're going to talk about during this next week .
They are not putting anybody out . ''
Wallace said he at first thought , `` Well , maybe it 's because it 's Fox News , and they 're @ @ @ @

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER) -- Veteran Fox News journalist Chris Wallace expressed befuddlement over Joe Biden's absence from the Sunday morning news show circuit ahead of this week's national convention.
"So I've been doing Sunday shows with conventions. I started on Meet the Press in 1988. I've been doing it on and off. For what? What is that? Thirty-two years. And it always happens that the Sunday before the convention," Wallace said this week on Fox News Radio. "The campaign puts out top officials to preview the convention and to say this is what we're gonna try to get accomplished. So, you know, we put counting all week on, you know, having a top official from the Biden campaign, the campaign manager, the top pollster, the chief strategist, to talk about what they're going to talk about during this next week. They are not putting anybody out."
Wallace said he at first thought, "Well, maybe it's because it's Fox News, and they're boycotting us."
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-08-17--Congresswoman demands 'unrest in the streets'

( FOX NEWS ) -- There should be “ unrest in the streets ” over President Trump and his political @ @ @ @ @ ear '' to Americans ' concerns , including those about the `` dismantling '' of @ @ @ @ @ -- which amounts to voter suppression , U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley , D-Mass.
, said @ @ @ @ @ quickly condemned Pressley 's remarks as `` unhinged , '' `` horrible '' and `` @ @ @ @ @ her remarks Saturday on MSNBC 's `` AM Joy . ''

(FOX NEWS) -- There should be “unrest in the streets” over President Trump and his political allies turning a "deaf ear" to Americans' concerns, including those about the "dismantling" of the U.S. Postal Service -- which amounts to voter suppression, U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., said Friday.
Conservatives on Twitter quickly condemned Pressley's remarks as "unhinged," "horrible" and "disgusting."
Pressley made her remarks Saturday on MSNBC's "AM Joy."
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-08-18--College will digitally track students' movements at all times

( FREE BEACON ) -- A Michigan college is requiring students to download a phone application that tracks their location @ @ @ @ @ all times in an attempt to protect them from the coronavirus .
Albion College , @ @ @ @ @ , is one of the first schools in the country to tackle contact tracing .
@ @ @ @ @ create a `` COVID-bubble '' on campus , and asking students stay within the school @ @ @ @ @ entire semester ; if a student leaves campus , the app will notify the administration @ @ @ @ @ be temporarily suspended .
The move comes as universities grapple with how to reopen safely @ @ @ @ @ .
Several schools including Harvard University have shut down their campuses entirely , while the @ @ @ @ @ provide the majority of classes online with a selection of hybrid options .
Other schools @ @ @ @ @ , are resuming in-person learning with masks and social distancing guidelines alongside virtual learning supplements @ @ @ @ @ feel comfortable returning .

(FREE BEACON) -- A Michigan college is requiring students to download a phone application that tracks their location and private health data at all times in an attempt to protect them from the coronavirus.
Albion College, located in Albion, Mich., is one of the first schools in the country to tackle contact tracing. The school is working to create a "COVID-bubble" on campus, and asking students stay within the school's 4.5-mile perimeter for the entire semester; if a student leaves campus, the app will notify the administration, and the student could be temporarily suspended.
The move comes as universities grapple with how to reopen safely amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Several schools including Harvard University have shut down their campuses entirely, while the University of California system will provide the majority of classes online with a selection of hybrid options. Other schools, such as Boston University, are resuming in-person learning with masks and social distancing guidelines alongside virtual learning supplements for those who don't feel comfortable returning.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-08-18--Secret society of priests still won't recognize Pope Francis

( YAHOO NEWS ) -- ROME—Father Jeremy Leatherby of Sacramento , California , surely knew what was coming when he @ @ @ @ @ faithful that Pope Benedict XVI , who retired in 2013 , is still the one @ @ @ @ @ election upon Benedict ’ s retirement of Jorge Bergoglio , now Pope Francis , Leatherby @ @ @ @ @ and continued to only refer to Benedict as the church ’ s true leader in @ @ @ @ @ after several warnings , he was charged with schism , defrocked and excommunicated from the @ @ @ @ @ continue to regard Benedict as retaining the Office of Peter , as mysterious as that @ @ @ @ @ wrote in an open letter to the Sacramento diocese , referring to the belief that @ @ @ @ @ original pope Peter .
“ Therefore , I do not regard Bergoglio as the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ Church .
”

(YAHOO NEWS) -- ROME—Father Jeremy Leatherby of Sacramento, California, surely knew what was coming when he continued to preach to the faithful that Pope Benedict XVI, who retired in 2013, is still the one true pope.
Since the election upon Benedict’s retirement of Jorge Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, Leatherby has shunned the new pontiff and continued to only refer to Benedict as the church’s true leader in mass. Last week, after several warnings, he was charged with schism, defrocked and excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
“I continue to regard Benedict as retaining the Office of Peter, as mysterious as that might be,” he wrote in an open letter to the Sacramento diocese, referring to the belief that all new popes replace the original pope Peter. “Therefore, I do not regard Bergoglio as the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.”
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-08-18--New nuclear power looks to replicate 'reactions that power the sun'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Energy . ]
Assembly of the world ’ s largest nuclear fusion project is underway .
At a facility in Saint-Paul-lez-Durance , southern France , the U.S. and six other countries have launched what has been described as “ the most complicated piece of engineering anybody has ever attempted.
” Called the Iter Project , it is set to replicate the reactions that power the sun .
If it works , it ’ ll prove that nuclear fusion power can be generated on a commercial scale—paving the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This monumental step forward in the development of nuclear technology comes as the government lifts its ban on financing global nuclear projects .
Until very recently , the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation ( DFC ) explicitly prohibited investing in the production of radioactive materials , including in nuclear reactors .
TRENDING : The burning question : Are there enough lampposts ?
But that outdated rule is now undone , and it marks a welcome new chapter for the energy sector .
Indeed , the nuclear industry has sat idle for too long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fossil fuel industry have used their political influence to obstruct its progress .
Big Oil would rather deny that climate change exists than give up its hold on the market , even if that means rejecting cheap , safe and effective solutions .
Meanwhile , eco-socialists have become fixated on quirky but unscalable methods of renewable energy production , like wind farms and solar panels .
But wind farms decapitate birds , and solar panels ruin otherwise lovely views—and accomplish little else .
Small-fry investments like that can plug the odd gap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a million miles away from catering to humanity ’ s needs .
The successor to fossil fuels must be a titan that can take on the bulk of the world ’ s energy production , and nuclear is the only viable option .
It ’ s clean and safe .
It has all the advantages of fossil fuels , with none of the planet-destroying cost .
And yet , it still accounts for barely 10 % of electricity produced globally .
Nuclear power is several hundred times safer than any other method of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once-in-a-generation disasters like Chernobyl .
A world powered by nuclear wouldn ’ t be some post-apocalyptic hellscape with toxic radiation leaks and enhanced atom bombs , as anti-nuclear campaigners would have you believe .
It would be a clean , green future in which climate change would be a thing of the past .
More and more people are coming around to nuclear energy .
Zion Lights was formerly a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion , a rigidly anti-nuclear eco-socialist group .
Now , she is one of the foremost pro-nuclear campaigners in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the answer to all her environmentalist prayers .
She notes that while eco-socialist activists rightly criticise climate denialists for their rejection of environmental science , they are guilty of the same offense in their dismissal of nuclear .
Patrick Moore followed a similar trajectory .
A former president of Greenpeace and an unashamed climate alarmist , Moore was staunchly opposed to the cause .
He believed that “ nuclear energy was synonymous with the nuclear holocaust.
” A few decades later , he reexamined the evidence and changed his mind .
He joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Energy Institute , a prominent campaigning group , and became a formidable pro-nuclear voice .
It ’ s not just lobbyists and grassroots activists who urgently need to acknowledge the truth about nuclear energy — lawmakers , too , have been ignoring what is staring them in the face .
Prominent Democrats — including Bernie Sanders — continue to advocate for ill-considered state intervention in the energy sector .
Innovation drives progress , and both have been sorely lacking in the nuclear arena , thanks to cumbersome and unnecessary government restrictions like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Iter Project is the first-ever exploration of nuclear fusion .
It shouldn ’ t have taken this long , but the fact that we ’ ve now reached that point is a massive step forward .
State actors around the world are milling about like dazed donkeys in the middle of the road , obstructing innovation .
They must get out of the way and allow progress to take place .
The overhauling of our reliance on fossil fuels will not be an easy task .
In fact , it will represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the Industrial Revolution .
A wind turbine here and a solar panel there simply won ’ t cut it .
We will not take meaningful steps forward in combating climate change until we wake up to the immense potential of nuclear .
Jason Reed is digital director of the British Conservation Alliance , deputy editor of opinion site 1828 , and a Young Voices contributor .
He writes for the Times of London , the Independent , the Telegraph , and several other outlets .
Follow him on Twitter : @ JasonReed624 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story originally was published by Real Clear Energy . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Energy.]
By Jason Reed
Real Clear Energy
Assembly of the world’s largest nuclear fusion project is underway. At a facility in Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, southern France, the U.S. and six other countries have launched what has been described as “the most complicated piece of engineering anybody has ever attempted.” Called the Iter Project, it is set to replicate the reactions that power the sun. If it works, it’ll prove that nuclear fusion power can be generated on a commercial scale—paving the way for unlimited clean energy production.
This monumental step forward in the development of nuclear technology comes as the government lifts its ban on financing global nuclear projects. Until very recently, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) explicitly prohibited investing in the production of radioactive materials, including in nuclear reactors.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
But that outdated rule is now undone, and it marks a welcome new chapter for the energy sector. Indeed, the nuclear industry has sat idle for too long. Powerful businesspeople with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry have used their political influence to obstruct its progress. Big Oil would rather deny that climate change exists than give up its hold on the market, even if that means rejecting cheap, safe and effective solutions.
Meanwhile, eco-socialists have become fixated on quirky but unscalable methods of renewable energy production, like wind farms and solar panels. But wind farms decapitate birds, and solar panels ruin otherwise lovely views—and accomplish little else. Small-fry investments like that can plug the odd gap here and there, but they are a million miles away from catering to humanity’s needs.
The successor to fossil fuels must be a titan that can take on the bulk of the world’s energy production, and nuclear is the only viable option. It’s clean and safe. It has all the advantages of fossil fuels, with none of the planet-destroying cost. And yet, it still accounts for barely 10% of electricity produced globally.
Nuclear power is several hundred times safer than any other method of energy generation, even taking into account once-in-a-generation disasters like Chernobyl. A world powered by nuclear wouldn’t be some post-apocalyptic hellscape with toxic radiation leaks and enhanced atom bombs, as anti-nuclear campaigners would have you believe. It would be a clean, green future in which climate change would be a thing of the past.
More and more people are coming around to nuclear energy. Zion Lights was formerly a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion, a rigidly anti-nuclear eco-socialist group. Now, she is one of the foremost pro-nuclear campaigners in the world. Lights explains that nuclear is the answer to all her environmentalist prayers. She notes that while eco-socialist activists rightly criticise climate denialists for their rejection of environmental science, they are guilty of the same offense in their dismissal of nuclear.
Patrick Moore followed a similar trajectory. A former president of Greenpeace and an unashamed climate alarmist, Moore was staunchly opposed to the cause. He believed that “nuclear energy was synonymous with the nuclear holocaust.” A few decades later, he reexamined the evidence and changed his mind. He joined a green charity supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a prominent campaigning group, and became a formidable pro-nuclear voice.
It’s not just lobbyists and grassroots activists who urgently need to acknowledge the truth about nuclear energy — lawmakers, too, have been ignoring what is staring them in the face. Prominent Democrats — including Bernie Sanders — continue to advocate for ill-considered state intervention in the energy sector. Innovation drives progress, and both have been sorely lacking in the nuclear arena, thanks to cumbersome and unnecessary government restrictions like the DFC’s ban on investments.
The Iter Project is the first-ever exploration of nuclear fusion. It shouldn’t have taken this long, but the fact that we’ve now reached that point is a massive step forward. State actors around the world are milling about like dazed donkeys in the middle of the road, obstructing innovation. They must get out of the way and allow progress to take place.
The overhauling of our reliance on fossil fuels will not be an easy task. In fact, it will represent the most significant realignment mankind has attempted since the Industrial Revolution. A wind turbine here and a solar panel there simply won’t cut it. We will not take meaningful steps forward in combating climate change until we wake up to the immense potential of nuclear.
Jason Reed is digital director of the British Conservation Alliance, deputy editor of opinion site 1828, and a Young Voices contributor. He writes for the Times of London, the Independent, the Telegraph, and several other outlets. Follow him on Twitter: @JasonReed624.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Energy.]


wnd--2020-08-18--Hearing set for ex-FBI lawyer charged in 'Obamagate'

A federal judge in Washington has scheduled a hearing on Wednesday for former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith to submit a plea to a charge that he fraudulently altered an email from the CIA to obtain a warrant to spy on the 2016 Trump campaign .
Clinesmith is expected to plea guilty in the first criminal case to result from U.S. Attorney John Durham 's investigation of the origins of the Obama administration 's Russia-collusion investigation , which President Trump calls `` Obamagate . ''
Top Obama officials , fueled by the debunked Steele dossier , accused the Trump campaign of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But special counsel Robert Mueller could n't find evidence to support the claim .
The Washington Examiner reported Judge James Boasberg , the presiding judge in the criminal case against Clinesmith , set the virtual phone hearing for Wednesday at 1 p.m. before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia .
TRENDING : The burning question : Are there enough lampposts ?
Clinesmith worked on both the investigation of Hillary Clinton 's misuse of classified information and the Trump-Russia inquiry .
He is expected to admit that he falsified a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to renew FISA authority to wiretap onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page .
Clinesmith had claimed in 2017 that Page was `` not a source '' for the CIA .
But the CIA actually had told the bureau several times that Page was a contact .
In the charging documents submitted to the court Friday , Durham said Clinesmith was being charged under 18 U.S.C .
§ 1001 ( a ) ( 3 ) for “ False Statements.
” '' On or about June 19 , 2017 , within the District of Columbia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did willfully and knowingly make and use a false wiring and document , knowing the same to contain a materially false , fictitious , and fraudulent statement and entry in a matter before the jurisdiction of the executive branch and judicial branch of the Government of the United States , '' Durham told the court .
Clinesmith 's lawyer said his client thought the information he submitted was correct .
He 's accused of changing the CIA confirmation that Page was a contact to the claim that Page was `` not a source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found 17 `` errors or omissions '' in the applications for FISA warrants for Page .
And in January , the Justice Department determined that the final two of the four warrants `` were not valid . ''

A federal judge in Washington has scheduled a hearing on Wednesday for former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith to submit a plea to a charge that he fraudulently altered an email from the CIA to obtain a warrant to spy on the 2016 Trump campaign.
Clinesmith is expected to plea guilty in the first criminal case to result from U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation of the origins of the Obama administration's Russia-collusion investigation, which President Trump calls "Obamagate." Top Obama officials, fueled by the debunked Steele dossier, accused the Trump campaign of colluding with Russia to win the election. But special counsel Robert Mueller couldn't find evidence to support the claim.
The Washington Examiner reported Judge James Boasberg, the presiding judge in the criminal case against Clinesmith, set the virtual phone hearing for Wednesday at 1 p.m. before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Clinesmith worked on both the investigation of Hillary Clinton's misuse of classified information and the Trump-Russia inquiry. He is expected to admit that he falsified a document during the bureau’s efforts to renew FISA authority to wiretap onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Clinesmith had claimed in 2017 that Page was "not a source" for the CIA. But the CIA actually had told the bureau several times that Page was a contact.
In the charging documents submitted to the court Friday, Durham said Clinesmith was being charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3) for “False Statements.”
"On or about June 19, 2017, within the District of Columbia, the defendant, Kevin Clinesmith, did willfully and knowingly make and use a false wiring and document, knowing the same to contain a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry in a matter before the jurisdiction of the executive branch and judicial branch of the Government of the United States," Durham told the court.
Clinesmith's lawyer said his client thought the information he submitted was correct.
He's accused of changing the CIA confirmation that Page was a contact to the claim that Page was "not a source."
The Justice Departmant inspector general found 17 "errors or omissions" in the applications for FISA warrants for Page. And in January, the Justice Department determined that the final two of the four warrants "were not valid."