wnd--2020-12-07--COVID-19 pandemic opens door to return to better 'normal' for education

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Education . ]
The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an unprecedented opportunity to rethink education in America .
Instead of hoping for a return to “ normal , ” let ’ s learn from what has worked – and what has not – to make lasting improvements and create a more resilient system , one that can adapt to any challenge families may face in the future .
The first step toward realizing a more resilient and family-centered system is to reimagine how we fund education .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start funding families , not the buildings that are meant to serve them .
Americans spend at least $ 720 billion on education each year .
At around $ 13,000 per child , that puts the U.S. among the highest-spending countries in the world .
TRENDING : The 'Christmas Star ' will be visible in the night sky for the first time in 800 years Instead of providing this benefit directly to families – as we do for higher education , childcare , and health care – in K-12 , we send this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars are collected and sent to a central office , and zones are drawn around individual schools where students are required to attend or forfeit the funds raised for their education .
The pandemic has exposed the flaws in this system .
School closures , loss of childcare , and difficulties transitioning to online and hybrid-learning models are having devastating effects on children .
According to one report , an estimated 3 million students have received no formal education since schools closed in March .
That ’ s the equivalent of every school-aged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for school .
The economic impact on students is estimated at $ 110 billion in lost future earnings each year .
Unsurprisingly , this decline in learning has been felt more deeply by children in low-income families .
These challenges might seem insurmountable , and many of us look forward to the day when we can return to “ normal.
” But why would we want to return to a status quo that has proven a failure during a time of crisis ?
While we may not encounter an international crisis of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face immeasurable local and personal crises each year .
This is a time to learn from innovations that have proven successful and integrate them into the system moving forward .
One of the biggest innovations during the pandemic has been the proliferation of individualized education .
Families with resources – financial and otherwise – are taking matters into their own hands .
They are hiring tutors , forming learning pods , enrolling in microschools , sharing childcare , reimagining after-school programs , and rearranging their lives to provide the continued learning opportunities that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These unconventional models may yield academic benefits .
Researchers from Opportunity Insights analyzed data from 800,000 students enrolled in an online math curriculum used by schools before and during the pandemic .
The researchers found that students in low-income neighborhoods saw a 9 % decline in math progression between January and April .
Meanwhile , students from wealthy ZIP codes saw a 40 % improvement over the same period .
In other words : in the spring , with schools closed during the pandemic , students in some wealthy families may have progressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools had remained open .
This is raising understandable equity concerns from advocates concerned about widening gaps between low- and high-income students .
But in a situation where some students are progressing and others are falling behind , the solution isn ’ t to move everyone to the middle .
It ’ s to give those falling behind access to the same type of learning that is allowing others to thrive .
The sort of family-directed , individualized education taking place during the pandemic is likely to expand its presence in American life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ COVID-19 is a catalyst for families who were already skeptical of the traditional school system – and are now thinking about leaving it for good.
” The author of that piece , Emma Green , recently said in an interview that home-based , unconventional methods of education are getting “ a flood of interest from parents of all kinds.
” Early data seems to confirm this , with large upticks in families opting out of school systems to pursue homeschooling .
To create a more effective and more resilient education system , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective during the pandemic – namely , the ability of those with resources to identify and pursue a variety of individualized learning opportunities to meet children ’ s needs .
To provide these same opportunities for all families , governments should prioritize direct grants to families , education spending accounts , refundable tax credits , and myriad other ways to get money into the hands of families so they can build an education that fits their needs .
The way in which we currently fund education is blocking equal access to these learning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need to fund families , not school buildings .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Education.]
By Adam Peshek
Real Clear Education
The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an unprecedented opportunity to rethink education in America. Instead of hoping for a return to “normal,” let’s learn from what has worked – and what has not – to make lasting improvements and create a more resilient system, one that can adapt to any challenge families may face in the future.
The first step toward realizing a more resilient and family-centered system is to reimagine how we fund education. In short, it’s time to start funding families, not the buildings that are meant to serve them.
Americans spend at least $720 billion on education each year. At around $13,000 per child, that puts the U.S. among the highest-spending countries in the world.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Instead of providing this benefit directly to families – as we do for higher education, childcare, and health care – in K-12, we send this money directly to school buildings. Taxpayer dollars are collected and sent to a central office, and zones are drawn around individual schools where students are required to attend or forfeit the funds raised for their education.
The pandemic has exposed the flaws in this system. School closures, loss of childcare, and difficulties transitioning to online and hybrid-learning models are having devastating effects on children. According to one report, an estimated 3 million students have received no formal education since schools closed in March. That’s the equivalent of every school-aged child in Florida failing to show up for school.
The economic impact on students is estimated at $110 billion in lost future earnings each year. Unsurprisingly, this decline in learning has been felt more deeply by children in low-income families.
These challenges might seem insurmountable, and many of us look forward to the day when we can return to “normal.” But why would we want to return to a status quo that has proven a failure during a time of crisis? While we may not encounter an international crisis of the scope and scale of COVID-19, families face immeasurable local and personal crises each year.
This is a time to learn from innovations that have proven successful and integrate them into the system moving forward.
One of the biggest innovations during the pandemic has been the proliferation of individualized education. Families with resources – financial and otherwise – are taking matters into their own hands. They are hiring tutors, forming learning pods, enrolling in microschools, sharing childcare, reimagining after-school programs, and rearranging their lives to provide the continued learning opportunities that many children have lacked for months.
These unconventional models may yield academic benefits. Researchers from Opportunity Insights analyzed data from 800,000 students enrolled in an online math curriculum used by schools before and during the pandemic. The researchers found that students in low-income neighborhoods saw a 9% decline in math progression between January and April. Meanwhile, students from wealthy ZIP codes saw a 40% improvement over the same period.
In other words: in the spring, with schools closed during the pandemic, students in some wealthy families may have progressed academically at higher rates than if the schools had remained open.
This is raising understandable equity concerns from advocates concerned about widening gaps between low- and high-income students. But in a situation where some students are progressing and others are falling behind, the solution isn’t to move everyone to the middle. It’s to give those falling behind access to the same type of learning that is allowing others to thrive.
The sort of family-directed, individualized education taking place during the pandemic is likely to expand its presence in American life. As an Atlantic article observed, “COVID-19 is a catalyst for families who were already skeptical of the traditional school system – and are now thinking about leaving it for good.” The author of that piece, Emma Green, recently said in an interview that home-based, unconventional methods of education are getting “a flood of interest from parents of all kinds.” Early data seems to confirm this, with large upticks in families opting out of school systems to pursue homeschooling.
To create a more effective and more resilient education system, we must learn from what has proven effective during the pandemic – namely, the ability of those with resources to identify and pursue a variety of individualized learning opportunities to meet children’s needs. To provide these same opportunities for all families, governments should prioritize direct grants to families, education spending accounts, refundable tax credits, and myriad other ways to get money into the hands of families so they can build an education that fits their needs.
The way in which we currently fund education is blocking equal access to these learning opportunities. To expand that access, we need to fund families, not school buildings.


wnd--2020-12-07--The threat telehealth faces from trolls

The threat telehealth faces from trolls

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Health . ]
If historians find any silver lining in the tragic COVID-19 pandemic , it will be that it accelerated America ’ s embrace of health care modernization .
But the future of telehealth is threatened and potentially hobbled by lawsuit abuse from “ patent trolls ” ( euphemistically known as Non-Practicing Entities , or NPEs ) .
Patent trolls are scam artists that abuse the patent system for their own personal gain – posing a threat to the high-tech innovation that supports modern telehealth .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mobile device use that has powered so many medical visits during the pandemic .
That would be a shame , as telehealth has been a huge bright spot during the COVID crisis .
As regulators waived most rules inhibiting its use , access , choice and affordability dramatically improved at a time when in person visits were simply impractical .
TRENDING : The 'Christmas Star ' will be visible in the night sky for the first time in 800 years Modernizing how Medicare covers and reimburses telehealth services is critical to continuing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once the public health emergency expires .
This is a legitimate fear .
But Congress should also address inadequacies at the International Trade Commission that embolden patent trolls – NPEs – to halt progress across entire industries .
NPE cases do nothing to help patients , providers or health delivery , but they can do great harm to telehealth , as NPEs often leverage obscure patents to sue for patent infringement and demand massive financial settlements from manufacturers just to keep their products in the marketplace .
Telehealth companies are especially vulnerable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the smart devices that support them -- are in demand , highly complex and involve thousands of patents .
The ITC is an independent , quasi-judicial federal international trade agency established to protect the public interest by investigating and making determinations about unfair trade practices , including infringement on intellectual property rights , against US manufacturers .
The primary remedy at the ITC goes well beyond the courts ; the ITC directs the Customs Service to stop imports that infringe patents from entering the country .
Before doing so , though , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public interest to be sure this serious step is actually good for America .
In more than 750 investigations over the past 15 years , though , the Commission has never refused to issue an exclusion order because of the public interest .
In fact , the last time the ITC refused to issue an exclusion order on public interest grounds was in 1984 .
That is a problem .
Two especially egregious patent infringement cases filed at the ITC threaten the continued adoption of telehealth services .
These cases involve an Ireland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some patents related to certain touchscreen features .
This provided a pathway to sue major tech companies like Apple , Amazon , Microsoft and others that make smartphones , tablets and touchscreen laptops .
A Neodron victory could block access to around 90 % of the devices that Americans rely on to access mobile health services , obliterating the platforms needed to advance telehealth .
Why the ITC is allowing such a case to proceed is an open question , but a new bill in Congress , the “ Advancing America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help restore ITC to its original mission .
This bipartisan legislation , sponsored by Representatives Suzan DelBene ( D-WA ) and David Schweikert ( R-AZ ) would severely limit the ability of NPEs like Neodron to bring ITC complaints by , for example , forcing the ITC to stop making decisions in a vacuum but instead “ affirmatively determine ” that each decision actually serves the public interest .
The bill modernizes the ITC process to ensure that its resources are properly directed toward advancing America ’ s interests in protecting American industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enacted , it will allow consumers to use mobile devices to access care remotely by eliminating the threat of patent trolls in limiting access to mobile platforms .
Crises like COVID-19 have changed what people expect from government when it comes to health care .
They want more modernization , convenience and access .
There ’ s no appetite for government agencies to protect providers from competition or allow lawsuit abuse that hurts Americans and threatens health care progress .
This bipartisan legislation reflects the same priorities : it will help focus the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public interest as the way it is supposed to be .
Reforming the ITC is an important step to ensuring telehealth continues to flourish in American health care .
We are still on the front end of expanding telehealth ’ s potential , and the future appears very bright indeed , so long as we don ’ t give into the trolls .
Joel White is the Executive Director of the Health Innovation Alliance , a multi-stakeholder advocacy alliance that supports policies to use data and technology to make health care work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This story originally was published by Real Clear Health . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Health.]
By Joel White
Real Clear Health
If historians find any silver lining in the tragic COVID-19 pandemic, it will be that it accelerated America’s embrace of health care modernization. But the future of telehealth is threatened and potentially hobbled by lawsuit abuse from “patent trolls” (euphemistically known as Non-Practicing Entities, or NPEs). Patent trolls are scam artists that abuse the patent system for their own personal gain – posing a threat to the high-tech innovation that supports modern telehealth.
The most recent abuse threatens to inhibit mobile device use that has powered so many medical visits during the pandemic. That would be a shame, as telehealth has been a huge bright spot during the COVID crisis. As regulators waived most rules inhibiting its use, access, choice and affordability dramatically improved at a time when in person visits were simply impractical.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Modernizing how Medicare covers and reimburses telehealth services is critical to continuing the momentum, as newfound flexibilities will evaporate once the public health emergency expires. This is a legitimate fear.
But Congress should also address inadequacies at the International Trade Commission that embolden patent trolls – NPEs – to halt progress across entire industries. NPE cases do nothing to help patients, providers or health delivery, but they can do great harm to telehealth, as NPEs often leverage obscure patents to sue for patent infringement and demand massive financial settlements from manufacturers just to keep their products in the marketplace. Telehealth companies are especially vulnerable to such extortion since their products - and the smart devices that support them -- are in demand, highly complex and involve thousands of patents.
The ITC is an independent, quasi-judicial federal international trade agency established to protect the public interest by investigating and making determinations about unfair trade practices, including infringement on intellectual property rights, against US manufacturers. The primary remedy at the ITC goes well beyond the courts; the ITC directs the Customs Service to stop imports that infringe patents from entering the country. Before doing so, though, the ITC is supposed to consider the broader public interest to be sure this serious step is actually good for America.
In more than 750 investigations over the past 15 years, though, the Commission has never refused to issue an exclusion order because of the public interest. In fact, the last time the ITC refused to issue an exclusion order on public interest grounds was in 1984. That is a problem.
Two especially egregious patent infringement cases filed at the ITC threaten the continued adoption of telehealth services. These cases involve an Ireland based NPE, Neodron, that purchased some patents related to certain touchscreen features. This provided a pathway to sue major tech companies like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and others that make smartphones, tablets and touchscreen laptops.
A Neodron victory could block access to around 90% of the devices that Americans rely on to access mobile health services, obliterating the platforms needed to advance telehealth.
Why the ITC is allowing such a case to proceed is an open question, but a new bill in Congress, the “Advancing America’s Interest Act” (AAIA) should help restore ITC to its original mission.
This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Representatives Suzan DelBene (D-WA) and David Schweikert (R-AZ) would severely limit the ability of NPEs like Neodron to bring ITC complaints by, for example, forcing the ITC to stop making decisions in a vacuum but instead “affirmatively determine” that each decision actually serves the public interest.
The bill modernizes the ITC process to ensure that its resources are properly directed toward advancing America’s interests in protecting American industry, workers, and consumers. If enacted, it will allow consumers to use mobile devices to access care remotely by eliminating the threat of patent trolls in limiting access to mobile platforms.
Crises like COVID-19 have changed what people expect from government when it comes to health care. They want more modernization, convenience and access. There’s no appetite for government agencies to protect providers from competition or allow lawsuit abuse that hurts Americans and threatens health care progress. This bipartisan legislation reflects the same priorities: it will help focus the ITC on acting as a protector of the public interest as the way it is supposed to be.
Reforming the ITC is an important step to ensuring telehealth continues to flourish in American health care. We are still on the front end of expanding telehealth’s potential, and the future appears very bright indeed, so long as we don’t give into the trolls.
Joel White is the Executive Director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a multi-stakeholder advocacy alliance that supports policies to use data and technology to make health care work better.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Health.]


wnd--2020-12-07--Despite left's war on fossil fuels, internal combustion engine 'here to stay'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Energy . ]
Oil prices are down and bans on automobiles powered by internal combustion engines ( ICE ) are up – way up .
But don ’ t be fooled ; there is plenty of life left in the ICE .
To be sure , there ’ s lots of momentum propelling the electric-vehicle market , including the recent inclusion of Tesla in the S & P 500 .
But oil-fired cars are here to stay , and there are five big reasons why .
Before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a quick review of the bans .
On November 17 , British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a ban on new gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles that will take effect in 2030 .
Several other European countries have announced similar measures , including Norway , which has declared that by 2025 , all new cars sold in the country must be zero-emission ( meaning all-electric or fuel cell ) .
Here in the U.S. , California Gov .
Gavin Newsom signed an executive order in September that bans the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The 'Christmas Star ' will be visible in the night sky for the first time in 800 years These moves have helped fuel the belief that , as one analyst put it , “ the combustion engine is dead.
” That claim is dubious for several reasons .
The first and most important is price .
EVs are still too expensive for low- and middle-income consumers , as was made clear to me during a recent visit to Costco .
Displayed near the entrance was a brand new EV , the Chevy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 46,450 .
For that much cash , consumers could buy a brand new BMW 3 series .
Or they could pick up a Mercedes-Benz C-class for less than $ 39,000 .
In fact , for the price of a single Chevy Bolt , thrifty shoppers could buy a pair of Toyota Corollas , which sell for about $ 18,000 .
The second reason is mining .
Replacing all the ICE vehicles in the U.S. with EVs would require stunning amounts of commodities like cobalt , lithium , and copper .
The scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at a letter that Professor Richard Herrington of the Natural History Museum in London sent to the British government last year .
Herrington and his colleagues looked at the U.K. ’ s climate goals and the requirement that all its vehicles be converted to electricity by 2050 .
Doing so , they found , would require the entire world ’ s production of neodymium , three quarters of the world ’ s lithium production , and at least half of the world ’ s copper production during 2018 .
And remember , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
The U.S. has about 276 million registered motor vehicles , or roughly nine times as many vehicles as the U.K .
Thus , if Herrington ’ s numbers are right , electrifying all U.S. motor vehicles would require roughly 18 times the world ’ s current cobalt production , about nine times global neodymium output , nearly seven times global lithium production , and about four times world copper production .
The third reason that the ICE will stick around has to do with a basic metric in physics : energy density @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and so are the cars that use them .
But today ’ s batteries are still no match for oil when it comes to gravimetric energy density , or the amount of energy contained per kilogram .
Gasoline and diesel contain about 80 times more energy per unit of weight than the best lithium-ion batteries .
Even if you assume that EVs are twice as efficient as ICE automobiles , the energy density of gasoline and diesel is still 40 times better than that of batteries .
I could add a host of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil in transportation , including its relatively low cost , abundance , geographic distribution , and ease of handling .
Add oil ’ s value in industry – for lubrication , and the fact that it can be turned into products ranging from cosmetics to shoelaces and bowling balls to milk jugs – and it becomes apparent that oil will be with us for a long time to come .
Fourth , internal combustion engines keep getting smaller , faster , more efficient , and more powerful .
In 1908 , Ford Motor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the company unveiled its new 3-cylinder turbocharged 1-liter engine , the EcoBoost .
The new engine is 28 percent lighter than the engine in the Model T , produces about 16 times as much power per liter of displacement , and is more than twice as fuel-efficient .
The final reason the ICE will endure is the ease of refueling .
EVs like the Tesla or Chevy Bolt require owners to keep a special recharging unit at home or rely on public charging stations , which are still relatively scarce .
Drivers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at any of the 115,000 service stations in the country .
Furthermore , unlike EVs , which can take hours to recharge , ICE vehicles can be refueled in less than five minutes .
In short , the ICE has dominated the transportation sector for more than a century because it meets consumers ’ needs on the critical issues of cost and convenience .
Yes , EVs will gain market share in the years ahead .
But to paraphrase Mark Twain , the claims about the death of the ICE have been greatly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Power Hungry Podcast , a visiting fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity , and the author , most recently , of A Question of Power : Electricity and the Wealth of Nations .
[ 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
Oil prices are down and bans on automobiles powered by internal combustion engines (ICE) are up – way up. But don’t be fooled; there is plenty of life left in the ICE.
To be sure, there’s lots of momentum propelling the electric-vehicle market, including the recent inclusion of Tesla in the S&P 500. But oil-fired cars are here to stay, and there are five big reasons why. Before I get to them, though, a quick review of the bans.
On November 17, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a ban on new gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles that will take effect in 2030. Several other European countries have announced similar measures, including Norway, which has declared that by 2025, all new cars sold in the country must be zero-emission (meaning all-electric or fuel cell). Here in the U.S., California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order in September that bans the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles in his state by 2035.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
These moves have helped fuel the belief that, as one analyst put it, “the combustion engine is dead.” That claim is dubious for several reasons.
The first and most important is price. EVs are still too expensive for low- and middle-income consumers, as was made clear to me during a recent visit to Costco. Displayed near the entrance was a brand new EV, the Chevy Bolt. The price was a jaw-dropping $46,450. For that much cash, consumers could buy a brand new BMW 3 series. Or they could pick up a Mercedes-Benz C-class for less than $39,000. In fact, for the price of a single Chevy Bolt, thrifty shoppers could buy a pair of Toyota Corollas, which sell for about $18,000.
The second reason is mining. Replacing all the ICE vehicles in the U.S. with EVs would require stunning amounts of commodities like cobalt, lithium, and copper. The scale of the demand can be understood by looking at a letter that Professor Richard Herrington of the Natural History Museum in London sent to the British government last year. Herrington and his colleagues looked at the U.K.’s climate goals and the requirement that all its vehicles be converted to electricity by 2050. Doing so, they found, would require the entire world’s production of neodymium, three quarters of the world’s lithium production, and at least half of the world’s copper production during 2018. And remember, that’s just for the U.K.!
The U.S. has about 276 million registered motor vehicles, or roughly nine times as many vehicles as the U.K. Thus, if Herrington’s numbers are right, electrifying all U.S. motor vehicles would require roughly 18 times the world’s current cobalt production, about nine times global neodymium output, nearly seven times global lithium production, and about four times world copper production.
The third reason that the ICE will stick around has to do with a basic metric in physics: energy density. Yes, batteries are getting better and so are the cars that use them. But today’s batteries are still no match for oil when it comes to gravimetric energy density, or the amount of energy contained per kilogram.
Gasoline and diesel contain about 80 times more energy per unit of weight than the best lithium-ion batteries. Even if you assume that EVs are twice as efficient as ICE automobiles, the energy density of gasoline and diesel is still 40 times better than that of batteries. I could add a host of other reasons why we will continue using oil in transportation, including its relatively low cost, abundance, geographic distribution, and ease of handling. Add oil’s value in industry – for lubrication, and the fact that it can be turned into products ranging from cosmetics to shoelaces and bowling balls to milk jugs – and it becomes apparent that oil will be with us for a long time to come.
Fourth, internal combustion engines keep getting smaller, faster, more efficient, and more powerful. In 1908, Ford Motor Company launched the Model T. In 2011, the company unveiled its new 3-cylinder turbocharged 1-liter engine, the EcoBoost. The new engine is 28 percent lighter than the engine in the Model T, produces about 16 times as much power per liter of displacement, and is more than twice as fuel-efficient.
The final reason the ICE will endure is the ease of refueling. EVs like the Tesla or Chevy Bolt require owners to keep a special recharging unit at home or rely on public charging stations, which are still relatively scarce. Drivers of ICE vehicles can refuel their rides at any of the 115,000 service stations in the country. Furthermore, unlike EVs, which can take hours to recharge, ICE vehicles can be refueled in less than five minutes.
In short, the ICE has dominated the transportation sector for more than a century because it meets consumers’ needs on the critical issues of cost and convenience. Yes, EVs will gain market share in the years ahead. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, the claims about the death of the ICE have been greatly exaggerated.
Robert Bryce is the host of the Power Hungry Podcast, a visiting fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and the author, most recently, of A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Energy.]


wnd--2020-12-07--Leftists warned about consequences of their 'hate speech' bans

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Public Affairs . ]
This essay is part of RealClearPublicAffairs 's 1776 Series , which explains the major themes that define the American mind .
TRENDING : The 'Christmas Star ' will be visible in the night sky for the first time in 800 years Much evidence suggests that freedom of speech may be banned in the coming years under the guise of regulating “ hate speech.
” Many on the left who demand and welcome this development do not foresee the broad consequences of their actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech sufficiently examine the left ’ s reasons for banning it .
Just in the past few years , U.S. senators proposed to outlaw words they deem offensive ; New York City attempted to fine residents $ 250,000 if they say “ illegal alien ” ; Big Tech companies continue to ban certain kinds of speech from their platforms ; deeply embedded regulatory and judicial precedents , originating in civil rights laws and the sexual liberation movement , have expanded their reach into the private sphere , permitting bureaucrats and activists to regulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions who speak contrary to identity-politics dogma are commonplace .
These are not isolated instances of far-left overreach .
Rather , as an earlier generation ’ s liberalism is subsumed into identity politics , free speech , in conflict with identity politics ’ central claims , becomes its first and most important target of attack .
To understand the political and moral consequences of losing freedom of speech , we should examine its original purposes , of which there are three : political liberty , freedom of the mind , and the formation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Benjamin Franklin , these purposes were related : “ Without Freedom of Thought , there can be no such Thing as Wisdom ; and no such Thing as public Liberty , without Freedom of Speech.
” Political liberty is not possible without freedom of speech .
On the one hand , arguments about the common good and public policies must be presented to citizens if they are to rule themselves—and to do this , citizens must be free to discuss “ the Propriety of Public Measures and political opinions , ” as Franklin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free speech is also a necessary tool for exposing and keeping in check “ narrow thoughts and narrow men.
” Among other things , this means that free speech can compel the obedience , not to say the virtue , of public officials and oligarchs to the public interest .
As the Continental Congress declared , through free speech “ oppressive [ public ] officers are shamed or intimidated , into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs.
” Second , freedom of speech is needed for freedom of the mind .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the advancement of truth , science , morality , and arts in general ” depend upon freedom of the press and speech .
In this regard , freedom of speech is connected to the highest pursuit of man—the search for the truth in philosophy , science , or religion .
But in intellectual matters , just as in the political sphere , freedom of speech contains a defensive element : it prevents the ascent of ideologies hostile to liberty , to which free societies are always vulnerable .
Thomas Jefferson , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Virginia that “ reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error ” brought on through religious or ideological fanaticism .
Reason can publicly test the truth of all claims and thus prevents the onset of intellectual despotism .
Third , freedom of speech plays a central role in forming the habits of character necessary for republican government .
Through it , citizens develop the habit of speaking and thinking freely about all matters of public concern , and in doing so , they are trained in forming sound judgement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawn in by romantic , revolutionary , and impossible undertakings , tendencies democracies are especially given to .
Moreover , and perhaps most importantly , freedom of speech cultivates in citizens the mental habit of persuading fellow citizens through reason .
This habit , correspondingly , cultivates an openness to being persuaded by reason .
The opposite of persuasion is force .
Persuading one ’ s fellow citizens rather than compelling them becomes the primary mode of political interaction .
As such , the strong , natural passions of pride and anger are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to persuade others , and to defend one ’ s views .
Such habits of mind took generations to form in a single people but can easily be lost .
A cursory look at the various peoples of the world plainly shows how rare these habits are .
Restriction of free speech in America will cause a decline in these moral and mental prerequisites to self-rule .
The loss of the capacity to think for oneself and form rational judgements about the common good and human merit will give rise to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force .
Despite these serious political and moral justifications , we still may ask : why is freedom of speech a natural right ?
The answer : since human beings are individuals , belonging to themselves , their mental faculties belong to them , too , and their speech , as a product of their faculties , also belongs to them .
In other words , no one has a right to another ’ s mind .
As James Madison explains , man has “ an equal property in the free use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Madison ’ s observation that “ a man ’ s conscience .
.
.
is more sacred than his castle , ” the violation of which is coequal to breaching the social contract .
Today , identity politics threatens to undermine political liberty and to undo these habits of mind and character by demanding bans on so-called “ hate speech.
” Identity politics is a winner-takes-all ideology , pitting the victimized or marginalized—who demand liberation , celebration , and equal self-respect—against the so-called oppressor group , which , in the American context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The oppressor identity must be condemned , punished , and silenced .
There is no place in this view for civic accommodation or reconciliation .
“ Hate speech , ” it must be noted , has little to do with racial epithets or Holocaust denial .
Rather , according to its most influential definers , it is speech that harms the self-respect of the so-called marginalized .
Indeed , the very purpose of “ hate speech ” regulation is one-sided : The marginalized are permitted to speak freely , while the so-called oppressor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logic , Malcolm X ’ s expression “ white devil ” is as tolerable as it is to say today that the “ greatest terrorist threat in this country is white men.
” As leading speech-criminalization advocate Mari Matsuda writes , society must tolerate speech “ that comes from an experience of oppression.
” In fact , the hateful speech of the marginalized should not merely be tolerated but also encouraged when directed against the oppressor group .
If , as identity-politics advocates insist , the liberation of marginalized groups depends on disrupting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the oppressor , then “ hate speech ” toward the oppressor is courageous , heroic—and necessary .
An “ angry , hateful poem by a person from a historically subjugated group ” should be interpreted as “ a victim ’ s struggle for self-identity in response to racism , ” writes Matsuda .
Not surprisingly , in Europe and Canada , where “ hate speech ” is already criminalized , the public square is filled with speech that freely maligns Christianity , heterosexuality , and legacy populations .
“ Hate speech ” laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not supposed to .
They allow and encourage extremists and ideologues to monopolize public conversation with their hatred and calumnies .
Nor do “ hate speech ” laws prevent violence against marginalized groups , an often-cited justification for their existence .
In fact , while the U.K. has criminalized anti-Semitic “ hate speech , ” violent anti-Semitic hate crimes are 13 times more likely to occur there than in the U.S. , which does not criminalize “ hate speech.
” France also criminalizes anti-Semitic speech , yet violent anti-Semitic hate crimes are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ France than in the U.S. What kinds of speech , then , are forbidden to the oppressor group ?
First , needless to say , are group epithets—but these are merely the public examples used to persuade the decent-minded .
Most important to speech-criminalization advocates is silencing all criticisms—regardless of how rational or well-meaning—of marginalized groups which they deem harmful to their self-respect .
Perhaps most astonishingly , speech prohibitions would extend even to facts that may call into question the self-respect of the marginalized .
As leading speech-criminalization advocates Richard Delgado and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statistically documented disparities in educational preparedness of affirmative action recipients is deplorable “ hate speech.
” Factual , provable claims such as these are labeled “ hate speech ” in multiple other areas if they are regarded as threatening to the self-respect of the marginalized .
One sees this conflict underway , for example , between medical doctors and transgender activists .
On this logic , broader factual disputes would also be judged impermissible .
As Delgado and Stefancic write , because “ even a determined judiciary will not be able to enforce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ hate speech.
” Thus , the oppressor group ’ s culture and opinion of itself must be reshaped so that positive depictions in films , advertisements , newspapers , or academic scholarship—whether true or not—of marginalized groups predominate .
This will also bolster the self-respect of the marginalized , regardless of whether such self-respect is actually earned .
Identitarians , in other words , must replace the oppressor ’ s cultural images and narratives with new mythologies about the marginalized—while shielding these new images from scrutiny or criticism .
It would thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the marginalized : for instance , that all of history is a story of patriarchal oppression and subjugation of women ; or that gender is merely a social construct , freely chosen by individuals ; or that the United States is founded fundamentally on white supremacy , as the New York Times ’ s 1619 Project asserts .
Banning “ hate speech ” requires nothing short of a revolution that marks the end not only of freedom of mind but also of what remains of political self-rule in America .
It requires the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential political questions that may harm the self-respect of the marginalized .
For example , any serious political debates about immigration—legal or illegal—supposedly harms the self-respect of marginalized immigrants .
The only legitimate discussion therefore becomes how to increase immigration .
Defenses of the traditional family , in turn , harm the self-respect of feminists and the LGBTQ community .
Discussion of criminality harms the self-respect of groups who commit crimes at higher rates .
As the sphere of permissible political speech narrows to the point of irrelevance , even seemingly neutral topics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some academics write : “ race-neutral [ political ] campaign themes ” like welfare policy “ carry demonstrably racially loaded undertones.
” Almost nothing is left to the sphere of political deliberation—even tax policy likely harms some marginalized group .
Self-rule is fundamentally undermined .
Most Americans do not yet understand how far this powerful movement has already advanced .
Only 53 % of college students—a bare majority—still support freedom of speech today .
This is truly alarming .
Judicial and regulatory precedents for limiting speech are already on the books , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to restrict even private speech .
These legal standards will be exploited in the coming years by activists and the administrative state ; and Big Tech companies , whose platforms have become an essential venue for public deliberation , will continue to implement bans following a similar logic .
The conflict between identity politics and republican self-government will become more pronounced in the coming years .
Unlike most policy disputes , freedom of speech is a civilizational principle : only it can preserve republican self-government , and only it can cool the fanatical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Americans should not count on the courts to save them .
We need a new and courageous political class that understands what is at stake if free speech and republican self-rule are to survive .
Arthur Milikh is the Executive Director of the Claremont Institute ’ s Center for the American Way of Life .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Public Affairs . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Public Affairs.]
By Arthur Milikh
Real Clear Public Affairs
This essay is part of RealClearPublicAffairs's 1776 Series, which explains the major themes that define the American mind.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Much evidence suggests that freedom of speech may be banned in the coming years under the guise of regulating “hate speech.” Many on the left who demand and welcome this development do not foresee the broad consequences of their actions. Nor do many defenders of free speech sufficiently examine the left’s reasons for banning it.
Just in the past few years, U.S. senators proposed to outlaw words they deem offensive; New York City attempted to fine residents $250,000 if they say “illegal alien”; Big Tech companies continue to ban certain kinds of speech from their platforms; deeply embedded regulatory and judicial precedents, originating in civil rights laws and the sexual liberation movement, have expanded their reach into the private sphere, permitting bureaucrats and activists to regulate speech; and denunciations of individuals and institutions who speak contrary to identity-politics dogma are commonplace.
These are not isolated instances of far-left overreach. Rather, as an earlier generation’s liberalism is subsumed into identity politics, free speech, in conflict with identity politics’ central claims, becomes its first and most important target of attack.
To understand the political and moral consequences of losing freedom of speech, we should examine its original purposes, of which there are three: political liberty, freedom of the mind, and the formation of republican habits of character. For Benjamin Franklin, these purposes were related: “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.”
Political liberty is not possible without freedom of speech. On the one hand, arguments about the common good and public policies must be presented to citizens if they are to rule themselves—and to do this, citizens must be free to discuss “the Propriety of Public Measures and political opinions,” as Franklin says. On the other hand, free speech is also a necessary tool for exposing and keeping in check “narrow thoughts and narrow men.” Among other things, this means that free speech can compel the obedience, not to say the virtue, of public officials and oligarchs to the public interest. As the Continental Congress declared, through free speech “oppressive [public] officers are shamed or intimidated, into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs.”
Second, freedom of speech is needed for freedom of the mind. As the Continental Congress noted, “the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general” depend upon freedom of the press and speech. In this regard, freedom of speech is connected to the highest pursuit of man—the search for the truth in philosophy, science, or religion. But in intellectual matters, just as in the political sphere, freedom of speech contains a defensive element: it prevents the ascent of ideologies hostile to liberty, to which free societies are always vulnerable. Thomas Jefferson, for example, writes in Notes on the State of Virginia that “reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error” brought on through religious or ideological fanaticism. Reason can publicly test the truth of all claims and thus prevents the onset of intellectual despotism.
Third, freedom of speech plays a central role in forming the habits of character necessary for republican government. Through it, citizens develop the habit of speaking and thinking freely about all matters of public concern, and in doing so, they are trained in forming sound judgement. As such, citizens become less drawn in by romantic, revolutionary, and impossible undertakings, tendencies democracies are especially given to. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, freedom of speech cultivates in citizens the mental habit of persuading fellow citizens through reason. This habit, correspondingly, cultivates an openness to being persuaded by reason. The opposite of persuasion is force. Persuading one’s fellow citizens rather than compelling them becomes the primary mode of political interaction. As such, the strong, natural passions of pride and anger are moderated by the demand to speak rationally, to persuade others, and to defend one’s views.
Such habits of mind took generations to form in a single people but can easily be lost. A cursory look at the various peoples of the world plainly shows how rare these habits are. Restriction of free speech in America will cause a decline in these moral and mental prerequisites to self-rule. The loss of the capacity to think for oneself and form rational judgements about the common good and human merit will give rise to the rule of anger, resentment, and force.
Despite these serious political and moral justifications, we still may ask: why is freedom of speech a natural right? The answer: since human beings are individuals, belonging to themselves, their mental faculties belong to them, too, and their speech, as a product of their faculties, also belongs to them. In other words, no one has a right to another’s mind. As James Madison explains, man has “an equal property in the free use of his faculties.” This is closely related to Madison’s observation that “a man’s conscience . . . is more sacred than his castle,” the violation of which is coequal to breaching the social contract.
Today, identity politics threatens to undermine political liberty and to undo these habits of mind and character by demanding bans on so-called “hate speech.” Identity politics is a winner-takes-all ideology, pitting the victimized or marginalized—who demand liberation, celebration, and equal self-respect—against the so-called oppressor group, which, in the American context, is defined explicitly as whites. The oppressor identity must be condemned, punished, and silenced. There is no place in this view for civic accommodation or reconciliation.
“Hate speech,” it must be noted, has little to do with racial epithets or Holocaust denial. Rather, according to its most influential definers, it is speech that harms the self-respect of the so-called marginalized. Indeed, the very purpose of “hate speech” regulation is one-sided: The marginalized are permitted to speak freely, while the so-called oppressor group must be silenced. On this logic, Malcolm X’s expression “white devil” is as tolerable as it is to say today that the “greatest terrorist threat in this country is white men.” As leading speech-criminalization advocate Mari Matsuda writes, society must tolerate speech “that comes from an experience of oppression.”
In fact, the hateful speech of the marginalized should not merely be tolerated but also encouraged when directed against the oppressor group. If, as identity-politics advocates insist, the liberation of marginalized groups depends on disrupting or undermining the power and identity of the oppressor, then “hate speech” toward the oppressor is courageous, heroic—and necessary. An “angry, hateful poem by a person from a historically subjugated group” should be interpreted as “a victim’s struggle for self-identity in response to racism,” writes Matsuda.
Not surprisingly, in Europe and Canada, where “hate speech” is already criminalized, the public square is filled with speech that freely maligns Christianity, heterosexuality, and legacy populations. “Hate speech” laws do not stop such speech because they are not supposed to. They allow and encourage extremists and ideologues to monopolize public conversation with their hatred and calumnies.
Nor do “hate speech” laws prevent violence against marginalized groups, an often-cited justification for their existence. In fact, while the U.K. has criminalized anti-Semitic “hate speech,” violent anti-Semitic hate crimes are 13 times more likely to occur there than in the U.S., which does not criminalize “hate speech.” France also criminalizes anti-Semitic speech, yet violent anti-Semitic hate crimes are four times more likely to occur in France than in the U.S.
What kinds of speech, then, are forbidden to the oppressor group? First, needless to say, are group epithets—but these are merely the public examples used to persuade the decent-minded. Most important to speech-criminalization advocates is silencing all criticisms—regardless of how rational or well-meaning—of marginalized groups which they deem harmful to their self-respect.
Perhaps most astonishingly, speech prohibitions would extend even to facts that may call into question the self-respect of the marginalized. As leading speech-criminalization advocates Richard Delgado and Gene Stefancic write, speaking about the statistically documented disparities in educational preparedness of affirmative action recipients is deplorable “hate speech.” Factual, provable claims such as these are labeled “hate speech” in multiple other areas if they are regarded as threatening to the self-respect of the marginalized. One sees this conflict underway, for example, between medical doctors and transgender activists.
On this logic, broader factual disputes would also be judged impermissible. As Delgado and Stefancic write, because “even a determined judiciary will not be able to enforce equality and racial justice” by banning “hate speech.” Thus, the oppressor group’s culture and opinion of itself must be reshaped so that positive depictions in films, advertisements, newspapers, or academic scholarship—whether true or not—of marginalized groups predominate. This will also bolster the self-respect of the marginalized, regardless of whether such self-respect is actually earned.
Identitarians, in other words, must replace the oppressor’s cultural images and narratives with new mythologies about the marginalized—while shielding these new images from scrutiny or criticism. It would thus become impermissible to dispute false narratives of the marginalized: for instance, that all of history is a story of patriarchal oppression and subjugation of women; or that gender is merely a social construct, freely chosen by individuals; or that the United States is founded fundamentally on white supremacy, as the New York Times’s 1619 Project asserts.
Banning “hate speech” requires nothing short of a revolution that marks the end not only of freedom of mind but also of what remains of political self-rule in America. It requires the removal from legitimate political deliberation of all essential political questions that may harm the self-respect of the marginalized. For example, any serious political debates about immigration—legal or illegal—supposedly harms the self-respect of marginalized immigrants. The only legitimate discussion therefore becomes how to increase immigration. Defenses of the traditional family, in turn, harm the self-respect of feminists and the LGBTQ community. Discussion of criminality harms the self-respect of groups who commit crimes at higher rates.
As the sphere of permissible political speech narrows to the point of irrelevance, even seemingly neutral topics like welfare become off limits. As some academics write: “race-neutral [political] campaign themes” like welfare policy “carry demonstrably racially loaded undertones.” Almost nothing is left to the sphere of political deliberation—even tax policy likely harms some marginalized group. Self-rule is fundamentally undermined.
Most Americans do not yet understand how far this powerful movement has already advanced. Only 53% of college students—a bare majority—still support freedom of speech today. This is truly alarming. Judicial and regulatory precedents for limiting speech are already on the books, and they can and likely will be used to restrict even private speech. These legal standards will be exploited in the coming years by activists and the administrative state; and Big Tech companies, whose platforms have become an essential venue for public deliberation, will continue to implement bans following a similar logic.
The conflict between identity politics and republican self-government will become more pronounced in the coming years. Unlike most policy disputes, freedom of speech is a civilizational principle: only it can preserve republican self-government, and only it can cool the fanatical hatreds and false theories underlying identity politics. But Americans should not count on the courts to save them. We need a new and courageous political class that understands what is at stake if free speech and republican self-rule are to survive.
Arthur Milikh is the Executive Director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Public Affairs.]


wnd--2020-12-07--China minion North Korea reportedly trying to sabotage U.S. and allies' vaccine effort

As the United States could be within weeks of a coronavirus vaccine rollout , one of America 's biggest enemies -- and an ally of our biggest adversary -- is seeking to disrupt our progress on COVID-19 immunization .
According to a Wednesday report in The Wall Street Journal , North Korean hackers have targeted six vaccine developers , including two in the United States .
Citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter , The Journal reported that Johnson & Johnson and Novavax , which are both working on experimental vaccines , as well as other companies had been the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cybercriminals .
Three of the companies are based in South Korea : Genexine , Shin Poong Pharmaceutical Co. and Celltrion .
U.K.-based AstraZeneca , whose vaccine was developed in coordination with the University of Oxford , was also targeted .
TRENDING : The 'Christmas Star ' will be visible in the night sky for the first time in 800 years It 's unclear how much useful data was siphoned off by the North Korean hackers .
Of the six companies targeted , only one -- AstraZeneca -- has produced a market-ready vaccine that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , the attacks began in August , according to sources cited by The Journal .
North Korea itself would seem to have little use for the vaccine .
Pyongyang has claimed it has zero cases of COVID-19 .
Whether or not that 's true , it likely does n't have the necessary technology to produce a vaccine for the novel coronavirus .
While state-run media in North Korea said the government was working on a vaccine for the virus in the spring , there 's about as much chance of that happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Elvis `` randomly '' burned into a piece of toast by a toaster actually having come through supernatural means -- particularly given that Pyongyang has issues mass-producing toasters effectively , much less the most complicated and sought-after biotech product in the history of the pharmaceutical industry .
That does n't mean that North Korea 's hacking apparatus -- surprisingly advanced for a country that does n't have widespread Internet access -- does n't have a reason for trying weasel its way into these companies ' networks .
`` A more likely North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines would be to sell it to a third-party drugmaker , likely in China , said Robert Potter , head of Internet 2.0 , a cybersecurity company based in Canberra , Australia , who monitors Pyongyang ’ s hacking behavior , '' The Journal reported .
`` Another option , Mr. Potter added , would be to leverage knowledge of the targeted companies ’ networks from the attacks to demand payouts in return for restoring access to encrypted files — a ransomware attack — or crash a company ’ s website . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies , though .
Hackers are also targeting the `` cold chain '' that ensures the vaccines arrive at their destination , particularly important given the low storage temperatures needed for the first batch of COVID-19 vaccines likely to be approved .
On Thursday , according to the Security Intelligence blog , IBM announced its X-Force global threat team had `` recently uncovered a global phishing campaign targeting organizations associated with a COVID-19 cold chain .
The cold chain is a component of the vaccine supply chain that ensures the safe preservation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and transportation . ''
`` The adversary impersonated a business executive from Haier Biomedical , a credible and legitimate member company of the COVID-19 vaccine supply chain and qualified supplier for the CCEOP program .
The company is purportedly the world ’ s only complete cold chain provider , '' the post read .
`` Disguised as this employee , the adversary sent phishing emails to organizations believed to be providers of material support to meet transportation needs within the COVID-19 cold chain .
We assess that the purpose of this COVID-19 phishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , possibly to gain future unauthorized access to corporate networks and sensitive information relating to the COVID-19 vaccine distribution . ''
According to The Journal , the hackers come from a group identified by the moniker `` Kimsuky '' by the U.S. government .
`` For the Covid-19-related attacks , Kimsuky operatives attempted to lure in victims with phishing tactics , '' The Journal reported .
`` The hackers would pose as colleagues or trustworthy acquaintances by creating fake email accounts , then send out messages with benign-looking attachments or links .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hackers could gain access to their computers , and , thus , user IDs or passwords , the people said .
`` The hackers had six companies listed either by name or with abbreviations such as 'jnj ' for Johnson & Johnson , according to one of the people and materials reviewed by The Wall Street Journal . ''
Where is China on this ?
Nowhere to be found , obviously .
And let 's be clear : China is n't just an ally of North Korea , the country is also the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The United States also announced this week that China is helping North Korea evade United Nations sanctions .
Again .
“ In no other country do we see this breadth and depth of continuing illicit commercial activity with North Korea , the scale of which puts China in flagrant violation of its obligations , ” said Deputy Assistant Secretary for North Korea Alex Wong , according to Reuters .
“ They are seeking to revive trade links and revenue transfers to the North , thereby ensuring Chinese reach into the North ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also told Congress that “ China ’ s most prolific cyber actors ” are also trying to hack into the networks of vaccine-makers , so it 's not just North Korea doing this .
“ You ’ re correct that we are seeing efforts by our foreign adversaries to engage in cyber targeting of [ coronavirus disease ] vaccine research , testing technology , treatment technology , and efforts to disrupt our national response to the pandemic , ” Wray said , according to Breitbart .
“ This is a very , very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contending with daily . ''
China and its allies will go as low as they need to -- if not to get vaccine information for themselves , then to sabotage other nations ' vaccine rollouts .
At a time when former Vice President Joe Biden is staffing a potential Biden White House with former State Department officials who did n't think China was much of a threat during the Obama years , and pushed the `` reset button '' on Russia , Americans need to be deeply worried about whether a potential Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

As the United States could be within weeks of a coronavirus vaccine rollout, one of America's biggest enemies -- and an ally of our biggest adversary -- is seeking to disrupt our progress on COVID-19 immunization.
According to a Wednesday report in The Wall Street Journal, North Korean hackers have targeted six vaccine developers, including two in the United States.
Citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter, The Journal reported that Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, which are both working on experimental vaccines, as well as other companies had been the target of a hack attempt from Pyongyang-backed cybercriminals.
Three of the companies are based in South Korea: Genexine, Shin Poong Pharmaceutical Co. and Celltrion.
U.K.-based AstraZeneca, whose vaccine was developed in coordination with the University of Oxford, was also targeted.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
It's unclear how much useful data was siphoned off by the North Korean hackers. Of the six companies targeted, only one -- AstraZeneca -- has produced a market-ready vaccine that's been shown effective in trials.
However, the attacks began in August, according to sources cited by The Journal.
North Korea itself would seem to have little use for the vaccine. Pyongyang has claimed it has zero cases of COVID-19. Whether or not that's true, it likely doesn't have the necessary technology to produce a vaccine for the novel coronavirus.
While state-run media in North Korea said the government was working on a vaccine for the virus in the spring, there's about as much chance of that happening as there is of the image of the Elvis "randomly" burned into a piece of toast by a toaster actually having come through supernatural means -- particularly given that Pyongyang has issues mass-producing toasters effectively, much less the most complicated and sought-after biotech product in the history of the pharmaceutical industry.
That doesn't mean that North Korea's hacking apparatus -- surprisingly advanced for a country that doesn't have widespread Internet access -- doesn't have a reason for trying weasel its way into these companies' networks.
"A more likely North Korean use for stolen intelligence on Covid-19 vaccines would be to sell it to a third-party drugmaker, likely in China, said Robert Potter, head of Internet 2.0, a cybersecurity company based in Canberra, Australia, who monitors Pyongyang’s hacking behavior," The Journal reported.
"Another option, Mr. Potter added, would be to leverage knowledge of the targeted companies’ networks from the attacks to demand payouts in return for restoring access to encrypted files — a ransomware attack — or crash a company’s website."
North Korea's targets go beyond pharmaceutical companies, though. Hackers are also targeting the "cold chain" that ensures the vaccines arrive at their destination, particularly important given the low storage temperatures needed for the first batch of COVID-19 vaccines likely to be approved.
On Thursday, according to the Security Intelligence blog, IBM announced its X-Force global threat team had "recently uncovered a global phishing campaign targeting organizations associated with a COVID-19 cold chain. The cold chain is a component of the vaccine supply chain that ensures the safe preservation of vaccines in temperature-controlled environments during their storage and transportation."
"The adversary impersonated a business executive from Haier Biomedical, a credible and legitimate member company of the COVID-19 vaccine supply chain and qualified supplier for the CCEOP program. The company is purportedly the world’s only complete cold chain provider," the post read.
"Disguised as this employee, the adversary sent phishing emails to organizations believed to be providers of material support to meet transportation needs within the COVID-19 cold chain. We assess that the purpose of this COVID-19 phishing campaign may have been to harvest credentials, possibly to gain future unauthorized access to corporate networks and sensitive information relating to the COVID-19 vaccine distribution."
According to The Journal, the hackers come from a group identified by the moniker "Kimsuky" by the U.S. government.
"For the Covid-19-related attacks, Kimsuky operatives attempted to lure in victims with phishing tactics," The Journal reported.
"The hackers would pose as colleagues or trustworthy acquaintances by creating fake email accounts, then send out messages with benign-looking attachments or links. If the recipients clicked on them, the hackers could gain access to their computers, and, thus, user IDs or passwords, the people said.
"The hackers had six companies listed either by name or with abbreviations such as 'jnj' for Johnson & Johnson, according to one of the people and materials reviewed by The Wall Street Journal."
Where is China on this? Nowhere to be found, obviously.
And let's be clear: China isn't just an ally of North Korea, the country is also the Kim Jong Un regime's biggest enabler. The United States also announced this week that China is helping North Korea evade United Nations sanctions. Again.
“In no other country do we see this breadth and depth of continuing illicit commercial activity with North Korea, the scale of which puts China in flagrant violation of its obligations,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary for North Korea Alex Wong, according to Reuters.
“They are seeking to revive trade links and revenue transfers to the North, thereby ensuring Chinese reach into the North’s economy.”
FBI Director Christopher Wray also told Congress that “China’s most prolific cyber actors” are also trying to hack into the networks of vaccine-makers, so it's not just North Korea doing this.
“You’re correct that we are seeing efforts by our foreign adversaries to engage in cyber targeting of [coronavirus disease] vaccine research, testing technology, treatment technology, and efforts to disrupt our national response to the pandemic,” Wray said, according to Breitbart.
“This is a very, very real cyber threat that we’re contending with daily."
China and its allies will go as low as they need to -- if not to get vaccine information for themselves, then to sabotage other nations' vaccine rollouts.
At a time when former Vice President Joe Biden is staffing a potential Biden White House with former State Department officials who didn't think China was much of a threat during the Obama years, and pushed the "reset button" on Russia, Americans need to be deeply worried about whether a potential Biden administration will stand up to Beijing.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-12-06--Top actor calls out Hollywood hypocrisy for mocking conservatives' refusal to accept Biden win

( FOX NEWS ) -- Matthew McConaughey last week took his Hollywood peers to task for their condescending attitude toward @ @ @ @ @ are refusing to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election .
The “ Beach @ @ @ @ @ comments during an appearance on Russell Brand ’ s podcast , “ Under the Skin.
@ @ @ @ @ he noticed “ condemnation and criticism of ordinary working people ” in Hollywood when discussing @ @ @ @ @ absolutely .
”

(FOX NEWS) -- Matthew McConaughey last week took his Hollywood peers to task for their condescending attitude toward conservatives and Trump supporters who are refusing to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The “Beach Bum” actor made the comments during an appearance on Russell Brand’s podcast, “Under the Skin.”
Asked by Brand whether he noticed “condemnation and criticism of ordinary working people” in Hollywood when discussing politics, McConaughey said “absolutely.”
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-12-06--List of Democrats who called Trump 'illegitimate'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
When Joe Biden is inaugurated , he will immediately be confronted with an unprecedented challenge -- and I don ’ t mean the pandemic.… I mean , instead , that he ’ ll be the first modern U.S. president trying to govern in the face of an opposition that refuses to accept his legitimacy .
And no , Democrats never said Donald Trump was illegitimate , just that he was incompetent and dangerous .
– Paul Krugman , New York Times , Dec. 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time when Paul Krugman was raising questions about global trade that would eventually win him a Nobel Prize in economics , the Partnership for a Drug-Free America launched an evocative ad campaign titled “ This is your brain on drugs.
” TRENDING : The 'Christmas Star ' will be visible in the night sky for the first time in 800 years Much-ridiculed today , the 30-second spot – retro even at the time – showed a man holding up an egg ( your brain ) over a hot skillet ( drugs ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pan , where it is , well , fried .
Apparently , excess partisanship has a similar effect on the human mind .
Although the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences hasn ’ t asked for its award back , a cynic might wonder if Krugman ’ s economics writing had the same level of intellectual rigor as his political commentary .
But this is not an opinion column : I ’ ll stick to the facts .
What you ’ re reading now is what , in my newspapering days at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ set-rec.
” ( It sets the record straight . )
In truth , during the past four years millions of Democrats -- from the rank-and-file marchers and organizers to the party ’ s most prominent elected officials in country -- questioned Trump ’ s legitimacy , as did numerous anti-Trump pundits and Obama-era U.S. intelligence community officials .
Let ’ s go to the tape : Jan. 13 , 2017 .
“ I do n't see this president-elect as a legitimate president , ” Rep. John Lewis said on “ Meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not attend Trump ’ s inauguration .
“ I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected .
And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
” Jan. 16 , 2017 .
“ Yes , I will respect the constitutional prerogatives of the presidency , ” added Rep. Don Beyer , a Virginia Democrat .
“ But I will not be part of normalizing or legitimizing a man whose election may well have depended on the malicious foreign interference of Russia ’ s leaders.
” Jan. 18 , 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of House Democrats boycotting the inauguration ballooned , Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky added her name to the list “ in protest of a president who used bigotry , fear , and lies to win an election that was tainted by foreign interference and voter suppression and who intends to betray the interests of the ordinary working people who put him in office.
” Jan. 20 , 2017 .
A headline in the Washington Post informed readers that “ the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.
” Actually , Trump wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an activist lawyer heading the effort , told the newspaper , “ If we were to wait for all the ill effects that could come from this , too much damage to our democracy would occur.
” Feb. 19 , 2017 .
The first Presidents Day weekend of Trump ’ s White House tenure was celebrated by tens of thousands of progressives in cities across the country who marched in “ Not My President Day ” rallies .
In Georgia , Trump ’ s impeachment was one of the demands of the organizers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protests included Chelsea Clinton and Mayor Bill de Blasio .
In San Francisco , the event was organized by the Young Democrats club .
Although most of the organizers took pains to point out that they weren ’ t questioning the legitimacy of the Electoral College or the results of the 2016 election , thousands of marchers carried signs and gave interviews doing exactly that .
April 17 , 2018 .
Marquette University professor Julia Azari , writing in Vox , explained to her readers that “ the challenge of Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” July 17 , 2018 .
Writing for The Atlantic , David Frum wrote about Trump ’ s “ crisis of legitimacy.
” July 28 , 2018 .
“ We need to talk about a forbidden subject : the legitimacy of the current president.
” So began cultural critic Virginia Heffernan ’ s Los Angeles Times column .
“ There ’ s been a code of silence around President Donald Trump ’ s shady victory in 2016 , ” she continued .
Feb. 19 , 2019 .
Fired FBI official Andrew McCabe told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought it “ possible ” that Trump is a “ Russian asset.
” “ I completely agree with the way Andy characterized it , you know , that it is a possibility , ” former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on CNN the following night .
Former CIA director John Brennan , among the most personally vitriolic Trump critics , said seven months earlier that Trump ’ s words at a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin were “ nothing short of treasonous.
” May 14 , 2019 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , N.H. , a long-winded woman who described herself as having “ Trump derangement syndrome ” called Trump an “ illegitimate president ” because he won the 2016 election by nearly 80,000 votes in Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , and Michigan -- aided , she said , by the Kremlin .
“ I think all the talk about impeachment and what the Democrats should do , that ’ s fine , it ’ s theoretical at this point , ” the woman told the former vice president .
“ Let them investigate , let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court , he ’ s illegitimate.
” In response , Biden quipped , “ Would you be my vice presidential candidate ?
” Turning to the rest of the crowd , Biden added , “ Folks , look , I absolutely agree.
” June 28 , 2019 .
Six weeks later , it was Jimmy Carter ’ s turn .
“ There ’ s no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election , and I think the interference , although not yet quantified , if fully investigated would show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election in 2016 , ” Carter said during a panel discussion at a conference in Leesburg , Va. “ He lost the election , and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf.
” Pressed by moderator Jon Meacham on whether he considers Trump to be “ an illegitimate president , ” Carter replied : “ Based on what I just said , which I can ’ t retract.
” Sept. 29 , 2019 .
Hillary Clinton said in a “ CBS Sunday Morning ” interview : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used , from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories -- he knows that -- there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.
” So let ’ s just stipulate that Paul Krugman ’ s claim that Democrats “ never ” questioned Trump ’ s legitimacy is risible .
Krugman knows this – he did it himself .
In May 2017 , after the firing of FBI Director James @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this point we arguably do not have a legitimate president or administration.
” Krugman added , “ He deserves no presumption of innocence , and no deference to claims that he has the right to govern.
” Taking aim at any Republican defending the president , Krugman added , “ And again , let 's be clear : anyone helping with this obvious coverup is deliberately being complicit with possible foreign subversion.
” In October , he tweeted that anyone who didn ’ t agree that “ a hostile foreign power helped put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sycophant .
This came in the context of his fear , never realized , that Trump would somehow quash Robert Mueller ’ s investigation .
“ It seems to me that people aren ’ t quite getting how close we are to a crisis of legitimacy , ” he tweeted .
“ And in that case how can anyone consider this presidency legitimate ?
” That particular crisis was averted , but scouring the digital record for such material almost trivializes the manner in which Trump ’ s critics refused to accept his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the existing norms of what it meant to act and sound “ presidential , ” so too did the loyal opposition abandon normal standards of criticism .
The first anti-Trump “ women ’ s march , ” on Jan. 21 , 2017 , was essentially a rival inauguration .
On the National Mall , Ashley Judd compared Trump to Hitler while Madonna told the crowd she ’ d been fantasizing “ an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
” From the goofy Steele dossier , the politicization of the intelligence community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a phone call with Ukraine ’ s president to the mainstream media abrogating its traditional rules of engagement , the efforts to negate Trump ’ s presidency were unrelenting .
This is the stark reality of our country ’ s recent political history .
Therefore , it ’ s understandable that Trump and his supporters were initially skeptical of election returns that seemed so promising as the polls closed Nov. 3 only to turn to dust as the mail-in votes were counted .
But here ’ s another historical fact : Hillary Rodham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , did exactly what Donald John Trump is refusing to do .
She conceded the election .
She did it with grace , too , and then she attended his inauguration .
“ We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought , ” HRC said in her concession speech .
“ But I still believe in America and I always will .
And if you do , then we must accept this result and then look to the future .
Donald Trump is going to be our president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the chance to lead.
” Trump and his supporters would counter that Clinton ’ s allies neither met him with an open mind nor gave him the chance to lead .
Yeah , okay , although there ’ s a chicken-and-egg argument here .
But all that is beside the point now .
Joe Biden won the popular vote in 2020 , just as Mrs. Clinton did in 2016 , and by a wider margin .
Biden did so while carrying the very same swing states that gave Trump his Electoral College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater margins .
The bottom line is that Paul Krugman ’ s larger point about the barriers Trump is erecting in Joe Biden path is correct .
This week , word is leaking out that Trump plans to hold a rally kicking off his 2024 campaign on Inauguration Day .
That ’ s not only unprecedented ; it ’ s classless .
That ’ s a president ’ s brain on hyper-partisanship .
No matter how badly Donald J. Trump was treated by the Democrats and the media , the outgoing president simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through what it is enduring now in the waning days of a hellish year .
No excuse , either , legitimate or otherwise .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Carl M. Cannon
Real Clear Politics
When Joe Biden is inaugurated, he will immediately be confronted with an unprecedented challenge -- and I don’t mean the pandemic.… I mean, instead, that he’ll be the first modern U.S. president trying to govern in the face of an opposition that refuses to accept his legitimacy. And no, Democrats never said Donald Trump was illegitimate, just that he was incompetent and dangerous. – Paul Krugman, New York Times, Dec. 1, 2020.
In 1987, at a time when Paul Krugman was raising questions about global trade that would eventually win him a Nobel Prize in economics, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America launched an evocative ad campaign titled “This is your brain on drugs.”
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Much-ridiculed today, the 30-second spot – retro even at the time – showed a man holding up an egg (your brain) over a hot skillet (drugs). The man cracks the egg in the pan, where it is, well, fried. Apparently, excess partisanship has a similar effect on the human mind. Although the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences hasn’t asked for its award back, a cynic might wonder if Krugman’s economics writing had the same level of intellectual rigor as his political commentary.
But this is not an opinion column: I’ll stick to the facts. What you’re reading now is what, in my newspapering days at the San Jose Mercury News, we called a “set-rec.” (It sets the record straight.) In truth, during the past four years millions of Democrats -- from the rank-and-file marchers and organizers to the party’s most prominent elected officials in country -- questioned Trump’s legitimacy, as did numerous anti-Trump pundits and Obama-era U.S. intelligence community officials. Let’s go to the tape:
Jan. 13, 2017. “I don't see this president-elect as a legitimate president,” Rep. John Lewis said on “Meet the Press” while explaining why he would not attend Trump’s inauguration. “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.”
Jan. 16, 2017. “Yes, I will respect the constitutional prerogatives of the presidency,” added Rep. Don Beyer, a Virginia Democrat. “But I will not be part of normalizing or legitimizing a man whose election may well have depended on the malicious foreign interference of Russia’s leaders.”
If Joe Biden is inaugurated as president, will you consider him legitimate? 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. 6% (17 Votes) 94% (291 Votes)
Jan. 18, 2017. Two days later, as the number of House Democrats boycotting the inauguration ballooned, Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky added her name to the list “in protest of a president who used bigotry, fear, and lies to win an election that was tainted by foreign interference and voter suppression and who intends to betray the interests of the ordinary working people who put him in office.”
Jan. 20, 2017. A headline in the Washington Post informed readers that “the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.” Actually, Trump wasn’t yet president when Ron Fein, an activist lawyer heading the effort, told the newspaper, “If we were to wait for all the ill effects that could come from this, too much damage to our democracy would occur.”
Feb. 19, 2017. The first Presidents Day weekend of Trump’s White House tenure was celebrated by tens of thousands of progressives in cities across the country who marched in “Not My President Day” rallies. In Georgia, Trump’s impeachment was one of the demands of the organizers. In New York, those attending the protests included Chelsea Clinton and Mayor Bill de Blasio. In San Francisco, the event was organized by the Young Democrats club. Although most of the organizers took pains to point out that they weren’t questioning the legitimacy of the Electoral College or the results of the 2016 election, thousands of marchers carried signs and gave interviews doing exactly that.
April 17, 2018. Marquette University professor Julia Azari, writing in Vox, explained to her readers that “the challenge of Trump’s presidency is legitimacy, not power.”
July 17, 2018. Writing for The Atlantic, David Frum wrote about Trump’s “crisis of legitimacy.”
July 28, 2018. “We need to talk about a forbidden subject: the legitimacy of the current president.” So began cultural critic Virginia Heffernan’s Los Angeles Times column. “There’s been a code of silence around President Donald Trump’s shady victory in 2016,” she continued.
Feb. 19, 2019. Fired FBI official Andrew McCabe told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he thought it “possible” that Trump is a “Russian asset.” “I completely agree with the way Andy characterized it, you know, that it is a possibility,” former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on CNN the following night. Former CIA director John Brennan, among the most personally vitriolic Trump critics, said seven months earlier that Trump’s words at a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin were “nothing short of treasonous.”
May 14, 2019. At a Biden campaign event in Nashua, N.H., a long-winded woman who described herself as having “Trump derangement syndrome” called Trump an “illegitimate president” because he won the 2016 election by nearly 80,000 votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan -- aided, she said, by the Kremlin.
“I think all the talk about impeachment and what the Democrats should do, that’s fine, it’s theoretical at this point,” the woman told the former vice president. “Let them investigate, let them subpoena, let them go to the Supreme Court, he’s illegitimate.” In response, Biden quipped, “Would you be my vice presidential candidate?” Turning to the rest of the crowd, Biden added, “Folks, look, I absolutely agree.”
June 28, 2019. Six weeks later, it was Jimmy Carter’s turn. “There’s no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election, and I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016,” Carter said during a panel discussion at a conference in Leesburg, Va. “He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf.”
Pressed by moderator Jon Meacham on whether he considers Trump to be “an illegitimate president,” Carter replied: “Based on what I just said, which I can’t retract.”
Sept. 29, 2019. Hillary Clinton said in a “CBS Sunday Morning” interview: “He knows he’s an illegitimate president. I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories -- he knows that -- there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.”
Glass Houses
So let’s just stipulate that Paul Krugman’s claim that Democrats “never” questioned Trump’s legitimacy is risible. Krugman knows this – he did it himself. In May 2017, after the firing of FBI Director James Comey, he tweeted, “At this point we arguably do not have a legitimate president or administration.” Krugman added, “He deserves no presumption of innocence, and no deference to claims that he has the right to govern.”
Taking aim at any Republican defending the president, Krugman added, “And again, let's be clear: anyone helping with this obvious coverup is deliberately being complicit with possible foreign subversion.”
In October, he tweeted that anyone who didn’t agree that “a hostile foreign power helped put Trump in office” was a Trump sycophant. This came in the context of his fear, never realized, that Trump would somehow quash Robert Mueller’s investigation. “It seems to me that people aren’t quite getting how close we are to a crisis of legitimacy,” he tweeted. “And in that case how can anyone consider this presidency legitimate?”
That particular crisis was averted, but scouring the digital record for such material almost trivializes the manner in which Trump’s critics refused to accept his presidency.
Just as Donald Trump altered the existing norms of what it meant to act and sound “presidential,” so too did the loyal opposition abandon normal standards of criticism. The first anti-Trump “women’s march,” on Jan. 21, 2017, was essentially a rival inauguration. On the National Mall, Ashley Judd compared Trump to Hitler while Madonna told the crowd she’d been fantasizing “an awful lot about blowing up the White House.” From the goofy Steele dossier, the politicization of the intelligence community, and the impeachment of Trump over a phone call with Ukraine’s president to the mainstream media abrogating its traditional rules of engagement, the efforts to negate Trump’s presidency were unrelenting.
This is the stark reality of our country’s recent political history. Therefore, it’s understandable that Trump and his supporters were initially skeptical of election returns that seemed so promising as the polls closed Nov. 3 only to turn to dust as the mail-in votes were counted.
But here’s another historical fact: Hillary Rodham Clinton, whatever her suspicions or excuses, did exactly what Donald John Trump is refusing to do. She conceded the election. She did it with grace, too, and then she attended his inauguration.
“We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought,” HRC said in her concession speech. “But I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”
Trump and his supporters would counter that Clinton’s allies neither met him with an open mind nor gave him the chance to lead. Yeah, okay, although there’s a chicken-and-egg argument here. But all that is beside the point now.
Joe Biden won the popular vote in 2020, just as Mrs. Clinton did in 2016, and by a wider margin. Biden did so while carrying the very same swing states that gave Trump his Electoral College win four years ago -- and by greater margins. The bottom line is that Paul Krugman’s larger point about the barriers Trump is erecting in Joe Biden path is correct. This week, word is leaking out that Trump plans to hold a rally kicking off his 2024 campaign on Inauguration Day. That’s not only unprecedented; it’s classless. That’s a president’s brain on hyper-partisanship.
No matter how badly Donald J. Trump was treated by the Democrats and the media, the outgoing president simply has no right to put the country through what it is enduring now in the waning days of a hellish year. No excuse, either, legitimate or otherwise.


wnd--2020-12-07--Another big tax revenue generator considering leaving New York

( FOX BUSINESS ) -- Goldman Sachs is eying a move to Florida for one of its key divisions — @ @ @ @ @ another major blow to New York City ’ s position at the helm of the @ @ @ @ @ report says .
The financial titan is considering relocating its $ 8 billion-revenue-generating asset-management arm @ @ @ @ @ Fort Lauderdale , checking out potential real estate , chatting up local officials and weighing @ @ @ @ @ tax advantages , sources told Bloomberg .
The potential development comes on the heels of @ @ @ @ @ from the Big Apple to down South — and battering New York ’ s bottom @ @ @ @ @ white-collar jobs .

(FOX BUSINESS) -- Goldman Sachs is eying a move to Florida for one of its key divisions — in what could be yet another major blow to New York City’s position at the helm of the financial industry, a new report says.
The financial titan is considering relocating its $8 billion-revenue-generating asset-management arm to Palm Beach County or Fort Lauderdale, checking out potential real estate, chatting up local officials and weighing the Sunshine State’s tax advantages, sources told Bloomberg.
The potential development comes on the heels of several other investment companies moving from the Big Apple to down South — and battering New York’s bottom line with the loss of white-collar jobs.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-12-07--Chick-fil-A sues suppliers, alleging price-fixing

Chick-fil-A Inc. , the leading U.S. chicken chain , sued major poultry producers , accusing them of price-fixing that the @ @ @ @ @ inflated prices for billions of dollars worth of its chicken purchases .
The chicken-sandwich giant @ @ @ @ @ Friday in a federal court in Illinois that top chicken suppliers , including Tyson Foods @ @ @ @ @ Pride Corp. , Sanderson Farms Inc. and Perdue Farms Inc. , coordinated pricing for meat @ @ @ @ @ to push up prices .
Chick-fil-A is seeking unspecified damages and to recoup legal fees @ @ @ @ @ .
A Tyson spokesman said Chick-fil-A ’ s claims were unfounded and that Tyson would @ @ @ @ @ Perdue spokeswoman and a Sanderson Farms spokesman declined to comment .
Representatives for Pilgrim ’ @ @ @ @ @ to requests for comment .

Chick-fil-A Inc., the leading U.S. chicken chain, sued major poultry producers, accusing them of price-fixing that the Atlanta-based company says led to inflated prices for billions of dollars worth of its chicken purchases.
The chicken-sandwich giant alleged in a lawsuit filed Friday in a federal court in Illinois that top chicken suppliers, including Tyson Foods Inc., Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., Sanderson Farms Inc. and Perdue Farms Inc., coordinated pricing for meat supplies and collectively reduced production to push up prices. Chick-fil-A is seeking unspecified damages and to recoup legal fees, according to the lawsuit.
A Tyson spokesman said Chick-fil-A’s claims were unfounded and that Tyson would defend against them. A Perdue spokeswoman and a Sanderson Farms spokesman declined to comment. Representatives for Pilgrim’s didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-12-07--Justice Alito moves up deadline in election fight

( WASHINGTON EXAMINER ) -- Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito changed a key deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respond to a lawsuit from Republicans seeking to flip the state election 's result from Joe Biden to President Trump .
On Sunday , Alito moved the deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respond from Wednesday , Dec. 9 at 4 p.m. to Tuesday , Dec. 8 at 9 a.m. , the day of the state 's safe harbor deadline .
The previous deadline meant that Congress could not change any of the electors set by the state after the date .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dec. 14 to cast its votes in the election , making the winner of the election the next president .
Republicans in Pennsylvania asked the Supreme Court to overturn the state 's 2019 law on mail-in voting , a legal endeavor spearheaded by GOP Rep. Mike Kelly and Trump ally Sean Parnell .
They argue that a state statute known as Act 77 violates the state and federal Constitution by allowing for “ no-excuse mail-in ” votes on a large scale .
The act allowed voters to cast their ballots by mail up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without giving an excuse , which was previously required in order to receive an absentee ballot .
More than 2.5 million Pennsylvania residents voted by mail last month , constituting over one-third of total ballots cast statewide .

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER) -- Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito changed a key deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respond to a lawsuit from Republicans seeking to flip the state election's result from Joe Biden to President Trump.
On Sunday, Alito moved the deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respond from Wednesday, Dec. 9 at 4 p.m. to Tuesday, Dec. 8 at 9 a.m., the day of the state's safe harbor deadline. The previous deadline meant that Congress could not change any of the electors set by the state after the date. This year, the Electoral College meets on Dec. 14 to cast its votes in the election, making the winner of the election the next president.
Republicans in Pennsylvania asked the Supreme Court to overturn the state's 2019 law on mail-in voting, a legal endeavor spearheaded by GOP Rep. Mike Kelly and Trump ally Sean Parnell. They argue that a state statute known as Act 77 violates the state and federal Constitution by allowing for “no-excuse mail-in” votes on a large scale. The act allowed voters to cast their ballots by mail up to 50 days prior to an election without giving an excuse, which was previously required in order to receive an absentee ballot. More than 2.5 million Pennsylvania residents voted by mail last month, constituting over one-third of total ballots cast statewide.
Read the full story ›